LT-1 vs LT1 article
05-29-2010, 04:07 PM
#1
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LT-1 vs LT1 article Just received my Vette magazine and they did a 1970 LT-1 vs a 1996 LT1 dynocomparison.
Results
LT-1 LT1
HP 353@5,600 351@5,700
TQ 392@4,100 379@3,900
Of course this is engine dyno without accessories, airfilters, etc and using 1 3/4" longtube headers
capper is LT-1 had an electric water pump.... LT1
was using the stocker...
So it looks like GM was telling the truth when they released the LT1 back in 1992 and said the performance was same as 1970 LT1...
Mike
Results
LT-1 LT1
HP 353@5,600 351@5,700
TQ 392@4,100 379@3,900
Of course this is engine dyno without accessories, airfilters, etc and using 1 3/4" longtube headers
capper is LT-1 had an electric water pump.... LT1
was using the stocker...
So it looks like GM was telling the truth when they released the LT1 back in 1992 and said the performance was same as 1970 LT1...
Mike
Last edited by aboatguy; 06-07-2010 at 07:41 PM.
05-29-2010, 05:14 PM
#4
Dont forget the 70 Lt1 also had 11:1 comp,solid flat tappet cam,2.02 1.60 valves and good flowing heads for that period in time...
whereas the NEW blood Lt1 has 10.4:1 comp,hydr. roller cam,1.94 1.50 valves and nicely constructed alum heads again for that period in time.
GM has always done a great job in my book thats what has made me a die-hard fan!
whereas the NEW blood Lt1 has 10.4:1 comp,hydr. roller cam,1.94 1.50 valves and nicely constructed alum heads again for that period in time.
GM has always done a great job in my book thats what has made me a die-hard fan!
05-29-2010, 05:47 PM
#5
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Milledgeville, GA
Posts: 1,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm actually shocked to see more torque from the 70 than the 96.
Off topic sorta, but got started on a rant and this seemed like a good thread for it....LOL I realize this is LT1, not vortec section, but I've always heard they are a GEN1 copy of the LT1 head, so I figure it's a valid discussion.
I keep hearing about how much better vortec and other later model factory castings are than the old "double hump" heads, but I'm still not buying it despite seeing the flow numbers. For one thing, every time I see flow number comparisons, the old style heads are always 1.94" valved. The only direct A to B dyno test I've seen showed some 1.94" valved double hump heads (camel hump, 300 horse..whatever) on a pump gas, street-strip style 355 compared to stock 96-98 vortec heads....and it did show a 10-15 HP advantage to the vortecs in some areas of the curve. You could argue that this is a fair comparison due to equal valve sizes, BUT I think it's sad that tests like this are used to bash all the old heads as being under-par. I bet the 2.02" versions would have equaled or bettered the later heads. Sure alot of people only have the smaller valved ones, but upgrading isn't that expensive.
Off topic sorta, but got started on a rant and this seemed like a good thread for it....LOL I realize this is LT1, not vortec section, but I've always heard they are a GEN1 copy of the LT1 head, so I figure it's a valid discussion.
I keep hearing about how much better vortec and other later model factory castings are than the old "double hump" heads, but I'm still not buying it despite seeing the flow numbers. For one thing, every time I see flow number comparisons, the old style heads are always 1.94" valved. The only direct A to B dyno test I've seen showed some 1.94" valved double hump heads (camel hump, 300 horse..whatever) on a pump gas, street-strip style 355 compared to stock 96-98 vortec heads....and it did show a 10-15 HP advantage to the vortecs in some areas of the curve. You could argue that this is a fair comparison due to equal valve sizes, BUT I think it's sad that tests like this are used to bash all the old heads as being under-par. I bet the 2.02" versions would have equaled or bettered the later heads. Sure alot of people only have the smaller valved ones, but upgrading isn't that expensive.
05-29-2010, 06:39 PM
#7
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Milledgeville, GA
Posts: 1,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right....in the first post I thought the results were color coded black/red to the description. Instead they are just the opposite. lol Looks more like I'd expect now.
Trending Topics
05-29-2010, 07:11 PM
#8
i agree, that is slightly confusing, seems like op wanted to do color coding but mixed them up.
)...I had to explian 
05-30-2010, 02:01 PM
#11
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the issue right in front of me.
The LT-1 (1970) made 353/391
The LT1 (1996) made 347/379
He mixed up the "-"
the higher cr and bigger cam im sure had something to do with the bigger numbers
The LT-1 (1970) made 353/391
The LT1 (1996) made 347/379
He mixed up the "-"
the higher cr and bigger cam im sure had something to do with the bigger numbers
05-30-2010, 03:15 PM
#14
for those of you suprised by the fact that the earlier LT-1 made a handful more power in hp and torque, remember it had an Electric water pump, which is good for exactly that-several more horsepower (on an LT-1 or an LT1.) All and all, whats illustrated here is that these motors are pretty much exactly the same performancewise. Very cool article
06-07-2010, 07:40 PM
#15
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-07-2010, 07:49 PM
#16
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
