Stock HP ratings
05-28-2011, 01:30 AM
#24
As cool as it is to quote wiki
The 1992 LT1 in the Y-body was factory rated at 300hp (220kW) and 330lb·ft (447N·m). 96 LT1 Y-bodies were rated at 300hp (220kW) and 340lb·ft (461N·m). The 93–95 F-bodies were rated at 275horsepower (205kW) and 325lb·ft (441N·m), while the 96–97 cars were rated at 285 horsepower (213kW) and 335lb·ft (454N·m). The 96–97 WS6 and SS F-bodies were rated at 305hp (227kW). The 94–96 B and D-body version was rated at 260horsepower (190kW) and 330lb·ft
The 1992 LT1 in the Y-body was factory rated at 300hp (220kW) and 330lb·ft (447N·m). 96 LT1 Y-bodies were rated at 300hp (220kW) and 340lb·ft (461N·m). The 93–95 F-bodies were rated at 275horsepower (205kW) and 325lb·ft (441N·m), while the 96–97 cars were rated at 285 horsepower (213kW) and 335lb·ft (454N·m). The 96–97 WS6 and SS F-bodies were rated at 305hp (227kW). The 94–96 B and D-body version was rated at 260horsepower (190kW) and 330lb·ft
05-28-2011, 11:37 AM
#27
Village Troll 
iTrader: (2)
3" catback exhaust and "ram air" is what's credited for a 305hp rating. It probably was all due to the exhaust since the SLP 2OTL is known for being one of the best flowing catbacks out there.
I dunno.. something worked because the majority of f-bods back in the mid 90's in the DFW area were mild bolt-on or stock and I had no problem beating the majority of them when my car was stock.
I dunno.. something worked because the majority of f-bods back in the mid 90's in the DFW area were mild bolt-on or stock and I had no problem beating the majority of them when my car was stock.
05-28-2011, 12:26 PM
#29
Staging Lane
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: san jose ca
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from wat I have research and read all 96 made 305hp ss and ws6
Check this links???
http://www.stangbangers.com/CobraVsZ..._Article1d.jpg
http://www.stangbangers.com/96_Cobra...28_Article.htm
Well I hope it helps???
Check this links???
http://www.stangbangers.com/CobraVsZ..._Article1d.jpg
http://www.stangbangers.com/96_Cobra...28_Article.htm
Well I hope it helps???
05-29-2011, 01:08 AM
#30
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As cool as it is to quote wiki
The 1992 LT1 in the Y-body was factory rated at 300hp (220kW) and 330lb·ft (447N·m). 96 LT1 Y-bodies were rated at 300hp (220kW) and 340lb·ft (461N·m). The 93–95 F-bodies were rated at 275horsepower (205kW) and 325lb·ft (441N·m), while the 96–97 cars were rated at 285 horsepower (213kW) and 335lb·ft (454N·m). The 96–97 WS6 and SS F-bodies were rated at 305hp (227kW). The 94–96 B and D-body version was rated at 260horsepower (190kW) and 330lb·ft
The 1992 LT1 in the Y-body was factory rated at 300hp (220kW) and 330lb·ft (447N·m). 96 LT1 Y-bodies were rated at 300hp (220kW) and 340lb·ft (461N·m). The 93–95 F-bodies were rated at 275horsepower (205kW) and 325lb·ft (441N·m), while the 96–97 cars were rated at 285 horsepower (213kW) and 335lb·ft (454N·m). The 96–97 WS6 and SS F-bodies were rated at 305hp (227kW). The 94–96 B and D-body version was rated at 260horsepower (190kW) and 330lb·ft
some of the late 95's got the '96 dual cat exhaust (like my car) so some of the 95's are technically rated at 285..
05-29-2011, 09:51 PM
#35
How are you guys thinking the LT1 was underrated? The everyday LT1 F-Body ran high 13's and low 14's. Pretty much right where they should have with the power ratings they had. The SLP cars, WS6 included, ran better. Mine ran 13.50@103 when it was bone stock back in '96 at MIR. I was pulling 2-3mph more than the Z28's.
The 'Vette's were rated higher because of the better intake and exhaust.
LS1's on the other hand, were way underrated. LT1's not.
The 'Vette's were rated higher because of the better intake and exhaust.
LS1's on the other hand, were way underrated. LT1's not.
05-29-2011, 10:02 PM
#36
How are you guys thinking the LT1 was underrated? The everyday LT1 F-Body ran high 13's and low 14's. Pretty much right where they should have with the power ratings they had. The SLP cars, WS6 included, ran better. Mine ran 13.50@103 when it was bone stock back in '96 at MIR. I was pulling 2-3mph more than the Z28's.
The 'Vette's were rated higher because of the better intake and exhaust.
LS1's on the other hand, were way underrated. LT1's not.
The 'Vette's were rated higher because of the better intake and exhaust.
LS1's on the other hand, were way underrated. LT1's not.
05-30-2011, 11:52 AM
#38
How are you guys thinking the LT1 was underrated? The everyday LT1 F-Body ran high 13's and low 14's. Pretty much right where they should have with the power ratings they had. The SLP cars, WS6 included, ran better. Mine ran 13.50@103 when it was bone stock back in '96 at MIR. I was pulling 2-3mph more than the Z28's.
The 'Vette's were rated higher because of the better intake and exhaust.
LS1's on the other hand, were way underrated. LT1's not.
The 'Vette's were rated higher because of the better intake and exhaust.
LS1's on the other hand, were way underrated. LT1's not.
05-30-2011, 01:25 PM
#40
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
assuming an 18% drive train loss you should dyno about 233whp, which is what most auto's dyno. i dont see how they are under-rated. if they were dynoing 270whp stock then yeah they'd be under-rated
my car with lt's, true duals, and homemade cai (no tune) put down 268whp and 300ft/lbs
my car with lt's, true duals, and homemade cai (no tune) put down 268whp and 300ft/lbs