LT1 Vette vs. LT1 Fbody
04-03-2007, 05:19 PM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, La
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LT1 Vette vs. LT1 Fbody What is the basic diff in the 1/4 mile between these 2 cars? Also, how does the LT1 vette stack up against an LS1 Fbody. Thanks for the help. I tried to do a search but it wasn't working.
04-03-2007, 07:04 PM
#2
TECH Resident
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charleston, West Virginia
Posts: 855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well obviously the vette is gonna be quicker, but i guess it really depends on the model year and condition of vehicle, and thats if your talkin stock vs stock
04-03-2007, 07:09 PM
#3
Banned
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Corvette will run about .3-.5 tenths quicker do to a better induction system, exhaust and better stock gearing. (They are rated at 300hp)
There are some other little things, and the suspension helps them hook good too, not to mention the Vette's run 275's.
There are some other little things, and the suspension helps them hook good too, not to mention the Vette's run 275's.
04-03-2007, 07:13 PM
#4
Originally Posted by burnzilla
A Corvette will run about .3-.5 tenths quicker do to a better induction system, exhaust and better stock gearing. (They are rated at 300hp)
There are some other little things, and the suspension helps them hook good too, not to mention the Vette's run 275's.
There are some other little things, and the suspension helps them hook good too, not to mention the Vette's run 275's.
Oh and what they are "rated" at doesn't mean ****.
04-03-2007, 07:39 PM
#7
I'm just sayin, it's well known that GM created a disparity in ratings between the vette and fbody to make it seem like the vette version of the LTx/LSx was better, when in fact it wasn't and they will both dyno very similar. So I don't really get why people keep insisting on giving the "ratings" much weight.
Trending Topics
04-03-2007, 08:04 PM
#8
Launching!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: fresno, ca
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM listed them as more powerful when, in reality,they're identical. if anything the f-body makes more power cause the solid rear eats up less power. the SS, firehawk, ws6, etc. actually make more power because of their induction and exhaust upgrades. GM just couldnt have their precious corvette being less potent then its little brother, the f-body. people would go, "well ****...this is 20k more and has less power. F that S."
04-03-2007, 08:29 PM
#9
Not really applicable but I can vouch for the L98 Vette being WAY slower than a stock F body. I absolutely destroyed one back when my car was stock. I have a few things in my favor (me 6 sp, him auto), but still, it should have been closer than it was figuring that .3-.5 faster idea. An L98 at a .3-.5 faster should have been almost even with the Lt1 f-body.
I know that doesn't help much, but my $0.02
I know that doesn't help much, but my $0.02
04-03-2007, 09:09 PM
#10
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, La
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the info. I've got a guy that wants to trade me a very low milage 6 speed LT1 Vette for my 2000 WS6. I was wondering what the performance diff was. I had a 95 Z28 with a couple of bolt ons & it would run 13.8 to 14.0. I always thought that an LT1 Vette would run about the same as a stock LS1 Fbody mid to high 13's. I'm probably crazy to even consider doing the swap. Thanks!
04-03-2007, 09:19 PM
#11
Originally Posted by ScottF
Thanks for the info. I've got a guy that wants to trade me a very low milage 6 speed LT1 Vette for my 2000 WS6. I was wondering what the performance diff was. I had a 95 Z28 with a couple of bolt ons & it would run 13.8 to 14.0. I always thought that an LT1 Vette would run about the same as a stock LS1 Fbody mid to high 13's. I'm probably crazy to even consider doing the swap. Thanks!
if someone offered me a LT1 (later model) vette for my car id do it, i want to put my motor in one of those suckers, noone expects them to be fast and they are lighter
04-04-2007, 07:50 AM
#13
My stock '94 vette ran high 13.8-14.0 at about 102mph. 2.0 60' on typical worn street tires. Most magazines in the mid 90's got the same times I did. The true dual exhaust is about the only positive over the F body in terms of power.
I'm sure there's a lot of exceptions, but on the tires they came with and typical drivers, I think the f bodies run average 14.6's right? a tiny bit of that is power, but mostly traction.
I'm sure there's a lot of exceptions, but on the tires they came with and typical drivers, I think the f bodies run average 14.6's right? a tiny bit of that is power, but mostly traction.
04-04-2007, 07:54 AM
#14
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pharmd
Not really applicable but I can vouch for the L98 Vette being WAY slower than a stock F body. I absolutely destroyed one back when my car was stock. I have a few things in my favor (me 6 sp, him auto), but still, it should have been closer than it was figuring that .3-.5 faster idea. An L98 at a .3-.5 faster should have been almost even with the Lt1 f-body.
I know that doesn't help much, but my $0.02
I know that doesn't help much, but my $0.02
04-04-2007, 08:00 AM
#15
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by briannutter
My stock '94 vette ran high 13.8-14.0 at about 102mph. 2.0 60' on typical worn street tires. Most magazines in the mid 90's got the same times I did. The true dual exhaust is about the only positive over the F body in terms of power.
I'm sure there's a lot of exceptions, but on the tires they came with and typical drivers, I think the f bodies run average 14.6's right? a tiny bit of that is power, but mostly traction.
I'm sure there's a lot of exceptions, but on the tires they came with and typical drivers, I think the f bodies run average 14.6's right? a tiny bit of that is power, but mostly traction.
I guess my car was a ringer
13.9@100 1.97 60ft temp tags, absolutly stock 40k miles
13.6@102.5mph 2 weeks later cold air+underdrive pulley -cars auto w/ 2.73s
12.95@105.9mph a year later nitto drs,2800stall,exhaust,stock manifolds still, 1.6 RRs
04-04-2007, 05:48 PM
#16
11 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since I have owned both I will offer my experience. The LT1 Vette is far superior in every aspect. The Vette hooked up much better and ran a 13.7 at 102 mph stock and 12.3 at 117 on nitrous. My Camaro ran high 14's at ~95 mph stock.
04-04-2007, 07:01 PM
#19
Resident Racing Jerk
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: sc
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Built LT1
Since I have owned both I will offer my experience. The LT1 Vette is far superior in every aspect. The Vette hooked up much better and ran a 13.7 at 102 mph stock and 12.3 at 117 on nitrous. My Camaro ran high 14's at ~95 mph stock.