GM Tech - Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Hummer, Pontiac, Saturn Tech Technical Discussion for General Motors Products both past and present

LT1 Pro and Cons?

Thread Tools
 
Old 02-15-2005, 03:19 PM
  #61 (permalink)  
LT1's are slow!
 
Half Fast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The 1970 LT-1 story.

History
Chevrolet first introduced the RPO LT-1 motor package in 1970. With 370 gross horsepower at 6,000 RPM, it featured many hi-performance and heavy duty components, including solid lifters, heavy duty starter, forged TRW aluminum pistons, 11:1 compression, four bolt main cap block, Tuftrided crank, special hi-lift cam, high rise aluminum intake, Holley carb, baffled oil pan, and transistor ignition. Also included were larger capacity components not found on the base 350, such as a larger rad, hi volume oil and fuel pumps, and 2 1/2 inch exhaust. Stock 1970 LT-1 Corvettes were reported at the time to be able to achieve 0-60 in 5.7 seconds, and do the quarter mile in 14.2 seconds.
For 1971, as part of an effort to meet new incoming government emission requirements, compression ratio's were lowered to 9:1, resulting in a reduced 330 gross horsepower. Also, 1971 was the first year that the LT-1 could run on un-leaded gasoline. In 1972 engine ratings were reported as an SAE net figure of 270 horsepower, but otherwise the car remained relatively unchanged.
They rated the engines in gross HP in 1970. That means the engine was rated on an engine dyno with NO accessories like power steering pump, alternator, A/C compressor etc.

A 1994 Corvette LT1 is rated at 300 HP net. The only major differences of the F-body are the comparatively restricted air intake and exhaust.




BTW, horsepower numbers don't mean crap at the track.
Old 02-15-2005, 03:34 PM
  #62 (permalink)  
Landscape Engineer
 
CamaroJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I believe in 1974 or 75 is when all the emissions crap came into play. Pre-74 engines will be a lot faster stock because they didn't need to run catalytic converters which made it too expensive to do dual exhaust, and they didn't need to tune their engines to run emissions friendly instead of performance minded. I'm not sure about this, but they could probably still run leaded gas considering there was no O2 sensor or catalytic converter.
__________________
-Joe
Old 02-15-2005, 03:36 PM
  #63 (permalink)  
Bolt-On 2v GT
 
myltwon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I don't believe fbody's started using catbacks until 82

emission equipment wasn't that high in the 70's just low compression mostly
__________________


"Does this look like a piece of crap to you? Like them spinnin' tires do you?"
Old 02-15-2005, 03:58 PM
  #64 (permalink)  
Landscape Engineer
 
CamaroJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

74 was the first year they produced a camaro with a catalytic converter, and therefore a single exhaust. Before that, they were producing 350 hp 350 CI engines. In 75 they actually dropped the Z/28 tag because they couldn't produce anything fast enough to warrent the name.
__________________
-Joe
Old 02-15-2005, 04:05 PM
  #65 (permalink)  
LT1's are slow!
 
Half Fast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Old 02-15-2005, 04:23 PM
  #66 (permalink)  
PSSHHH x2
 
Sneakin Deacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Quickdomesticracer
quickdomesticricer? WRONG. How am I wrong when I asked Leonard at gearhead and he read HOOKER SHORTYS 28 RWHP from the book, and many people tell me that the LT1 have 285 RWHP? Arent I correct in saying RICERS are for looks and not performance, when my dad owns 3 race cars, that I help work on and tune on? 2 Camaros and 1 S 10 blazer? I dont think Performance Catologs that supply Gearhead will be guessing, or innaccurate, just cause I havent ran a dyno on mine, added headers and did another dyno doesnt mean its wrong, They cant put false information, all that info is tested, yes its printed to sound the best, and I am sure some only get 15+ HP gains, but its not completely wrong.
You also see well
285
+28
K & N Cold Air
Blocking off the TB from the water system +5 or 6 HP
CSI Electric water pump +5 I mean u can get over 425 Engine HP from bolt ons, your telling me that more than 75 HP is lost to the Rear wheels?


I CAN ALSO TELL YOU SOME PEOPLE HERE ARE FULL OF SHIT. THEY GOT 1.38 60ft oing 6.98 in the 1/8th at 103? My dad had 2 different race cars, one that ran 6.40s but before the engine upgrade was running 6.90s with 1.47 60fts and so, and his new car which runs 6.90s which gets 1.49-1.56 60fts, if u got 1.38 unless u let off is unrealistic.
you wont get 28rwhp from shorty's unless you have a blower setup, or very very very aggressive heads/cam...you sure as shit wont get anywhere near it on a stock motor. and why does someone have to be full of shit saying they cut a 1.38 and X.XX time? just cause your dad couldnt do it doesnt make him the end all be all of launchers. i cut low 1.7's and went 8.9/13.9, so there goes your theory on that.
__________________
El Pendejo Loco
2002 Suzuki Hayabusa
1507 "dry" block
Brocks megaphone
Spencercycle 10" swingarm
MPS auto shifter
Hays convertible clutch

Yea, that about sums it up...

Old 02-15-2005, 04:26 PM
  #67 (permalink)  
PSSHHH x2
 
Sneakin Deacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Quickdomesticracer
Also I believed someone mentioned Hypertech programmer sucked. What should I use to re program my computer than?

How many of you actually goto that Quaker State Stake & Lube place every Thursday?
It does suck, use a local tuner...or if you know what your doing, use LT1edit. and i go every thursday.
__________________
El Pendejo Loco
2002 Suzuki Hayabusa
1507 "dry" block
Brocks megaphone
Spencercycle 10" swingarm
MPS auto shifter
Hays convertible clutch

Yea, that about sums it up...

Old 02-15-2005, 06:13 PM
  #68 (permalink)  
Precision Motorsports
 
EliteZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Well My mistake but a 1.38 60ft is hard to believe. In fact I saw someone else recently somewhere (I think LS1tech.com) 1.17 60ft or so running 5.90's. What kinda suspension u got? and u use NOS?

BTW Kenny what is ur dads name? My dad always tells me old racing stories and ish, from like way back and he mentioned someone named Deacon(I dont remember what the first name he said was) I dotn know if that is who he was mentioning but is it possible?
__________________
448WHP/420WTQ
Full bolt-ons+H/C
Car Sound Clip & More(W/ Mekanic)
Tuned by Precision Motorsports

Last edited by Quickdomesticracer; 02-15-2005 at 06:18 PM.
Old 02-15-2005, 10:51 PM
  #69 (permalink)  
Registered User
 
Young,Fablous,&Broke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

his pops is Daddy Deacon!
Old 02-16-2005, 07:30 AM
  #70 (permalink)  
PSSHHH x2
 
Sneakin Deacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

only thing you'd hear concerning my dad is fishing stories, and my dad is Kenny aswell.

the 1.7's were on stock suspension and 205/45/16 cooper continental 2's, no nitrous. all 4 banger.

i believe Al (HybridSS) was cutting low 1.4's and running high 6's.
__________________
El Pendejo Loco
2002 Suzuki Hayabusa
1507 "dry" block
Brocks megaphone
Spencercycle 10" swingarm
MPS auto shifter
Hays convertible clutch

Yea, that about sums it up...




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:25 AM.