LT1 vs. Mach1

[JwMonE99]

How would a stock 97 trans am A4 do against a stock A4 03 mach1?

[rajiv1998]

mach's run around the same time(s) as a stock LS1....... so u figure it out

[Mach1Mustang]

the stock autos are not quite as fast as the ls1 autos, but close.

[preston1980]

How would a stock 97 trans am A4 do against a stock A4 03 mach1?
Both cars being autos, it would be close, but the Mach will win. Although the 96-97 TAs with the ram air set up were a lttle faster that the regulars. So if it were a Ram Air vs a Mach 1, Auto vs Auto, it would be close. I would still give it to the Mach 1 though. But not by much.

I would say the auto TA would run a 13.7, and the auto Mach a 13.5

[JwMonE99]

What about a trans am with a cowl hood?

[blackhawk01]

Im gonna say Mach 1 on this one...those mothers will giddy up

[ttadriver]

Did they make automatic Mach 1s?

[BLKCLOUD]

Yes, but they are significantly slower than an M5 Mach 1. Their redline is 1000 rpm lower (5800 vs 6800), and Ford automatic OD transmissions suck from a performance standpoint.

[2000T/A Guru]

My buddy bought a mach 1 when we were test driving we drove both a A4 and the 5 speed you could really really feel the difference. The a4 could barely chirp off the line too. The a4 is much slower and i think a lt1 would be a good race if they are both auto.

[jrc1122]

i knew a guy who had a Manual Transmission 04 Mach 1-- It was bad ass.
On an accellerometer (beltronics FX2) -- He managed 4.65 0-60 mph.. The best I have managed with my LS1 (so far) is 5.11 0 - 60mph.

[JwMonE99]

What is better to have ram air or a cowl hood, I understand ram air and how that helps but does the cowl hood help that much as well?

[BLKCLOUD]

"Ram Air"....here's some light reading for you...

Light Reading #1 (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1129295)

Light Reading #2 (http://www.hitechforum.com/~vetteguru/ramair/)

[RJWZ28]

Good question. Race him and pass on the info! LT1 has more torque down low, and if it is a WS6 the horsepower numbers will be pretty close. The only honest way to know is to call him out and see what happens. Just don't put any significant cash on the race, just do it for fun. Maybe bet a tank of premium.

[2000T/A Guru]

Ws6s dont make anymore power than any other LS1 car, the hood does nothing, Ive seen a couple test that got 1-2 more hp at 80+mph before that speed there was no difference, The ram air hood isnt a sealed hood therefore it does nothing, but look cool.

[RJWZ28]

This isn't an LS1 car. 1996-1997 LT1 Z28s and T/As were rated at 285 horsepower, but the SSs and WS6s were rated at 305 horsepower (310 with optional exhaust), and when the quarter mile performance is evaluated on those models many say that they were under-rated and pushing closer to 320+.

[RJWZ28]

And with the optional exhaust 320 horsepower should easily fall within the mandated 3% of the average engine test so nobody's hand gets slapped over the deal.

[2000T/A Guru]

Ok how aobut this, they say my car should be making 305hp at the crank when i dynoed in at just over 310 to the rear wheels when stock, how does that work? cause all ls1s make 350hp and 355torque the 01s and 02s had a better itnake manifolrd and there were little changes here and there injector size and what not. The only reason the T/A and Camaro werent rated at 350hp was because they cant have cars with as much power as the corvette. I have seen many stock ls1 cars dyno over 300rwhp, which doesnt translate to 305 or 325 at the crank. As for lt1s most dyno in at 265rwhp or so and the say they make 285 at the crank, so they lose only 20 hp, when 18-20% is really about 50hp, chevy has always been underrating cars the 70 chevelle with the ls6 made too much power so they had to underrate that. You can never belive what chevy puts down for stock numbers crazy mother fuckers.

[BLKCLOUD]

Ok. How do you measure HP at 80 mph, especially down to 1 or 2 HP?

LT1s were not underrated, at least not by much.

LS1s in F-bodys were severely underrated.

LS1s in GTOs were rated just about spot on.

LS1s in Corvettes were rated just about spot on.

LS2s in GTOs and Corvettes were just about spot on.

LS6s were just about spot on.

So.....we all know the LS1 in the F-body was under-rated, badly, by GM. Once everyone figured that out, the internet world went crazy and everything except the 99 Cobra suddenly became "under-rated". Most especially everything GM.

[2000T/A Guru]

What they measured was what they calculated the air flow to be at 80mph, and i agree with everything on your last post lt1s were slightly underated the ls1 was and the ls6 from 1970 was underrated.

[preston1980]

Ok. How do you measure HP at 80 mph, especially down to 1 or 2 HP?

LT1s were not underrated, at least not by much.

LS1s in F-bodys were severely underrated.

LS1s in GTOs were rated just about spot on.

LS1s in Corvettes were rated just about spot on.

LS2s in GTOs and Corvettes were just about spot on.

LS6s were just about spot on.

So.....we all know the LS1 in the F-body was under-rated, badly, by GM. Once everyone figured that out, the internet world went crazy and everything except the 99 Cobra suddenly became "under-rated". Most especially everything GM.

I think the phrase "under rated" is over rated, and the the phrase "over used" is not used enough.:chuckles:

[secondgearscratch]

stock for stock mach 1 takes it. an auto in an lt1 is pretty sluggish without a stall.

[2000T/A Guru]

Friend nick has exhaust, intake, 3.23 rear gears a tune and a slipping tranny and he ran a 13.4 with his 95 z28. With a good tranny could prob due lower 13s and he now has a 75 shot on it but thats beside the point lol. He doesnt have a stall. He ra na 14.0something bone stock.

[JwMonE99]

So wait an LT1 puts down only 265? I thought they had 275 cept for the 97 when they had 285? (f-bodies that is im not sure about the corvettes)

I also thought that LS1 is 350 to the crank and 305 to the wheels and LT1 was 315 and 275-285 to the wheels.

[secondgearscratch]

So wait an LT1 puts down only 265? I thought they had 275 cept for the 97 when they had 285? (f-bodies that is im not sure about the corvettes)

I also thought that LS1 is 350 to the crank and 305 to the wheels and LT1 was 315 and 275-285 to the wheels.

i dont think an lt1 puts down 275 though ive been wrong many times....

[JwMonE99]

Overall a 97 Trans Am with 3200 stall, shift kit, 3.73 gears, filter, cowl hood and a tune beat a mach1 A4 with an H pipe right?

BTW is kind of off track but is it possible to get 25 hp and 30 lbs of torque from a single tune in one hour?

[secondgearscratch]

Overall a 97 Trans Am with 3200 stall, shift kit, 3.73 gears, filter, cowl hood and a tune beat a mach1 A4 with an H pipe right?

BTW is kind of off track but is it possible to get 25 hp and 30 lbs of torque from a single tune in one hour?

yes to the lt1 with mods...

would need to know mods about your tuning issue and various other tuning parameters, program used balh blah

[preston1980]

The 93 LT1 f-bod was rated at 275 crank hp, the 94-97 were rated at 285 crank, except the 95-97 WS6 Ram Air cars were rated at 305 crank hp. The ram air had a less restricted air intake box, and differant exhaust. which put it at the hp rating equal to the 91-96 Corvettes.

In 98 the LS1 F-bods were rated at 305 crank and the WS6 was 320, for the exhaust and more opern air boxes. In 2001 the hp was bumped up to 310 and 325 for the WS6, because of the differant intake.

Realisticly the 98-00 F-bods have 345 hp at the crank and the 01/02 has 350 at the crank, wich was what the Vettes were rated at.

All though the Vettes always seem a little higher on the hp #'s, (5-10 hp) I believe its because the tune was a little better and the true dual exhaust. But in a few cases they have had comparisons of a f-body with more hp than a vette LS1. Not very often though, but it has happend.

[N20LT4]

Ok. How do you measure HP at 80 mph, especially down to 1 or 2 HP?

LT1s were not underrated, at least not by much.

LS1s in F-bodys were severely underrated.

LS1s in GTOs were rated just about spot on.

LS1s in Corvettes were rated just about spot on.

LS2s in GTOs and Corvettes were just about spot on.

LS6s were just about spot on.

So.....we all know the LS1 in the F-body was under-rated, badly, by GM. Once everyone figured that out, the internet world went crazy and everything except the 99 Cobra suddenly became "under-rated". Most especially everything GM.

1st, LT1's are underated. For example a stock '97 M6 in GMHTP magazine dyno'd @ 249rwhp, while rated @ 285fwhp. You tell me? 2nd, I thought by now everyone would know that GM underrated the F-bodies so that they wouldn't screw with the 'vette. It was simply a marketing scheme, and despite the fact that the Corvette had the same exact LS1 in it, they had to make it "look" more potent than the F-bodies to charge and extra $10-20 grand more. Chevy's always done that with the Corvette. Put the F-body @ the Corvettes 350hp, it's that simple. And last, '99 Cobra's are over-rated. Naw, just kidding.

[BLKCLOUD]

1st, LT1's are underated. For example a stock '97 M6 in GMHTP magazine dyno'd @ 249rwhp, while rated @ 285fwhp. You tell me?
A couple of things...

First, 249 RWHP on a 285 rating might be a bit under-rated, but not significantly so. Some math would suggest 285 at the flywheel to 249 at the wheels is about a 13% loss. Pretty close to what most folks use as 'typical'.

Second, GMHTP uses STD correction vice the more common SAE. STD corrects to a standard atmosphere at sea level (59F, 0%, 29.92"/hg), while SAE corrects to a more 'typical' day in anywhere USA (77F, 0%, 29.32"/hg). STD corrections will show ~3% more power than SAE, which would have brought your example down into the 242-243 RWHP, and right in line with what would be expected of a 285 HP motor.

Finally, some cars dyno more, some less. This is based on so many factors that the only way to get a reasonable idea of how close the cars are rated is to take an average over a very large population.

My conclusion: They may have been slightly under-rated, but not much. I'll stick to my original assertion.

2nd, I thought by now everyone would know that GM underrated the F-bodies so that they wouldn't screw with the 'vette. It was simply a marketing scheme, and despite the fact that the Corvette had the same exact LS1 in it, they had to make it "look" more potent than the F-bodies to charge and extra $10-20 grand more. Chevy's always done that with the Corvette. Put the F-body @ the Corvettes 350hp, it's that simple.
I'm not sure why you put this statement below my quote, as I never said anything to the contrary.

And last, '99 Cobra's are over-rated. Naw, just kidding.
LOL. As delivered, they generally were, hence the performance recall (commonly known as "the fix").

Some of us "fixed" it a little bit more than others. :)

Bob

[N20LT4]

That was exactly my point. I never said they were "majorly" underrated. You said they were "not" underrated, meaning @ all, and off the top I knew that wasn't true. The Corvette point wasn't directed towards you. I'm pretty sure you already knew that, but some didn't.

[BLKCLOUD]

LOL. Ok, if we want to really really really be sticklers, this is what I said, and I quote myself...

LT1s were not underrated, at least not by much.
emphasis added.

Truth be told, I don't think the LT1 was "over-rated" (or over-rated) any more than any other engine of the time. But you have one, so I understand why you might disagree.

[N20LT4]

LOL. Ok, if we want to really really really be sticklers, this is what I said, and I quote myself...


emphasis added.

Truth be told, I don't think the LT1 was "over-rated" (or over-rated) any more than any other engine of the time. But you have one, so I understand why you might disagree.

My apologies. I didn't see that. I better read the entire comment next time :sorry: