Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41
Like Tree1Likes

94 Z28 VS 2010 Challenger R/T

This is a discussion on 94 Z28 VS 2010 Challenger R/T within the Camaro / SS forums, part of the Vehicle Specific category; Originally Posted by SuperSSguy what does LT and LS----stand for? They are just simply RPO option codes for particular engine ...

  1. #21
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperSSguy View Post
    what does LT and LS----stand for?
    They are just simply RPO option codes for particular engine packages. They aren't abreviations for words as far as I know.

    The LT designation was first used in 1970-72 for the solid lifter 350 used in Z28's and Vettes. Officially LT-1 (with a dash) and then brought back in 96 for the gen II sbc without the dash,,,hence LT1.

    LT has also been used as model disignation on vehicles, usually an upgraded model over the base model. The upgraded camaro model over the base model was an LT on the second gen camaros. Then there were Berlinetta's if anyone remembers those, and Z28's were the performance package. The SS died after 72 in the camaro line. I believe that's when the LT package appeared.
    Last edited by Firebirdjones; 08-18-2012 at 06:02 PM.

  2. #22
    Member SuperSSguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    979

    Sunset Orange Metallic
    2002 Camaro SS M6

    Thanks FBJ i thought it may stand for something like GT= grand touring etc...thanks and yes i do remember the Berlinetta....alot of chicks wanted them when they came out,,,i guess with the name it made them feel that this was a chicks Camaro

  3. #23
    ʢ ൧ ൨ ൩ ൪ ൫ ൬ ൭ ൮Ր Ց Ւ Փ Smittro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    9,965

    White
    2008 Hummer H3

    The 3rd gen Berlinettas' were usually a base model exterior but was fully loaded inside, special apholstery, over head console, sometimes even a rear windshield wiper, and a digital read-out dash in a few..

    The designation died by 85 iirc.

    They were usually hubcap cars as well.

    IIRC,, they were a step up from the "iron duke" camaros' usually with an electric quadrajunk carbed 305, but still below a z28 in stature.

    The Z got "cross fire injection"

    Again except for interior as they were sometimes nicer inside than a Z.
    Last edited by Smittro; 08-19-2012 at 03:14 AM.

  4. #24
    ʢ ൧ ൨ ൩ ൪ ൫ ൬ ൭ ൮Ր Ց Ւ Փ Smittro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    9,965

    White
    2008 Hummer H3

    I take that back they actually got their own styled alloy wheels.

  5. #25
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Smittro View Post
    The 3rd gen Berlinettas' were usually a base model exterior but was fully loaded inside, special apholstery, over head console, sometimes even a rear windshield wiper, and a digital read-out dash in a few..

    The designation died by 85 iirc.

    They were usually hubcap cars as well.

    IIRC,, they were a step up from the "iron duke" camaros' usually with an electric quadrajunk carbed 305, but still below a z28 in stature.

    The Z got "cross fire injection"

    Again except for interior as they were sometimes nicer inside than a Z.
    I forgot there was a 3rd gen Berlinetta,,,I was referring to the 2nd gen Berlinetta's. I remember those having wire wheel hubcaps and I've seen them with their own little 14" aluminum mags too like you mentioned. I think they've been long forgotten.

  6. #26
    expensive tires az gt eater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    phoenix
    Posts
    1,951

    white
    04 2500 4x4 crew cab

    Those Berlinettas came in V6 form, too, right? I remember a guy in high school had one, and it was a DOG. I think it was limited at 88? And, no it wasn't a Delorean.

  7. #27
    Former Mopar Man 2002ssslp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Branchville, NJ
    Posts
    3,111

    Silver & Blue
    02 Camaro SS, 04 GTO

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Not really 2002ssSLP, when you take a good look at it. It's the 15 degree heads that made the introduction of the LS platform so appealing. But that technoligy was nothing new as the aftermarket had already been offering 18 degree heads for the Gen 1 SBC for many years. Shucks even AMC knew this back in the 60's and was building all their V8's with 18 degree heads from the factory.

    It's that valve angle that helps these engines make power. With a similarly built gen 1 and 18 degree heads the power is right on par with same size LS engine.

    If you don't want to get into the expensive 18 degree heads for a gen 1, then AFR makes a standard 23 degree head now that flows about 330 cfm right out of the box,,,that's 18 degree head territory in a 23 degree head without the fancy intakes and valvetrain/pistons required for an 18 degree head, so it's much more cost effective.

    I can still build a gen 1 a whole hell of alot cheaper than any LS engine.
    I built Mopar engines back in the 70's and 80's and I know what you mean about HP, TQ and cost. When I said you can do more with the LS1 I ment tuneability. The LS1 can do more with powerbands and torque curves and you can get it to do just about anything you want. Of courst that is due to technology including fuel injection. HP is just air in and air out where torque is the amount of air in and air out per stroke. For HP you need compression and for torque you need cubic inches. That's how I learned 37 years ago. Cost is another matter. The SBC has been around for almost 60 years and manufactures have flooded the market with parts. The LSx has been around less then 15 years so the market has to catch up. Material costs are also different. Today you have blends of alloy's, old school was cast iron poured into a sand based mould. See what I mean. In 45 years We will have plenty of cheap LSx parts but who knows what we will be running on then. Hell, I'll be dead by then so who knows ?
    My ride is a 2002 Camaro SS SLP #3296 with 30k, LTH, 3" Y, CME, Frost tune, K&N, ported TB, Blackwing lid, Bellows, MSD, Denso Iridium, and 85mm MAF, Bilsteins, Eibach springs, SLP strut brace, Adj. Panhard, TA Girdle, UMI, Pro 5.0, Nitto NT555
    My wife has a 2004 GTO with the rare SAP, 18" wheels, K&N Cold Air System, MSD, Ported TB, Frost tune, Denso Iridium, Flowmaster cat-back, 3200 Yank, 75k

  8. #28
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by 2002ssslp View Post
    I built Mopar engines back in the 70's and 80's and I know what you mean about HP, TQ and cost. When I said you can do more with the LS1 I ment tuneability. The LS1 can do more with powerbands and torque curves and you can get it to do just about anything you want. Of courst that is due to technology including fuel injection. HP is just air in and air out where torque is the amount of air in and air out per stroke. For HP you need compression and for torque you need cubic inches. That's how I learned 37 years ago. Cost is another matter. The SBC has been around for almost 60 years and manufactures have flooded the market with parts. The LSx has been around less then 15 years so the market has to catch up. Material costs are also different. Today you have blends of alloy's, old school was cast iron poured into a sand based mould. See what I mean. In 45 years We will have plenty of cheap LSx parts but who knows what we will be running on then. Hell, I'll be dead by then so who knows ?
    I agree the computer tuning is an advantage as far as the small tweaks you can do in fuel and timing cells, and you can squeak fuel mileage out of them while still producing driveability, but so far the fuel injection isn't proving it's more powerfull. That may change in years to come though.
    Smittro likes this.

  9. #29
    ʢ ൧ ൨ ൩ ൪ ൫ ൬ ൭ ൮Ր Ց Ւ Փ Smittro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    9,965

    White
    2008 Hummer H3

    Quote Originally Posted by az gt eater View Post
    Those Berlinettas came in V6 form, too, right? I remember a guy in high school had one, and it was a DOG. I think it was limited at 88? And, no it wasn't a Delorean.
    2.8L small journal 2bbl carb @109 hp..

    Berlineta v8 was phased out when the Multi-port 2.8L iron head, big journal, forged rod, motors arived.

    (around this time 1985 the high feature 2.8 multi-port also arived in z24 cavalier.)

    The new designation for all v6 camaro became "rs" too in 87, as the 2.8 multi port made more hp than the carbed 305 it replaced in berlinetta years.
    Last edited by Smittro; 08-19-2012 at 01:52 PM.

  10. #30
    ʢ ൧ ൨ ൩ ൪ ൫ ൬ ൭ ൮Ր Ց Ւ Փ Smittro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    9,965

    White
    2008 Hummer H3

    When the multi-port 2.8 came out they stuck it in just about everything they could.

    Sorry S10... they would never get any multi-porting.. Just TBI 2 barrel..

    Their transfer cases did'nt like 7000 rpm..

  11. #31
    Former Mopar Man 2002ssslp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Branchville, NJ
    Posts
    3,111

    Silver & Blue
    02 Camaro SS, 04 GTO

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    I agree the computer tuning is an advantage as far as the small tweaks you can do in fuel and timing cells, and you can squeak fuel mileage out of them while still producing driveability, but so far the fuel injection isn't proving it's more powerfull. That may change in years to come though.
    Computer tuning has more effect then that. Remember in the early 60's the Corvette had a bad ass 327 small block with 2x4bbl carbs that put out 360 ghp while the Bendix FI version of the same motor put out 375 ghp. Not alot of gain but they did not have computer control's then, not even electronic ignition. The sensors and computers allow the engine to run more efficiently, allowing for more power. Top fuel dragsters, Funny cars, Indy cars, F-1, GTB, Daytona, Champ cars all run FI and computers. I have seen giant IHRA 650 cid+ engines produce 1500 hp on giant carbs but not much more then that. Top fuel engines produce 8,000 hp+ on just 500 cid. Just saying.

  12. #32
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by 2002ssslp View Post
    Computer tuning has more effect then that. Remember in the early 60's the Corvette had a bad ass 327 small block with 2x4bbl carbs that put out 360 ghp while the Bendix FI version of the same motor put out 375 ghp. Not alot of gain but they did not have computer control's then, not even electronic ignition. The sensors and computers allow the engine to run more efficiently, allowing for more power. Top fuel dragsters, Funny cars, Indy cars, F-1, GTB, Daytona, Champ cars all run FI and computers. I have seen giant IHRA 650 cid+ engines produce 1500 hp on giant carbs but not much more then that. Top fuel engines produce 8,000 hp+ on just 500 cid. Just saying.
    Most of that are power adder examples with the exception of the IHRA pro stock stuff you mentioned. They don't tune with the computer per say,,,but use a computer for data to make changes, it's still a carb application.

    What I was getting at is that most of your gains are in the form of a more precisely controlled ignition system, of which is easily adapted to carb applications as well (IE crank triggers and cam sensors) on your older stuff. MSD has a slick ignition system for older engines to allow individual cylinder timing adjustments for some added power and tunability.
    But you can still slap a carb on an LS engine and make more power than the current fuel injection setups. There have been several comparisons done over the years with great examples.
    I do like the computer controlled fuel injection for the fact that it's very cool to precisely change individual fuel cells throughout an entire RPM range in various load conditions. Very fine tunability.

  13. #33
    Member SuperSSguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    979

    Sunset Orange Metallic
    2002 Camaro SS M6

    While on the thread of making HP------Whats the opinion on the practicality of keeping existing ls1 engine and beefing it up with HCI etc.... (minus Turbo/SC/nitrous) versus buying a crated higher HP LS...like LS 7 or Lsx etc etc........anotherwards hp wise would it be cheaper to try and boost up existing motor or get one crated at a high HP level already?....think i know the answer but want some opinions.

  14. #34
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperSSguy View Post
    While on the thread of making HP------Whats the opinion on the practicality of keeping existing ls1 engine and beefing it up with HCI etc.... (minus Turbo/SC/nitrous) versus buying a crated higher HP LS...like LS 7 or Lsx etc etc........anotherwards hp wise would it be cheaper to try and boost up existing motor or get one crated at a high HP level already?....think i know the answer but want some opinions.
    You are asking what thousands have done already. Dozens of proven head and cam packages out there, just depends on your wallet and how my power you are looking for.

  15. #35
    Former Mopar Man 2002ssslp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Branchville, NJ
    Posts
    3,111

    Silver & Blue
    02 Camaro SS, 04 GTO

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperSSguy View Post
    While on the thread of making HP------Whats the opinion on the practicality of keeping existing ls1 engine and beefing it up with HCI etc.... (minus Turbo/SC/nitrous) versus buying a crated higher HP LS...like LS 7 or Lsx etc etc........anotherwards hp wise would it be cheaper to try and boost up existing motor or get one crated at a high HP level already?....think i know the answer but want some opinions.
    I feel it is cheaper to boost an engine as long as it is built to handle the power adder installed. If you built a strong bottom end and threw on a supercharger, turbo or nitrous it would produce more power per dollar then building a killer top end to match the power. You will have to get the right cam along with the the right heads, valvetrain, intake, fuel delivery system and so on. Boosting is quick, fast power and it is fairly cheap. JMO

  16. #36
    Member SuperSSguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    979

    Sunset Orange Metallic
    2002 Camaro SS M6

    Quote Originally Posted by 2002ssslp View Post
    I feel it is cheaper to boost an engine as long as it is built to handle the power adder installed. If you built a strong bottom end and threw on a supercharger, turbo or nitrous it would produce more power per dollar then building a killer top end to match the power. You will have to get the right cam along with the the right heads, valvetrain, intake, fuel delivery system and so on. Boosting is quick, fast power and it is fairly cheap. JMO
    OK do you know what the most powerful HP/Torque wise LS crate engine is?

  17. #37
    ʢ ൧ ൨ ൩ ൪ ൫ ൬ ൭ ൮Ր Ց Ւ Փ Smittro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    9,965

    White
    2008 Hummer H3

    There's a sh*t ton of people running FI on all stock internal ls1 motors for years without issue.

    From what I understand you're good to ~ 500 crank or so before really having to dig into the motor.

  18. #38
    Former Mopar Man 2002ssslp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Branchville, NJ
    Posts
    3,111

    Silver & Blue
    02 Camaro SS, 04 GTO

    Quote Originally Posted by Smittro View Post
    There's a sh*t ton of people running FI on all stock internal ls1 motors for years without issue.

    From what I understand you're good to ~ 500 crank or so before really having to dig into the motor.
    The bottom end of a motor is everything. A strong crank, rods, caps, pistions, block and bearings provide the power.

  19. #39
    ʢ ൧ ൨ ൩ ൪ ൫ ൬ ൭ ൮Ր Ց Ւ Փ Smittro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    9,965

    White
    2008 Hummer H3

    Quote Originally Posted by 2002ssslp View Post
    The bottom end of a motor is everything. A strong crank, rods, caps, pistions, block and bearings provide the power.
    Simply put, "cheap" and "power" never go together.

    Personally I would'nt boost any engine that's not forged.

    My iron block boost engine is setup as such.

    I was simply sayin' people boost lsx on stock internals regularly.

    For the most part they seem reliable as long as you don't try to build too much on a stock bottom.

    Hell guys are modding these over 100 150k..
    Last edited by Smittro; 08-22-2012 at 01:48 PM.

  20. #40
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Smittro View Post
    Simply put, "cheap" and "power" never go together.

    Personally I would'nt boost any engine that's not forged.

    My iron block boost engine is setup as such.

    I was simply sayin' people boost lsx on stock internals regularly.

    For the most part they seem reliable as long as you don't try to build too much on a stock bottom.

    Hell guys are modding these over 100 150k..
    Correct, about ~500 rwhp in a boosted application is all most are doing with a stock bottom end LS1. That's roughly an easy 10 psi and not much more with a very safe tune. With cast parts it becomes borderline and probably won't live forever. That was back when these things were relatively new. Nowadays with all these high mile examples running around I wouldn't even think about it until it was refreshed.
    Frankly though,,,,forged is the way to go for reliability and more boost.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-18-2011, 07:19 AM
  2. 2010 challenger srt8 kill
    By darkwingduck in forum Kill Stories
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 09:48 PM
  3. 2010 SS vs SRT 8 Challenger vs Shelby Cobra
    By karpetcm in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 08-19-2009, 04:44 PM
  4. 2010 Camaro Vs 2009 Challenger
    By GungHoPopsicle in forum Camaro / SS
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 07:31 AM
  5. 2010 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2009 Dodge Challenger
    By 99Hugger in forum Western Members
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2008, 05:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •