Lt1 power?

[dr.death]

how much power does a stock 1996 lt1 engine actually make. as i know the ls1 was very underrated, so was the lt1? how much horsepower does it make an how much of that power woul be gettin to the ground with a stage 3 transmission and goodyear eagle gt2's on it? also this engine is not in a camaro it is in a 1953 studebaker 3/4 pick-up.

[BlackLT1Z28]

All engines vary. I've seen a few LS1's, rated at 320, dyno at the wheels 302hp. But I've also seen LS1's rated at 320 dyno 278hp at the wheels. Both bone stock. Maintainance and mileage play a part in keeping those numbers. LT1's are the same way. Some may be over the factory rating while some under. Just take it at the 285 factory rating until you strap it to a dyno.

[Red on Red WS6]

how much power does a stock 1996 lt1 engine actually make. as i know the ls1 was very underrated, so was the lt1? how much horsepower does it make an how much of that power woul be gettin to the ground with a stage 3 transmission and goodyear eagle gt2's on it? also this engine is not in a camaro it is in a 1953 studebaker 3/4 pick-up.

My 96 auto dynoed at 256 at the wheels. That is stock down to the paper airfilter.

[95 firechicken]

On my 95 I put down 275 at the wheels bone stock

[hutch1999]

ive seen two LT1 camaros both around 250rwhp one was an auto with true duels and K&N intake, and the other was a manual with exhaust.

[BlackLT1Z28]

On my 95 I put down 275 at the wheels bone stock

Bone stock huh? That's impressive, you must have really got a factory freak. The 93-95 LT1's were rated at 275 at the crank, brand new. That's not including age and mileage. BUt is that number SAE corrected though?

[nemanracing]

265rwhp/305rwtq with an intake and muffler on my 96

[Chad97z]

Bone stock huh? That's impressive, you must have really got a factory freak. The 93-95 LT1's were rated at 275 at the crank, brand new. That's not including age and mileage. BUt is that number SAE corrected though?

Age does not account for that much these days if oil changes are regular, compression remains, heads are still sealing good, and injectors are clean.

So with good care, any engine even at 100k can run about as good as it can new. And thats even more true if ya don't race it! haha (like me)

But I agree. most stock LS1's dyno around 298 to 308. average about 303 with maybe just an air intake mod.


But the LT1 went through stages as the LS1 one did. But the LT1 went through more revisions and each time it increased horsepower with 97 being the most powerful. The Ram Air modified LT1 in 97 came with a 305 factory rating. With that in mind, I have a 97 LT1 with an electric water pump, ram air, the heads were checked last year when I replaced the head gaskets, I have K&N filters, HPP3, clean injectors, ported throttle body(52mm) and a ported MAF. Basically all notive bolt-on's, but its all really significant mods that have not negatively effected the operation characteristics of the motor, like a cam and all the other problems associated with changing a cam, like re-tuning. Then you never know what you're going to get. Headers are my next performance mod and that will get me a good 15-20 HP.

[BlackLT1Z28]

But being realistic, who's going to have a 100K LT1 that wasn't raced at all? And I have a hard time imagining a 10-11 year old engine with 100K miles on it being as efficient as it was brand new. Things wear out and don't perform as well as they did brand new, that's the nature of the beast. Oil changes and proper maintenance aren't going to preserve an engine to like-new specs for 10 years.

[Chad97z]

I can see some wear causing a small loss like a couple of horsepower, but I think you'd be surprised to see the real numbers on a car that has bene maintained well. Tolerance is needed to have the engine run. There is a break in period and signs of wear would be noisy lifters which can be adjusted.. As far as racing, I goose my car occasionally, but it's never been to a track. That's the main thing.

[93lt1vette]

it also depends on how the privious owner drove the car
my 93 had to have been driven by and old man that engine was almost never pushed to the higher rpms where the carbon buildup can burn off, when took of the Heads for my current rebuild I found the eshaust valves, piston tops and the clearance volume of the cyclnder caked with carbon. That much carbon had to have caused my timing to retard to prevent detonation. Its just good to know that will all be gone in my newly built 383

[Chad97z]

it also depends on how the privious owner drove the car
my 93 had to have been driven by and old man that engine was almost never pushed to the higher rpms where the carbon buildup can burn off, when took of the Heads for my current rebuild I found the eshaust valves, piston tops and the clearance volume of the cyclnder caked with carbon. That much carbon had to have caused my timing to retard to prevent detonation. Its just good to know that will all be gone in my newly built 383

ya but even with a lightly driven car, you can tell the engine is tighter.. and you can clean carbon out.. My car was that tight when I got it. And it had 46k on it when I got it. The engine responded very well and mostly it was quiet. It didnt have any raspy noises.

I don't knwo why but engines that are driven hard make a lot of raspy noises and various other noises. Not loud noises, just over all operating noise level.. Ya know? Its weird. I can always tell when you got a tight engine. This is my 9th f-body and this camaro was by far the most tight out of all of them except for the first 1000 miles of my 2000 TA

[kingls1]

265rwhp/305rwtq with an intake and muffler on my 96

sound about right.

[Chad97z]

I just want to correct myself. I didn't realize it but the LT1 even in 1994 had 275 HP. Some say it was under rated.. I dunno about that, but I was thinking it had more like 235 or 240. I must have been reading something else about the 3rd gen camaro's. So I guess the LT1 has not gone through as many changes and upgrades as what I thought. However there were some improvements by 1997. My year. hehe

[BlackLT1Z28]

I just want to correct myself. I didn't realize it but the LT1 even in 1994 had 275 HP. Some say it was under rated.. I dunno about that, but I was thinking it had more like 235 or 240. I must have been reading something else about the 3rd gen camaro's. So I guess the LT1 has not gone through as many changes and upgrades as what I thought. However there were some improvements by 1997. My year. hehe

Yeah, dual cats, 10 more factory rated horses, SCORE!