Results 21 to 32 of 32
Thread: LT1 vs. Mach1
-
07-27-2007, 10:09 AM #21
stock for stock mach 1 takes it. an auto in an lt1 is pretty sluggish without a stall.
Last edited by secondgearscratch; 07-27-2007 at 02:33 PM.
oh great intentions, ive got the best of interventions...
Missouri and Central IL members come in!!!!!
http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48861
-
07-27-2007, 11:50 AM #22
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Milwaukee
- Age
- 37
- Posts
- 2,154
Red- 2000 Trans Am
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.
-
07-27-2007, 04:26 PM #23
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.
-
07-27-2007, 04:29 PM #24
-
07-27-2007, 05:09 PM #25
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?
-
07-27-2007, 05:11 PM #26
-
07-27-2007, 08:03 PM #27
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- Missouri
- Posts
- 714
Torch Red- 1999 Corvette Hardtop
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.
-
07-30-2007, 04:54 AM #28
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.
-
07-30-2007, 09:41 AM #29
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Posts
- 1,095
B2300 (Fluffy) Retired- Plain-Jane Dodge Truck
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.
And last, '99 Cobra's are over-rated. Naw, just kidding.
Some of us "fixed" it a little bit more than others.
Bob
-
07-30-2007, 01:25 PM #30
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.
-
07-30-2007, 03:58 PM #31
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Posts
- 1,095
B2300 (Fluffy) Retired- Plain-Jane Dodge Truck
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.
-
07-30-2007, 08:45 PM #32
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
02 trans am vs 04 mach1
By 4thGenTA in forum Kill StoriesReplies: 63Last Post: 03-10-2009, 07:40 PM -
Mach1 Vs Z28 - The Result
By Rikki_SeVeN in forum Kill StoriesReplies: 98Last Post: 10-24-2007, 12:22 PM -
Discuss: Mach1 vs Z28
By Rikki_SeVeN in forum Kill StoriesReplies: 61Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:25 AM -
FS:04 Mach1 AB,28,000miles,$16,900
By ArcherandSons in forum Vehicles For Sale / TradeReplies: 0Last Post: 06-19-2007, 07:55 PM -
Mach1 Mayhem
By desliger in forum Kill StoriesReplies: 99Last Post: 11-25-2006, 07:29 AM
Bookmarks