Is a stock 4th gen F body quicker than a 1st gen F body?

[Mezzy]

Wondering what would win a quarter mile race, a 350 from 1967,68, 69? Or the computer technology of an LT1 or LS1?

[Mike]

Google wins every time. By a large margin

[NJ Torque]

LS1.

[stealth355tpi]

Not even a race, ls1 has it all day long.

[Mezzy]

Idk. You could get a 350 w 375 hp no?

[Mezzy]

Google mike? Did I miss somethin lol?

[BonzoHansen]

Wondering what would win a quarter mile race, a 350 from 1967,68, 69? Or the computer technology of an LT1 or LS1?

LS 4th gen wins. Decent tires on BBC car and the margin all but disappears.

[Featherburner]

Idk. You could get a 350 w 375 hp no?No!

[Mezzy]

What about a 375 hp 350 in a 1st gen? That's an extra 100 ponies. I say hp is hp

[Mezzy]

It was an option

[Mezzy]

At least I'm pretty sure It was. I mean, i wasnt their, but Ive read it was an optoon in my camaro books.

[BonzoHansen]

What about a 375 hp 350 in a 1st gen? That's an extra 100 ponies. I say hp is hp

he just told you it didn't exist. really?

1967 1968 1969
late early late
Base L6
L26 230ci/140HP L6 1BC 20,643 22,322 17,588
Optional L6
L22 250ci/155HP L6 1BC 38,165 28,647 18,660
Base non-SS V8
LF7 327ci/210HP V8 2BC 102,409 124,870 44,746
L14 307ci/200HP V8 2BC 68,487
Optional higher hp non-SS V8
L30 327ci/275HP V8 4BC 25,287 21,686
LM1 350ci/255HP V8 4BC 10,406
L65 350ci/250HP V8 2BC 26,898
SS models
L48 350ci/295HP* V8 4BC 29,270 12,496 22,339
L35 396ci/325HP V8 4BC 4,003 10,773 6,752
L34 396ci/350HP V8 4BC 2,579 2,018
L78 396ci/375HP V8 4BC 1,138 4,575 4,889
L78/L89 396ci/375HP V8 4BC** 272 311
Z28
Z28 302ci/290HP V8 4BC 602 7,199 20,302
COPO models
L72 427ci/425HP V8 4BC# 800-1000 est
ZL1 427ci/430HP V8 4BC## 69
---------------------------------
* rated 300HP in 1969
** Al head option
# COPO 9561, cast-iron
## COPO 9560, Al block/heads
http://www.camaros.org/engine.shtml

[Featherburner]

I say hp is hpYou'd be wrong...gross vs. net!

[Featherburner]

he just told you it didn't exist. really?

1967 1968 1969
late early late
Base L6
L26 230ci/140HP L6 1BC 20,643 22,322 17,588
Optional L6
L22 250ci/155HP L6 1BC 38,165 28,647 18,660
Base non-SS V8
LF7 327ci/210HP V8 2BC 102,409 124,870 44,746
L14 307ci/200HP V8 2BC 68,487
Optional higher hp non-SS V8
L30 327ci/275HP V8 4BC 25,287 21,686
LM1 350ci/255HP V8 4BC 10,406
L65 350ci/250HP V8 2BC 26,898
SS models
L48 350ci/295HP* V8 4BC 29,270 12,496 22,339
L35 396ci/325HP V8 4BC 4,003 10,773 6,752
L34 396ci/350HP V8 4BC 2,579 2,018
L78 396ci/375HP V8 4BC 1,138 4,575 4,889
L78/L89 396ci/375HP V8 4BC** 272 311
Z28
Z28 302ci/290HP V8 4BC 602 7,199 20,302
COPO models
L72 427ci/425HP V8 4BC# 800-1000 est
ZL1 427ci/430HP V8 4BC## 69
---------------------------------
* rated 300HP in 1969
** Al head option
# COPO 9561, cast-iron
## COPO 9560, Al block/heads
http://www.camaros.org/engine.shtmlI guess my "NO!" wasn't sufficent for him. You put way more effort than I would have, thanks!:wink:

[BonzoHansen]

he seems to like being wrong.

[Mezzy]

It is sufficient,lol I just thought they did. How do you post the stats so quickly?

[Mezzy]

Would you pay all that money for those cars?

[Blackbirdws6]

It is sufficient,lol I just thought they did. How do you post the stats so quickly?

The information is available on the internet. Pretty easy to search.

Would you pay all that money for those cars?

If I had buckets of money, I would love to have a few nice, rare examples of 60's/70's muscle cars in my collection.

[Mezzy]

Me too. I'd want a 69 rs/ss big block with all the performance options I can swallow, lol yellow with the black

[BonzoHansen]

Would you pay all that money for those cars?

People do or they wouldn't sell at those prices. I'd certainly rather have a 70 Chevelle SS BBC than any 4th gen. And very clean 'drivers' start at $40,000 and quickly rise from there. And it's not all about raw performance numbers.

[WildBillyT]

350 would be blown out of the water by almost a full second. Same with the Z/28.

[Mezzy]

I'd love any 68,69,70 chevelle bb as well. I grew up dreaming of owning one. Kid in school had his dad get him one. A 68 w a 396. His dad owned a body shop. He was lucky. Didn't appreciate it and sold it. Thus was 1990. Now he' kicking himself, cause it was an original 396 car. I would've went to the grave in that car.

[Mezzy]

Thanks for all ur knowledge. It's greatly appreciated. You guys are fun to chat with and I enjoy learning from those who were their.

[WildBillyT]

No problem!

Performance for some of the cars was great, but not for most. Also keep in mind the gross vs. net hp stuff.

[Mezzy]

Yeah bill, I'm not gettin.g what you mean there. Can you please explain? I k ow the industry started to measure the hp at the wheels instead of the crank. Is that what you mean?

[BonzoHansen]

Sexy girls aren't always smart or make a lot of money. They can have annoying tendancies but you like them anyway. They come in all shapes, sizes and colors. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Mezzy]

How can you see someone's age? I can't tell who's near my age or not. Again I'm slloowww lol

[BonzoHansen]

I have magic power. Or access to the back end info. Some people display their age in their user profile, some don't. If they do you'll see it.

[Mezzy]

Guess ill much to talk about...at FIRKINS, yeah!!!

[WildBillyT]

Yeah bill, I'm not gettin.g what you mean there. Can you please explain? I k ow the industry started to measure the hp at the wheels instead of the crank. Is that what you mean?

The industry never did that to the best of my knowledge. Nobody rates at the wheels. Some ratings may be "light", but not rated at the wheels.

Gross HP was the way they rated horsepower until about 1970-71. They would dyno the engine with no accessories that introduce parasitic hp loss.

After 70-71 they started rating engines via SAE Net- as they were installed in the car, with alternators, factory water pumps, smog pumps, and so forth.

So, that 450hp LS6 chevelle doesn't make 450hp the way we rate it today.

[Mezzy]

Oh. Ok. But the engine still made the claimed power right? Just with accessories, the stats are low, but its still making the same amount of Power? I mean if an engine had 450 on a dyno, its understandable to say the numbers will ne lower with accessories, but its still markng 450 without the accessories correct? So it is the dame amount of hp, just measure different? Or were the engines really less powerful?

[Mezzy]

So what kind of hp numbers would say, an 02 LS1 make if you measured the hp on the dyno the way used to do it? Would that 345 hp become 450?

[WildBillyT]

Oh. Ok. But the engine still made the claimed power right? Just with accessories, the stats are low, but its still making the same amount of Power? I mean if an engine had 450 on a dyno, its understandable to say the numbers will ne lower with accessories, but its still markng 450 without the accessories correct? So it is the dame amount of hp, just measure different? Or were the engines really less powerful?

Same power, just different ways of rating it. Kind of how camshafts are both rated at "advertised" and ".050". The lobes are the same, the duration is just rated differently due to the tests being different.

So what kind of hp numbers would say, an 02 LS1 make if you measured the hp on the dyno the way used to do it? Would that 345 hp become 450?

Not that high. A reason for that is because today's accessories are not nearly as damaging to power as they used to be; just like catalytic converters.

Maybe 375-385 or so, off of the top of my head, since 345 was pretty "light" of a rating as it is.

[Mezzy]

I saw on you tube, car and driver tested a new 99 z28 against a 99 mustang GT. Gm said it had 305 hp. When they put the camaro on the dyno, it pulled 287 hp to the wheels. The guy said Gm clearly underated the engine. Said it had more like 350 to the crank.

[Mezzy]

Does thAT mean that the 345 hp ls1 really makes like 400 hp to the crank?

[WildBillyT]

Same power, just different ways of rating it. Kind of how camshafts are both rated at "advertised" and ".050". The lobes are the same, the duration is just rated differently due to the tests being different.



Not that high. A reason for that is because today's accessories are not nearly as damaging to power as they used to be; just like catalytic converters.

Maybe 375-385 or so, off of the top of my head, since 345 was pretty "light" of a rating as it is.

Does thAT mean that the 345 hp ls1 really makes like 400 hp to the crank?

Above. LS1 was rated different in the Fbody and Vette due to stuff like air cleaner/intake and exhaust manifolds/system and GM wanting to protect the 'Vette as top dog in the lineup. Engine was pretty much the same.

[Mezzy]

Thanks

[V]

The ls1 engine is just a marvel of modern engineering compared to the older 1st gen sbc's. It is much more efficient in regards to fuel usage, internal friction, crankcase ventilation etc. It pulls up into the higher RPMs like a warhorse.

[BonzoHansen]

The ls1 engine is just a marvel of modern engineering compared to the older 1st gen sbc's. It is much more efficient in regards to fuel usage, internal friction, crankcase ventilation etc. It pulls up into the higher RPMs like a warhorse.

it's really an evolution stemming from the racing stuff and the LT5.

[LTb1ow]

it's really an evolution stemming from the racing stuff and the LT5.

You shut your whore mouth when talking about the LS1 like that.

:nick:

[1320B4U]

Back in the day they also rated true hp down for insurance reasons too. Even up to and including the gn's back in the day. 245hp gn as per manufacturer...yeah right..dyno higher than that. Even some srt neons dyno'd to the wheels what dodge was saying it made to the crank.

Can't compare quarter mile old school vrs new. Skinny ass tires and soft suspensions in the old cars..tire hop and weight distribution during the start would kill the old ones before they even got really going....compared to an ls1 car.

[Mezzy]

Thanks for all the knowledge. I never considered the bias ply and soft suspensions. I know it pulls hard, but you can rev it to 6k? Is that ok for that engine?

[Mezzy]

I didn't kno the GN was underated

[Paul Huryk]

Except for the BBC versions, none of the small blocks would even be close to an LS1. I think the fastest LT1 motored car (in a Vette) ran 13.8 at 101mph in some old magazine back in the day, which makes it as fast as an equivalent 4th gen LT1 car. Most of those SBC were over cammed, had crappy exhaust systems, not so good flowing heads, and were never tuned right from the factory.

[Paul Huryk]

it's really an evolution stemming from the racing stuff and the LT5.

More the racing stuff, honestly. GM got it right with the LS1 and later iterations like the LS2 and LS3. That is, they managed to give it good low and mid range power with the ability to still peak at high RPMs. L98 had the TQ, but no revs or HP; Lt1 had hp and revs, but no low end - LS motors have it all, plus they don't need pricey aftermarket rotating parts to not blow apart at high revs. And they respond just as well as the Gen 1 and 2 SBC motors when it comes to adding power, so that is the real story.

LT5 is an interesting anomaly by GM - Lotus designed it and GM shoehorned it into the original ZR-1 Corvette. While it was fast for the early 90's, where most fast cars ran high 13's at 100mph; every part was incompatble with any other engine and only high buck builds really did it justice - most notably the 620hp Lingenfelter iteration. The LT4 motor in a C4 was just as fast as a ZR-1; a buddy had one new and it ran 13.0 all day dead stock.

[sweetbmxrider]

I think you meant the lt1 has low and mid but dies up high.

[LTb1ow]

I like how LS1 nuthuggers just choose to forget the years and years of insanely fast SBC/BBC race cars. Suddenly, the only way to go fast in with an LS1 something.

[Paul Huryk]

I think you meant the lt1 has low and mid but dies up high.

Compared to an L98, the bottom end is weak and isn't limited by the long tube runners for high rpm power.

[LTb1ow]

Compared to an L98, the bottom end is weak and isn't limited by the long tube runners for high rpm power.

Please, do show this.

Here is a stock LT1 dyno
http://www.ws6.com/image/pulley.gif

[Blackbirdws6]

^^ that's a tq curve you can set a glass of water on.

[WildBillyT]

Except for the BBC versions, none of the small blocks would even be close to an LS1. I think the fastest LT1 motored car (in a Vette) ran 13.8 at 101mph in some old magazine back in the day, which makes it as fast as an equivalent 4th gen LT1 car. Most of those SBC were over cammed, had crappy exhaust systems, not so good flowing heads, and were never tuned right from the factory.

Only exception I can think of is the Yenko Deuces. Mid 13s, sometimes 12s depending on driver.

[Paul Huryk]

Please, do show this.

Here is a stock LT1 dyno
http://www.ws6.com/image/pulley.gif

That is a very nice, flat TQ curve - looking very similar to a mild carbed 350 SBC.

My point is that the L98 motors have 20lb-ft more TQ and you definitely feel it down low, the 40 to 60hp difference in output makes for an obviously faster car.

I had a few friends with 1993 LT1 cars when they were new - they just didn't have the take off of the 1989 to 1992 350 cars, even though the 93s would easily win the race after 60mph.

[BonzoHansen]

could have been gearing