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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Mezzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[LTb1ow]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

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]

Originally Posted by sweetbmxrider

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]

Originally Posted by Paul Huryk

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

[Blackbirdws6]

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