LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
I just purchased a 7K LT1 to put in my 91 RS Vert, having flash backs of the ol 350hp 327 in my 69 Chevelle, sadly she is beer cans now, rolled her 3 1/2 times in 1978. anyway, what about putting a 327 crank in the LT1 motor??? it can be done with an adapter now days. thoughts?? except on the demise of a truly classic car ----yes I hate myself too
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
I just purchased a 7K LT1 to put in my 91 RS Vert, having flash backs of the ol 350hp 327 in my 69 Chevelle, sadly she is beer cans now, rolled her 3 1/2 times in 1978. anyway, what about putting a 327 crank in the LT1 motor??? it can be done with an adapter now days. thoughts?? except on the demise of a truly classic car ----yes I hate myself too
Just run it as is.
LT1's share a crank with a a 87 and up SBC, aka 1pc RMS.
This is just not worth the $$$.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,736
Likes: 14
From: Not in Kansas anymore
Car: 82 Z28
Engine: 383 SP EFI/ 4150 TB
Transmission: T400
Axle/Gears: QP 9" 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
And your 350Hp /327 would have how much Hp under modern SAE ratings vs a 270+Hp LT1?
"domestic manufacturers adopted the SAE net rating methodology,
"Net" horsepower ratings are ll made with stock ignition timing, carburetion, exhaust, and accessories: in short,
a closer approximation of how much power an engine produces as actually installed in the car.
The result of the new rating system was a dramatic drop in advertised power.
The Cadillac Eldorado's 500 cu. in. (8.2L) V-8, for instance, dropped from 400 gross horsepower (298 kW) in 1970 to 360 gross horsepower (269 kW) in 1971, a drop of about 10%.
The rated horsepower of the 1972 version was only 235 net horsepower (175 kW), even though the engine itself was basically unchanged.
On paper, though, output had been cut by 35%".
"domestic manufacturers adopted the SAE net rating methodology,
"Net" horsepower ratings are ll made with stock ignition timing, carburetion, exhaust, and accessories: in short,
a closer approximation of how much power an engine produces as actually installed in the car.
The result of the new rating system was a dramatic drop in advertised power.
The Cadillac Eldorado's 500 cu. in. (8.2L) V-8, for instance, dropped from 400 gross horsepower (298 kW) in 1970 to 360 gross horsepower (269 kW) in 1971, a drop of about 10%.
The rated horsepower of the 1972 version was only 235 net horsepower (175 kW), even though the engine itself was basically unchanged.
On paper, though, output had been cut by 35%".
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
aw rats; someone has always got to bust my bubble
, although the 69 302 ?? ---------- na I wont dive into that old folk story LOL.
, although the 69 302 ?? ---------- na I wont dive into that old folk story LOL.And your 350Hp /327 would have how much Hp under modern SAE ratings vs a 270+Hp LT1?
"domestic manufacturers adopted the SAE net rating methodology,
"Net" horsepower ratings are ll made with stock ignition timing, carburetion, exhaust, and accessories: in short,
a closer approximation of how much power an engine produces as actually installed in the car.
The result of the new rating system was a dramatic drop in advertised power.
The Cadillac Eldorado's 500 cu. in. (8.2L) V-8, for instance, dropped from 400 gross horsepower (298 kW) in 1970 to 360 gross horsepower (269 kW) in 1971, a drop of about 10%.
The rated horsepower of the 1972 version was only 235 net horsepower (175 kW), even though the engine itself was basically unchanged.
On paper, though, output had been cut by 35%".
"domestic manufacturers adopted the SAE net rating methodology,
"Net" horsepower ratings are ll made with stock ignition timing, carburetion, exhaust, and accessories: in short,
a closer approximation of how much power an engine produces as actually installed in the car.
The result of the new rating system was a dramatic drop in advertised power.
The Cadillac Eldorado's 500 cu. in. (8.2L) V-8, for instance, dropped from 400 gross horsepower (298 kW) in 1970 to 360 gross horsepower (269 kW) in 1971, a drop of about 10%.
The rated horsepower of the 1972 version was only 235 net horsepower (175 kW), even though the engine itself was basically unchanged.
On paper, though, output had been cut by 35%".
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Yes ------ But ----- Butt ------- 
, I really hate to tear down a 7K (millage) motor as well, you are right. 
I don't like you right now
, I really hate to tear down a 7K (millage) motor as well, you are right. I don't like you right now 
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 916
Likes: 9
From: Wichita Falls, TX
Car: 91 Firebird,00 c2500,75 Vette
Engine: 3.1 but 350 soon, 350, 350
Transmission: T56 soon
Axle/Gears: stock 3.42 Posi to come
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Drop the compression and give it a more suitable cam and what do you have now?
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,736
Likes: 14
From: Not in Kansas anymore
Car: 82 Z28
Engine: 383 SP EFI/ 4150 TB
Transmission: T400
Axle/Gears: QP 9" 3.73
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
well nuff of that nonsense, LOL. i will be tearing the LT1 down for a inspect and reseal before dropping her in the car. I do want to change the cam, I do not want to loose the vacuum accessories, but more FOOT candy would be nice 
ideas??? I will be building the trans as well. I am picking up a 4L65E out of a 2000 that was rear ended; busted up the case but still moves???? I will use a 98 4L60E case as a starting point, Blue plates, koleen steels....... stall converter. this (according to the boss wife) "will not be a daily driver!!!!!" which I tend to agree with. so any suggestions?
ideas??? I will be building the trans as well. I am picking up a 4L65E out of a 2000 that was rear ended; busted up the case but still moves???? I will use a 98 4L60E case as a starting point, Blue plates, koleen steels....... stall converter. this (according to the boss wife) "will not be a daily driver!!!!!" which I tend to agree with. so any suggestions? Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
well nuff of that nonsense, LOL. i will be tearing the LT1 down for a inspect and reseal before dropping her in the car. I do want to change the cam, I do not want to loose the vacuum accessories, but more FOOT candy would be nice ideas??? I will be building the trans as well. I am picking up a 4L65E out of a 2000 that was rear ended; busted up the case but still moves???? I will use a 98 4L60E case as a starting point, Blue plates, koleen steels....... stall converter. this (according to the boss wife) "will not be a daily driver!!!!!" which I tend to agree with. so any suggestions?
ideas??? I will be building the trans as well. I am picking up a 4L65E out of a 2000 that was rear ended; busted up the case but still moves???? I will use a 98 4L60E case as a starting point, Blue plates, koleen steels....... stall converter. this (according to the boss wife) "will not be a daily driver!!!!!" which I tend to agree with. so any suggestions?GM made several changes to the 4L60's during 94-97 that would prevent them from being a direct drop in.
Cam choice? Up to you. There are many off the shelf cams, but I would call either Lloyd Elliot, or Advanced Induction and talk to them about what you want to do, and what you are willing to live with. They aren't that much different than the off the shelf cams, but in many cases will make more power in the same powerband.
I have Lloyd Elliot's 226/232 cam, but I am thinking about stepping up since I haven't installed it.
Last edited by Thirdgen89GTA; Aug 20, 2012 at 07:35 PM.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
I was previously made aware of the 4L65E incompatibility, it is actually the bell housing depth, the guts are the next gen of 4L60 parts. that is why I was thinking of using the '98 case.
the LT1 is a '95 hatch-ling,
your cam - 276 / 284 duration? at 50 deg? what is the lobe center? I need to brush up on cams for these LT's as far as stock variety.
the LT1 is a '95 hatch-ling,
your cam - 276 / 284 duration? at 50 deg? what is the lobe center? I need to brush up on cams for these LT's as far as stock variety.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (33)
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,945
Likes: 1
From: Boosted Land
Car: 92 Z28
Engine: Boosted LSX
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
should be a nice little vert when done.
Deff. get ahold of LE or AI for a cam. Heck some heads if your going that far.
Deff. get ahold of LE or AI for a cam. Heck some heads if your going that far.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
It's more than that. There are electronic differences that require changes to the transmission to make them compatible with some pcms.
Either rebuild a trans that matches the year PCM, or stick with the 700r4.
As for my cam?
It's 226/232 @ .050" lift, .578"/.574" on a 110* lsa. Not sure what the gross duration numbers are. There is some good chop and it definitely wants a bigger stall. I have a M28 T56 which has a very short first gear so I can get away without a gear but it would like it. I also have some seriously ported heads that could handle a larger cam
There are clips of it on YouTube if you want to hear what they sound like.
Either rebuild a trans that matches the year PCM, or stick with the 700r4.
As for my cam?
It's 226/232 @ .050" lift, .578"/.574" on a 110* lsa. Not sure what the gross duration numbers are. There is some good chop and it definitely wants a bigger stall. I have a M28 T56 which has a very short first gear so I can get away without a gear but it would like it. I also have some seriously ported heads that could handle a larger cam
There are clips of it on YouTube if you want to hear what they sound like.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
I did talk to LE once, and got a good case of sticker shock
. lol but who knows with this one, I am gonna take my time and maybe I will find the money to throw at it as I go Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
His LE1 package will put down a little under 390rwhp when tuned right and its VERY feasible. Thats the entire top end, cam, ported heads, springs....etc. You need only buy rockers and pushrods of the proper length along with the other usuals like headbolts, gaskets and fluids.
If Lloyd is too expensive don't bother talking to Advanced Induction. They do epic work, but are way more expensive.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
If Lloyd gives you sticker shock you should start taking some blood pressure drugs cause Lloyd has some of the best bang for the buck performance out there when it comes to LT1s.
His LE1 package will put down a little under 390rwhp when tuned right and its VERY feasible. Thats the entire top end, cam, ported heads, springs....etc. You need only buy rockers and pushrods of the proper length along with the other usuals like headbolts, gaskets and fluids.
If Lloyd is too expensive don't bother talking to Advanced Induction. They do epic work, but are way more expensive.
His LE1 package will put down a little under 390rwhp when tuned right and its VERY feasible. Thats the entire top end, cam, ported heads, springs....etc. You need only buy rockers and pushrods of the proper length along with the other usuals like headbolts, gaskets and fluids.
If Lloyd is too expensive don't bother talking to Advanced Induction. They do epic work, but are way more expensive.
I hear ya man, I just have NEVER had the where with all to do this before, and I am not used to the cost associated with it. I am just now getting to the point where I can think about doing it like the BIG boys do
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 303
Likes: 3
From: Planet Oahu Hawaii
Car: 92 RS
Engine: 94 LT1 383
Transmission: T56-6 Speed
Axle/Gears: posi, 3.26:1,
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
I Know that de-stroking does not mean a loss of HP & TQ, the smaller OE engines were built for economy and meting emissions standards.
sorry I do not rember which Rag, I seen it in, there was an write up on de-stroking, it basically stated that they seen no real max HP or TQ change and that the change was in the power curves.
we all know or should know that engine HP & TQ is a result of how well it breaths! if you disagree I will take your 2.03/1.95 heads and you can put on a set of 1.88/1.59 and we will see how much of a lazily dog your ride is now.
we have a guy that de-stroked his 350 it will turn to 7k, and it is a beast! it actually Builds RPM's very fast!
if you want to do it, I would go fore it! it is out of the "norm" so most will not want you to do it!
sorry I do not rember which Rag, I seen it in, there was an write up on de-stroking, it basically stated that they seen no real max HP or TQ change and that the change was in the power curves.
we all know or should know that engine HP & TQ is a result of how well it breaths! if you disagree I will take your 2.03/1.95 heads and you can put on a set of 1.88/1.59 and we will see how much of a lazily dog your ride is now.
we have a guy that de-stroked his 350 it will turn to 7k, and it is a beast! it actually Builds RPM's very fast!
if you want to do it, I would go fore it! it is out of the "norm" so most will not want you to do it!
Supreme Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 5
From: Howard Lake, MN
Car: 86 Camaro
Engine: 355- hopefully a 5.3 this summer
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 3.42
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
you could build a 302 out of the LT1 with factory parts- the crank and rods out of a 4.3 L99 (baby LT1) out of a 94-96 Caprice with some 350 pistons will get you a modern 302.. throw the GM HOT cam in it and reflash the ecm with the LT1edit program, put some 4.56 gears in the rear end, and i bet it would be a beast..
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,736
Likes: 14
From: Not in Kansas anymore
Car: 82 Z28
Engine: 383 SP EFI/ 4150 TB
Transmission: T400
Axle/Gears: QP 9" 3.73
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
now how about a new twist?? my little pea brain really hurts some times how about lowering the compression some and putting an M112 or M122 supercharger on it??? thoughts???
how about lowering the compression some and putting an M112 or M122 supercharger on it??? thoughts??? Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Saturn5 did two Eaton M90's I think on a TPI swapped G-body.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
I think the highest RWHP stock headed LT1 is somewhere near 370 or 380rwhp, but thats a solid roller setup I'm sure, and I'm positive the heads have been refreshed with some valvejob work.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
You should call Lloyd anyways and ask him for a cam recomendation for a stock headed bolt-on car. You can make some impressive numbers with a cam on an LT1. 310-350rwhp is attainable depending on Auto/Manual and how wild you get with the cam.
I think the highest RWHP stock headed LT1 is somewhere near 370 or 380rwhp, but thats a solid roller setup I'm sure, and I'm positive the heads have been refreshed with some valvejob work.
I think the highest RWHP stock headed LT1 is somewhere near 370 or 380rwhp, but thats a solid roller setup I'm sure, and I'm positive the heads have been refreshed with some valvejob work.
push 400 rwhp would be way more than right foot could handle!!
that would be way cool, thanks for the heads up Supreme Member
iTrader: (33)
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,945
Likes: 1
From: Boosted Land
Car: 92 Z28
Engine: Boosted LSX
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
I need to call and tell them how jealous I am of that intake and how much I hate them because that intake isn't on my car.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
BAD AZZ to the bone, love it, love it, love it, but ..........
....I just got off of the phone with Lloyd Elliot, and have somewhat decided on a plan of action. I am thinking maybe 12 to 14 to 1 on the compression, 1LE heads, and Lloyds 218/224 .570/.565 111 LSA. - 1500-6000 RPM cam. run E85 all the time, that is the reason for the high compression.
more than likely, a mild stall this should give me a TON of foot candy
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
BAD AZZ to the bone, love it, love it, love it, but ..........
....I just got off of the phone with Lloyd Elliot, and have somewhat decided on a plan of action. I am thinking maybe 12 to 14 to 1 on the compression, 1LE heads, and Lloyds 218/224 .570/.565 111 LSA. - 1500-6000 RPM cam. run E85 all the time, that is the reason for the high compression.
more than likely, a mild stall this should give me a TON of foot candy
....I just got off of the phone with Lloyd Elliot, and have somewhat decided on a plan of action. I am thinking maybe 12 to 14 to 1 on the compression, 1LE heads, and Lloyds 218/224 .570/.565 111 LSA. - 1500-6000 RPM cam. run E85 all the time, that is the reason for the high compression.
more than likely, a mild stall this should give me a TON of foot candy
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
My G6 only eeks out 36mpg on the highway with Cruise Control on about 65mpg.
You'd have to have a much larger cam to have an LT1 that needs to rev to 8k to make power.
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: EU
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: EU
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
It should still be possible to net 25-28mpg or so on the 223* cam with the right tune. Though 6spds net higher MPG numbers usually at highway cruise. My LT1 knocked down 32mpg on a 160mile trip to Road America with Chicago gas. On the way BACK from RA on the better Wisconsin gas that number eek'd to 34mpg. That was some SUPER impressive fuel economy right there.
My G6 only eeks out 36mpg on the highway with Cruise Control on about 65mpg.
You'd have to have a much larger cam to have an LT1 that needs to rev to 8k to make power.
My G6 only eeks out 36mpg on the highway with Cruise Control on about 65mpg.
You'd have to have a much larger cam to have an LT1 that needs to rev to 8k to make power.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
I have been thinking about this issue since you posted it, I do love the power and torque of the comp 270H. I guess I have always pushed the envelope a little. so now that you have posed the question and I have revealed my secrete, what would you suggest that I use? I am honestly thinking about going straight alcohol or E85 we have an anhydrous alcohol plant with in 25 miles of my house, I MAY be able to purchase 200 proof to burn???
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
From: Lake Jackson Tx
Car: 91z,97ws6,98fb,87&90jeep,05 yz250
Engine: 5.0tpi,5.7LT4,5.7LS1,4.2I6,5.7TPI,1
Transmission: t5,4l60e,
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
there was an lt1 STYLE motor built but it was a 4.8l i think. If the the crank was used out of it there would be no extra work as reusing the 5.7l rods and some off the shelf pistons for a sbc 302 would net you a lt 302. the lt1 crank isnt the exact same a a late sbc.
Last edited by socal; Aug 22, 2012 at 05:22 PM.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
3.736 in bore blocks
[edit]L99 (4.3L)
A 260 in3 (4.3 L) was based on a 305 in3 with updated block architecture to be Generation II and a reduced 3 inches (76 mm) stroke. It was designated the L99, and was introduced in 1994 for the Chevrolet Caprice. It was externally identical to the LT1, but the bore was decreased to 3.736 inches (94.9 mm) and the stroke to 3 inches (76 mm) giving it a displacement of 263 in3. The pistons used in the L99 were the same as the ones used in the Vortec 5000, but 5.94 inches (151 mm) connecting rods were used to compensate for the shorter stroke. This was the base engine used on all 1994-1996 Chevrolet Caprice Sedans, including the Police Package vehicles.
Like the LT1, it features sequential fuel injection, reverse-flow cooling, and an optical ignition pickup. Output is 200 hp (150 kW) and 245 lb·ft (332 N·m). Due to its smaller displacement, it provides better fuel economy than the 5.7 L LT1, but at reduced horsepower & torque levels.
[edit]L99 (4.3L)
A 260 in3 (4.3 L) was based on a 305 in3 with updated block architecture to be Generation II and a reduced 3 inches (76 mm) stroke. It was designated the L99, and was introduced in 1994 for the Chevrolet Caprice. It was externally identical to the LT1, but the bore was decreased to 3.736 inches (94.9 mm) and the stroke to 3 inches (76 mm) giving it a displacement of 263 in3. The pistons used in the L99 were the same as the ones used in the Vortec 5000, but 5.94 inches (151 mm) connecting rods were used to compensate for the shorter stroke. This was the base engine used on all 1994-1996 Chevrolet Caprice Sedans, including the Police Package vehicles.
Like the LT1, it features sequential fuel injection, reverse-flow cooling, and an optical ignition pickup. Output is 200 hp (150 kW) and 245 lb·ft (332 N·m). Due to its smaller displacement, it provides better fuel economy than the 5.7 L LT1, but at reduced horsepower & torque levels.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 43,187
Likes: 42
From: Littleton, CO USA
Car: 82 Berlinetta/57 Bel Air
Engine: L92/LQ4 (both w/4" stroke)
Transmission: 4L80E/4L80E
Axle/Gears: 12B-3.73/9"-3.89
Actually, 1967-1969.
I'm always amused by statements like that. Given the same load (i.e., same vehicle weight, same gears, etc.), the 350 built the same way as the destroked engine would actually build RPMs quicker. And a 383, all other things being equal, even quicker still.
If you decide to destroke the LT1, then do it for the right reason (which, actually, I can't think of such a reason).
If you decide to destroke the LT1, then do it for the right reason (which, actually, I can't think of such a reason).
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Actually, 1967-1969.
I'm always amused by statements like that. Given the same load (i.e., same vehicle weight, same gears, etc.), the 350 built the same way as the destroked engine would actually build RPMs quicker. And a 383, all other things being equal, even quicker still.
If you decide to destroke the LT1, then do it for the right reason (which, actually, I can't think of such a reason).
I'm always amused by statements like that. Given the same load (i.e., same vehicle weight, same gears, etc.), the 350 built the same way as the destroked engine would actually build RPMs quicker. And a 383, all other things being equal, even quicker still.
If you decide to destroke the LT1, then do it for the right reason (which, actually, I can't think of such a reason).
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 916
Likes: 9
From: Wichita Falls, TX
Car: 91 Firebird,00 c2500,75 Vette
Engine: 3.1 but 350 soon, 350, 350
Transmission: T56 soon
Axle/Gears: stock 3.42 Posi to come
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Thank You Five 7 Kid. I thought it was 67-69 but with every thread about the 302 saying 69 only I was beginning to doubt myself. I do know that at one time the only compression ratio readily available was 13:1. Was that the compression of the original DZ302?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
From: Near Wichita Ks
Car: 1997 K1500 SS/SB
Engine: LT1 with TPI on top
Transmission: 4L60E/np241,
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: LT1 CRAZZY thoughts???
Actually, 1967-1969.
I'm always amused by statements like that. Given the same load (i.e., same vehicle weight, same gears, etc.), the 350 built the same way as the destroked engine would actually build RPMs quicker. And a 383, all other things being equal, even quicker still.
If you decide to destroke the LT1, then do it for the right reason (which, actually, I can't think of such a reason).
I'm always amused by statements like that. Given the same load (i.e., same vehicle weight, same gears, etc.), the 350 built the same way as the destroked engine would actually build RPMs quicker. And a 383, all other things being equal, even quicker still.
If you decide to destroke the LT1, then do it for the right reason (which, actually, I can't think of such a reason).
well my friend I cut my teeth on the ol 327, and just like my first girl friend, I do have fond memories. but that doesn't mean that I want either one back
this thread was started to get everybody to throwing out their crazzy ideas, no holes barred.
With that said, I put on my physics hat and dissected this subject of the 327 Vs the 350. essentially here is the break down :
: crankshaft - negligible difference in weight, rotating mass, or reciprocating mass
: rods - no difference in weight or reciprocating mass. although not entirely true, as the longer stroke will have a higher reciprocating mass due to more travel time and distance
: pistons - virtually Identical
: valve-train - virtually Identical
: block - virtually Identical
: heads - depends on the heads
final conclusion - built identical - the 350 should have at least 1% to 2% advantage in output, but also have an equal disadvantage on economy
therefore it is for each persons to call their own flavor. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
New2Chevy
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
2
Sep 28, 2015 12:35 AM
