Just wanted to know if the LT1 or the LS1 motor has more horse stock or which is the better. What are the advantages of one over the other. Just outta curiousity. Any one?

 

In stock form the LS1 makes about 350hp and 380 to 390 torque while the LT1 makes about 300hp and 350lb ft respectively. Both are flywheel numbers. Both have thier advantages so you need to clarify by your deffinition of better. This may need to go in the engine swap forum.

 

Not to say your wrong shifty, but has there been any real evidence of 350 horses on the LS1? I have always heard they were rated below what they actually were but never seen the paperwork....just curious.

 

Yeah, the cars almost always dyno between 280 rwhp on the low end for an auto and up to 315 rwhp on the high end w/ a manual bone stock.

Brandon774, I guess the biggest advantage of an LT1 over LS1 is cost. You can probably go faster for less with it. On the other hand, the LS1 is a more efficient motor and the aftermarket is REALLY stepping things up lately for the LS1. It's tough to beat a motor that has a lot of people running 11.2-11.9 sec N/A w/ just bolt-ons.

 

The average M6 LS1 will put down 300 to the wheels and if you add on the 18% drivetrain loss for the T56 and 10 bolt you get 350*1.18=354. Besides a few minor details it is the same motor in the vette with same internals. GM has to rate them less because of the vette. Most M6 LT1's dyno 250 to 260 at the wheels which puts them at 260*1.18 = 306. Both are severly underrated by GM.

 

yes the ONLY difference between he Vette and F Ls1 is the exhaust...thats it!..

 

Well there are a few more things but nothing that changes power.

 

Your math is wrong . Its 350 * .18 = (350 - 63) 287.... Not to say it messes your formula up I think you calculated correctly but you were multiplying by 118% haha . Anyways, I was just wondering if anyone could dig up third party engine dynos (with accessories) for both engines, thats all.

 

You multipy it by 1.18 so that you don't have to add the origonal total. By doing so you add 18% to the number at the wheels. Your way is correct to and there is always going to be a varience depending on total drivetrain loss. .18*X + X = 1.18X I am working backwards to find the true number at the crank since we don't know it. Your way works just as well if we know what the real crank number is. If you don't have an engine dyno you will usualy rough guess it in this mannor.

 

Still not the correct way to do that....see like that 354 * .18 = 63.72 (lets make it 64)....

So 354 - 64 = 290.

290 * 1.18 = 342.2

Unless I misunderstood you....

 

You are missing the point. You are using 350 as a starting point. Forget that. Pretend like we don't know what that number is and we are trying to find it to see how much GM underrates their cars. My way is a rough way of determining crank numbers. You way is the most accurate if you already know the crank numbers. Ford rates the new cobras having 390 at the crank when in fact they dyno about 380 at the wheels. So we know that they are underated as well. That motor is not used in any other Ford vehicle that has a the true puplished rated output like the vette does. So we have no idea how much that motor really makes. Therefore we can do the rough estimate as most do and assume 15% to 20% gain. So we can assume that the cobra in fact makes about 450 at the crank or so. Does this make sense?

 

The right way to do the math is to divide the RWHP by the remaining percentage after the drivetrain loss.

100% - 18% = 82%

300 HP / .82 = 365.85 HP

You can confirm that by doing it backwards.

365.85 HP * .82 = 299.997 HP

Or if you REALLY want to get involved...

365.85 * .18 = 65.853

365.85 - 65.853 = 299.997 HP

Realistically, a 15% loss is what the average manual trans losses.

300 HP / .85 = 352.94 HP

That's more around where the LS1 is rated, even in the Corvette.

 

I didn't do any math, I used real dyno numbers I've seen

 

Which is what im asking for . Im no way saying your wrong, im just curious to see the actual numbers, I heard the actual numbers for the ls1 was actually 340 hp at the crank.

 

No smartass. You saw "real" rwhp numbers.

 

Ummmm, yeah, that's what I said.