aboatguy

Its a fact that the LT1 has more off idle torque than the L98.
However, now theres evidence the the LT4 beats the LT1 down low and up high.

So the LT4 seems to be the true torque monster.

Why doesn't the LT4 get the kudos it deserves for its down low grunt?



LT1 vs L98 graph.....


LT4 vs LT1

MIke

STL94LT1

No, my little 346ci LS1 is the "Real torque monster"!!

aboatguy

Nice numbers however, that puppy is not STOCK and lets keep this to stock base C4 engines.

93 ragtop

aboatguy, what year is the LS1? Just wondering.

Edit to add, according to the grand sport registry, the LT1 and LT4 produce the same torque (340) although the Lt4 peaks higher, 4500 vs 4000. Here is a link to where I am getting this. http://www.grandsportregistry.com/lt1vslt4.htm

TA

This is really starting to get old.

Tom400CFI

Why? I think it 's funny. Props to aboutguy for calling it like it IS.

Paul Workman

Here's a comparision between the LT1 and LT4.

http://www.grandsportregistry.com/lt1vslt4.htm

The LT1 has about 90% of its max torque (340 ft #) just off idle and continues to hold at least 90% to well over 5k rpm. The LT4 charts I've seen indicate slightly less torque on the low end, but peaks at higher rpm and carries the torque curve out a few hundred rpm more.

The L98 is rather "peaky", with off idle torque being lower than the LT1/4s, and peaking at 350 at about 3800 rpm, before falling off precipitously.

Much of what is "known" about performance of these engines comes to be known because of what is written or said about them on forums like this...sans any real science to back the BS up. Case in point: If you were to believe all the C4 bashing found on the (CF) borard, anyone would think a Yugo or a Pinto stationwagon would be preferrable to C4s. Fact of the matter is the BS is mostly the baseless babble of ignorant SOBs that wouldn't have a clue about automotive engineering, let alone the fact any C4 will out perform the abilities 90% of any of them have the capability to appreciate!

So... As for the L98 known as a "torque monster"... might be because what else is there? Certainly it isn't going to win the horsepower bragging rights came, right? Yes, the low end torque is respectable, and comes on right in the wheelhouse of most street driving or autocross driving, and really fun to carve up mountain roads with. But, that's all she wrote. After 4500 rpm, all she does is make a lot of noise.

Just as much as the L98 is touted as a "torque monster", so often is the LT1 referred to as a high rev motor. Well, I guess - IF you're comparing it to an L98. But, high revs? Cuttoff is at 5800. I'd say 5800 rpm is just relative. After all, cuttoff of the LT4 is around 6300, the new LT1 is at 6500 rpm, and the LT5 is 7200 rpm. So where does this "high reving" reputation come from? Places like this forum, I recon. But, the truth be known, the REAL performance comes from average torque under the rpm curve, and not peak.

Just sayin...

P.

TA

Not disputing he's calling like it is. Trust me I know the LT4 is faster than the LT1 which is faster than the L98 which is faster than an 80s 5.0 Stang (sorry, couldn't resist). The more he more he vehemently argues, the more it makes him sound as silly as Testicules.

aboatguy

Trust me I'm not vehemently argueing

Just posting the truth....... L98 is not a torque monster...... and my 80s 5.0 owned L98s back in the 80s... for much less money.

Yes I am that old, test drove a new 84 vette.....then the 85.....and bought my first non GM car instead....! Mike

dukeallen

My L98 is faster than my 91 5.0
It's just so hard to race against myself

aboatguy

I modded the mustang with all the money I didn't spend on the Chevy... Seems like there was a plethora of inexpensive intake/cam/head choices for the 5.0 back in the day.


Mike

kimmer