Horsepower Comparisons
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,175
Likes: 2,511
From: ...tearing up the highways, one state at a time™®©
Originally Posted by Casethecorvetteman
The place i am sure i have seen it stated FACTORY FITTED ENGINES. Not RPO. Which means it doenst count, cause the car never left the factory in BG with the RPO-B2K engine(which i know youll know since youve got a few of them!! 
). It was near the start of the 1994 owner's video tape.
). It was near the start of the 1994 owner's video tape.Get over it
Team Owner
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,175
Likes: 2,511
From: ...tearing up the highways, one state at a time™®©
Originally Posted by Casethecorvetteman
I am, watch the video. No need to be so narky. RPO-B2K was not a factory installed base engine and hence, is exempt.
Look, I do not know who produced or put together your video however, since it has an RPO code, you point is well, pointless...
NCRS, , Bloomington Gold, Black Book and all other Corvette authorities recognize it as a Production Corvette.
It is the only Corvette to ever be issued an RPO for an engine made this way - and will probably never be done again.
End of discussion.
Last edited by *89x2*; Dec 5, 2005 at 07:01 PM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,413
Likes: 9
From: The Old Dominion
FWIW, think of changing dyno standards as continually improving their accuracy. The SAE recently came out with an even newer net standard that has resulted in the decrease in ratings of some cars (the Camry "lost" 20hp for example under the new ratings standard) and the increase in others (the STS-V was rated at 469hp under the new standard, while GM was expecting about 440hp). I believe the newest SAE standard even requires an independent third-party to be present to witness the test conditions.
The big change from gross to net was to have ratings that more accurately reflected the power the engines made. Otherwise it was pretty hard to compare numbers between cars, as the number depended greatly on what number the manufacturer wanted the car to have. I believe under the gross ratings, cars could run without exhaust systems, without accessories, etc.
As to the LT1, I have heard the same thing, the name was used because it had specific power greater than the original LT1. I don't think it matched the rpm range, though. Wasn't the original LT1 a bit of a revver? Whatever the real reason or rational, it was this redesigned SBC that revived the name, not the ZR-1 or B2K. And the B2K motor already had a name, one introduced in 1985. The L98.
The big change from gross to net was to have ratings that more accurately reflected the power the engines made. Otherwise it was pretty hard to compare numbers between cars, as the number depended greatly on what number the manufacturer wanted the car to have. I believe under the gross ratings, cars could run without exhaust systems, without accessories, etc.
As to the LT1, I have heard the same thing, the name was used because it had specific power greater than the original LT1. I don't think it matched the rpm range, though. Wasn't the original LT1 a bit of a revver? Whatever the real reason or rational, it was this redesigned SBC that revived the name, not the ZR-1 or B2K. And the B2K motor already had a name, one introduced in 1985. The L98.
Last edited by Aurora40; Dec 5, 2005 at 07:25 PM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,362
Likes: 2,281
From: Central Maryland
Originally Posted by Aurora40
The big change from gross to net was to have ratings that more accurately reflected the power the engines made. Otherwise it was pretty hard to compare numbers between cars, as the number depended greatly on what number the manufacturer wanted the car to have. I believe under the gross ratings, cars could run without exhaust systems, without accessories, etc.
Originally Posted by Aurora40
As to the LT1, I have heard the same thing, the name was used because it had specific power greater than the original LT1. I don't think it matched the rpm range, though. Wasn't the original LT1 a bit of a revver?
Be well,
SJW
Last edited by SJW; Dec 5, 2005 at 07:41 PM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 5,214
Likes: 65
From: Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Originally Posted by *89x2*
Look, I do not know who produced or put together your video however, since it has an RPO code, you point is well, pointless...
NCRS, , Bloomington Gold, Black Book and all other Corvette authorities recognize it as a Production Corvette.
It is the only Corvette to ever be issued an RPO for an engine made this way - and will probably never be done again.
End of discussion.
NCRS, , Bloomington Gold, Black Book and all other Corvette authorities recognize it as a Production Corvette.
It is the only Corvette to ever be issued an RPO for an engine made this way - and will probably never be done again.
End of discussion.
Originally Posted by Aurora40
As to the LT1, I have heard the same thing, the name was used because it had specific power greater than the original LT1. I don't think it matched the rpm range, though. Wasn't the original LT1 a bit of a revver? Whatever the real reason or rational, it was this redesigned SBC that revived the name, not the ZR-1 or B2K. And the B2K motor already had a name, one introduced in 1985. The L98.
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 5,214
Likes: 65
From: Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Originally Posted by *89x2*
Look, I do not know who produced or put together your video however, since it has an RPO code, you point is well, pointless...
Originally Posted by 90Indy
The LT1 from 1970 is a 350 ci 370hp/380tq.
Originally Posted by Casethecorvetteman
The 92-96 LT1 is called LT1 cause it is the first engine to go into a Corvette that is more powerful than the old C3 LT-1 or so i am lead to believe....
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,413
Likes: 9
From: The Old Dominion
Originally Posted by SJW
All of this is correct, except that it was an engine, not a "car" that was run on the dyno (remember, these are engine dyno numbers, consequently the engine was not in a car, but rather was run on a stand). The Gross HP engine dyno runs were typically run with no air cleaner, open exhaust, no emissions equipment, no accessories. As well, the test engines often did not have the same tuning (A/F ratios, advance curves, etc) as the production engines, if what I've read is true...
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 2
From: seattle WA
Couple things-the 50th anniversary edition "CORVETTE An American Classic" by Dan Lyons and John F. Kazt can answer a miriad of your questions.And every vette from 1953 through 2003 was rated at Bhp at a certain RPM. Also, lets not forget-the detune factor. MFGs were pressured to get better fuel economy and less emissions-some of the early sbc had 10.5:1 and as high as 12.5:1 compression ratios. Our C4
l98 are mostly 9 to 9.5:1 with acception of 1991 which was 10.0:1
PLEASE notice I'm only refering to l98s-not the the lts.And yes-GM actually down rated some engine HP for insurance purposes.
l98 are mostly 9 to 9.5:1 with acception of 1991 which was 10.0:1
PLEASE notice I'm only refering to l98s-not the the lts.And yes-GM actually down rated some engine HP for insurance purposes.