Quote:

Originally Posted by 81Delorean

is there any pros/cons between the motors? Something I don't know about that would scare me into one direction or another? Huge differences in parts prices? Just curious.

I am going to just answer this one part of your question.
As already stated above, the LT1-4 are quicker then the L98 everything all in stock form.
IMO there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
With the LT1-4 the advantages are, higher compression, better flowing heads, great intake, great exhaust, just to name a few.....
With nothing but a cam change (LT4 Hotcam.) and headers, the LT4 has been documented making 429hp.
With the LT1 it will not be quite as much, and you will need springs to go with the cam.
The disadvantages to the LT1-4 is no aftermarket block available, so you are pretty much limited to 383-396 or so cubic inches. You also have the opti-spark distributor. Now IMO the bad rap is over rated. In 20 years, I have yet to have a problem with it, and if so, replacing it is not as big of a deal as a lot of people makes it out to be.

The advantages to the L98 are, no opti-spark distributor, more selection of aftermarket heads, aftermarket blocks, even factory 400 blocks can be used, just to name a few.
The disadvantages are, your starting with 50-100 hp less. This is due to heads that dont flow as well, lower compression, bad exhaust, and a so so intake.
Just to get a good intake, such as a mini ram and a good aftermarket exhaust, your looking at $2000.00 or so.
Throw in a decent cam, ported factory heads, or better, aftermarket heads, headers, and it will put you close to the LT4 with a cam and headers.

In short, IMO, If you are satisfied with 300-550 hp the LT series will be cheaper to build.
If you want to go all out, start with a aftermarket block 427-460+ CID) and build from there.

 

In a separate post, I for one appreciate members such as Tom for their honesty and real, common sense experience. Being willing to share that knowledge so that the masses learn.
For a lot of us who have been on here for a long time, we have seen many myths that end up with everyone jumping on the bandwagon, repeating them, with no actual experience, and soon, with enough saying it..... it becomes a fact, and in actuality it is no fact at all.
Just to name a few.
1. 195 t-stat is better and makes more power then a 160. In fact, a 160 will ruin your motor, it will never go into closed loop.
2. The C4 rearend is no good for drag racing
3. The L98 is a "torque monster" what it gives up in HP it makes up for in torque.

These are just a few of the myths, and I thank members such as Tom, for setting the record straight.

 

I have had two L98 4+3, one L98 auto, three LT1 6 speeds, and one LT4 6 speed, so I have some reference to base my opinions on.

Between the motors, the L98 does not perform as well as the LT1/LT4 cars when stock. If you are planning or able to do some mods, either engine can be modded to make more than the stock LT4. Both are quite reliable, so I see little difference there.

The transmission is a major factor. I like the ZF better than the 4+3 because it is more reliable, better to shift, and ratios that I like. I had an auto, but I wanted a manual, so I always regretted buying the auto and wound up selling it to get a different car with a manual. If you want a manual, don't settle for an auto because you will regret it every time you drive the car (at least I did).

For me, it comes down to choosing the transmission/body/interior/dash that I want then worry about which engine and mod it if I want more power. For me, I like the late body/interior best and that is why I currently have a '95 LT1 ZF and a '96 LT4 ZF

Good luck with your choice.

 

Tom,

I suppose "identical" wasn't the right language to use. I guess i didn't want to **** on somebody's choice in cars. The two cars are far from identical, but your right there's a substantial difference in moving my Lt4 car from a to b than my L98 car.

When we talk about the C4 car there's preference, design, interior, power, its all over the place. I should have said the Lt4 is quicker. which it is, which i stated in every reply i gave. I think the 0-50 or 60 comment was more about not wanting to brag about the difference and hurt someone's feelings.

As for technical advise, we all benefit from your knowledge, and attention to detail, thankyou for that.

Im just speaking off the cuff, I never liked the LT5 guys pissing on my L98 years ago, and i didnt want to make someone feel the same.

Chris

 

Let me put it this way - the LT4 in the 1996 makes 300 ft lb of torque from about 1,900 RPM to around 5,500 RPM.
The ZF 6 Speed in the 1996 is a far better gearbox than the Nash 4+3
The 1996 has the 13" brakes that do a GOOD job of hauling the car down.

Really - the only downside to the 1996 is the optispark distributor - which was NOT one of GM's better ideas.

IMHO - get the 1996 and don't look back.

 

I'm still thinking the '89 with 6-speed. I like the older style body and interior. I'd love to have a '96 for the HP if only I could find one with a 2-speed powerglide.

 

haha, by the way , i love the Delorean, My two sons would go ape **** over that car, and have talked about buying one for years, we all know from 0-88 mph, nobody kicks *** as much as the Delorean!
haha

Chris

 

The optispark issue... well documented, and beaten like no dead horse has ever been beaten!! The later 95-96 vented optispark wasn't really that bad. Horrible mounting placement, making servicing very difficult , never mind what a leaky water pump will drip down directly above it. I'd bet that most 95-96 opti problems were caused by someone unknowingly replacing it with a junk, Chinese aftermarket opti ( OEM opti discontinued by GM years ago doesn't help either )
My 25 year old, 75,000 mi 96 LT4 was running pretty good with all original plugs, wires and opti !! I replaced all the above and SERVICED my OEM opti, cleaned it up, replaced the harness, installed an MSD cap and rotor and seals... in , addition to all the other maintenance / replacements I preformed myself... Car is and absolute BEAST! Runs amazing!! I do feel that all C4 corvettes are maligned overall because of the "optispark" issue, and it's really a shame that 90% of the "mechanics" have close to ZERO understanding of the issue. BTW.... optispark is FAR from a deal breaker!!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 81Delorean

I'm still thinking the '89 with 6-speed. I like the older style body and interior. I'd love to have a '96 for the HP if only I could find one with a 2-speed powerglide.

If your preference is early body style and interior , then by all means, that is what you should get, then make it your own, however you choose to do that.....
Please dont take my answer above to say you should go with the newer C4. I simply was answering what I consider to be the pros and cons of the 2 engines.....

BTW I know your comment about the powerglide was tongue in cheek, but FWIW probably the quickest and fastest (drag racing) C4's on this site run powerglides. Below is a picture of one that belongs to a friend. Not sure if he would want me to post exact numbers, but I can tell you this. He built it for 1/8 mile tracks. Did run it once through the qtr. and its well into the 8's at way over 160 mph.

 

Very slight correction here: the cross sectional area of the tubes does affect the resonant frequency. The problem is that runner tubes and the base passages can't be increased in area enough to shift the resonant way up where it needs to be to maximize power - the casting won't physically allow it, the space for the bends in the tubes won't allow it, and the flow velocity at low RPMs gets lazy and non-laminar if we make them too big. In addition, the intake ports are part of the resonant "column" and they can't be hogged out. So there's just no way to make these super-long intake tracts big enough in cross section. The logistics just don't work. In the end, what you said is true: the length is the problem.

It's also worth noting that people get hung up on flow bench numbers when looking at hogged-out TPI intakes. But flow benches use constant flow (like DC current) that doesn't create resonance. Therefore, the resonance limitations of those intakes doesn't show up on the flow bench.

 

Yep.

 

That’s a nice car.

 

Pics of Red vette?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZHammer

That’s a nice car.

It is that..... Somewhere, I have a picture of it standing on the back bumper, all 4 wheels off the ground... If I can find it, I will post.