Yes, I've seen that done but I was under the impression it was to make it a "regular" 4-bolt. Did not know they did it in an angle. It does make sense, set of bolts in an angle would hold stronger.

 

When I bought my LT4 in 2006, C5's were not $9K, and being a college student, I couldn't afford a C5. Believe me when I tell you if I could have afforded a C5 I would have bought one without any doubt. A friend of mine wrecked his '99 FRC right around the time I was looking and I almost bought it (driveable but body damage) but decided it wasn't worth starting with a wreck.

By the time my engine exploded, I was way too deep into my C4 to sell it and get a C5, but, again, if I had the cash, I would have done it. I very seriously considered the LSx swap, but what pushed me toward building the 383 LT4 I have now was my heads, intake, trans, flywheel, PCM (OBDI swapped), among other things, were still good and made the LSx a more expensive option. I considered doing an iron block 6.0L, since with the L92 square port heads they make great power, but if I do an LSx swap I want the weight savings as well. I was able to reach (and exceed) my power goals using OE casting LT4 heads. If they hadn't been enough, it would have been cheaper to just ditch the LTx and go LSx.

Since I did a fair amount of the assembly myself, the rebuild wasn't insanely expensive, and to make equal power the swap would have cost more. Sometimes I think I should have gone and done the LSx swap, but there is always next time.

 

I should have put some kind of smilie, I guess. I was just kidding.

 

In 96' I traded my almost (8,000miles)new LT-1 auto in for the LT-4 I currently own. At 1st I was somewhat disappointed in the performance difference in the LT-4 over the LT-1. The auto boosting the perceived torque of the LT-1. After driving the LT-4 several months and getting used to letting the engine hit red-line the LT-4 has it all over the LT-1.
I finally put in 4:10 gears to take advantage of the LT-4's revving ability.

 

LTx vs LSx is all about personal preference and what you want to do with it. Stock for stock, the LSx is the more powerful engine. Yes, I know, I beat several 1997-2000 vettes with my 92 with just exhaust and a K&N, but that doesn't mean my LT1 is better than their LS1. There are more variables than just the engine. Two HUGE variables are tires & drivers. In my book, wheelspin in a race is pretty much an automatic forfeit. This is the most common way I've seen C4s beat C5s or even C6s, if the C4 hooks up and the newer car slips. But that says nothing about the engines in the cars except that one had more power than the tires or driver could handle. So let's compare apples to apples & dollars to dollars.

Assume a guy's got 15K to spend. He could get a decent early LS1 for 15k, but likely wouldn't have enough left to do any real mods. With decent tires, he'll probably end up running a mid 13 second 1/4.

Or he could get a decent LT1 car for 10k and have 5k left to do a heads/cam swap with full exhaust, torque converter (for autos), axle ratio change and decent tires. He'll end up running about a 12.0, give or take.

Now take that LS1 and do a similar heads/cam package with the complimenting mods, and it'll definately beat the LT1 with the same level of mods, but it will cost twice as much to do the mods.

So bottom line, you can make the LT1 quicker cheaper. You can make the LS1 even quicker but it will cost more. So how much do want to spend, how much work are you willing to do, and which car do you like better?

 

310-270 is ?? Thanks.

Enough with the ls/lt debate. If GM could not have redesigned a motor that was god knows how long.. 50 years old... and make it better it would be pretty sad.

 

You are going to extremes on both ends, comparing the worst to the best of dyno pulls. IMO bottom line there is approximately 30hp difference between the LT1 and LT4. IF the LT4 is underrated, then the LT1 is as well!!

 

So using your logic, an LT1 has about 10whp more than an LT1?

 

Using both extremes as mentioned there can be a difference of 40rwhp. At least that is what I believe and have witnessed although on different dynos and different days etc. Lets say 30 would be more realistic. 275 rwhp LT1 vs 305 rwhp for the LT4, 30 rwhp = more than the 30 net rating.

I really don't understand what you posted above Using my logic.. i was pulling #s out of 93 ragtops own post when he questioned the 40rwhp claim hence the 310 rwhp LT4 vs a 270 rwhp LT1. I was simply saying do the math and the difference can be 40 rwhp.

I don't see what everyone is getting so uptight about. It's like ls1 guys crying about the ls6 making more power. You wont hear many say its the same thing in the c5 section. I do believe the LT4 is a better purchase and I do believe it is underrated. but in the end it's just my opinion

 

Do you see anyone claiming the LT1 and LT4 are the same thing here??


And yes, I used your logic. For one side of the comparison, I took the top of the range for the thing being compared. and for the other side of the comparison, I took the bottom of the range for the thing being compared.

 

Years ago when my LT1 was still stock I beat several stock LS1 Vettes in the 1/4. Not because my car was under rated but because I had the automatic vs their poor driving with a manual or wheel spin.

310 rwhp? Oh well at least the LT1's and LS1 arent losing power over the years.

I don't think anyone is crying just trying to sort the from the truth.

 

And everyone knows that the internet is the best place to do that!!!

 

Like trying to find answers in a public toilet !!

But anyhow I guess I can say I would only be willing to pay so much for an LT4 over say a 95 six speed. We all know what the differences are but if the price difference was several thousand I would very much take the 95 and me being me who likes to tear things apart build a cast stroker with afr eliminators

I think for those not interested in building a motor that might be more costly than the car itself the LT4 will be worth it performance wise and for resale.

I just watched that video in another post, did you know the last c4 was.. ugh.. an automatic LT1 ?f

 

lol all the vette engines are pushrod 2 valves per cylinder..except ZR1..the lt4 had 330hp the lt1 has 300hp....I love having an automatic..just put the lt4 hotcam and 1.6 rockers in the lt1 and boom an auto lt4 basically,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,If you have the money port the stock lt1 heads and you will have 330hp as well... dig through and afr heads roller cam 1.6 rockers have increased on dyno rear wheel up to 100hp on an lt1. and why would anyone ever dyno an engine at the flywheel.. Then claim it made more power then the factory states..........

 

The LT1 rods are only good to about 6100 rpm. Big heads and cams on 350 short blocks make peak power above this rpm. I know many people spin LT1s much higher and good luck to them. The LT4 has better rods and will spin pretty safely to 6500-6600 rpm to take advantage of bigger heads and cam.

 

I thought the LT1 and LT4's had the same connecting rods, just a different crankshaft?

 

They use the same rods: http://www.grandsportregistry.com/lt1vslt4.htm

Same part number for both.

 

Wrong ......

 

Indeed the rods are the same. The LT4 rings were changed to help stop the 'supposed' ring flutter that was seen on a small percentile of LT1s. I forget what year I think 94 the rods were upgraded?

 

The LT4 has some things going for it. They are all six speed cars, they all have a Dana 44 and a 8K tach. I wouldn't buy a lesser condition car just for the LT4 though. Nor would I pay a premium for one. It's not too difficult to pick up the additonal performance the LT4 delivers with an LT1. The Grand Sport Registry has alot of good information about the differences between the two engines.