Tom400CFI

Stout numbers^ That looks like a FUN package, to me.

856SPEED

It was cool and fun....but in 2001 when I bought it, the LT1 cars were still selling at solid numbers , well above L98 cars as the 96 models were only 5 years old! The LT1 was just a better platform to start making power with in my estimation. I think the c4 evolved over time for the better..just my opinion. I think your 92 was not only a better performer but a better car in general than my 85.

MatthewMiller

That L98 posted pretty strong numbers, I'd say. But you can definitely see the resonance hump at 3k in the torque curve. Give me the LT flat "curve" any day.

richsanto

Question on the LT1 torque curve, where it starts to drop off past 4500 rpms or so....is this due to one major restriction (for example, heads starting to run out of flow, or getting above the cam operating range), or is it several items all starting to take effect? It always intrigued me how darn flat the LT1 torque curve is, and then all of a sudden, it starts to drop off, where if you could just stretch it out another 500 rpm, you'd put another 30 hp or so on the motor, without having to spin it up past 6000.

Tom400CFI

I don't think there is a single big restriction. I feel that the cam and heads both "fade" at about the same time. More cam (like a hot cam) and you'd get a good bump in top end. Or GREAT heads...you'd get a good bump in top end (probably elsewhere, too).


Yep. Then you'd have and LT4, which is a very mild cam & heads LT1.

Tom400CFI

I totally agree. The LT1 is way better. Much more "driveable" motor, IMO.


One of my greatest interests in this was the comparison of the LT1 and the TORK MONSTER L98's low end torque. As you can see in the graph, after the initial "hit, where the operator slammed on the gas, the L98 -even with exhaust and intake mods, still doesn't match the LT1's low end tq.

I'm sure I'll reference this thread in the future when people whip out the "L98 low end tork monster" claims.

FelixP

Did you do anything else to it apart from fit the MR for those numbers?

93 ragtop

Tom, I have owned a 86 and 2-93's. This is just my opinion.
They both came with 2.59 and 3.07 gears.....
The L98 was much better suited for these gears, especially the 3.07..... IMO with the low rpm torque, and the low redline, that was a pretty good gear for the L98
My 93 came with a 2.59 and I swapped it for a 3.54. Made a world of difference in the car. With nothing done other then the 3.54 gears, it would run a qtr in. 13.17 sec. and trap at 105.xx all on factory wheels, mich. pilot tires. etc. To add to this, it was in July-August heat when I took it to the track.
The L98 would not come close to that under the same track conditions.....
My point is, with proper gears, the LT1 makes alot more power then the L98. Its just with stock gears, in a qtr. mile its harder to see.

856SPEED

Just a couple things....rebuilt, balanced and blueprinted .030 overbore...AFR heads, ZZ9 roller cam, long tubes.....ZF6 transmission with 3.73 gears....it ran head to head with my buddies 04 Commerative ZO6 on the street....had a short throw shifter and it would just surprise the **** out of people.....I ran the hell out of it for 17 years, so the newer **** just was just over the top...horse power levels are going crazy now....had no idea where things were going back in 2002. The car on the left was an 18 Mustang running skinnies and slicks....put the *** whipping on me..

Tom400CFI

Oh, I hear you...and totally agree. My '92 has 3.45 gear and 6 speed. I'm able to run 13.70's in our rarified air here in UT. It's a runner, for sure. No comparison, L98 to LT1. I wanted to post in the same thread, to easily compare LOW end tq...since you so frequently hear people extolling the low end tq of the L98.

856SPEED

I had both; the TPI intake and the miniram (similar in design as the LT1 intake). As you can see in my miniram graph up in the previous post, I was around 340 foot pounds at the tire at 2,500 RPM with a miniram. I would call that "decent" low end grunt with a miniram.

The TPI intake does two things; look pretty and choke a 350 cube engine.

Tom400CFI

Totally. I don't want to take it off the 'Vette Kart, 'cause it's "front and center"...and it looks fantastic. But it sucks, performance wise. It don't work.

84 4+3

But I need my low end Tork to drive in snow!

FelixP

Sounds like a great combo! I'll likely do something similar since the rest of my 89 ZF6 is well sorted, just the engine to go! Did you ever run just the miniram?

MatthewMiller

Don't you do it!

84 4+3

It's okay. Three times in a week causes it.

drcook

We will track you down and wash your mouth out with Sani Flush.

Now we all have to go out back and burn some chicken bones to keep the evil troll away.

84 4+3

Listen, Tom started it last week okay?

856SPEED

Hijacking Tom’s thread so sorry!

But no...complete build at once..the whole car was torn down. Put the Edelbrock hi flow runners and base to top it off originally and was disappointed from the start. I couldn’t understand the cost or benefit of the shorter runner intake. It dynoed at 296 rwhp with the Edelbrock.....ran low 13’s....went to miniram and dropped .5 second in the quarter and picked up around 50rwhp...everything else equal. Back to Tom’s point the LT1 and miniram intakes for L98 can make great torque at low RPM on a 350 cubic inch engine. Even better on higher cubes!!

JoeNova

Comparison data. My favorite type!

Nice work.