LT1 Man

How fast is a 100% Bone Stock C4 Corvette with the LT1 Engine and 6-Speed Manual Transmission? (92-Up)

300 HP and 340 lb ft of Torque.

I want to know 0-60, top speed, and what it can still beat.

Cjunkie

Today it can still beat Camrys and Accords

QCVette

In the '92 owner's video, GM stated they would run 13.7 at 103. The video did not say auto or 6 speed, but I would guess the 6 speed.

In the '94 and '95 owner's video they stated the coupe with the 6 speed would run under 14 seconds and stated the convertible may add about 1/2 second due mostly to aerodynamics.

In practice, there are a lot that run mid 13's. It also takes some practice to run good. It is not unusual to see them in the 14's (or more) due to the driver.

For what they can still beat... take a look at a lot of road tests. They can still beat a lot of cars. Like said above, Camrys and Accords, but also some better ones too. My '94 6 speed would easily beat my '06 Charger R/T from a roll or on the highway. From a stop the Charger was just too heavy. There are a lot of newer performance cars that should beat the LT1 C4's too. If you are planning a lot of racing or that is your main purpose for the car, plan on making mods or start with a different car.

Good luck.

LT1 Man

I chose the C4 because I just want a cruising toy to look cool in and I don't really plan to race that much. I was just curious of the specs for a 6-Speed Car because everybody posts the specs of an Automatic Vette and I know that Manuals are slightly faster than that.

93Rubie

I've ran a lot of 13.5's and 13.4's in my 93 LT1 6 speed.

Trap speeds around 103-105.

Using my 60 foot times into a calculator under ideal conditions that equates to 4.5 0-60.
1.9X 60' times.

The 1993 owners video states under ideal conditions the LT1 6 speed coupe can run the 1/4 mile in about 13.5 seconds.

Top speeds seem to be in the 160-170 MPH range.

jetskibruce

13's 13.5 is very respectable. What may I ask is your diff ratio?

Benny42

Learn how to launch it and you will be amazed at what you can beat with it. A lot of drivers with really fast cars can't drive them fast. At the track i have taken a few cars that i know should beat me, driver mod needed.

dizwiz24

93Rubie

Stock 3.45 ratio with 6 speed.

Tom400CFI

A stick LT1 should go solidly mid 13's, IMO.

I've ran 13.7's@101 at 4500' elevation, on a 6000' DA.

All the stats the OP asked for are readily available in any number of car mags from the era, but a good driver should be able to beat all mag results.

SO...
0-60: 5.0 second or so

top speed: 160-170

what it can still beat: Do you really want a list? How about this; With the right driver, it will beat anything thing that has a power to weight ratio of 11 lb/HP or worse.

edram454

in 1992 at a club gymkhana, a husband and wife team bought two 1992 corvettes, one automatic and the other stick. both ran about 14.3. neither broke the 14's all day. that is all they run. they feel fast because they are torquey on the street. good drivers but not really fast cars.

ddahlgren

It is no faster than any other 3400 lb car with 300 hp when new and how tired it is now only you know. I suspect 4.5 second 0-60 is venturing off to fantasy land. a 91 is advertised at 6.2 0-60 and seems about right.

Tom400CFI

Did you miss the posts above where folks have run much faster than "14's"...some folks have done so, even handicapped by elevation. You should check the C4 "FAST LIST" and look for forum member, MrMojo. "14's is all they run"....

Even car mag drivers ran well into the 13's.





'91 was a different engine. Not sure why you'd bring that up to dismiss a claim for an LT1 car.

ddahlgren

My owning a 91 has zero to do with what I said. The car in question is exactly what I said 300 hp and 3400 lbs. I bring up the 91 only because 50 hp does not get you 1.7 seconds in 0-60 times.

Tom400CFI

That's cool...because I said zero about you owning a '91.


Copy. And I was saying that your method is a convoluted way to make that point. Why not simply link or quote the 0-60 times of the actual 300hp/3400lb car in question? Then assume the car can go several tenths quicker than that...due to mag drivers' driving.

ddahlgren

The logic is rather simple as a L98 has a decent torque curve with 10 more ft.lbs. There is a myriad of gear choices as well from I believe 2.59 to 3.43 for the stick car. You enter driver skill level as another variable so anywhere from a 5.8 to 6.5 might all be a valid 0-60 ft. time. Tires and surface enter it as well and there is no such thing as a corrected 60 ft. time. At least with a dyno you correct for weather and there is no 'driver skill level'. For me calling it a 6 second 0-60 on an average day with an average driver on a typical surface is a realistic number. The sad fact is around 50% are easily faster in 0-60 times under the same conditions. I don't think anyone with eyes open buys a C4 thinking it is a wildly fast car but because they like the lines and has plenty of room for improvement if local smog regs allow it. What might be interesting would be to see the raw torque numbers off of an early 350 hp. 350 and a L98 and LT1. I do find the reuse of LT1 as an engine designation a bit curious as I had thought that was used in the 70's for the 350 hp. 350. If I had it to do again I would have bought an 89 as in my mind needs the least amount of work to be turned into a hot rod. It has the late model suspension with stiffer springs no air bag and find one with manual seats and heater controls. I am not sure it would be easy to find a so called stripped 89 with few options. Yes and a stick would be mandatory so it would be easy to put in 4.11 rear gears and use 6'th for the interstate.

1stVetteFinally

The first LT1 C4 I had was an auto. When I took it to the drag strip, it turned a 14.002 @ 101 mph as it's fastest 1/4 mile time. That was a stock LT1 with auto transmission, 2.59 rear differential, and bald rear tires. They are actually mid to high 13 sec cars.

As for the 6 spd convertibles, I haven't had a chance to take my 6 spd convertible to the drag strip yet.

GREGGPENN

And even many with better power-to-weight ratios where that ratio is supplied with fewer cylinders.

GREGGPENN

Even in stock form, my 89 was faster/better than prior cars...including the 400ci 1968 GTO that was my second car. Not everyone looks at buying a C4 AFTER owing a 400hp monster!

I also find it odd GM decided to reuse the LT1 designation. IIRC, isn't this it's third iteration?

Back when I was looking, I chose an 89 because it was the first year for the 6-sp, cockpit SEATS, and the suspension had been refined. Plus...in actually driving, it wasn't obvious a newer one was faster. For cornering, I actually like the 4-corner 9.5" wheel setup better than the newer -- with 8.5" fronts. For a few years, I considered 93/94 might have been a better choice due to air bags and traction control. Not so much anymore.

Anyway, it also turned out to be a great choice to pick the 89 because of the MAF (for easy stroker tuning). I'm not sure if going bare bones (to make a hot-rod) is what I'd do because I love my MTV...and A/C! OTOH...It would be cool to get curb weight 1k lighter!

ddahlgren

Yep that is the whole point all the 'extras' add weight I would not be beyond wind up windows LOL. In general electric motors are heavy. No ABS is one less computer with c68 not there another gone and with aftermarket efi the BCM would only run the odometer from what I can figure out Vats if it has it would be gone as well as it might stop a thief but more likely to get me stranded more often than not. I am not beyond pulling the FX3 and one less and very expensive system to keep running. Possibly the answer is to sell the '91 and go looking for an 89 stick car that is a low option as I can find. With all the things done to a C4 I wonder why no one has looked into a much small heater setup. MY AC is converted to 134a and not as cold as it was. But losing the AC would easily cut at least 100 lbs there. Lose spare tire and bracket to replace with some aluminum box tubing another big savings. If I was to do all this the goal would to be under 2800 lbs with 2600 close to perfect.