dizwiz24

see below thread

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-general-discussion/4055557-anyone-ever-remove-gen5-lt1-and-install-late-c4-optispark-lt1.html

Steve_R

TorchTarga94

Really.

Renfield

No, put a Blue Flame I-6 in that C7! Then you'll really have something.

dizwiz24

would love to do something like this. Something different, out of the box thinking.
would get the car in a magazine for sure

1993C4LT1

Phoenix'97

Wow, and I thought my idea to have someone create a true bolt-on and non-sheet metal fabricated TPI style intake for my LT1 was a far out idea by the hostility I gained! Well, if you have the money to spend on a brand spanking new C7 only to swap motors and put in a second-generation LT1, why not go the extra nine-yards and really improve upon the motor like I wish I could?

I had the notion of finding a company that could produce a "WELL MADE" direct bolt-on TPI style intake for my LT1, but under the condition that it be no more than 8 inches tall in height to clear an F-body cowl in the engine bay. However, I was persuaded to move on to something better flowing, an LS style intake that is a direct bolt-on for the LT1, emissions and sensors and PCV system and all. I have been thinking that the LS intake style is radically different from the LT1 stock intake which shares more in common with the TPI intake. Perhaps with some imagination, an LS style intake could be made borrowing from features of the TPI intake. If the TPI long runners could be compressed in the shape of the LS runners and molded into the rectangular intake, it could very well produce the same better flowing attributes both at low and high RPM of the LS intake while being designed for the LT1. This would certainly be the first step in taking your second generation LT1 to the next level to get you a spot on hot rod magazine, and you would bring a new intake system to the second generation LT1 community. With that intake, you would need better flowing heads.

Another improvement would be a waterproof AC Delco optispark with a self-sealing case and protected contacts.

A last improvement would be a nipple attached to the weep hole of the water pump to allow for a small hose to be attached which would divert any weep hole coolant from possibly tracking it's way to the optispark.


Great idea to sell the C7 LT1, for a near retail price, and pick up a used second generation LT1 for nearly nothing.

9T3VETTE

Wow

pologreen1

I'm not trolling when i say that I wish I would have put an s/c coyote in my c4.

I would rather have that than a c7 with the c4 lt1. That is just not a motor I can get behind.

At least a CFI you can strip down and build up. IMO you are limited with what you can do to the lt1. If not for the goofy heads, and opti stuff it would have been an upgrade.

Phoenix'97

Yes, it seems like you really can't do much with the LT1, the rage was always the LS1 and being able to swap intakes for the LS6 and a whole bunch of other things to improve and modify your LS motor. I kept asking why the same could not hold true for the LT1 if the intake was part of the problem and then the headers and ignition wise, the optispark.

I have been able to get pictures of the inside of the LS1 intake and the design of it's long runners in an attempt to understand why the TPI runners are so poor. The curvature and angle narrowing must create the right pulse waves pressure to move air efficiently throughout the power band versus the tubular TPI runners. So, what if this design could be implemented on the LT1 intake? Worst case, if the boxy intake also limits airflow, it too needs to be rounded off to enhance airflow. This guy, dizwiz24, wants to put a second generation LT1 into a C7 and he wants to make it on Hot Rod Magazine. Well, lets encourage him because if he really wants to set his ride apart, he needs to do what many have wished for many years could be done for the LT1, improve the intake. The optispark, in my opinion, is not so bad of an ignition system but the damn thing should have been made water-proof and water-tight granted it sits right behind that leaky water pump. For efficiency and safety, I think the cam driven water pump is far better than a belt driven one.

If you could improve the LT1, what would you do?! Lets all pretend we are GM engineers and we are tasked with improving the LT1 based on what we know about it.

1993C4LT1

Look up Torqhead. You can 100% get rid of opti's now. And still have ABS, TC and factory instrument cluster.

Phoenix'97

dizwiz24,

What exactly did you have planned for this motor swap? Are you keeping it a stock LT1 or do you have plans to alter it in such a way that it will get you recognition for that Hot Rod Magazine article?

Phoenix'97

Lets change that sentiment about the LT1. Why can't the LT1 breathe as well as the LS1 and with it, why can't LT1 heads flow just as well as LS1 heads? Asking another stupid question, what would be needed to get the LT1 to breathe better than it was designed to do from the factory? The LT1 crowd should be allowed to play around with their motor and optimize it as they see fit.

Hmmm, an LT1/LT4 that breathes just as well as the LS1, maintaining it's reverse-flow cooling, cam driven water pump, and a means to improve upon it's ignition system (however you wish to go about it). I would love to see those dyno charts, stock comparison and LS1 comparison.

SR71!

And here I am thinking how great it would be to have an LS7 in my LT4 Grand Sport!

pologreen1

I don't understand the context of the video to the conversation.
Curious...
Is that your car?
Is that an lt1 or something?
Do you know the specs?
Has opti?
How much HP can a stock lt1 block take?
If you bought an after market block would you ask for the Llt1 version?


I'm not being a dick, I just don't call that car anything special. I'd call it a built car, certainly not a race car unless a street racer.

It costs a lot to build that motor, I have seen a couple crazy lt1 builds not many. For a 4 year engine not many will bother.

PLRX

Threads like this is what makes you become a buffoon. OP may be a 20-year member, but needless to say, his knowledge or common sense is the one equal to 'Forrest Gump'.

I don't think the moderators will give you few days vacation for this feeble-minded thread, but I hope they do.

pologreen1

IIRC the lt4 in 96 made about the same as an ls.

IMO the lt motor was closer to it's peak even if you ported and worked over both engines then would the LS really shine? I have a feeling you would see the difference in torque and hp through out the power band and the ls separate itself from the lt motor. (lt4 is a hopped up lt1)

PLRX

It

Will

Never

Happen

you have lots of reading to do.

Phoenix'97

Reading and doing are two different things. I am aware of the limits of the LT1 and I am aware of what the LT4 was. What I am asking is hypothetical, simply because no one bothered to try to push the LT1 beyond it's limits and actually compete with the LS1. It is easy to swap over to the LS motor. I ask, what can be done for the LT1 to raise it's performance ceiling. Everyone has said before it was the breathing. Where did the original poster go? Unless he is busy at work? I need to get back to studying, wah.

dizwiz24

i would bore/stroke it to 383, afr 195 comp ported heads and a cam/headers (still cats).

goal would be to match hp of the gen 5 lt1 in an optipark lt1 platform.

sell off the gen 5 lt1, and pocket the difference