Welcome to Camaro Z28!

Welcome to CamaroZ28.Com, the ultimate Source for Camaro enthusiasts! Here you can join over 90,000 Camaro enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to Camaros and more. You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
  • Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from over 5 million posts.
  • Upload your Camaro details to your Garage
  • Post photos, respond to polls and access other special features
  • Gain access to our free marketplace to buy, sell and trade Camaros, parts and more.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so join our community today today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support.


Go Back   CamaroZ28.Com Message Board > 1967-2002 Powertrain Discussion > LT1 Based Engine Tech
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Garage Photos Blogs FAQ Members List Social Groups Links Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Z28LiveVendor Directory


Reply Post New Thread
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-12-2008, 02:14 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9
Lt4 Corvete Vs Lt4 Ss Camaro (or Lt4 Firehawk)?

Guys,

I've never heard anyone comment on this. To the best of my knowldge the LT4 grand sport Motor used in 1996 6-speed Corvettes was a factory issue assembly line motor. However, I have also read that the few LT4 SS Camaros and Firehawks that were built used SLP balanced and blueprinted ('hand massaged if you will') LT-4 motors. If this is the case I would think SS/Hawks got more power out of their LT4s than did the LT4 96 Vettes.

Any logic to my thinking? Better yet, any evidence that this might be the case (race or dyno)?

Very interested to hear your collective thoughts on this one

MCJ

PS Also, who would have the weight advantage? Vette or F-body? Amongst F-bodies are there any weight or mechanical differences between the LT-4 Hawk and SS?
This ad is not displayed to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on CamaroZ28.com!

Last edited by mcjaxon; 04-12-2008 at 02:18 PM.
mcjaxon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 02:49 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Norfolk, VA. USA
Posts: 1,884
Send a message via ICQ to Zepher Send a message via AIM to Zepher
Weren't the Firehawks and SS's 345hp vs the LT4 vette's 330hp.

I remember seeing the build sheet for an LT4 SS and the LT4 motor was expensive, like $17K.
__________________
1988 Firebird Formula WS6 305HSR T5
Mods: Lots of them
Pentium 60 Mhz, 32MB Ram, S3 Virge 4meg Video Card, 13" Sony CRT, 160MB Hard Drive, Windows NT v3.51
WWW.FormulaZR1.Com
Zepher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 02:52 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Norfolk, VA. USA
Posts: 1,884
Send a message via ICQ to Zepher Send a message via AIM to Zepher
http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b2...=IMG_24411.jpg

http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b2...=IMG_24401.jpg

looks like it says 330hp.

yep.
http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b2...t=IMG_2450.jpg


A quote from another site,
Quote:
The year is 1997 and GM has quite a few of the LT4 motors that were used in the 1996 Grand Sport and Collector's Edition Corvettes available. Knowing this SLP approaches GM looking to do a special edition Firehawk and SS to send out the Gen II (LT1) based f-bodies (Firebird and Camaro) with a a bang. After some negotiating GM agrees to have SLP do a limited production run of LT4 equipped Camaro SS and Firebird Firehawk cars. This run is initially set to be 100 cars of each model. The SS LT4s actually reach this production limit and exceed it by 6 cars to provide cars to six Canadian buyers. However due to the late start on the LT4 Firehawks, SLP ends up producing only 29 production models and 1 prototype car. Needless to say, the LT4 Firehawk is one of the rarest cars ever produced in the history of the f-body and if not already, will definitely be a collectible in years to come.

The general idea of the LT4 SS and Firehawk, was to take an LT4 engine, balance and blueprint it and then install it in an SS/Firehawk with every option that was available from SLP. This car would then be rated with 330HP to match the rating of the 96 LT4 Corvettes and dyno tested at SLP to verify the HP rating on each car. To address concerns regarding the car being able to handle the additional HP and Torque of the LT4 motor, these cars could only be ordered in a hardtop with the six speed manual transmission. So you will never see a factory LT4 t-top, convertible or automatic equipped car
__________________
1988 Firebird Formula WS6 305HSR T5
Mods: Lots of them
Pentium 60 Mhz, 32MB Ram, S3 Virge 4meg Video Card, 13" Sony CRT, 160MB Hard Drive, Windows NT v3.51
WWW.FormulaZR1.Com

Last edited by Zepher; 04-12-2008 at 03:00 PM.
Zepher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 03:58 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 62
I once heard that the LT4 Camaro's used the LT1 computer tune due to emission regulations, and GM not wanting to get the car recertified if they used the LT4 tune. I think it was Alvin at PCMforless that had a chance to dyno tune a factory LT4 camaro and it picked up waaaay more power than a stock car should with a dyno tune. That being said I think a 96 LT4 vette would spank an SLP LT4 camaro based on that reasoning and of course weight advantage. Just one opinion. And one based on rumors at that
z282slo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 04:23 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 708
They were actually almost exactly the same HP stock vs stock. While the LT4 Hawk/SS did get B&B engines, they were severely limited in a couple of ways, which held it to the advertised 330HP:
1) They had to use the stock LT1 ECM tune due to emissions
2) They used the stock LT1 knock module
3) Even with the extrude honed exhaust manifolds, they still used a more restritive exhaust than the Vettes (The Vette use basically shorty headers and true dual exhaust from the facotry).
My car bone stock dynoed 280RWHP, 300TQ, which figuring 15% driveline loss works out to almost exactly 330HP (flywheel). After going to the LT4 ECM tune, I jumped to 300RWHP & 317TQ (now roughly 350HP flywheel). After adding the LT4 knock module to that, it was 311RWHP & 326TQ (roughly 365HP). I haven't checked it since I added long tube headers, but it feels WAY stronger on the top end now, I'd guess somewhere around 330-335RWHP (~390HP).

So the LT4 Hawk/SS has the ability to make more HP easier than the LT4 Vettes. Most LT4 Vettes really have to spend some big bucks (cam, heads, etc) to make more power, so I'd definitely say the balancing and blueprinting provides a platform for more HP after upgrades.

Having owned a C4 Vette (92 LT1 making 270RWHP, so similar to stock LT4 Hawk), it it weren't for the rarity of the LT4 Hawk and having a back seat, I'd definitely take the LT4 Vette. But then a lot of that has to do with the fact that I do a lot of roadcourse events. While the two have about the same handling limits (almost identicle times at our local roadcourse), the Vette is much easier to drive at the limit than the Hawk (or any f-body). Plus the Vette is actually a better daily driver (better ride due to independant rear suspension), although it is a lot harder to get in and out of. That's why I'm planning on getting an LT4 Vette to go with the LT4 Hawk in the next few years (unless I find a really good deal on a C4 ZR1).

As to an LT4 Vette spanking a LT4 SS/Hawk, not really. The f-body is easier to launch at the dragstrip (and like I pointed out, stock vs stock they do make right at the same HP). Also, like I said above, they will run about the same at the roadcourse too.
__________________
Evan
97 LT4 Firehawk #27
LT4Firehawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 05:28 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9
Phenomenal responses. Thanks guys! :-)
mcjaxon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 11:50 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by LT4Firehawk View Post
They were actually almost exactly the same HP stock vs stock. While the LT4 Hawk/SS did get B&B engines, they were severely limited in a couple of ways, which held it to the advertised 330HP:
1) They had to use the stock LT1 ECM tune due to emissions
2) They used the stock LT1 knock module
3) Even with the extrude honed exhaust manifolds, they still used a more restritive exhaust than the Vettes (The Vette use basically shorty headers and true dual exhaust from the facotry).
My car bone stock dynoed 280RWHP, 300TQ, which figuring 15% driveline loss works out to almost exactly 330HP (flywheel). After going to the LT4 ECM tune, I jumped to 300RWHP & 317TQ (now roughly 350HP flywheel). After adding the LT4 knock module to that, it was 311RWHP & 326TQ (roughly 365HP). I haven't checked it since I added long tube headers, but it feels WAY stronger on the top end now, I'd guess somewhere around 330-335RWHP (~390HP).

So the LT4 Hawk/SS has the ability to make more HP easier than the LT4 Vettes. Most LT4 Vettes really have to spend some big bucks (cam, heads, etc) to make more power, so I'd definitely say the balancing and blueprinting provides a platform for more HP after upgrades.

Having owned a C4 Vette (92 LT1 making 270RWHP, so similar to stock LT4 Hawk), it it weren't for the rarity of the LT4 Hawk and having a back seat, I'd definitely take the LT4 Vette. But then a lot of that has to do with the fact that I do a lot of roadcourse events. While the two have about the same handling limits (almost identicle times at our local roadcourse), the Vette is much easier to drive at the limit than the Hawk (or any f-body). Plus the Vette is actually a better daily driver (better ride due to independant rear suspension), although it is a lot harder to get in and out of. That's why I'm planning on getting an LT4 Vette to go with the LT4 Hawk in the next few years (unless I find a really good deal on a C4 ZR1).

As to an LT4 Vette spanking a LT4 SS/Hawk, not really. The f-body is easier to launch at the dragstrip (and like I pointed out, stock vs stock they do make right at the same HP). Also, like I said above, they will run about the same at the roadcourse too.
Your a lucky sob, take care of her. Such a nice car.
__________________
96' Formula M6 - Pacesetter LT's, ORY, Magnaflow CB, cutout, 1.6rr's, MADz28 Tune, CAI, K&N, LS1 driveshaft, Taylor 8mm wires, TR55's, TB bypass, !EGR, !AIR, LT4 springs, Felpro 1074 headgaskets, 6speedinc T56, LT4 PP, Hurst shifter.
Jazsun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2008, 02:11 AM   #8
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Roseville, Ca
Posts: 265
First picture shows the dealership as Performance Chevrolet on the window sticker. Back in 1997 I got to test drive 1 of the 2 LT4 CamaroSS cars they had. I wonder if that window sticker is from that same car I got to enjoy 11 years ago
AndyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2008, 11:18 AM   #9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Seymour, CT
Posts: 29
With only an LT4 knock module, stock tune and 9k miles my LT4 managed 299 RWHP, don't remember torque figures. I've never driven an LT4 Vette so I can't compare to my Camaro.
__________________
1997 Camaro LT4 SS #093
362 RWHP 334RWTQ, LT4 Hot Cam, Ported Heads, CC Valvetrain, JBA 1 5/8 Headers, Random Tech Dual cats, SVO #30 Injectors, BBK 52mm TB, Motive 4.10's, LPE 3.5 DS, SPEC Level 3 Clutch, BMR T/A, Baer 13" Front brakes, & SLP 35mm Front SB

Last edited by 97LT4SS; 05-20-2008 at 11:26 AM.
97LT4SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2008, 11:18 AM
 
Reply Post New Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.
Copyright © 1996-2013 CamaroZ28.Com. All rights reserved.