It weighs around 400 pounds more so loosely it would need 40hp9not counting torque, just simplifying) over the base v6 to run with an LT1. I dont know where you get 100hp to be equal. It is already in the mid 14s in the quarter at its weight. So add the v8 weight then subtract the 50 hp from the L99, you get a car not much faster if any than the v6 that doesnt sell because the costs are the same.

And beyond that, the LSx series doesnt in stock form have the low end FEEL of an lt1 anyway. When the 5.3 came out in the trucks in 99(?) everyone thought they where way down on low end torque when actually they made more. Plus retuning a 5.3 to have 350hp would more than likely give it a little less torque.

 

No he wants a 5.3 SS Camaro but wont listen to any logical arguments against it.

 

I don't think the v6 car weighs 3800lbs. The v6 doesn't need more torque, what it needs is availability of that torque of a broad powerband. No one in a serious race launches off idles, so I am not too sure how much advantage having a better "low end" would be.

 

No one who is serious about racing is going to buy a v6 muscle car anyway. But more lowend would give you the quick take off from a light that guys who are looking for a driver quick car like. The feeling of being quick from the start. I mean some people still prefer LT1s all day to and ls1 just for the feel of it.

But to this argument, im not sure what we are arguing about lol. I think the v6 is fine. With a set of gears and light bolt ons, I think mid to high 13s will be achieved easily. The guy is just saying he missed the low end feel of his lt1, and i said that the heavier camaro would need alot more low end to have that feel. Or gears.

 

I totally agree.

I have never met anyone like this in real life. Only on the net. And I used to be part of a domestic car club. The LT1 bottom end isn't an enormous difference from the LS1. At least, not from my experience, and I have a lot of it.

I have heard 3rd gen owners try to convince people that their L98s have better low end than an LT1. This stuff happens only on the internet.

 

Cough(my sig).....lol

I love LS1s dont get me wrong. Heck I wont say ill take an lt1 over an ls1, but i'm an LT1 guy. I just like them and the price/hp you can get them for now is very attractive. As for the l98's its the same as the lt1, since it falls on its face higher, it kinda tricks you that it feels better. Thats comparing a motor with peak torque at what 3200 compared to 4200? Its all the never acuarate butt dyno.

I have owned 3 lt1 fbods, now my caprice, and have maybe 10 hours seat time in LS1's so i feel I can comment on this too, unlike the guys who bought an LT1 because thats all they can afford and get butthurt when ls1 guys say they are faster

 

Well, there I went and did it -- created another LT1 vs. LS1 thread

Here's a couple of things: First, I thought SAE Net HP was measured at the wheels. Isn't that why HP numbers dropped dramatically in the 70's? I really don't know this, but it was my understanding.

Second, I am not necessarily in love with my LT1 (ok, maybe I am). With all that has been made about the HP of the LLT car, I was expecting it to move quicker. My current car is the only thing I can reasonably compare it to. The only complaint I registered in my "review" was in the shifting of the A6. Since I am not a professional driver and I had no real test equipment (save the seat of my pants), I think tighter shift points might improve the feel of the V6 car. That would be my first mod, should I buy one.

 

HP numbers are all crank, not at the wheels. A number of factors affected the hp numbers in the 70s, but alot of them where actually performance wise with the switch to unleaded, needing better mpg, and insurance rates. Motors really went downhill after 1970. But then they climbed higher imo in the 90s. Better times, better mpgs.

I think someone else complained about the 16 shifting time. Im sure a tuner could take care of that problem, i'd say GM is just lengthing transmission life by reducing the line pressure some. Kinda like the crappy B7M shift improvers that just raise line pressure really high but the opposite.

 

Well, I finally looked it up. Here's some good gouge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_horsepower

I knew there was a distinct reason HP numbers dropped in the 70's, independent of smog rules, etc. Having gone this far down the rabbit hole, I will say my LT1 'vert seems to have more then 250HP on the ground. I'm going to have to dyno it, if I ever get the chance.

Can you provide more info on the line pressure mod. Why is that bad?

 

Need to keep in mind that torque is a very important factor in the comparison between the new DI V6 and the LT1. Both engines might make 300 hp at 5500 rpm but the torque curves are probably quite a bit different. Hard to beat the torque of a good old smallblock. Can't wait for someone to buy the V6 car and put an old school drivetrain in it.

 

Russ, I think you have your figures switched.

 

3600 lbs / 275 hp = 13.1 lbs/hp ('96 LT1)
3600 lbs / 285 hp = 12.6 lbs/hp ('97 LT1) (My butt-metered comparison)
3950 lbs / 300 hp = 13.2 lbs/hp ('10 LLT)
3950 lbs / 405 hp = 9.75 lbs/hp ('10 L99)
3950 lbs / 425 hp = 9.29 lbs/hp ('10 LS3)

It's a reciprocal calculation to get a number greater than 1.0. Obviously the new transmission is the main reason for the seat-of-the-pants feel. I am anxious to try a manual LLT. First chance I get, I'm on it.

The earlier comment about the torque curve it right on. That's the reason LT1 cars are so much fun to drive They make power in the band where the driver can legally enjoy it. For example, my Honda Civic 5-speed is a hoot, but only starting at around 70 mph, ground speed. Below that, it's a bore. The LT1, on the other hand is fun at 35 mph under certain conditions

 

That's probably the best point made so far.

The old v6 (3800) makes 225 @ 4000

The new v6 makes 273 ft-lb @ 5200

The LT1 makes 325 @ 2400

The LS1 makes 340 @ 4000

The LS3 makes 420 @ 4600

(all figures are from edmunds)

Keep in mind that those are just peak torque numbers, and a large, flat torque curve is what most people perceive as "fast" in a street car. This kind of reminds me of when the LS1 first came out and all the magazine test drivers said it felt slower than the LT1. They must let off at 60 or something. I know puttering around town the 98 feels almost the same as my 95 did, but it's a different story out on the highway.

I'm afraid the new V6 just doesn't have the cubes to support a big low-end punch, which is of course the same as every other naturally aspirated "small" displacement engine. To me the new v6 seems much more like the 32v ford 4.6, and I have a feeling that the best mods for it will be the same as well. That would make it the first Camaro where "heads and cam" will be replaced by "boost and gears" as the popular mod of choice.

 

I think Mudbone wants a GTO.

 

I think I'd love one, if I could get used to its' rear flanks...