Why is does the 98 model have an accurate temperature gauge and the rest don't? Is the placement different, or is it a better part?

 

so it seems that a 98 is the one to get?

 

Because GM received complaints from customers that the temperature needle was "jumping around" too much. Even though it was reporting the correct temperature, people didn't like it, so GM then made it a dummy gauge where anything above roughly 180° and below 215° reads the exact same value on the gauge.

I don't care what anyone else will tell you, the 98's are going to be the "slowest" year. All the little revisions that went on from year to year add up to a little faster car (the '01's and '02's in particular, but 99 and 00 to a lesser extent). To prove this, just look at people who have near stock 1/4 mile times in their sigs. My car for instance was good for 13.9's @ 101mph when it was stock, even with a decent 2.1 60'. There will be a few 98's here and there that were real scorchers stock, but for the most part they were not as fast as the later years.

 

thats true.

but then if you are gonna modify it then it doesn't really matter what year ls1 youre gonna get.

 

 

Thats what everyone told me too but -- see sig.

 

Must have been a cold day and high altitude.

 

Thats correct. As long as you don't want to use a tool like the Predator (so using LS1 Edit instead), then there is no reason not to get a 98 model, especially if you're just going to be building it up anyway. Some long tubes and an LS6 intake along with a little tuning will level the playing field greatly with the other bolt-on cars.

 

That's great man. I'm happy for you that you got a good one. Others didn't get so lucky.

 

I attibute it to a 50,000 break in period.

Actually it was 97% humidity and sea level, but it was cool. Anyway to address the topic what I was saying is, you never know what you'll run and 98s are cheap. On the other hand, I'd have gotten a 2001+ if I could have afforded it.

 

Didn't the '01s have the big "oil use" problem (possibly related to the looseness that caused the piston slap)? It may be possible to limit this problem more specifically using other guideposts with which I am not familiar, but I seem to remember that many of the 01 model year cars had this one quart per 1000 miles use problem that needed new rings to fix, and GM was not very forthcoming in springing for the overhaul. Anyone else have a comment?

As to speed, in a very unscientific survey, it does seem that the later LS1s are a little faster. On the Eagle F1-GSs, on the street, and using the Tazzo computer, I have trapped my '98 at 104.1 in my basically stock car, but I see many of the newer cars hitting 107-108 with very little if any mods.

 

My '98 (A4 tranny) ran an 8.5 @ 83 mph in cool weather at sea level with a lid and 3" catback.Not sure what that is in the 1/4 mile......

 

13.2 - 13.3 @ ~104.5mph

For comparison, my car ran a 8.65 @ 82.5mph on my 13.419 @ 103.43 run, with a 2.044 60'.

 

The only significant performance enhancement that was made through the LS1 years was the LS6 intake in 01-02. Slap on an LS6 intake on a 98-00 car and stock for stock you will MORE power. 01-02s have smaller cams. As for the injectors, not really an issue unless you plan on running nitrous.

My 2000 SS with the heavy *** wheels and all went 13.6@109 with a sh!tty 2.3 60'. Only mod was FRA and descreened MAF. Most everytime you hear about the sh!tty LS1 1/4 mile times they are A4s with the 2.73s.

 

My car has 2.73s...

I guess my times aren't SUPER though. Not 109 anyway.