just wondering how many pound feet of torque the ls1 makes at 2400 rpm, at the flywheel totally stock? just trying to prove a buddy wrong.

 

Why? Because the LT1 torque peak is at 2400 rpm?



I can only guess...but I'd say it's no more than 15 lb-ft lower than an LT1 at that level.

A crap reply, I know.

 

Hmm, my '98 made about 290 from 2500 to 5100 at the wheels. Not sure about the driveline loss...maybe 300-310tq at the flywheel at 2400 The later models are probably higher.

 

mine made ~ 300 ft/lbs at 2400, with max torque (331) coming in at around 4400 rpms when it was stock. dyno sheet's in the link in my sig.

 

LS1 makes more torque than LT1 at all RPM.

 

thats what i figured too, i just cant find any proof to show my buddy.

 

Really? I've got a dyno sheet that says otherwise.

The LS1s in my club peak at higher level. Of that there is no doubt. However I make no less than 300 ft/lbs at the wheels from around 2400 all the way past 4500. Then the LT1 heads give up and torque begins to fall. There is practically no curve to the torque graph from 1500 to 5000.

My car has the original O2s and converters at 94000 miles. No power mods except for a CAI and Loudmouth. Just last Saturday I laid down 267.7 hp and 304.8 ft/lbs. There were a couple LS1s that dynoed around 290hp / 300ft/lbs.

Not ripping the LS1 here. I love the engine. This is just a little reality check. You want to talk real torque? Go find some well cared for L98s.

 

I'm not going to argue that the LT1 makes more torque (down low) than the LS1, but, my buddy's '96 T/A with A4 + 2.73's (same as my car had) pulled a 2.0 60' time at the track the same night that I only managed a 2.1xx 60', yet I ran ~.7 seconds quicker and about 5 mph faster in the 1/4! (14.7 --> 14.0) Even since then, my car ran 13.4 and a few mph faster, but I've still never cut a 2.0 60' time yet?! Maybe LT1's don't make more on a dyno, but in relation to the LS1's overall torque curve, I wonder if the LT1 is making more "in comparison" at lower rpm's??

EDIT: I don't doubt what Chewbacca said above. BUT, if you want REAL TORQUE, get a 383 ...............whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

lt1's do make more torque down low, stock. i have never actually seen proof of it on dyno sheets however. everyone just knows it. heh. we do make more torque however in an ls1 peak but theirs starts lower than ours. so i hear all over from people.

 

www.wtfba.org/dyno/ See if that helps.


At 2500 RPM, my car was making 315 Ft/Lbs of TQ and 150 horses.

Max TQ was 347 from 4K - 4500. Max HP was 330 from 5250 - 5500 RPM

 

 

no no you are all wrong
if you want REAL toruqe...

1987 buick grand national... completley stock made around 320 torque at the rear wheels at around 2500 RPMS....

only 240 horse but a hell of a lot of torque.... oh yeah and all on 6 cylinders

 

What's toruqe?! And I still think that over 400 lb*ft is way more than 320.

 

yes yes i cant spell...
what has 400 torque...

i still find it amazing though how a 1987 vehicle stock will still give modern cars a decent run for the money... at least off the line...

i know a new f-body camaro will prolly smoke a grand national once they get above 60 or so stock...

 

I just had my car dyno'd yesterday... I was making 305 ftlbs from 2k rpms (where he started) peaked at 340 around 4k rpms, and didn't drop below 300 until about 5800 rpms. I just have a lid, maf ends, and flow master muffler.