LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 22, 2006 | 10:55 PM
  #1  
Desecrater's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
From: Katy, Tx
1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

All,

Thanks for reading my post, I have known about camaroz28.com for years but never signed up on the forums until now. I currently have a 1996 SS Camaro (you can look here for the details) I am seeking advice on regarding performance.

The advice I am seeking is regarding horsepower gains. I want to build some horsepower however want to be as minimally invasive as possible, and without putting a high level of increased stress on powertrain/drivetrain components. I don't have to be the fastest guy on the street, but I would like to be able to dust stock LS1 powered cars. I plan very few modifications; the only ones I am dead set on are sub frame connectors, strut tower brace, and something better than the stock opti spark.

I thought about it for a bit and am considering going with a vortech supercharger.
  • Since everything is bolt on I can minimize major modifications to the internal engine components.
  • It’s something I could always remove in the future if desired. I
  • like being able to purchase a complete package from vortech with everything I need.
  • This is not a daily driver and sees about 80 miles a month.
  • I was thinking something like this.
What is your thoughts on this line of thinking? Is there anything else I should consider? Any thoughts/comments/opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

I wasn't sure exactly where this post belonged, so I put it in the LT1, and forced induction sections.

Last edited by Desecrater; Oct 22, 2006 at 11:17 PM.
Old Oct 22, 2006 | 11:02 PM
  #2  
69gto96z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,146
From: Denton/Rockwall, TX
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

That would definately blow away some LS1's, but so would a LT1 with heads/cam. I read this somewhere, correct me if im wrong, but you can kinda compare the lt1 and ls1's like this, considering both cars have good drivers in em and all weight is there in both cars,
Bolt on LT1=Stock LS1
Cam LT1=Bolt on LS1
Cam/Head LT1=Cam LS1
I dont know where a supercharger would fit into this.
Old Oct 22, 2006 | 11:09 PM
  #3  
Desecrater's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
From: Katy, Tx
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Originally Posted by 69gto96z
That would definately blow away some LS1's, but so would a LT1 with heads/cam. I read this somewhere, correct me if im wrong, but you can kinda compare the lt1 and ls1's like this, considering both cars have good drivers in em and all weight is there in both cars,
Bolt on LT1=Stock LS1
Cam LT1=Bolt on LS1
Cam/Head LT1=Cam LS1
I dont know where a supercharger would fit into this.
Heads and a cam would be fun, but like I said I am trying to be as un-invasive as possible
Old Oct 22, 2006 | 11:28 PM
  #4  
Javier97Z28's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,853
From: Jupiter (NPB), Fl
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

LT1's can only take a certain amount of boost for a limited time before going bewm.
Old Oct 22, 2006 | 11:28 PM
  #5  
68z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 528
From: Ohio
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Such a nice car btw. Coming from my limited knowledge about forced induction, I know that the high compression LT1 produces isn't ideal for any boost, and the engine doens't have forged internals. IMO I would avoid a supercharger and do bolt-ons(Intake,full exhaust, shifter, brakes, suspension) I would think that those mods would drastically increase your car without being invasive, causing no damage, and is much more attractive for a prospective buyer if you decide to sell. Buyers of clean low mile SS's would stray from a supercharged car. Just my opinion, and keep that SS clean!
Old Oct 22, 2006 | 11:41 PM
  #6  
Kaptain Kirk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16
From: Indiana
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

iirc you can get away with boosting 8.5psi with a stock bottom end.
Old Oct 23, 2006 | 12:13 AM
  #7  
Desecrater's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
From: Katy, Tx
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Originally Posted by 68z28
Such a nice car btw. Coming from my limited knowledge about forced induction, I know that the high compression LT1 produces isn't ideal for any boost, and the engine doens't have forged internals. IMO I would avoid a supercharger and do bolt-ons(Intake,full exhaust, shifter, brakes, suspension) I would think that those mods would drastically increase your car without being invasive, causing no damage, and is much more attractive for a prospective buyer if you decide to sell. Buyers of clean low mile SS's would stray from a supercharged car. Just my opinion, and keep that SS clean!
Thanks for the comments on the car! Really good point on the compression and internals, its a new idea and I hadn't thought of it much.
Old Oct 23, 2006 | 01:18 AM
  #8  
SS RRR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 3,144
From: Jackstandican
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Originally Posted by Desecrater
Thanks for the comments on the car! Really good point on the compression and internals, its a new idea and I hadn't thought of it much.
And money wise you'll be investing about as much in a good h/c setup than you would for a blower. For longevity and simplicity reasons a h/c combo is the way to go on a stock block.
Can't see the pics on the site, but if your car is a hardtop there's no reason for SFC's. I've never had them and w/ 122K miles on the clock the car is still rattle free. Of course I have yet to take it off any sweet jumps.

Last edited by SS RRR; Oct 23, 2006 at 01:36 AM.
Old Oct 23, 2006 | 05:43 AM
  #9  
Guest47904's Avatar
Guest
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 0
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

This months Chevy Hi-Performance(December 2006) magazine has information in it about LT1's from Golen Engine Service.
And I quote
"In their day, LT1's were known to occasionally spin a rod bearing. According to Golen, the combo of 0.0015 to 0.0018 inch factory bearing clearance and 5W-30 OEM-specified oil wasn't up to forced-induction apps or other hard useage. GES opens up the clearance to 0.0025-0.0030 and specifies 20W-50 Valvoline oil."

Just thought you would want to know.
Old Oct 23, 2006 | 07:36 AM
  #10  
Desecrater's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
From: Katy, Tx
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Originally Posted by SS RRR
And money wise you'll be investing about as much in a good h/c setup than you would for a blower. For longevity and simplicity reasons a h/c combo is the way to go on a stock block.
Can't see the pics on the site, but if your car is a hardtop there's no reason for SFC's. I've never had them and w/ 122K miles on the clock the car is still rattle free. Of course I have yet to take it off any sweet jumps.
I see you point about the SFC's, however they are cheap and I don't see them hurting the situation any. I kind of think of them as a way to protect the car and decrease wear and tear. I was looking at the set offered by SLP.
Old Oct 23, 2006 | 09:36 PM
  #11  
SS RRR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 3,144
From: Jackstandican
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Originally Posted by Desecrater
I see you point about the SFC's, however they are cheap and I don't see them hurting the situation any. I kind of think of them as a way to protect the car and decrease wear and tear. I was looking at the set offered by SLP.
Coo... I look at it as extra weight I don't want to deal with.
Old Oct 23, 2006 | 09:55 PM
  #12  
69gto96z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,146
From: Denton/Rockwall, TX
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

I dont really know much about Forced induction, so sorry I couldnt be much help.You could always run a h/c set-up through a factory muffler and just put a cut-out in there, then it would be hard to tell whats done, until the cut-outs open. If I had the money, I would do a supercharger, but i'm a poor college student...As for the SFC's, they are a must, in my opinion on a t-top/vert. I have never owned a hardtop, but on my t-top car, it has 123k on it, and rattles like CRAZY. I have a set of weld in sfc's sittin here, but just haven't gotten the ***** yet to weld next to my plastic fuel lines...Good luck with the car, its really nice. I wish I had an LT1 SS.
Old Oct 24, 2006 | 12:27 AM
  #13  
Desecrater's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
From: Katy, Tx
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Thanks for all the help all. While I am not sure exactly what I am going to do yet, I don't think I will be supercharging. Just seems too risky, and maybe a little more than I really want to get out of this car. For now I am going to keep it basic. I might consider and intake/throttle body/1.6RRs in the future.

Dynotech Dynaspark Distributor
Very informative article about optis and this unit here.

Plugs and Wires

Jet Hot Coated Hooker Longtube Headers w/ O2 bungs pre-welded
Kinda using this page as a guide. I am a bit confused regarding the PCM, EGR and O2 Sensors. Once I go to LT's, does this mean I have to reprogram the PCM to support no EGR? Do I need to reprogram the PCM if I am using Cats and O2 extensions? Are high flow cats going to kill my gains/sound?

Some kind of high flow CATs -
Suggestions?

3" Y Pipe. - Suggestions?

GMMG Exhaust System
Subframe Connectors –
Bolt ons from SLP (Don’t want to weld on the car)
Strut Tower Brace[/B]

Oh and is it true I need to be using Limited Slip Additive? I have heard both that it will damager the rear end and that it wont. I am going to pick some up anyway, but was curious about your guys thoughts.

I would appreciate any/all input on things I am missing or should be considering or reconsidering.

Thanks.

Last edited by Desecrater; Oct 24, 2006 at 12:30 AM.
Old Oct 24, 2006 | 12:29 AM
  #14  
DrewHMS97SS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,917
From: Las Vegas
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

a blower is not the way to go on the stock bottom end. the claim of 8.5 psi on the stock bottom end seems a little high to me being that the lt1 is pushing 10:1 cr. it could be possible, but it wouldnt last.
Old Oct 24, 2006 | 09:17 AM
  #15  
Sparkz28ss's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 977
From: ..behind you with a butter knife
Re: 1996 SS Camaro owner requesting advice.

Originally Posted by DrewHMS97SS
a blower is not the way to go on the stock bottom end. the claim of 8.5 psi on the stock bottom end seems a little high to me being that the lt1 is pushing 10:1 cr. it could be possible, but it wouldnt last.

Im with Drew....I would have nothing to do with the blower if I were you..

heads and cam... LE2 heads and cam, be done with it and dont worry about busting a piston or having your rings end up in the bottom of your oil pan



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 AM.