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

Converting Over, My Mustang Sucks!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 10:37 AM
  #1  
NEEDALT1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2
Angry Converting Over, My Mustang Sucks!

Well, I've finally accepted that my 94 GT sucks. I should of gotten a Camaro from the start. I don't know much about them though. Is an LT1 better than an LS1? I was leaning toward an LT1 because they seem to be a little more affordable and I've heard they are capable of making more power. Any year better than another? What can say a 94 Z28 run in stock form? My 94 GT vert that ran a depressing 16.2@86 mph (302 auto w/ 2.73's). What can I expect to pay for a 94 Z28?
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 10:43 AM
  #2  
CeeBee94Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 742
From: Owego, New York
Re: Converting Over, My Mustang Sucks!

Originally posted by NEEDALT1
Well, I've finally accepted that my 94 GT sucks. I should of gotten a Camaro from the start. I don't know much about them though. Is an LT1 better than an LS1? I was leaning toward an LT1 because they seem to be a little more affordable and I've heard they are capable of making more power. Any year better than another? What can say a 94 Z28 run in stock form? My 94 GT vert that ran a depressing 16.2@86 mph (302 auto w/ 2.73's). What can I expect to pay for a 94 Z28?
Damn, a 16.2!!!! Something was wrong with your car to run a 16.2...the 6 cylinder camaros are faster than that....

Anyway a stock 94Z will run about a 14.1 or so bone stock, with the mods in my sig I ran a 13.7 in my 94 (without SS hood and intake though).

THe LT1 and LS1 are totally different motors. In stock form the LS1 is a lot more powerful, but they didn't put them in camaros/firebirds til 98 so therefor the car is more money as well. I think the LT1's will always sound better, you can get them sounding a lot meaner and closer to that of a mustangs growl.

On a side not, my step bro has a low mileage 93 Formula for sale, it has 64k on it and it is an auto with the 3.23 gears and some other mods...he wants 6k obo...let me know if interested
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 10:44 AM
  #3  
mirroredfire2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 98
depends how many miles you want on it.. they are going pretty cheap around here.. highest ive seen lately for a 94 was 7000
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 10:50 AM
  #4  
FyreLance's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 240
From: Huber Heights, OH
Re: Converting Over, My Mustang Sucks!

Originally posted by NEEDALT1
16.2@86 mph
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 10:50 AM
  #5  
NEEDALT1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2
Unhappy

Well the 94 GT is only rated at 225hp and 275 ft/lbs. plus the convertible adds 300 pounds or so. I'm sure the 2.73's aren't helping. The 99 Mustang V6 puts out 200hp. Not sure, but the extra 300 lbs from the convertible hardware probably cancels out the extra 25hp. Doesn't the V6 Camaro put out about 225hp? Sad ain't it? Wheres the 93 TA located?
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 10:57 AM
  #6  
CeeBee94Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 742
From: Owego, New York
Originally posted by NEEDALT1
Well the 94 GT is only rated at 225hp and 275 ft/lbs. plus the convertible adds 300 pounds or so. I'm sure the 2.73's aren't helping. The 99 Mustang V6 puts out 200hp. Not sure, but the extra 300 lbs from the convertible hardware probably cancels out the extra 25hp. Doesn't the V6 Camaro put out about 225hp? Sad ain't it? Wheres the 93 TA located?
The 3.4L V6's put out 160 hp and 200 torque and the 3.8L puts out 200 hp and 225 torque...

...its a 93 Formula, so its a little different than a TA, supposedly faster because it weighs less without all the body moldings and such, and it is located in southern RI, but I can also probably get it to the Albany, NY area...here are some pics

www.rpi.edu/~brownc2/bdcar

Here is what it has:
93 Formula A4 64k miles
Hunter Green w/tan leather
K&N FIPK
Adjustable Borla Exhaust
Remote Starter
Tint
Alarm
Two sets of wheels and tires(the chrome wheels on there now and the stock wheels too)

Thats all I can think of for now, the thing sounds mean with the borla exhaust if you have never heard one...
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 10:57 AM
  #7  
amean94ta's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,991
From: pa
stay away from 93's they are speed density and dont use mods to full potential . i have a 94 ta i love it ! 95's to 97's have traction control hate it. the only down side to a 94 is its best to swap in a 95-97 opti. its vented so get a 94 swap opti and have a lot more fun than that rustang. almost forgot 94's go around 5,000 to 9,000
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 10:57 AM
  #8  
SheDevlLS1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 105
From: Durham, NC
Yeah I went from a 97 GT with full bolt ons, shifter, 3.73's and Nittos that ran low 9's in the 1/8 (also in humid mississippi summertime...) to a 2002 Z28 that with only headers, no cats and drag radials runs 8.2-8.3 1/8, 12.7's in the 1/4.

There are 98-99 LS1's for sale around here for 14k, give or take a little...LT1's are cheaper to buy and build, and have maaaaaad power down low, whereas the LS1 has more top-end. All depends on what you wanna spend, I guess.
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 11:00 AM
  #9  
CeeBee94Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 742
From: Owego, New York
Originally posted by amean94ta
stay away from 93's they are speed density and dont use mods to full potential . i have a 94 ta i love it ! 95's to 97's have traction control hate it. the only down side to a 94 is its best to swap in a 95-97 opti. its vented so get a 94 swap opti and have a lot more fun than that rustang
How so...they respond just as well to mods...plus they are the only ones you can adjust the fuel pressure without a reprogram....



I wish my car would adjust itself if I messed with the fuel pressure because that is a decent gain in HP
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 11:02 AM
  #10  
Rodrigues's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,842
From: Bloomfield Hills MI
EEeeek, your going to get some angry faces soon.

Originally posted by amean94ta
stay away from 93's they are speed density and dont use mods to full potential . i have a 94 ta i love it ! 95's to 97's have traction control hate it. the only down side to a 94 is its best to swap in a 95-97 opti. its vented so get a 94 swap opti and have a lot more fun than that rustang. almost forgot 94's go around 5,000 to 9,000
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 11:04 AM
  #11  
TMDZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,450
From: LA, So Cal
Originally posted by SheDevlLS1
Yeah I went from a 97 GT with full bolt ons, shifter, 3.73's and Nittos that ran low 9's in the 1/8 (also in humid mississippi summertime...) to a 2002 Z28 that with only headers, no cats and drag radials runs 8.2-8.3 1/8, 12.7's in the 1/4.

There are 98-99 LS1's for sale around here for 14k, give or take a little...LT1's are cheaper to buy and build, and have maaaaaad power down low, whereas the LS1 has more top-end. All depends on what you wanna spend, I guess.
nicely said.

stock LT1 = more torque, thus more bottom end power
stock LS1 = more HP, thus more top end power
stock mustang GT = plain sucks, thus breaks down everytime

j/k
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 11:14 AM
  #12  
FyreLance's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 240
From: Huber Heights, OH
Originally posted by amean94ta
stay away from 93's they are speed density and dont use mods to full potential .
Uh... how so?

I love the speed-density setup on my 91....

95's to 97's have traction control hate it.
That's why you turn it off.
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 11:17 AM
  #13  
95CamaroZ-28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 281
From: Maryville, TN
Originally posted by amean94ta
...95's to 97's have traction control hate it...

Um...no! Traction control is an option, it isn't on all 95-97 cars. Even if it is on the car, it can be disabled by the touch of a button.


NEEDALT1, depending on what you're wanting to spend, both an LT1 and LS1 can be made to run well. If you have an open wallet, then the sky is the limit and you can go crazy fast with either platform. However, you'll have to have a fairly well modified LT1 to run with a bolt on LS1. You pay more up front for a LS1 car, but they can be made much quicker for less money in modifications than a LT1.
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 11:32 AM
  #14  
Canadian z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 230
From: Toronto
I had a 94 mustang GT It was slow as crap! I bought My LT1 in the winter and stored it then finally got to drive it in May. I love this car so much, Best car i have ever had, you are making a great choice!
Old Aug 12, 2003 | 11:45 AM
  #15  
allmotorta's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 378
From: Extended Stay America or Value Place, USA
Originally posted by CeeBee94Z
The 3.4L V6's put out 160 hp and 200 torque and the 3.8L puts out 200 hp and 225 torque...

...its a 93 Formula, so its a little different than a TA, supposedly faster because it weighs less without all the body moldings and such, and it is located in southern RI, but I can also probably get it to the Albany, NY area...here are some pics

www.rpi.edu/~brownc2/bdcar

Here is what it has:
93 Formula A4 64k miles
Hunter Green w/tan leather
K&N FIPK
Adjustable Borla Exhaust
Remote Starter
Tint
Alarm
Two sets of wheels and tires(the chrome wheels on there now and the stock wheels too)

Thats all I can think of for now, the thing sounds mean with the borla exhaust if you have never heard one...
Needalt1, you should prolly check out this 93 for sale, 93's are just as responsive to mods as 94 +. I guarantee it will go 13.8's with a cai and borla, as it sits. With only 64K miles, it will last probably another 100,000 miles plus.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM.