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

Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 29, 2006 | 10:07 PM
  #16  
Dwaynez28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 196
From: Shreveport,La USA
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

You guys should be proud, Last year at a portable Dyno that was at a Firestone Tire store--With a CC-501 212/218 cam with the listed mods below, i just put down about 291 rwhp --The only difference now is i stepped up to the CC-502- I would like to get it Dyno tuned, my car apparently has issues--Dwayne
Old Apr 29, 2006 | 11:41 PM
  #17  
camzaro28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,046
From: Fargo, ND
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

i put down 267/304 with longtubes and more mods then u. ur numbers are right on or more then i expected.

edit: 260/298 ha not a bad guess, just noticed that this is the thread i replied to yeserday.

Last edited by camzaro28; Apr 29, 2006 at 11:44 PM.
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 04:33 AM
  #18  
93redBirdMan's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 386
From: Fresno, Ca
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

yeah we make up for it at the track alright. Any street race ive ever had in this car car has been complete murder, all against manuals too. I can dead hook with my setup on the street and I'm gone...
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 07:14 AM
  #19  
MikeTR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 202
From: Middletown, NJ USA
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

Originally Posted by 93redBirdMan
I can dead hook with my setup on the street and I'm gone...
That's all you need to know!
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 09:53 AM
  #20  
aboatguy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 325
From: Back in the US of F'in A
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

Originally Posted by plattted
the 93 does not have a mass air flow sensor. the "stock" 93 LT1 was rated at 275 HP. What changes have you made?The 93 Vett was rated at 290 or 300 HP.
I don't know why but all of the corvette LT1s were rated at 300 HP, the 92 LT1 in the Vette was rated at a little less torque 330 lb ft vice 340 of the 93-96. I would believe that the differences between the various years of LT1s would affect the HP rating but not according to GM. Kind of makes me wonder why they made the changes if output remained the same

Mike
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 10:00 AM
  #21  
1LESSZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 344
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

Originally Posted by aboatguy
I don't know why but all of the corvette LT1s were rated at 300 HP, the 92 LT1 in the Vette was rated at a little less torque 330 lb ft vice 340 of the 93-96. I would believe that the differences between the various years of LT1s would affect the HP rating but not according to GM. Kind of makes me wonder why they made the changes if output remained the same

Mike
No changes were made that would affect performance except for the 96-97 style dual cat y which added "10 hp" according to GM. Output for both engine is the same because it is the exact same engine except the corvette has 4-bolt splayed mains but so do some camaro's. Seems a few 4-bolts found their way into factory camaros/firebirds.

The corvette was rated higher to entice people to spend extra money and to try to differentiate the corvette lt1 from the camaro.
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 12:21 PM
  #22  
CALL911's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,225
From: IN
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

Your power seems about right to me for what you have. Unfortunatly, us LT1 guys have to do a bit more than bolt ons to see big dyno numbers. Also, as previously stated, being an Auto, those numbers with some good tires can still equal a good track time. If you are looking for some serious power increases you need to look at doing more to the motor (ex. heads, cam, tune ect.), if thats not enough, you can always spray, or spend a few thousand on a blower. I have seen a guy with a CC306 cam, and an otherwise stock motor with pretty much the same bolt ons as you run a 12.0 with his Automatic. (He also had all the suspension goodies, and some slicks). The point I am trying to make is, don't let the numbers get you down, there is always room for more power, and even if not, you can still run respectable times without huge dyno numbers.
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 07:26 PM
  #23  
93redBirdMan's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 386
From: Fresno, Ca
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

Originally Posted by CALL911
Your power seems about right to me for what you have. Unfortunatly, us LT1 guys have to do a bit more than bolt ons to see big dyno numbers. Also, as previously stated, being an Auto, those numbers with some good tires can still equal a good track time. If you are looking for some serious power increases you need to look at doing more to the motor (ex. heads, cam, tune ect.), if thats not enough, you can always spray, or spend a few thousand on a blower. I have seen a guy with a CC306 cam, and an otherwise stock motor with pretty much the same bolt ons as you run a 12.0 with his Automatic. (He also had all the suspension goodies, and some slicks). The point I am trying to make is, don't let the numbers get you down, there is always room for more power, and even if not, you can still run respectable times without huge dyno numbers.
Thanks for the encouragement. Yea im doin heads/cam in a month or so, so I will keep everyone updated on how that's goin when the time comes...
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 07:30 PM
  #24  
Randomsoleil's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 147
From: Charlotte, NC
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

of course there is something to be said in the parts you use as well. Not saying anything against the parts you have used.
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 07:54 PM
  #25  
rock1501's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 838
From: ajax ontario canada
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

Originally Posted by LT1 POWR
Yes but everyone knows that what autos lack in dyno #'s they make up for at the track, especially with a stall and some sticky tires.
I dynoed only 30 rwhp more than you and less torque. My car ran consistant 12.6@108

Last edited by rock1501; Apr 30, 2006 at 08:02 PM.
Old Apr 30, 2006 | 07:59 PM
  #26  
93redBirdMan's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 386
From: Fresno, Ca
Re: Went to dyno today - Dissapointed...

Originally Posted by Randomsoleil
of course there is something to be said in the parts you use as well. Not saying anything against the parts you have used.
Well half the stuff in my sig was already on the car when i bought it. I probably would have NEVER bought the Throttle Body, Granatelli MAF, or MSD 6AL. AND since I'm in Cali, I have to keep the shorty headers. And if I ever get my car dyno tuned, the Granatelli MAF will be replaced with a stock unit. I've got a question though. Are my AFR dangerously lean?

3600-3800 13.5
3900-4600 13.4
4700-5000 13.3
5100-5300 13.2
5400+ 13.1
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
13qtr
LT1 Based Engine Tech
23
Jul 19, 2015 05:30 PM
Z28amustangklr
LT1 Based Engine Tech
0
Jul 18, 2015 11:05 AM
Strick
LT1 Based Engine Tech
2
Jul 14, 2015 07:28 AM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Jul 10, 2015 02:23 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.