LS1 vs.LT4 vs.LT5 vs.LS6 vs.LS7 etc. discussion continued

[Hog]

A compare/contrast thread to avoid the off topic (yet fascinating) chatter of a different thread.

We Gone
I also had a 96 LT4 and many times my son and I played around with them. At the time my 91 only had headers, flowmasters and chip. The LT4 had a custom tune and muffler eliminators. I will say this the LT4 did a great job up to 100mph after that the ZR-1 started to wind up and 100 to 150 I was a good quarter mile plus ahead I had to slow down for him to catch up.

Edram
c5's are not slow. ever drive a fixed roof coupe 6 speed? very quick and light. these cars can be easily modified to make big horsepower. my c5 automatic made 525 to the wheels. no meth injection or nothing just blower and cam. stock automatics are a bit slow but great driving and cruising cars. c4 zr1 feels more like a race car and the lt5 howls. Corvettes for the most part are fast compared to other cars in general. My two favorite power plants after the l88 is the lt5 and the ls7 427. The ls7 427 505 hp 470 ftlbs torq and idles like grandma's 1968 chevy nova going to the market. No gas guzzler tax either and revs to 7k. A marvelous engine.

8cam
Good luck the Z is an incredible car. I've been into euros my whole driving life, and it's the first American car I've owned in more than 20 years. I love driving it hard. Other Corvette guys who have ridden with me are flat amazed at the difference, just a completely different animal from a pushrod car. Guy with a C6 at the last autocross rode with me for a run, and he talked about how different it sounded and how hard it pulled all the way to 7500, couldn't believe it. It's my kind of engine.

Paul Workman
Couldn't say it better! Nothing convinces the pushrod crowd like pairing up with a 4-CAM DOHC and having their socks blown off! :dancing The Zs always attract a crowd at the local annual 1/4 mile Corvette Shootouts after taking a thrashing from those obsolete motors...:mrgreen:

Kevin
experience tells me different. Been showing stock and lightly modded ones my tail lights since 99. Sure they can make big power modded and for a lot less but stock or near stock forget it

Hog
I have the impression that the LT4 and C5 LS1 cars are on par, and the LT5 cars smoking both. All stock of course.

5ABI VT
From my experience the LS1 6 speed traps slighty higher than the LT4. Given that the C5 is lighter it sure lends some credibility to the LT4 being slightly underrated. Ive seen 2 LT4s trap 106-107. My friends LT4 I went to the track with with nothing but a B&B (newer restrictive system) just last year trapped 106 mph. Back when I had bolt ons on my 93 LT1 I was trapping around 111 and Stock 6 speed LS1s were slightly slower at 108-109. The only car I went up against was in 1999, and it was a stock 97 6 speed with a Borla stinger cat back and he was 109.

I guess just for comparisons sake I had Long tubes and Corsa with a haibeck chip and I was just under 118 mph. My friends LT4 car only has a chance when im not paying attention :-D


Csavaglio
My CE LT4, which was stock, trapped between 108 and 109 consistently and, as I mentioned, usually ran 12.7. All uncorrected and actual numbers.

I never dyno'ed that car, although, from the dyno sheets I've seen of other LT4s, they seem to vary quite a bit, but usually higher than the rated hp numbers would suggest.

Personally, I think the LT4 is one of the most under rated (both by people's opinions and the hp numbers) corvette motors.

I agree 100% with WeGone. Up to 100, stock to stock, the LT4 keeps right up with the LT5. But 0-100 is the LT4's game and not the LT5's. Two very different powerplants with two very different personalities.


5ABI VT
Theres a lot of variables when it comes to track times. I only compare what ive seen at my local track and what ive run side by side. My brothers ss for the life of him couldn't crack 14.0 on street tires totally bone stock. Went to Englishtown and ran 13.4. no changes at all. Different track.. differet altitude and all the other variables etc etc.

Im not knocking the LT4 but Theres been a ton of bs about hp numbers over the years. There was one thread about how some were 370 hp even 390hp for a few %. SOrry but that is :censored: . If a 390 hp Lt4 existed.. weighing in 200 lbs less than a zr1 we would see trap speeds over 116-117 mph rivaling c5 z06s. Just not happening. Ive never seen an LT4 factory fresh run over 110 mph without some mods like headers or gears intakes etc. My 93 trapped 104 mph stock. I knew a guy who hung out with us that we went to the track with in a 96 LT4 like I mentioned earlier and he trapped 107 mph. 104-107 mph is about 30-40 hp. Right on par with GMs ratings.

I can definitely see why the LT5 may feel slower at lower speeds. It has longer runners tuned for certain rpms. at part throttle and certain rpms it only runs on half the runners. It can make for a soggy feeling engine at low speeds. GM also didn't add any gear to it. For a motor making higher torque and hp it sure could have used it. On top of that it weighs 200 lbs more. all those contribute to the slower low end feel.

Kevin
I think I did 116-118mph back in 00 at the gathering in my stock 90


From this thread
http://zr1.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24070&page=4

[BigJohn]

Now we have the new LT1 460 hp and new LT4 650 hp!

[We Gone]

Thanks for starting this should get very interesting...

I can say that a stock C7 auto is no match for an LT5 350 pushing 500hp from 60mph up......:p

[spork2367]

Now we have the new LT1 460 hp and new LT4 650 hp!

I seriously hate the reusing of engine designations.

[BigJohn]

I seriously hate the reusing of engine designations.

Like LS6 454 and ZL1 427 Big Blocks?

[Z06scentair]

Like LS6 454 and ZL1 427 Big Blocks?

Or Z28 DZ 302's

[mike100]

Definitely the new golden age of horsepower. As much as i enjoy the LTx vs LSx topics, the fact that pretty pedestrian transportation will wax pretty much anything from the 90's. I put headers on my LT5 after my friend pulled me in my own coyote powered mustang. It's a bonus now that i can walk a c5 z06 now- but the mustang race is what spurred me on.

[8cam]

Being relatively new to the GM world, is there a nice clean index somewhere that defines all the LSTPDQ27-hike designations? I pretty much know LT5, and all the swaps are LS-something-or-other, always looking to learn.

[XfireZ51]

Here's a movie scene that best demonstrates how I think the LT-5 compares w the rest. I get teary eyed every time I watch this. Remember watching it live w my father. UNBELIEVABLE!


http://youtu.be/qey045iro58

[WB9MCW]

Here's a movie scene that best demonstrates how I think the LT-5 compares w the rest. I get teary eyed every time I watch this. Remember watching it live w my father. UNBELIEVABLE!


http://youtu.be/qey045iro58


Indeed Indeed - Excellent movie and great analogy for the KOTH LT5.

Reel 'em in and look 'em in the eye then wave bye-bye and spit 'em out your exhaust pipe. Permagrin every time. :cheers:

[Hog]

96 LT4
330 sae net hp@5800rpm/340 lb/ft torque@4500rpm.

92-96 LT1
300 sae net hp@5000rpm and 335lb/ft torque@4000rpm.

90-92 LT5
375 sae net hp@6000rpm/370 lb/ft torque@ 4800rpm

93-95 LT5
405 sae net hp @5800rpm/385lb/ft torque@4800rpm

1997 LS1
345hp@5600rpm/350lb/ft torque@4400rpm

I see many LT4's that are dynoing between 290 and 310rwhp.

[Hog]

Being relatively new to the GM world, is there a nice clean index somewhere that defines all the LSTPDQ27-hike designations? I pretty much know LT5, and all the swaps are LS-something-or-other, always looking to learn.

Here is a copy paste of a list I put together awhile ago.

GEN1-E
1996-99 GMT 400 trucks, 96-2000 GMT400 style SUV's,1996-2002 G vans L31 Vortec 350, L30 Vortec 305

GEN 2
1992-1996 Vettes, 1993-97 F-bodies, 1994-96 B-bodies(Caprice (http://motors.shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=caprice)) these were LT1's(B-bodies had iron heads)
1994-96 4.3L V8 rpo L99

GEN3-
1997-2004 Vette, 1998-2002 LS1-1999-2007, 2001-2004 Vette/2005 CTS-V LS6 5.7 GMT 800 trucks LR4-4.8, LM7-5.3,
L33-5.3 2005-07 4wd e-cab reg box truck
L59-5.3 2001+ flexfuel
LM4 5.3-03-04 SSR
1999-2007(99-00 iron heads) LQ4 1500HD,2500HD,3500HD trucks Sierra Denali(325hp) Sierra C3(AWD-325hp)
2002-2007 LQ9 Escalade (http://motors.shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=escalade), SS Silverado(2004+ B4V VHO 2wd ext cab truck)

GEN 4
LS2 2005-2013 Vette 2005-2007-Trailblazer SS 2006+/2006-2007 CTS-V , 2005-SSR
LS3 2008-2013 Vette-2010+ Camaro(manual trans), 2009 G8 GXP
LS4 2005-2009 FWD cars 5.3L alum block 13 mm narrower than truck 5.3's
LSA 2009+ Cadillac CTS-V/2012+ ZL1 Camaro 6.2L (SC-piston oil squirters)
LS7-2006-2013 Z06 Vette 2014+ ZL1 Camaro, LS9(SC-piston oil squirters)) 09-2013 ZR1 Vette,
L99-2010+ Camaro(auto trans VVT)
LY2 4.8=2007.5+ GMT900 trucks(with 799 heads)

5.3
2007.5+ GMT900 trucks(with 799 heads)-
LH6(alum block)LY5(iron block)
LMG(iron block-flex fuel)
6.0=
2007.5+ L76(alum block) also 2009 G8-GT LY6(iron block)
6.2-
2007.5+ L92(alum block)

GEN 5 SBC (Direct Injection)
LT1 6.2-2014+ Corvette(DI, VVT, AFM, piston oil squirters)
L83 5.3-2014+ GMC/Chevrolet truck(DI,VVT,AFM, piston oil squirters)
L86 6.2 2014+ GMC/Chevrolet truck(DI,VVT,AFM, piston oil squirters)
LT4 6.2 2015+ Chev Corvette (http://motors.shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=corvette) ZO6 SAE-certified 650hp@ 6,400 rpm/650lb/ft @ 3,600 rpm

BBC
Mark 1 "W" Series
348 Mk 1 "W" Series
348 576A 1958-61 250hp
348 573A 1958-61 280hp
348 576B 1958-61 300hp(58) 305hp(59-61)
348 573B 1958, 1961 315hp(58) 350(61)
348 577 1959-60 320hp
348 574 1959-60 335hp
348 590 1961 340hp

409 Mk 1 "W" Series
409 580 1961-62 360hp(61) 380hp(62)
409 587 1962 409hp
409 L33 1963-65 340hp
409 L31 1963-35 400hp
409 L80 1963-64 425hp
427 Z11 1963 (427 "W" Series Engine) 425hp

Mk II (Mark 2)
MK II engines were under development as a race engine, with 2 bolt mains. In Nov. 1962 NASCAR increased its max cube rule to 427. Chevrolet followed suit resulting in the Mk IIS

MK IIS (Mark 2-S) "Daytona 500 Mystery Engine"
Now with 427 cubes the "Mystery Engine" now sported 4-bolt mains, these engines were tested by JR Johnson, Bubba Farr, GC Spencer and Rex White. Johnson won teh 1st 100 mile qualifying race with an average speed 7mph OVER the current record for that race. Rutherford won the 2nd 100 mile qualifier with a record average speed of 165.183mph. Top brass at Chevrolet were calling the Chev race teams congratulating them on their success in qualifying. They didnt even knoiw thatthese engines werent the old "W" Series 409 engines. The MK-2 devolpment team was small and they had built these engines without upper managemnt approval.

MK III (Mark 3)
During the summer of 1963 Chev engineers were looking at the possibility of having a different bore center for larger displacement engines. The MK III never got off the drawing board.

Mk IV (Mark 4)
396 Mark IV(Mark 4)
L34 1966-69 360hp(66) 350hp(67-69) 4bbl.
L35 1965-69 325hp 4bbl.
L37 1965 375hp 4bbl.
L66 1969 265hp 2bbl
L78 1965-69 425hp(65) 375hp 4bbl. (66-69) 4bbl.

402 Mk IV(Mark 4)
LS-3 1970-72 330hp(70) 4bbl., 300hp(71) 4bbl., 210hp(72) 4bbl., 240hp(72) 4bbl.
L34 1970 350 hp 4bbl.
L78 1970 375hp 4bbl.

427 Mk IV(Mark 4)
L36 1966-69 385hp(66) 4bbl., 390hp(66-69) 4bbl.
L68 1967-69 400hp 3x2bbl.
L71 1967-69 435hp 3x2bbl.
L72 1966 & 1968-69 425hp 4bbl.
L-88 1967-69 (alum. heads/iron block 430hp@5200rpm rating/dyno shows 437hp@5200rpm/560hp@6200rpm with headers)
ZL-1 1969 (aluminum block/heads) 430hp 4bbl.

454 Mk IV(Mark 4)
LS-4 1970, 73-76 345hp(70), 215hp&245hp&275hp(73), 235hp&270hp(74) 4bbl., 235hp(75)4bbl., 225hp(76)4bbl.
LS-5 1970-72 360hp&390hp(70)4bbl., 365hp(71)4bbl., 230hp&270hp(72) 4bbl.
LS-6 1970-71 425hp(70) 4bbl., 425hp(71) 4bbl.
LS-7 (non-OEM) 460hp@5600rpm/490lb/ft torque@3600rpm 11.25:1 c/r

GEN V (Generation 5 (http://www.autoanything.com/body-kits/77A2833A3547682.aspx?kc=AFFCJ&mr:trackingCode=D62B1D73-9704-E011-B690-001517384909&mr:referralID=NA))
L19 7.4 GEN V(GEN5)
1991-1993 454SS truck,
1991-1997 3/4-1 ton truck(TBI)
1991-95 454HO/502 (non-OEM)

GEN VI (Generation 6)
L29 1996-2000 3/4-1 ton trucks/SUV's
L21 7.4 1998-2001 Medium duty trucks Kodiak, P30 van, P12 cab/chassis
1996+ roller cammed (non OEM) 502 with nitrided crank, 454 same crank but non-nitrided

GEN VII (Generation 7)
L18 8.1 2000-2007 GMT800 trucks, 2000-09 Medium Duty trucks Kodiak


Thats all I could think of lol, there are more. But hast the basic jist.



For the 2008+ GEN 4 engines there are over 20 different RPO codes for the 5.3 itself-I suggest looking at the GM Media Archives for them all.

http://archives.media.gm.com/us/gm/en/index.html (http://archives.media.gm.com/us/gm/en/index.html)


Here is a good GEN 3 GEN 4 SBC resource

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/0912chp-performance-chevy-ls-engine-comparison/viewall.html

[nelson007]

Is ther e a chart some where thats list the different engine ID's and HP? ( LS1,LT 4, ect.. Up to three years ago my newest car was a 1970 LT1. Still having problems identifying with these newer cars.
Thanks,
Nelson007

[/B]QUOTE=BigJohn;214653]Like LS6 454 and ZL1 427 Big Blocks?[/QUOTE]

[Hog]

Is ther e a chart some where thats list the different engine ID's and HP? ( LS1,LT 4, ect.. Up to three years ago my newest car was a 1970 LT1. Still having problems identifying with these newer cars.
Thanks,
Nelson007

[/B]QUOTE=BigJohn;214653]Like LS6 454 and ZL1 427 Big Blocks?[/QUOTE]

read above, most of the 1997-2007 GEN 3 and 2005-current GEN 4 power/rpo codes are in the link I provided. http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/0912chp-performance-chevy-ls-engine-comparison/viewall.html

The engine rpo's this thread is about is listed in post #11.

Anything specific just ask away my friend.

[nelson007]

Thanks Hog,
I saw that, which was of a great help. I was looking for all the engines codes from 1953. Years ago I had one but cannot find it, it was on a spread sheet.
Thanks,
Nelson007

QUOTE=Hog;214689][/QUOTE]

read above, most of the 1997-2007 GEN 3 and 2005-current GEN 4 power/rpo codes are in the link I provided. http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/0912chp-performance-chevy-ls-engine-comparison/viewall.html

The engine rpo's this thread is about is listed in post #11.

Anything specific just ask away my friend.[/QUOTE]

[Hog]

Thanks Hog,
I saw that, which was of a great help. I was looking for all the engines codes from 1953. Years ago I had one but cannot find it, it was on a spread sheet.
Thanks,
Nelson007

QUOTE=Hog;214689]

read above, most of the 1997-2007 GEN 3 and 2005-current GEN 4 power/rpo codes are in the link I provided. http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/0912chp-performance-chevy-ls-engine-comparison/viewall.html

The engine rpo's this thread is about is listed in post #11.

Anything specific just ask away my friend.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Sorry I dont know any of the Inline 6 rpo codes, just the 1955+ V8's.

[spork2367]

Definitely the new golden age of horsepower. As much as i enjoy the LTx vs LSx topics, the fact that pretty pedestrian transportation will wax pretty much anything from the 90's. I put headers on my LT5 after my friend pulled me in my own coyote powered mustang. It's a bonus now that i can walk a c5 z06 now- but the mustang race is what spurred me on.

A 2015 mustang gt does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds and the quarter in 12.8. Worst case scenario your friend is just a slightly better driver... ;)

[Kevin]

A 2015 mustang gt does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds and the quarter in 12.8. Worst case scenario your friend is just a slightly better driver... ;)

i've seen lightly breathed on 5.0's go low 12s. Make no mistake that car is a serious contender

[XfireZ51]

i've seen lightly breathed on 5.0's go low 12s. Make no mistake that car is a serious contender

altho at the 1/2miles, they ran out of gas. Mid 130's is what I recall.

[mike100]

A 2015 mustang gt does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds and the quarter in 12.8. Worst case scenario your friend is just a slightly better driver... ;)

the 2104's run 12.70's. the new 2015's are porkers and most people are getting 13.0's out of them.

but back to my 2012...
-it was a first gear roll race
-he drove it like he stole it because not his car, lol
-geared low
-vvt

I lost by half a car at 85 mph (not safe to keep going)- before I put headers, probably a 12.90-13.00 car at 111-112 at best (street tires). It was close and I had a long rev range, but it just did not have the power in that configuration. Over 100 mp[h would have turned my way. Definitely have more top end with the improved exhaust now. Anyways- we are talking 300 cubic inches in a car that weighs 100 lbs more- a lot of the mustang pop comes from the VVT 4 cam variable timing and the deep trans gearing. 1st gear is 3.66:1 ratio. fifth is 1:1. First gear is 13:1 ratio with 3:55 rear gears. Cheapest 12 second car I've ever owned. My friend was laughing his *** off too.

[edram454]

the 2104's run 12.70's. the new 2015's are porkers and most people are getting 13.0's out of them.

but back to my 2012...
-it was a first gear roll race
-he drove it like he stole it because not his car, lol
-geared low
-vvt

I lost by half a car at 85 mph (not safe to keep going)- before I put headers, probably a 12.90-13.00 car at 111-112 at best (street tires). It was close and I had a long rev range, but it just did not have the power in that configuration. Over 100 mp[h would have turned my way. Definitely have more top end with the improved exhaust now. Anyways- we are talking 300 cubic inches in a car that weighs 100 lbs more- a lot of the mustang pop comes from the VVT 4 cam variable timing and the deep trans gearing. 1st gear is 3.66:1 ratio. fifth is 1:1. First gear is 13:1 ratio with 3:55 rear gears. Cheapest 12 second car I've ever owned. My friend was laughing his *** off too.

This is my biggest fear of these new models. I just dont find it acceptable to lose to a stock mustang while driving my zr1. I respect the coyote engine but its natural power against natural power so losing is not an option. Headers, porting and tuning are the solutions to this problem. Losing weight is another way to go. Get rid of your spare tire and carrier, cats and resonators and any unnecessary items you dont need. Keep the steering wheel and accelerator pedal.

ed ramos #3028:mad:

[spork2367]

i've seen lightly breathed on 5.0's go low 12s. Make no mistake that car is a serious contender

It's all relative. What do you call "lightly breathed?" I would call that a cold air intake and maybe a tune. In which case those combined aren't getting the new mustang into low 12's by a long shot.

Cold air intake, full exhaust and tune....maybe. But decent money and not what I would call "lightly breathed."

the 2104's run 12.70's. the new 2015's are porkers and most people are getting 13.0's out of them.

but back to my 2012...
-it was a first gear roll race
-he drove it like he stole it because not his car, lol
-geared low
-vvt

I lost by half a car at 85 mph (not safe to keep going)- before I put headers, probably a 12.90-13.00 car at 111-112 at best (street tires). It was close and I had a long rev range, but it just did not have the power in that configuration. Over 100 mp[h would have turned my way. Definitely have more top end with the improved exhaust now. Anyways- we are talking 300 cubic inches in a car that weighs 100 lbs more- a lot of the mustang pop comes from the VVT 4 cam variable timing and the deep trans gearing. 1st gear is 3.66:1 ratio. fifth is 1:1. First gear is 13:1 ratio with 3:55 rear gears. Cheapest 12 second car I've ever owned. My friend was laughing his *** off too.


2012 was only 100 lbs lighter for an identically equipped car.

The 2015 is slower. But the best MT got out of the 2014 was a 0-60 of 4.3 and a 1/4 mile of 12.7. That's a best time with an above average driver and certainly not indicative of what the cars are averaging.

And again, it depends on the car. Some are simply better than others. That's not out of the range of a stock ZR1 though.


The funny thing is, we're arguing about a car that was designed in the late 80's against cars designed and built 30 years later...The new ones should be faster.

[XfireZ51]

It's all relative. What do you call "lightly breathed?" I would call that a cold air intake and maybe a tune. In which case those combined aren't getting the new mustang into low 12's by a long shot.

Cold air intake, full exhaust and tune....maybe. But decent money and not what I would call "lightly breathed."




2012 was only 100 lbs lighter for an identically equipped car.

The 2015 is slower. But the best MT got out of the 2014 was a 0-60 of 4.3 and a 1/4 mile of 12.7. That's a best time with an above average driver and certainly not indicative of what the cars are averaging.

And again, it depends on the car. Some are simply better than others. That's not out of the range of a stock ZR1 though.


The funny thing is, we're arguing about a car that was designed in the late 80's against cars designed and built 30 years later...The new ones should be faster.


However, in a bow towards total transparency we also are comparing a 5.0 to a 5.7L motor with similar weight. At higher speeds, I suppose the aero on the Vette also comes into play.

[spork2367]

However, in a bow towards total transparency we also are comparing a 5.0 to a 5.7L motor with similar weight. At higher speeds, I suppose the aero on the Vette also comes into play.

.7 liters is pretty meaningless. Especially in this day and age. HP and torque are close. The VVT is a huge factor though. That's the only thing that makes the 5.0 even remotely competitive with the ZR1. It can optimize the valve timing for ideal torque anywhere in the rpm range. Eliminate that and give it fixed valve train geometry and it would be very pedestrian.

Someone get started on some VVT heads for the LT5...

I had a Toyota 1GZ-FE...5.0 liter V12 with VVT on the intake side. 280 ft. lbs. of torque off idle...mmm.

[mike100]

.7 liters is pretty meaningless....

I agree with everything you said except for the quote above... 48 cubic inches is almost the difference between the regular C6 to the LS7.

VVT is the only way to get an engine now. I'm actually disappointed that the C7 only has cam phasing and no way to change overlap. Even my other car with the LS3 feels primitive in its power delivery (thankfully 376 ci in a light car go a long ways). The mustang is nothing special, but it's a good cradle for a great engine. It is nice to have a car you don't feel bad about parking outside.

[mike100]

This is my biggest fear of these new models. I just dont find it acceptable to lose to a stock mustang while driving my zr1. I respect the coyote engine but its natural power against natural power so losing is not an option. Headers, porting and tuning are the solutions to this problem. Losing weight is another way to go. Get rid of your spare tire and carrier, cats and resonators and any unnecessary items you dont need. Keep the steering wheel and accelerator pedal.

ed ramos #3028:mad:

I put headers on right after that incident- it was already ported and chipped so it woke the hell up- best believe. I may not get another chance at a rematch, but I knew once i started dusting off c5-Z06's that the situation was looking up.

[Kevin]

It's all relative. What do you call "lightly breathed?" I would call that a cold air intake and maybe a tune. In which case those combined aren't getting the new mustang into low 12's by a long shot.

Cold air intake, full exhaust and tune....maybe. But decent money and not what I would call "lightly breathed."




2012 was only 100 lbs lighter for an identically equipped car.

The 2015 is slower. But the best MT got out of the 2014 was a 0-60 of 4.3 and a 1/4 mile of 12.7. That's a best time with an above average driver and certainly not indicative of what the cars are averaging.

And again, it depends on the car. Some are simply better than others. That's not out of the range of a stock ZR1 though.


The funny thing is, we're arguing about a car that was designed in the late 80's against cars designed and built 30 years later...The new ones should be faster.
exhaust and DRs from what I hear

[edram454]

I put headers on right after that incident- it was already ported and chipped so it woke the hell up- best believe. I may not get another chance at a rematch, but I knew once i started dusting off c5-Z06's that the situation was looking up.

that sounds about right. I have beaten c5-z06 cars and they are very fast cars. I tried a c6-z06 and it was able to pull away slowly from me from start to finish. those ls7 engines have good torque and rev to 7 grand.. they also go 195mph. they put around 450 to the wheels. It would take a stroked lt5 to take one on.

ed ramos #3028

[Hog]

I agree with everything you said except for the quote above... 48 cubic inches is almost the difference between the regular C6 to the LS7.

VVT is the only way to get an engine now. I'm actually disappointed that the C7 only has cam phasing and no way to change overlap. Even my other car with the LS3 feels primitive in its power delivery (thankfully 376 ci in a light car go a long ways). The mustang is nothing special, but it's a good cradle for a great engine. It is nice to have a car you don't feel bad about parking outside.
Both engines have Variable Valve Timing(Coyote and LT1), the Ford Coyote has Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing which allows the exhaust and intake cams to be passed individually.

Much easier to do on DOHC engine than a single cam pushrod engine. Plus the smaller 5.0 required the IVCT to make power/torque, the larger GEN 5 LT1 6.2 makes more power/torque than the Coyote. It can be done though, the V10 Dodge V10 uses a cam-in-a-cam setup that allows some differentiation in the intake and exhaust valves. Ive even seen drawings of GEN 5 SBC with the same technology, but GM could reach its goals without it.

A GEN 4 LS3 would feel "primitive" compared to a GEN 5 LT1, both of which are 6.2 liters. The Direct Injection of the LT1 completely changes the character of the engine(has the torque of a GEN 4 LS7).

The LT5 with its Variable Intake Manifold Technology, was the beginning of GM's fight for upper rpm power while attempting to provide excellent low rpm torque. Way back in the 80's.

Engine tech is amazing, what we have done with the good old ICE.

[RyanChappel]

Now I am seriously considering (again) sending my Z(#1929) to Haibeck for the winter.......

You guys simply cannot leave well-enough alone......

"I feel the need for (more) speed!"

[XfireZ51]

Now I am seriously considering (again) sending my Z(#1929) to Haibeck for the winter.......

You guys simply cannot leave well-enough alone......

"I feel the need for (more) speed!"

For the love of humanity, don't drive a modded ZR-1. Stay away from these evil machines. You will never forgive yourself for taking the dark path. There is no return.

[Bob Eyres]

that sounds about right. I have beaten c5-z06 cars and they are very fast cars. I tried a c6-z06 and it was able to pull away slowly from me from start to finish. those ls7 engines have good torque and rev to 7 grand.. they also go 195mph. they put around 450 to the wheels. It would take a stroked lt5 to take one on.

ed ramos #3028

My experience exactly. I had no problem with C5's up to and including the 01' ZO6's, but the 02's with a little more HP and the light weight could edge me out.
The C6 ZO6 LS7/427's?.... Fugetaboutit :mad:

I guess Marc has to work his magic before I tangle with any more 21st Century Corvettes.
I guess we still have bragging rights to "The fastest American Production Car of the Twentieth Century", don't we?

[edram454]

If I was more concerned about speed I would have not sold my c5 corvette. Speed isnt everything. History, engineering and a limited edition product is sometimes more important than speed. I like the fact that I have a rare car, that is unique, looks great handles and performs with contemporary cars but will be 25 years old in a couple of months. Our cars are still relevant. They are not the fastest unless we dump thousands of dollars to boost them up which I will not. Maybe a nitrous shot if you dont mind losing a head gasket or worse.

I am satisfied with the Lt5 performance and happy about everything else. This has been the car I have most enjoyed owning and driving. It is not the fastest car I have had by a long shot but the funnest.

ed ramos #3028

[5ABI VT]

I agree with ^^. It definitely isn't about speed for me. I had enough to pick up an 08 ls3 but what a god awful ugly car in my eyes. I knew it was similar in straight line speed but the dollar/speed ratio is obviously much better with the LS3 motor when it comes to heads or even a cam or a stroker.

I always like to say. "its not about how fast you go. Its about what you go fast in' !! :-D

[WB9MCW]

It is always fun to own a legend - KOTH forever == nuff said

[Hib Halverson]

(snip)
L68 1967-69 400hp 2x4bbl.
L71 1967-69 435hp 2x4bbl.
(snip)

Should be:
L68 1967-69 400hp 3x2bbl.
L71 1967-69 435hp 3x2bbl.

No Mark IV was ever released with dual four barrels.

[Hib Halverson]

I have one of each–1995 C4 ZR1, 20014 C5 Z06 and 2012 C6 Z06.

My ZR1 is modified to a hair over 500-hp. Big deal back in 97/98 when Van Dorn and I did the motor but not such a big deal nowadays, I s'pose. The C5 is making about 445 though mods–CAI, rockers, X-pipe and calibration. It's just a hair quicker in an eighth than the ZR1 mainly because it weighs quite a bit less. Beyond the 8th mile, the extra horsepower begins to help the ZR1 catch up.

As for the C6...no contest. The 427 is quicker and faster–and that was before I started modifying it. Right now, the backdated exhaust, cooler ECT and some cal work has me at about 515. Plus, the car is easier to get off the line because it has launch control. Enable launch control, bury the gas, quickly release the clutch then keep your foot on the floor and shift. The most fun I've had in a street car, like...ever.

[Karl]

As for the C6...no contest. The 427 is quicker and faster–and that was before I started modifying it. Right now, the backdated exhaust, cooler ECT and some cal work has me at about 515. Plus, the car is easier to get off the line because it has launch control. Enable launch control, bury the gas, quickly release the clutch then keep your foot on the floor and shift. The most fun I've had in a street car, like...ever.

What is your opinion about the failing valves and valve train isssue? I have been looking into swapping into one?

[XfireZ51]

No question newer technology is awesome. However, I would love to see GM repeat or beat what was accomplished by the ZR-1 at Ft. Stockton.

[Hog]

(snip)

Should be:
L68 1967-69 400hp 3x2bbl.
L71 1967-69 435hp 3x2bbl.

No Mark IV was ever released with dual four barrels.
Thanks Hib!
Of course, I forgot about the 3 x 2 bbls.

Corrected!

[Hog]

I have one of each–1995 C4 ZR1, 20014 C5 Z06 and 2012 C6 Z06.

My ZR1 is modified to a hair over 500-hp. Big deal back in 97/98 when Van Dorn and I did the motor but not such a big deal nowadays, I s'pose. The C5 is making about 445 though mods–CAI, rockers, X-pipe and calibration. It's just a hair quicker in an eighth than the ZR1 mainly because it weighs quite a bit less. Beyond the 8th mile, the extra horsepower begins to help the ZR1 catch up.

As for the C6...no contest. The 427 is quicker and faster–and that was before I started modifying it. Right now, the backdated exhaust, cooler ECT and some cal work has me at about 515. Plus, the car is easier to get off the line because it has launch control. Enable launch control, bury the gas, quickly release the clutch then keep your foot on the floor and shift. The most fun I've had in a street car, like...ever.
Are your quoted power outputs engine or chassis dyno?