Anyone know the trure HP for a 1996 corvette LT1 CE
11-05-2008, 09:15 PM
#1
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Anyone know the trure HP for a 1996 corvette LT1 CE
I know the factory specs are 300HP and 335ft lbs of torque but do they actually make more power?
11-05-2008, 09:31 PM
#2
Race Director
but the rest of the 96 LT1s are rated:
Horsepower (hp @ rpm) 300 @ 5,000 Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 340 @ 4,000
Redline (rpm) 5,700
11-05-2008, 09:47 PM
#3
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
My car is not special, But I know they will dyno more than what the factory spec's are. What did I say to make you be so sarcastic?
11-05-2008, 09:50 PM
#4
Team Owner
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
Must be that reverse cooling.
11-05-2008, 09:57 PM
#5
Dat not nice
I guess what you are asking (and hoping) is that the 96 lt1 Corvette was under-rated in the advertised HP. I think it is close to 300hp as advertised. BUT, the sleeper details are, the 96 Corvette is a pretty light car and can do alot more with 300hp than most cars. Plus 340lbs of torque is pretty decent for a stock car. Many of the new sports cars with 300hp, cannot beat your 12 year old vette in any category. Not even the 300hp WRXs or G35s. Watch out for WRX with the stage three turbo kit tho......
I have a friend across the street with a brand new Z350, with 306 hp. Before I busted my engine, my 12 yr old vette could out accel his car at any speed. (although I did have the hotcam and catback exhaust which added about 35hp.) Why could I do that? because his car is so damn heavy, and the torque is about 50 less than mine.
Don't worry bout HP bro. . . . . you're off to a good start.
You want more power?......open your pocketbook.
I guess what you are asking (and hoping) is that the 96 lt1 Corvette was under-rated in the advertised HP. I think it is close to 300hp as advertised. BUT, the sleeper details are, the 96 Corvette is a pretty light car and can do alot more with 300hp than most cars. Plus 340lbs of torque is pretty decent for a stock car. Many of the new sports cars with 300hp, cannot beat your 12 year old vette in any category. Not even the 300hp WRXs or G35s. Watch out for WRX with the stage three turbo kit tho......
I have a friend across the street with a brand new Z350, with 306 hp. Before I busted my engine, my 12 yr old vette could out accel his car at any speed. (although I did have the hotcam and catback exhaust which added about 35hp.) Why could I do that? because his car is so damn heavy, and the torque is about 50 less than mine.
Don't worry bout HP bro. . . . . you're off to a good start.
You want more power?......open your pocketbook.
11-05-2008, 09:59 PM
#6
Don't listen to the sarcasim. . . .we like to poke fun at each other at times. I think he was trying to be funny.
How many miles on your car?
How many miles on your car?
11-05-2008, 10:01 PM
#7
Race Director
the rumor is for the 96 LT4s, and is they are under rated and dyno higher than 330 hp should. However, they are comparing M6 RWHP numbers against A4s using the same driveline losses. As for the sarcasm I gave a
to show I was busting your chops.If you believe it dyno's higher go for it, find a dyno and git r done. IMO you will be disappointed. If your looking for a high dyno number make sure you find a dyno jet they provide a more optimistic result than Mustang dynos.
Last edited by aboatguy; 11-05-2008 at 10:05 PM.
11-05-2008, 10:03 PM
#8
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Dat not nice
I guess what you are asking (and hoping) is that the 96 lt1 Corvette was under-rated in the advertised HP. I think it is close to 300hp as advertised. BUT, the sleeper details are, the 96 Corvette is a pretty light car and can do alot more with 300hp than most cars. Plus 340lbs of torque is pretty decent for a stock car. Many of the new sports cars with 300hp, cannot beat your 12 year old vette in any category. Not even the 300hp WRXs or G35s. Watch out for WRX with the stage three turbo kit tho......
I have a friend across the street with a brand new Z350, with 306 hp. Before I busted my engine, my 12 yr old vette could out accel his car at any speed. (although I did have the hotcam and catback exhaust which added about 35hp.) Why could I do that? because his car is so damn heavy, and the torque is about 50 less than mine.
Don't worry bout HP bro. . . . . you're off to a good start.
You want more power?......open your pocketbook.
I guess what you are asking (and hoping) is that the 96 lt1 Corvette was under-rated in the advertised HP. I think it is close to 300hp as advertised. BUT, the sleeper details are, the 96 Corvette is a pretty light car and can do alot more with 300hp than most cars. Plus 340lbs of torque is pretty decent for a stock car. Many of the new sports cars with 300hp, cannot beat your 12 year old vette in any category. Not even the 300hp WRXs or G35s. Watch out for WRX with the stage three turbo kit tho......
I have a friend across the street with a brand new Z350, with 306 hp. Before I busted my engine, my 12 yr old vette could out accel his car at any speed. (although I did have the hotcam and catback exhaust which added about 35hp.) Why could I do that? because his car is so damn heavy, and the torque is about 50 less than mine.
Don't worry bout HP bro. . . . . you're off to a good start.
You want more power?......open your pocketbook.
11-05-2008, 10:05 PM
#9
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
11-05-2008, 10:09 PM
#10
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
They will?
the rumor is for the 96 LT4s, and is they are under rated and dyno higher than 330 hp should. However, they are comparing M6 RWHP numbers against A4s using the same driveline losses. As for the sarcasm I gave a to show I was busting your chops.
If you believe it dyno's higher go for it, find a dyno and git r done. IMO you will be disappointed. If your looking for a high dyno number make sure you find a dyno jet they provide a more optimistic result than Mustang dynos.
the rumor is for the 96 LT4s, and is they are under rated and dyno higher than 330 hp should. However, they are comparing M6 RWHP numbers against A4s using the same driveline losses. As for the sarcasm I gave a
to show I was busting your chops.If you believe it dyno's higher go for it, find a dyno and git r done. IMO you will be disappointed. If your looking for a high dyno number make sure you find a dyno jet they provide a more optimistic result than Mustang dynos.
11-06-2008, 02:59 PM
#12
Melting Slicks
LT1 M6 usually put down about 260-280 hp, to the wheels, depending on the car, dyno, day, weather, etc, etc. I've heard of some a bit higher, some a bit lower, even in the 245 range, but 260-280 is about right.
You can argue about how under-rated, special, hand built, C5 killer, keep insurance premiums down, whatever.
You can argue about how under-rated, special, hand built, C5 killer, keep insurance premiums down, whatever.
11-11-2008, 09:15 PM
#13
Racer
LT-1 Horse power.
I was looking for an older vet when I bought my 96. I read and article in Vet Views on the Corvette trilogy. It said that Chevrolet decided to name the Small block in the 92 Corvette LT-1 as it was the first time since the 1970 Corvette that the small block put out more than 370 Horsepower. If you look on the web you can find a program that a horse power calculator. Top speed in the 1/4 mile to figure horse power. My 70 LT-1 Coupe Ran the 1/4 in 13.8 at 103 with Long tube open headers, Street tires. Most of the LT-1 Corvettes today run in the mid to low 13's 100 plus mph. The 300 horse power in the cars today is SAE with accessories. In the 60's and early 70's the horse power rating where flywheel ratings on a dyno no accessories
Last edited by LUDS 96; 11-11-2008 at 10:06 PM. Reason: Correcting information
11-11-2008, 09:23 PM
#14
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: Riverside County Southern California
Posts: 34,988
Received 501 Likes
on
342 Posts
Co-winner 2020 C4 of the Year - Modified
2018 Corvette of Year Finalist
2017 C4 of Year
2016 C7 of Year Finalist
St. Jude Donor '09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19-'20
There were no Manual ZF LT1 in 1996.
1996:
LT1: Automatic
LT4: ZF Manual
Your LT1 makes 300 HP at the crank when it was brand new.
1996:
LT1: Automatic
LT4: ZF Manual
Your LT1 makes 300 HP at the crank when it was brand new.
11-11-2008, 10:07 PM
#15
Racer
SAE Horsepower
[edit] SAE gross horsepower
Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a blueprinted test engine running on a stand with no belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, mufflers, or emission control devices and sometimes fitted with long tube "test headers" in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds.[citation needed] The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature were relatively idealistic. The resulting gross power and torque figures therefore reflected a maximum, theoretical value and not the power of an installed engine in a street car. Gross horsepower figures were also subject to considerable adjustment by the manufacturer's advertising and marketing staff under the direction of product managers.[citation needed] The power ratings of mass-market engines were often exaggerated beyond their actual gross output, while those of the highest-performance muscle car engines often tended to be closer in actual output to their advertised, gross ratings.[citation needed]
No pre-1972 engine in its unaltered, production line stock form, as installed in the vehicle, has ever yielded documented, qualified third party validated power figures that equal or exceed its original gross rating.[citation needed] Claims that such engines were "under-rated" are therefore dubious; for example, the 1969 427 ZL1 Chevrolet, rated at 430 bhp (320.7 kW), is frequently cited[who?] as an "under-rated" high performance engine, yet it produced only 376 horsepower (280 kW).[9]
[edit] SAE net horsepower
In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies.
Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines shows a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating and a net rating of 350 hp, while the same company's 225 Slant 6 carried a rating of 145 bhp but 110 net hp.[citations needed]
[edit] SAE certified horsepower
In 2005, the SAE introduced a new test protocol for engine horsepower and torque.[10] The new protocol eliminates some of the flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".
Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 horsepower (330 kW) to 469 horsepower (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 horsepower (160 kW) to 190 horsepower (140 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 horsepower (370 kW) to 505 horsepower (377 kW).
Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a blueprinted test engine running on a stand with no belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, mufflers, or emission control devices and sometimes fitted with long tube "test headers" in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds.[citation needed] The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature were relatively idealistic. The resulting gross power and torque figures therefore reflected a maximum, theoretical value and not the power of an installed engine in a street car. Gross horsepower figures were also subject to considerable adjustment by the manufacturer's advertising and marketing staff under the direction of product managers.[citation needed] The power ratings of mass-market engines were often exaggerated beyond their actual gross output, while those of the highest-performance muscle car engines often tended to be closer in actual output to their advertised, gross ratings.[citation needed]
No pre-1972 engine in its unaltered, production line stock form, as installed in the vehicle, has ever yielded documented, qualified third party validated power figures that equal or exceed its original gross rating.[citation needed] Claims that such engines were "under-rated" are therefore dubious; for example, the 1969 427 ZL1 Chevrolet, rated at 430 bhp (320.7 kW), is frequently cited[who?] as an "under-rated" high performance engine, yet it produced only 376 horsepower (280 kW).[9]
[edit] SAE net horsepower
In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies.
Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines shows a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating and a net rating of 350 hp, while the same company's 225 Slant 6 carried a rating of 145 bhp but 110 net hp.[citations needed]
[edit] SAE certified horsepower
In 2005, the SAE introduced a new test protocol for engine horsepower and torque.[10] The new protocol eliminates some of the flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".
Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 horsepower (330 kW) to 469 horsepower (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 horsepower (160 kW) to 190 horsepower (140 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 horsepower (370 kW) to 505 horsepower (377 kW).
01-03-2012, 01:03 PM
#17
Drifting
01-03-2012, 04:12 PM
#19
Safety Car
Callaway did a supernatural 450 hp....I think Lingenfelter's max was 430hp...
No 500 hp in 96, definitely not from the factory....
