Tom400CFI

*sigh*The only "issue" i'm having today is dealing w/the SOTP meter, L98 flag wavers who don't look at facts and raw data.


Depends on too many variable to make a claoim, but ALL things being equal, the L98 would likely get to it's peak quicker, since that peak occurs at a lower RPM than the LT1's peak. Which one would get to a speed quicker? LT1.



I don't know. Where did you get your LT1 data from? If you took mag data for the LT1 and then your own data for the L98, that doesn't work.


I think the LT1 is. It has a broader, flatter tq curve with about the same absolute peak.


It think (as has been said numerous times now) that there are too many other variables about the CAR (gearing, weight, etc) to draw any conclusions the way that you are attempting to. That is why I posted a graph produced by the people who made both motors..


You're getting way, way off track here, BUT while early cars had 16" wheels, they also had much higher rate springs, so....again, too many variables to draw conclusions about HP and tq, in a race that doesn't reward ho or tq.


NO! That is bullsh!t, worthless "data". It isn't data. You want more regimented (measured) comparison? Look at the 60' times for stock vs. stock at a drag track...and guess what? BOTH cars 60' about the same; 2.0 seconds.


I don't like the LT1 better. I like all C4 engines for different reasons. I can tell that YOU like the L98 better, so you try to used anecdotal evidence (not facts) to support the position you'd like to see. The L98 does produce more mid range tq. It does not produce more low end tq, and the graph I posted proves that.


You do realize that both motors make ~340 peak tq right? I don't GAF what "everyone" will tell me about their SOTP meter. The SOTP meter is bulsh!t and TPI cars and VAG 1.8T's prove that!


Noooo, my graph proves that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, the LT1 would leave quicker/faster, the L98 would edge ahead through the 3000 RPM range, and then fall behind and never catch up again. THAT is what the graph clearly proves.


No Do not twist and mince word to manipulate a point. Try common sense, reason and facts instead. I'm arguing with the facts that I posted. You do know how to read a hp/tq graph, don't you? I know what will happen all things equal, and there is a plethora of data out there on L98 and LT1 60' times, 0-60 times, and 1/4 mile times that back up what I'm saying, AND agree w/that graph.

Did ya read the link I posted? Do you "Get it" why what you stated about intakes was bass-ackward?

Dude, I think L98's are great. I love them. Crowz said the L98 makes more low end tq, and that isn't true. So...I posted the graph from GM. Then you come on here chest-thumping, trying to "prove" that the L98 does make more low end tq b/c it may be faster in autox(?) Can you see where your method has gone wrong?


'

crowz

Actually your graph does show the L98 makes more LOW end torque. Not more total torque.

Red light to red light the L98 has the advantage and 1/4 mile Lt1 has the advantage stock.

Gears would make a difference too. 3.73 would go twards lt1 while 2.59 would go twards L98.

Now one could compensate with high stall or clutch slipping I guess in a drag race. Not really feasible in autocross which is mostly low speed hard corner pulling.

As for throttle response etc. No clue. To be honest my LT1 seems "peppier" than my L98's. But my stock L98's have taller gears than my LT1 does.

1/8th mile my L98's turn in very nice times vs my LT1. 1/4 mile wise my stock LT1 rapes my stock L98's.

MavsAK

Look at your graph again. Which one makes more torque on the low to mid range. Light to light, the L98 is better.

I've yet to drive a bone stock LT1 that even hit it's magazine 0-60s. While it's entirely possible that all four of them were worn our and nearing boat anchor status, I don't think that's likely given how well kept up 3 of them were.

Sure, but sidewall thickness also alters over all spring rates (narrower rubber = more effective suspension stiffness). And given taller sidewalls tendency for roll over, the advantage in rubber on stock rims handily goes to the LT1 cars. To say nothing of the rubber compound itself being significantly gripper to start with. The LT1 cars also had the same chassis stiffening that the 88 through 91 cars had.

That mere 20lbft of torque is a pretty significant factor, considering the LT1 cars aren't -that- much heavier.

Gearing, is the same between option trims of the car. Either 2.59s or 3.07s with an A4. Not a whole lot of 3.07s out there either. I know that mine in the 89, is a 2.59 unless someone swapped it (I doubt it, very seriously considering the original condition everywhere else). There's hardly any mystery in C4 gearing, considering they have the same transmission in the A4, and only 1 of 2 rear gears.

I said at a given power, the LTR will thump more torque, than an LT1. Coming back to the Strokers, that's seen time and again. A 400 horse LT1, makes right around, (usually less) that same number in lbft. A 400 horse L98 with long tube runners, will make 500+ lb feet. Minimum 450lb ft. Do you think the LT1 would make 340lb ft, if it only had 250 ponies? I doubt it. On a Stock Engine, sure, PEAK torque isn't different. However off of peak, and in the 2k to 3k range there's a pretty significant difference in the engines. The second you start deviating from stock though, the difference in runner design becomes readily apparent.

MaxDaemon

She's a beauty!

Hah, we were on vacation in February, have a pic in that very spot - less the Corvette, unfortunately. I didn't realize you could drive down there, I guess. We parked Ariel (my '94 Aqua Corvette) up top and walked down, I believe.

BTW, my '84 squeaks and rattles .. but my '94 is absolutely tight and hardly makes a sound. Part of that is the '84 was much less carefully cared for, but it's also that oh-so-tight truck-bed suspension. Which makes it great for cornering, but you feel every grain of sand on the road. With that many hits over 31 years, I can see her squeaking a little.

Regards from up in Washington state - you have a very active set of Corvette people in your area, make sure to check out the PNW postings.

crowz

The harsh suspension is something I flat don't miss with the 87 convertible I have now. My 86 coupe had the z51 suspension and I felt every pebble in the road and god help you if you hit a pot hole. Roads around here suck. The 87 is normal suspension and soaks up the road problems with no issue. Love the change.

I cant tell the 87 handles worse than the 86 either which is weird.

Tom400CFI

Do we not know how to read graphs on this forum?? No, Crows, absolutely not. Let's have another look, shall we?



Soooo, the solid line illustrates the LT1 torque and HP. Says so right on the graph page. The dotted line illustrates the L98's tq and hp curves. Now if you look at the graph, you'll see that from idle, to ~2200 RPM or so, the solid line is higher than the dotted line. Higher, means MORE. So unless you're looking at your monitor upside down, the graph shows the LT1 making more "low end tq" (that would be from idle to ~2000 RPM) than the L98. CAN WE AGREE ON THIS?



NO! Mavs already made that claim, I already debunked it. 60' times are well documented for L98's and LT1, and they're the same. Stop light drags are NOT well documented, they are bogus "data".



NOW you're talking something worth while. What are the break outs for both? How are they both equipped?

Tom400CFI

YOU need to look again. Used glasses, if you have to. I've jsut explained in great detail above.


For the comprehension impared, I've addressed this above too, when I said that:

How do you know? Did you time them? Or are you using your famous SOTP meter...again?? My car certainly runs fine. I've run 13.75 @4500' on a 7000' DA. Car will go low, 13's at sea level. That's better than any mag test, which I why I discredited your mag comparo vs. your times, above. For example R&T, in THIS ARTICLE, ran a 14.1. I've beaten that at my handicapped elevation! You can't use mags unless you use the same mag for both cars that you're comparing.


What does this have to do with the price of bread?? You're actually going to argue about sidewalls?? You'll have to argue w/yourself on that one. Have fun.


Look: I conceded that the L98 made ~20 lbs more at (and only at) 3200 RPM, HOWEVER, the LT1 is making the same PEAK tq (340) and at it's peak it's making about 40 more tq than the L98 does! You're neglecting to acknowledge that.


3 with the auto, and at least two more ratios when you include sticks. What has any of that got to do w/the price of bread?


Right. We're not talking about modded cars here. Thread is already an off topic, convoluted mess just talking stock...but you're right as soon as you start modding, you realize how much more HP you'll make w/a short(er) runner intake.


You never answered any of the questions I asked you in my last response to you....

MavsAK

Yep I have, with the Vbox. The best LT1 of four cars, with my vbox, was 5.7 seconds. They're all A4s by the way that I've driven. The worst was right over 6 seconds. I'm willing to throw out the worst of the times, for purposes of this thread. (Funnily enough it was the lowest mileage of the bunch.)

Sorry, no stopwatches here buddy.

Yes I am, because you're trying to argue about weight some how being a factor, with less than a 100lb delta between the cars, and a 55 hp disparity between them. Sidewall thickness has MORE to do with handling performance, than the 50lbs or so difference in the cars will, particularly since the LT1 cars, have more chassis reinforcements than pre 88 TPI cars. And granny tires are going to come out as more of a deciding factor, easily. So even with the granny rubbers...the early cars are still quicker in autocross. There's two factors there. First, is the cars suspension, and second is the powerplant, the former, again is limited by the cushier tire. Guess what that leaves.

You tell me what gearing has to do with it, you're the one that brought it up.

I'll answer your questions, as soon as you start making sense again.

Tom400CFI

As soon as *I* start making sense. That's good Mavs. This whole conversation started w/ Crows claiming erroneously that the L98 makes more low end tq. I then posted a hp/tq graph, produced by GM, which pretty clearly shows that the LT1 makes more tq from idle to ~2500 RPM (that would be, "the low end") than the L98. What doesn't make sense?

This part, is what doesn't make sense: You come on here chest thumping that the L98 actually makes more low end tq, b/c it may do better in autox!? WTF is that!? Who's making sense here and who is not?
*The guy posing a graph of actual tq curves, produced by GM (the people who designed and built both motors....or
*The guy using anecdotal guessing/speculating based on autox results??

THINK. Use you head, here.

vl5150

crowz

340 tq > 330 tq using gm's number. L98 makes more torque.

Most real world dyno results I can find show :

315 rwtq and the LT1's basically pull 300-310 rwtq until higher rpm range.

Tom400CFI

Only '92 had 330 tq. '93^ had (guess what?) 340 tq. Same as the "Tq monster" L98. 340 tq = 340 tq. You're right though, that first year LT1 gave up 10 lbs to the later L98's (early L98's only had 330 tq too)

.

Tom400CFI

Sure is. You'd think the graph posting would have been "good enough".

Leicajh

agree. +1. BTW, I'm old too. My 84 was a great car

MaxDaemon

Mine still is.

ricasso

So, your trying to decide if you should keep your car based on what you've read, (a lot of which was probably written by people who have never owned a C4!) If your happy with the car, besides the issues with the interior you mentioned which isn't the cars fault...and it does what you expected it to do, then why shouldn't you keep it? online "reviews" and the like are almost always going to be negative, no matter what car is referred to, and usually written by armchair experts! ANY older car is going to be a gamble, if YOU like it then keep it, simple as that..

MavsAK

I said low through the mid range. Read sometime. I know it's hard. But read.

The low to mid range is a large reason why the L98 cars do well in autocross. You don't get to the higher range of the rpm band where the LT-1 does generally better to start with. Meaning, in this case the L98, has more power to play with, than the LT-1 does. REGARDLESS OF PEAK TORQUE.

You then started claiming crap like "well the L98 cars are lighter and that's entirely why~!1ijklasfdjkl;fadsjl;adfsfxcasjkl;as dfjklafdsjkl;A" WITHOUT taking in other factors, like the granny rubber, and how that possibly can effect the car's handling. And it WILL far MORE SO, than a 50lb weight difference. (look at the Slaughter L98 cars tend to deliver the LT1s at autocross. Do you really think a mere 50 lbs is going to do that? Especially with a 55hp difference...)

Nah, that torque band, where the L98 EVEN ON YOUR OWN GRAPH, is producing more torque, AND MORE HP, couldn't possibly have ANYTHING what so ever to do with it's superior performance there nope nada. More power isn't more power at all. nope not ever! .....until Tom400 says so....even while he says so.
Think and read. Think and read.

Sorry you can keep believing that an RPM RANGE WHERE THE L98 IS SUPERIOR, has ZERO to do with the L98 car's performance on autocross all you want. An Rpm range that just happens to be exactly the rpm range you're going to spend a ton of time no less in autox But that's not going to change the fact that the superior torque and power, does indeed have something to do with it. Especially when it's running around on granny sized aspect ratios. Yeah, that 50lbs of weight is the difference maker alright

Tom400CFI

Indeed you did. VERY specific there. I was talking about "low end", which is idle-~2000 RPM IMO. The chart I posted shows the LT1 making more (albeit very slightly more) tq in that range.



BULL! Depends on the course, depends on the gear you select....you can very easily run right into the rev limiter on any course I've ever raced on. You should try it some time.



You're right. I shouldn't have engaged that idiotic, worthless topic that you brought up. Even though the L98 cars ARE typically lighter, have stiffer suspension, and other attributes that make them better at autox, I should have just stuck to my original point, which was that the LT1 does, in fact, make more low end tq, and the graph I posted proves it.


.

You're right Mavs. Even though the LT1's peak tq is only 800 RPM higher than the L98's...you MUST be right. You always are. I guess you would drive around an autox course at precisely 3000-3500 RPM the entire time. Your car must be equipped w/a CVT, right? Give us an F'n break. You need to actually participate in an autox before you spew garbage that proves you don't know WTF you're talking about.

This whole conversation started w/ Crows claiming erroneously that the L98 makes more low end tq. I then posted a hp/tq graph, produced by GM, which pretty clearly shows that the LT1 makes more tq from idle to ~2500 RPM (that would be, "the low end") than the L98.

You never answered any of the questions I asked you earlier...

shootnstarz

Geeze, this is worse than a 9mm vs 40 cal debate !!!!

Rick

crowz

Yep, I use .45's these days though

Im being nice since the core problem I have is I don't believe the graph posted even if its by gm or god. Ive sat in to many vehicles with both engines and no ones going to convince me the lt1 has more low end grunt. Ive walked off and left lt1's with the same gear sets as the l98 on sharp hills (inclines) and seen the effects first hand on the track autocrossing.

So I just grabbed some popcorn and Im enjoying tom and mav brawling