L98 Underrated?
09-30-2003, 11:01 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 1,211
I don't think the hp is underrated. These engines make so much torque that they can move the weight of an fbod or vette easily. The first gear pull in my 89 Formula 350 is as good as any stock lt1 or ls1. It just runs out of breath at 4,500.
09-30-2003, 02:10 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 672
Originally posted by angel71rs
I don't think the hp is underrated. These engines make so much torque that they can move the weight of an fbod or vette easily. The first gear pull in my 89 Formula 350 is as good as any stock lt1 or ls1. It just runs out of breath at 4,500.
I don't think the hp is underrated. These engines make so much torque that they can move the weight of an fbod or vette easily. The first gear pull in my 89 Formula 350 is as good as any stock lt1 or ls1. It just runs out of breath at 4,500.
09-30-2003, 04:05 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Athens/Alpharetta GA
Posts: 107
Originally posted by StealthElephant
GM has underrated alot of engines, I wouldnt be surprised if the L98 has a little more then advertised.
GM has underrated alot of engines, I wouldnt be surprised if the L98 has a little more then advertised.
09-30-2003, 04:49 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 62
GM does underrate most of the f-bodies with respect to the corvette.
LS1's are pretty restricted with stock lid and exhaust to keep the power below the corvette's, then they just underrate them some so that not only are you happy when you dyno it, but it doesn't look like they are charging 25K for a camaro with 345hp and 50K for a corvette with 345hp.
I would not be surprised if the L98 f-body was slightly underrated to keep it at a good sight from the corvette power.
As far as my LB9 i had.. with 135,000 miles.. and just these mods: 80 series flowmaster with 3 inch catback, high flow cat, k&n, splitfires, Hyperjunk chip, msd coil, accel 8.8 wires, airfoil, stewart high flow waterpump, 170 thermostat with 4 little holes, Tb bypass, and a stock tranny acting up.. did i mention 135,000 miles.. it pulled 177rwhp and 243rwtq. which is approx. 220hp and 300 tq figureing a 20% drivetrain loss. The car was rated from the factory with 210hp and 285 tq***.. so that tells you right there.. imagine if i had dynoed it at 35,000 miles.
*** 1990 Lb9 2.73 a4 base Iroc.
LS1's are pretty restricted with stock lid and exhaust to keep the power below the corvette's, then they just underrate them some so that not only are you happy when you dyno it, but it doesn't look like they are charging 25K for a camaro with 345hp and 50K for a corvette with 345hp.
I would not be surprised if the L98 f-body was slightly underrated to keep it at a good sight from the corvette power.
As far as my LB9 i had.. with 135,000 miles.. and just these mods: 80 series flowmaster with 3 inch catback, high flow cat, k&n, splitfires, Hyperjunk chip, msd coil, accel 8.8 wires, airfoil, stewart high flow waterpump, 170 thermostat with 4 little holes, Tb bypass, and a stock tranny acting up.. did i mention 135,000 miles.. it pulled 177rwhp and 243rwtq. which is approx. 220hp and 300 tq figureing a 20% drivetrain loss. The car was rated from the factory with 210hp and 285 tq***.. so that tells you right there.. imagine if i had dynoed it at 35,000 miles.
*** 1990 Lb9 2.73 a4 base Iroc.
Last edited by Shaun 90 Iroc; 09-30-2003 at 04:54 PM.
Back then some where made better than others and some ran better than others.but they were not underrated.
09-30-2003, 08:41 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Athens/Alpharetta GA
Posts: 107
"some were made better"
That's not really true, though...
In a factory setup you should assume that all motors are built equally. Their only differences being the break-in drive period.
The motors are not "built differently," they just have differing wear patterns after the first 5,000 miles which determines the motor's lifetime power and torque.
Every L98 that came out of the factory had the same potential (within reason) to be just as powerful than the most powerful L98. Just get a good driver behind it for the first few miles and you will see the difference in any engine.
If every car was driven the exact same way for the first few thousand miles, then it would be pretty easy to assume that they all would have the same power and torque.
That's not really true, though...
In a factory setup you should assume that all motors are built equally. Their only differences being the break-in drive period.
The motors are not "built differently," they just have differing wear patterns after the first 5,000 miles which determines the motor's lifetime power and torque.
Every L98 that came out of the factory had the same potential (within reason) to be just as powerful than the most powerful L98. Just get a good driver behind it for the first few miles and you will see the difference in any engine.
If every car was driven the exact same way for the first few thousand miles, then it would be pretty easy to assume that they all would have the same power and torque.
09-30-2003, 09:13 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 62
Originally posted by lordmetalz28
so your saying a ls1 (lets assume) that the ls1 had dynoed at 325hp it most likley has 345 at the fly wheel.
so your saying a ls1 (lets assume) that the ls1 had dynoed at 325hp it most likley has 345 at the fly wheel.
So 325rwhp on the dyno for a auto is 385-400 hp at the flywheel.
X=flywheel hp
325= dynoed rwhp
100%-15%=85%
85%= .85
X * .85 = 325
X=325/.85
X=385
09-30-2003, 09:26 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Athens/Alpharetta GA
Posts: 107
most LS1s i've seen dyno at about 290hp/340-50ish tq.
One of my old car-club members was still fighting for 300 horses even after she had the miraculous "lid and filter" on her 2000 Z.
oh, yeah it was an auto
One of my old car-club members was still fighting for 300 horses even after she had the miraculous "lid and filter" on her 2000 Z.
oh, yeah it was an auto
Last edited by kraftopia02; 09-30-2003 at 09:28 PM.
