LT1 TRIPLE TEST-1970 LT-1 vs 1995 LT1 vs 2017 LT1 

Tons of potential also. You can build a 90s Camaro up to run 11 seconds 1/4 mile times without spending too much money. Good cheap platform for building a hotrod back in the day. I'm a corvette guy, though, and I can still appreciate the potential of that car....

Hell yea you need to make that saying into a tee-shirt

@jamarvelous not on this channel 💀

Every morning I wake up to a new R.H. video. It's literally part of my morning routine now.

I literally sung that.

Especially 2 strokes

I have a 1992 Vette. I love it. It's much smaller than new sports cars and the driving experience is amazing. So much better than those cars you mentioned. After driving one years ago, I knew that I had to buy one!

Me too

Same set up

That was the hot ticket

What stage is a lt4 hot cam?

Congratulations! Nice car!

And total engine airflow ported factory heads

Advanced induction.

400 Chevrolet block

Love the 90s gen 2 LT1 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

I thoroughly enjoy my Gen 2 LT1.. it's nestled in a 96 WS6 6sm.. it has a 150,000mi.. it's a MULE crossed with race horse!

What gear ratio in Buick road Master?

@@the.reel.mccoy. get ready for a transmission first lol. Mine has 173k miles. Showed no signs of blowing up. Out of no where the sun shell busted.

@@davidcallahan5157 mine has a 2.53 lol

Miss my DCM 95 SS! I was always under the impression that the iron heads on the B Body LT1s flowed better than the aluminum on F Body’s.

They are very, very close stock. The 1.8 ratio roller rocker is where the lift comes in. The lobe lift isn't much different.

Alot of that plastic is actually insulation to stop heat cooking your bonnet

While I do agree they are a better looking engine I’d much rather have the extra 150hp, drivability and reliability.

You can replace the plastic

The original 92 lt1 had a full aluminum intake and magnesium valve covers still.

so much yes.

Certainly not a highly modded twin turbo Coyote!!

Like John Holmes said" There is no replacement for displacement"

Would probably have to turn off VCT with a cam that big to prevent valve to piston interference. Loosing the advantages of VCT might not make the swap worth it.

The port design of the LT series engines is based loosely upon the LS7 head port design, and that's the best flowing LS head PERIOD. Given the stock power, I don't see why a heads/cam/VCT delete LT1 can't make 700hp N/A.

They were underrated from the factory too.

Yup. It's def the red head stepchild of the chevy v8. I have a 530hp LT4 in my c4. I absolutely love gapping many many ls cars. They be mad.

how the fuck are LS cheap????? literally i believe the opposite

@@rebel9976 Because you can find running LS engines for under $500 and even the smallest mildest 4.8L makes over 300HP... and even that one is a cam swap away from making 400hp.

@@stlchucko remember,those are flywheel numbers

Add flex fuel if it’s available to you & get some porting done. Best bang for the buck mods on these by far. I just had 2” headers, Pray ported stock IM/TB, Rotofab dry & a flex fuel kit to my car. Also had Pray do a dyno tune & it put down 469RW on his dyno. Best he’s ever gotten on a stock motor was 398... it was hot & humid as hell when mine was done so I wouldn’t have even been there for a baseline.

I was going to make this comment too

If everything is kept the same simply going to an overhead cam doesn’t really gain you anything. You might see a couple of hp from the lighter valvetrain but that’s about it. The gains from overhead cam are from all the things it makes it easier to take advantage of. Like light weight valve train, more valves, better valve angles, and sometimes bigger cam profiles. You could run both a carb and injection, but it adds extra complexity. Now you’re looking to sort if a problem is from the carb or the injection. At a point you are better off just running one or the other. The charge cooling could be handled by a simple methanol injection kit that sprays into the intake under load.

I agree OHC cams per se don’t add any power if everything is the same. One if the biggest advantages which NBSV1 alluded to is the the weight savings and stability of the valve train which allows the engine to rev higher than a comparable pushrod engine. And of course more revs = more HP.

Nope, modern combustion chamber design, ECU capability and the use of knock sensors allow ratios as high as 12:1 on pump gas now.

Marc B so what problems would be associated with higher compression other then wear and tear? Running hotter etc?

My favorite Muscle car SBC-but those motors never made 370 hp through stock manifolds-even with your exhaust mod-I built one and tested it

Yes LT1 gen 6 has over 500hp that's a beast

@ChrisHallett83 it looks like they are around 9k for a long block, I will have to keep that in mind for the next project 🤘😁🤘.

the DI is truly insane, the 5.3LT matches the power output of a 6.0 LS.

It's for emissions. The wide LSA and low duration camshaft is a recipe for VERY minimal overlap (for silky smooth idle) and decent higher RPM performance (if you can call 5000RPM high lol), but the high lift is there to raise the low end torque enough for even towing applications WITHOUT sacrificing emissions. On the contrary, a high duration and tight LSA camshaft is a recipe for overlap. Overlap is a HUGE detriment to emissions because as you know the intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time, which means a portion of the A/F mixture goes into the exhaust at the top of the exhaust stroke. The unburnt fuel is burnt at the catalytic converter (that's the entire purpose of a CAT converter) along with the excess of fuel igniting raises the Cat temperature significantly and destroys it VERY quickly.

I'd like to see Gen II LT4 vs LS1

My 97 Camaro z with LT1 is rated at factory at 285 horse , my 97 Vette with LS1 is rated at 345hp,, and thats about the difference that I feel in the seat of my pants too,,the LS One is a good step up from the LT1.

Darnell Craig That big old barn door getting 24 mpg at 75-80, I call BS. I have a S550 mustang GT manual shift that will get 26-27 mpg at 65-70. It will get 31 mpg at 55. Boring as it gets. At 80 mph maybe 24 mpg. This car is lighter and more aerodynamic then a 95 Buick Roadmaster wagon. I am and always have been a Chevy man and grew up with the small block Chevy. I still have three Chevrolets with a small block and two of the are LT1s

My caprice would get that too.

Don Grizzelle the Roadmaster is pretty aerodynamic, add in the OD trans, 2.73 gears and a 30” tall tire. mine was the sedan also. I have a picture of the tach and speedo where I’m going 80 mph and the tach is at 1800 rpm. I owned that car for 3 years total and drove it all over the eastern US. Around town it wasn’t nearly as good but the interstate is where it shined.

I've found quite a few in Buicks and full size caprice in junkyards

I would suggest a 24x conversion

a factory Camaro LT-1 in 1970 had a windage tray? pins would change nothing but that difference would be odd for an assembly line motor

Yep! Camaro had the windage tray mounted on 5 of the inner 6 bolts which locked on either side of the pan by tac welded rails. 1970 to 1974 Z28. I’m 66 Sold parts, service writer, finally a salesman for CHEVROLET. As well as Motion Baldwin. Read my story in ISLIP SPEEDWAY AND THE TWO SIX PACKS! Soon to be a major motion picture!

Yes please

When he does the sound quality is horrible :(

Most of his videos use dyno runs from years ago, so I assume they didn't record them at the time.

Gone Nutz Racing Yeah, I’m aware of that. New builds should be recorded. This is 2020...

I agree there needs to be more dyno noises but you're complaining it's 2020 critiquing someone else's videos yet don't have a single one of your own? Try putting the amount of info Richard is in each video into your own and see how much fun all the editing and fact chasing is, let alone trying to create something to appease everyone. ;)

You can never have too much octane, but there's no point to running race gas unless you NEED it. Depending on who you ask, 11-12:1 is the compression ratio limit on pump gas. Higher octane=more timing=more power. If you run too much timing you may lose power, that's regardless of fuel though. Theres no mechanical downside to using higher octane with a low compression engine (8-10.5:1), whereas theres lots of potential downside to using too low an octane on a high compression engine (~11:1+).

@@rustysausage69 I have to disagree with you as I've experienced less hp with higher then needed Octane on a 1973 CB 125 6 volt system. I ran 91 leaded gas on her and ran crappy but, when I used 85 unleaded it ran fine. Not sure if the 6 volt system had something to do with this?

@@adeptpeasant6161 I'm not saying the idea is wrong, but I assure you the leaded/unleaded fuel change was a significant source of how it ran.

I had a 93z28 that I put Llyod Elliot ported heads, ported intake, 58mm dual blade throttle body, bigger injectors (cant remember how big), aftermarket billet optispark (called a dynaspark), a large rowdy cam that was recommended by Llyod. Longtubes, true duals etc... It went from a good running, fun car, to an absolute MONSTER for an N/A 350 cube small block. Just how it would have run on the track, I dont know. But it certainly had no troubles with any ls1 it crossed back then. Admittedly, heavily modded ls1 cars were few and far between at that point, but it's a good point of reference. Ls's start at an advantage, but the LT1 was certainly no slouch.

In my 30th Z/28 Im putting in a set of LE2 ported stock heads, a custom grind cam, Le ported stock intake with all the best bolt ons, racetronix fuel pump, 36lb injectors 24x, hptuners etc etc too much to list but I should be around 420 whp mark give or take. That's my goal at least. She should scream well!😎 stock bottom still, at ~70k miles. Ive had the car since August 2010.

rich did a test with a vast number of stock LS series cams (early truck, Gen4 truck, LS1, LS6, LS3, LS9). As far as specs go, the new LT1 cam is comparable to the stock LS3 camshaft.