Actual HP
Moderators: FAOA Administrators, FAOA Moderators
- Scott Chab
- Posts: 3309
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2002 3:44 pm
- Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Re: Actual HP
The LS motors seem to be consistently underated but the only LT motor I've seen underarted was the LT4.
'94 Hawk #110
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
- BLACK-HAWK
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:59 pm
- Location: Somewhere in New Mexico
- Contact:
Re: Actual HP
bone stock mine put down about 275rwhp at about 4200' elevation (m6) / 285rwhp with long tube headers. if i remember right my buddies LS1 hawk with slp long tube headers and a cut out put down 310'ishrwhp(?). i believe the 315HP rating is from the flywheel
2001#194 (Unicorn)
- Scott Chab
- Posts: 3309
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2002 3:44 pm
- Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Re: Actual HP
All manufacturer HP ratings are at the flywheel.BLACK-HAWK wrote:bone stock mine put down about 275rwhp at about 4200' elevation (m6) / 285rwhp with long tube headers. if i remember right my buddies LS1 hawk with slp long tube headers and a cut out put down 310'ishrwhp(?). i believe the 315HP rating is from the flywheel
It is quite common to see SLP LS1 cars rated at 345hp putting down 320whp+ bone stock.
'94 Hawk #110
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
Re: Actual HP
Wow. So an LS1 would be like a 1999 up or did they start later?
So far I'm happy with the 95. Breaks lose pretty easy in 1st! Although I don't beat on it just goosed it a couple times.
I will want more HP before long though.
So far I'm happy with the 95. Breaks lose pretty easy in 1st! Although I don't beat on it just goosed it a couple times.
I will want more HP before long though.
1995 Firehawk #123
2007 Cadillac CTS Sport
2007 Cadillac CTS Sport
- BLACK-HAWK
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:59 pm
- Location: Somewhere in New Mexico
- Contact:
Re: Actual HP
Don't even ask.............@@ Just have him forward the photos.........twin turbo nightmare that goes on and on.................If I had the $$$ I'd just drop a Z06 engine into the damn thing.......or an LS9............saw my shop drop a Z06 into a 69 Chevelle...........a mere $30,000 I think it was.
Pam
97 red Hawk #99
Wondering how I can actually drive this thing to Ohio......sigh......
Pam
97 red Hawk #99
Wondering how I can actually drive this thing to Ohio......sigh......
- BLACK-HAWK
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:59 pm
- Location: Somewhere in New Mexico
- Contact:
- Scott Chab
- Posts: 3309
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2002 3:44 pm
- Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Re: Actual HP
The first LS1 Hawk was '99.TyHawk wrote:Wow. So an LS1 would be like a 1999 up or did they start later?
'94 Hawk #110
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
Re: Actual HP
I'll take that as "stick with stock stupid"!
1995 Firehawk #123
2007 Cadillac CTS Sport
2007 Cadillac CTS Sport
- BLACK-HAWK
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:59 pm
- Location: Somewhere in New Mexico
- Contact:
Re: Actual HP
also one of those things... " if you have to ask, you can't afford it" ... if you do any modifying, go all motor, 383 stroker baby!
2001#194 (Unicorn)
- Scott Chab
- Posts: 3309
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2002 3:44 pm
- Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Re: Actual HP
There is no reason to stick with stock unless you're happy with the stock performance or you don't have the money for mods. If you do decide to mod, figure out your goal (handling, power, braking, street, strip, road course, show) and then determine your budget. When you are determining your budget, just remember that when you modify one part of the car it could very easily show the weakness of another part and that will need to be repaired/replaced. For example, if you throw a lot of power mods on the car you might need a better clutch, bigger brakes or a stronger rear.TyHawk wrote:I'll take that as "stick with stock stupid"!
'94 Hawk #110
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
-
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Bridgewater, VA
Re: Actual HP
Arguable...Scott Chab wrote:The LS motors seem to be consistently underated but the only LT motor I've seen underarted was the LT4.
My '97 LT4 Hawk, Loudmouth and K&N, 291hp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szzt4CO50tg
Stock '96 Vette, 297hp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB7WKXeChU
Stock '96 Vette, 281hp:
Stock '96 Vette, 283hp:
Figure in a 13% loss on these figures, and there ain't much underrating goin' on. Back in 2002 at the Firehawk Rally, Zeke Maxwell told me that they extrude honed the manifolds on the LT4 F-Bodies in order to get them up to where they were REALLY 330hp. Leaving the LT1 tune in them really choked them. I have had mine tuned since the dyno run, and will get updated numbers this summer.
Mike Moore
Bridgewater, VA
1997 LT4 Firehawk #009
Bridgewater, VA
1997 LT4 Firehawk #009
- Scott Chab
- Posts: 3309
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2002 3:44 pm
- Location: Wilmington, Delaware
Re: Actual HP
Maybe I should have said that the only LT f-body motors that were underrated were the LT4s. I don't think the LT1 f-body motors were underrated at all.
'94 Hawk #110
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again
Back on the road helping me make bad decisions again