At The Dragstrip

OK. Back to carland, and some examples of how horsepower makes a major difference in how fast a car can accelerate, in spite of what torque on your backside tells you :-) .

A very good example would be to compare the current LT1 Corvette with the last of the L98 Vettes, built in 1991. Figures as follows:

Engine Peak HP @ RPM Peak Torque @ RPM

L98 250 @ 4000 340 @ 3200
LT1 300 @ 5000 340 @ 3600

The cars are geared identically, and car weights are within a few pounds, so it’s a good comparison.

First, each car will push you back in the seat (the fun factor) with the same authority – at least at or near peak torque in each gear. One will tend to *feel* about as fast as the other to the driver, but the LT1 will actually be significantly faster than the L98, even though it won’t pull any harder. If we mess about with the formula, we can begin to discover exactly *why* the LT1 is faster. Here’s another slice at that formula:

Torque = Horsepower * 5252 / RPM

If we plug some numbers in, we can see that the L98 is making 328 foot pounds of torque at its power peak (250 hp @ 4000), and we can infer that it cannot be making any more than 263 pound feet of torque at 5000 rpm, or it would be making more than 250 hp at that engine speed, and would be so rated. In actuality, the L98 is probably making no more than around 210 pound feet or so at 5000 rpm, and anybody who owns one would shift it at around 46-4700 rpm, because more torque is available at the drive wheels in the next gear at that point.

On the other hand, the LT1 is fairly happy making 315 pound feet at 5000 rpm, and is happy right up to its mid 5s redline.

So, in a drag race, the cars would launch more or less together. The L98 might have a slight advantage due to its peak torque occuring a little earlier in the rev range, but that is debatable, since the LT1 has a wider, flatter curve (again pretty much by definition, looking at the figures). From somewhere in the mid range and up, however, the LT1 would begin to pull away. Where the L98 has to shift to second (and throw away torque multiplication for speed), the LT1 still has around another 1000 rpm to go in first, and thus begins to widen its lead, more and more as the speeds climb. As long as the revs are high, the LT1, by definition, has an advantage.

Another example would be the LT1 against the ZR-1. Same deal, only in reverse. The ZR-1 actually pulls a little harder than the LT1, although its torque advantage is softened somewhat by its extra weight. The real advantage, however, is that the ZR-1 has another 1500 rpm in hand at the point where the LT1 has to shift.

There are numerous examples of this phenomenon. The Integra GS-R, for instance, is faster than the garden variety Integra, not because it pulls particularly harder (it doesn’t), but because it pulls *longer*. It doesn’t feel particularly faster, but it is.

A final example of this requires your imagination. Figure that we can tweak an LT1 engine so that it still makes peak torque of 340 foot pounds at 3600 rpm, but, instead of the curve dropping off to 315 pound feet at 5000, we extend the torque curve so much that it doesn’t fall off to 315 pound feet until 15000 rpm. OK, so we’d need to have virtually all the moving parts made out of unobtanium :-) , and some sort of turbocharging on demand that would make enough high-rpm boost to keep the curve from falling, but hey, bear with me.

If you raced a stock LT1 with this car, they would launch together, but, somewhere around the 60 foot point, the stocker would begin to fade, and would have to grab second gear shortly thereafter. Not long after that, you’d see in your mirror that the stocker has grabbed third, and not too long after that, it would get fourth, but you’d wouldn’t be able to see that due to the distance between you as you crossed the line, *still in first gear*, and pulling like crazy.

I’ve got a computer simulation that models an LT1 Vette in a quarter mile pass, and it predicts a 13.38 second ET, at 104.5 mph. That’s pretty close (actually a tiny bit conservative) to what a stock LT1 can do at 100% air density at a high traction drag strip, being powershifted. However, our modified car, while belting the driver in the back no harder than the stocker (at peak torque) does an 11.96, at 135.1 mph, all in first gear, of course. It doesn’t pull any harder, but it sure as hell pulls longer :-) . It’s also making *900* hp, at 15,000 rpm.

Of course, folks who are knowledgeable about drag racing are now openly snickering, because they’ve read the preceding paragraph, and it occurs to them that any self respecting car that can get to 135 mph in a quarter mile will just naturally be doing this in less than ten seconds. Of course that’s true, but I remind these same folks that any self-respecting engine that propels a Vette into the nines is also making a whole bunch more than 340 foot pounds of torque.

That does bring up another point, though. Essentially, a more “real” Corvette running 135 mph in a quarter mile (maybe a mega big block) might be making 700-800 foot pounds of torque, and thus it would pull a whole bunch harder than my paper tiger would. It would need slicks and other modifications in order to turn that torque into forward motion, but it would also get from here to way over there a bunch quicker.

On the other hand, as long as we’re making quarter mile passes with fantasy engines, if we put a 10.35:1 final-drive gear (3.45 is stock) in our fantasy LT1, with slicks and other chassis mods, we’d be in the nines just as easily as the big block would, and thus save face :-) . The mechanical advantage of such a nonsensical rear gear would allow our combination to pull just as hard as the big block, plus we’d get to do all that gear banging and such that real racers do, and finish in fourth gear, as God intends. :-)

The only modification to the preceding paragraph would be the polar moments of inertia (flywheel effect) argument brought about by such a stiff rear gear, and that argument is outside of the scope of this already massive document. Another time, maybe, if you can stand it :-) .

At The Bonneville Salt Flats

Looking at top speed, horsepower wins again, in the sense that making more torque at high rpm means you can use a stiffer gear for any given car speed, and thus have more effective torque *at the drive wheels*.

Finally, operating at the power peak means you are doing the absolute best you can at any given car speed, measuring torque at the drive wheels. I know I said that acceleration follows the torque curve in any given gear, but if you factor in gearing vs car speed, the power peak is *it*. An example, yet again, of the LT1 Vette will illustrate this. If you take it up to its torque peak (3600 rpm) in a gear, it will generate some level of torque (340 foot pounds times whatever overall gearing) at the drive wheels, which is the best it will do in that gear (meaning, that’s where it is pulling hardest in that gear).

However, if you re-gear the car so it is operating at the power peak (5000 rpm) *at the same car speed*, it will deliver more torque to the drive wheels, because you’ll need to gear it up by nearly 39% (5000/3600), while engine torque has only dropped by a little over 7% (315/340). You’ll net a 29% gain in drive wheel torque at the power peak vs the torque peak, at a given car speed.

Any other rpm (other than the power peak) at a given car speed will net you a lower torque value at the drive wheels. This would be true of any car on the planet, so, theoretical “best” top speed will always occur when a given vehicle is operating at its power peak.

“Modernizing” The 18th Century

OK. For the final-final point (Really. I Promise.), what if we ditched that water wheel, and bolted an LT1 in its place? Now, no LT1 is going to be making over 2600 foot pounds of torque (except possibly for a single, glorious instant, running on nitromethane), but, assuming we needed 12 rpm for an input to the mill, we could run the LT1 at 5000 rpm (where it’s making 315 foot pounds of torque), and gear it down to a 12 rpm output. Result? We’d have over *131,000* foot pounds of torque to play with. We could probably twist the whole flour mill around the input shaft, if we needed to :-) .

The Only Thing You Really Need to Know

How To Do A Burn Out

First make sure Traction Control is disengaged (if you have it)!

Automatic: Use your left foot to step on the brake just enough to prevent the car from rolling forward, then, with your right foot, slam down the gas. Slowly release brake when you want to start moving.

Manual: Put the shifter into 1st gear. (Some people do 2nd, see what works best for you). Push the clutch in and rev it up to about 4k RPMs, then quickly remove your foot from the clutch pedal and move it over to the brake pedal. The idea is to use as little braking force as necessary to prevent the car from rolling forward. When you want to make your getaway, simply slowly release the brake pedal and you should start moving forward and leave some nice tire marks in the process!

A line lock is a device that is connected to the brake lines going to the front tires. This will allow the driver to engage only the front brakes, so that the rear brake pads are not burnt away as you do your burn out.

Head Casting Info

ALL Gen III heads are interchangable.

Here is a list of a few casting #’s:

933 97 aluminum perimeter bolt 5.7
806 97-98 aluminum perimeter bolt 5.7
853 99-00 aluminum center bolt 5.7
241 01-03 aluminum center bolt 5.7 (some late MY00 cars got 241 castings)
243 LS6 aluminum center bolt 5.7
862 and 706 99 and up 4.8-5.3 truck heads
873 99-00 LQ4 6.0 iron center bolt heads
317 01 and up LQ4 6.0 aluminum center bolt heads
035 02 and up LQ9 6.0 aluminum center bolt heads

Even more info:

Casting Number 241
Head: 1997+ LS1 5.7 Litre Passenger Car
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12559806 (1997-98) Chambers = 69cc
12559853 (1999-00)
12564241 (2001-03)
Combustion Chamber Volume: 66.67cc
Compression Ratio: 10.1:1
Intake Port Volume: 200cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 70cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 243
Head: 2001 LS6 5.7 Litre Passenger Car
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12564243
Combustion Chamber Volume: 64.45cc
Compression Ratio: 10.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 706
Head: 1999+ LR4 4.8 Litre Truck
1999+ LM4 /LM7 5.3 Litre Truck
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12559852
12561706
Combustion Chamber Volume: 61.15cc
Compression Ratio: 9.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 200cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 70cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 1.89 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 373
Head: 1999-2000 LQ4 6.0 Litre Truck
Material: Cast Iron
Part Number:
12561873
Combustion Chamber Volume: 71.06cc
Compression Ratio: 9.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 317
Head: 2001+ LQ4 6.0 Litre Truck
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12572035
Combustion Chamber Volume: 71.06cc
Compression Ratio: 10:1
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

* It takes about .005″ milling of the block deck to remove 1cc of volume. It takes .007″ milling to remove 1cc from an LS1 head

Simple Milling Math:

You have a stock 66cc chamber and you want to get down to 63cc

66-63 = 3. You have to remove 3cc’s

.007 x 3 = .021. So to get your 66cc chambers down to 63cc you’d have to mill ~.021.

You can also do the reverse, say you want to mille a head .030 to figure out how many CC’s that removes you take .030 / .007 = ~ 4.28. Milling a stock 5.7 head .030 puts your chamber at ~ 62.

* 241 cast heads were Die Cast which is a process that smooths up the ports a bit compared to the Sand Cast procedure that was done on the 806 and 853 heads. Once ported any “advantage” the 241 cast had is moot.

Gen III Powered Vehicles

The 4.8/293, 5.3/325, 5.7/346, and 6.0/364 can be found in…

Cars
1997 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette (5.7)
1998 – 2002 Chevrolet Camaro (5.7)
1998 – 2002 Pontiac Firebird (5.7)
2004 – 2005 Cadillac CTS-V (5.7)
2004 Pontiac GTO (5.7)

Trucks, Vans, SUVs
1999 – 2004 Chevrolet Silverado (4.8, 5.3, 6.0)
2000 – 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe (4.8, 5.3)
2000 – 2004 Chevrolet Suburban (5.3, 6.0)
2002 – 2004 Chevrolet Avalanche (5.3)
2003 – 2004 Chevrolet Express (5.3, 6.0)
2003 – 2004 Chevrolet SSR (5.3)
2003 – 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer (5.3)
1999 – 2004 GMC Sierra (4.8, 5.3, 6.0)
2000 – 2004 GMC Yukon (4.8, 5.3, 6.0)
2003 – 2004 GMC Envoy (5.3)
2003 – 2004 GMC Savana (5.3, 6.0)
2001 – 2004 Cadillac Escalade (6.0)
2002 – 2004 Hummer H2 (6.0)
2003 – 2004 Isuzu Ascender (5.3)
2004 Buick Rainier (5.3)

Models LS1 Offered In
1997 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette
1998 – 2002 Chevrolet Camaro (Z28 and SS)
1998 – 2002 Pontiac Firebird (Formula and Trans Am)
2004 Pontiac GTO

LS1 Specifications
1997 – 2000 Chevrolet Corvette
345hp @ 5600rpm
350tq @ 4400rpm
2001 Chevrolet Corvette
350hp @ 5200rpm
375tq @ 4400rpm (360tq @ 4000rpm w/Automatic)
2002 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette
350hp @ 5200rpm
375tq @ 4000rpm (360tq @ 4000rpm w/Automatic)
1998 – 2000 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
305hp @ 5200rpm
335tq @ 4400rpm
1998 – 2000 Chevrolet Camaro SS*
320hp @ 5200rpm
345tq @ 4400rpm
2001 – 2002 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
310hp @ 5200rpm
340tq @ 4000rpm
2001 – 2002 Chevrolet Camaro SS*
325hp @ 5200rpm
350tq @ 4000rpm
1998 – 2000 Pontiac Firebird Formula/Trans Am*
305hp @ 5200rpm (320hp @ 5200rpm w/WS6)
335tq @ 4400rpm (345tq @ 4400rpm w/WS6)
2001 – 2002 Pontiac Firebird Formula/Trans Am*
310hp @ 5200rpm (325hp @ 5200rpm w/WS6)
340tq @ 4000rpm (350tq @ 4000rpm w/WS6)
2004 Pontiac GTO
350hp @ 5200rpm
365tq @ 4000rpm

Models LS6 Offered In
2001 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
2004 – 2005 Cadillac CTS-V

LS6 Specifications
2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
385hp @ 6000 rpm
385tq @ 4800 rpm
2002 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
405hp @ 6000 rpm
400tq @ 4800 rpm
2004 – 2005 Cadillac CTS-V
400hp @ 6000rpm
395tq @ 4800rpm

* Does NOT include Firehawk or optional SS content from SLP.

The Gen III Small Block V8
RPO, Cubes, Bore x Stroke, and Liters

LR4, 293 cu/in, 3.779” x 3.268”, 4.8 Liters
LM4/LM7/L59, 325 cu/in, 3.779” x 3.622”, 5.3 Liters
LS1/LS6, 346 cu/in, 3.898” x 3.622”, 5.7 Liters
LQ4/LQ9, 364 cu/in, 4.000” x 3.622”, 6.0 Liters

Gen VII Big Block (thrown in for good measure)

L18, 496 cu/in, 4.250” x 4.37”, 8.1 Liters

The 5.3 is NOT a 327.
The 5.7 is NOT a 350.
The 8.1 is NOT a 502.

– Steve (DMNSPD)

Shift Light Wiring

I have compiled a list of all the locations, colors, and wires for shift lights for the 96-97 LT1 f-body, all LS1, all LS2, all LS6, and LS7 engines in the GTO, F-Body, and Corvette. Hopefully this will help those when wiring in the shift light. All of the connector #’s, pin #’s and wire colors are at the PCM. All of this info was copied from the engine controls schematics from GM’s service website.

IGN = Ignition voltage for your power wire
ESS = Engine Speed Sensor Signal for your shift light signal wire.

96-97 F-Body LT1
IGN – Connector #2, Pin 30 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #1, Pin 13 – White Wire

98 F-Body LS1
IGN – Connector #2 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Blue), Pin 35 – White Wire

99-02 F-Body LS1
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Red), Pin 10 – White Wire

97-98 Corvette LS1
IGN – Connector #2 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Blue), Pin 35 – White Wire

99-02 Corvette LS1
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Red), Pin 10 – White Wire

03-04 Corvette LS1/LS6
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Green), Pin 10 – White Wire

05 Corvette LS2
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 48 – White Wire

06 Corvette LS7
IGN – Connector #1 (Black), Pin 47 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #1 (Black), Pin 48 – White Wire

04 GTO LS1
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Orange Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Green), Pin 10 – Brown w/Red Tracer

05-06 GTO LS2
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 14 – Pink Wire