Hot Rod Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a 350 Chevy in my 35 ford slantback which is great cos it don't have all that nasty scary fuel injection n scary ECU business. I see a lot of great rods for sale over your side of the pond n they have LT 1/2/3/4 etc etc engines in. Could you tell me in SIMPLE terms what that all means please
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,225 Posts
LT1 and LT4 engines were probably the farthest technological step in the smallblock chev (released in 1955)
They produced in factory trim, upwards of 330 NET HP which is probably about 370 GROSS HP (HP as it was advertised in the 60s).
The best LT1s had Aluminum heads, all LT1s had REVERSE FLOW COOLING which allows for higher compression using lower octane gasoline. They have a specific, optical triggered distributor (Called Optispark) mounted on the front of the engine, below the waterpump. The Opti as its called, is very accurate; however they had some teething issues with vapor getting under the cap and killing the distributor. I bought one from a refurbishing shop here in the states called Petris. It is extremely good quality and runs like a champ.
The cylinder head chamber is very similar to the Vortec head seen for conventional small block chevs. Sir Harry RIcardo would be proud.
The use a dry intake manifold with short runners and tried a couple different injector systems. Early ones used "Batch Fire" meaning firing one bank of injectors at a time. Later ones were Sequential.
The earliest ones were OBD-1 programming, which means burning a chip for the computer to read. Later ones were OBD-2 and this opens the ability for tuning the computer parameters while its in the car.
LT1s have hydraulic roller tappet cam shafts (in fact the LT4 'HOT cam' was a popular GM Parts upgrade for budget rodders.
They use the same engine and gearbox mounts and even the block crank rods and pistons will transplant into the earlier blocks with relative ease.
The LT4 is an improved LT1 with revised heads, revised intake ports and a dual mass flywheel. It makes a little more power. It wasn't uncommon to order up an LT4 intake heads, HOT cam and strap them on an LT1.
Companies like Lloyd Elliott still cater to the LT1/LT4. But it has largely been supplanted by the LS1 and its variants.
However, if you want a strong running 350hp hotrod engine, want to learn to dabble with computer programming; AND have something that is mostly a 'drop in' smallblock chev? Theyre a great platform. I love mine.
Mine has an corvette radiator with no filler neck and therefor, I have a pressureized rad tank that has to be located highter than the engine itself. Its a bit awkward, and eats some space....but the ENGINE itself, looks MUCH nicer than a stock LS engine in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Many thanks AG, so the LT was a small block.............a 327 or a 350? but now it's all about LS's, I presume the LS's have better emissions and more power, are they 350's?

Out of interest, the latest LS varient (non turbo), is that twice as powerful as my lovely ol' standard tune 350?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,225 Posts
So The 1993 LT1 is a conventional small block dimensionally. It usually displaces 5.7L (~350ci). There was a teeny lil bugger of an LT, that displaced something like 4.3 or 4.6L.
The LS1 5.7L (the original LS) didnt make that much more power than the LT it replaced. However, it has a lower assembled height, spread exhaust ports, 6 bolt mains, better cylinder heads and more robust ignition. They also used conventional coolant pathways and were a lot easier to make MORE horsepower over stock than the LT was. The LS was also way more plentiful, and at-home computer tuning went from a curiosity to a easily-achieved reality, around the same time. The factory 6.0 also appear in trucks and are readily available.

If the tuning software (and its support community), and chinese turbos were as prolific in 1995 as they are now? Maybe a different story for the old LT1/4. But it was the grand-daddy of the modern EFI hot rod engine in a lot of ways
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
It;s funny that you Americans always referred to your engines in cubic inches whereas over here our engines were always in CC's.......for some reason you have now changed to CC's but we still refer to your engines in cubic inches.

I realise the modern engines are more powerful.............BUT..............the power is mostly unusable if you live in a built up area where the speed limits are 30-40mph, so, if the road conditions limit engine revs to 3000 rpm, is a modern non-turboed LS engine actually more powerful than my 1960's 350?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,316 Posts
We’re 50 years into our slow gestation to the metric system. The auto makers have been half pregnant on this change for nearly as long. Basically you can draw a line in the sand on how they refer to engine displacement between classic US measure and metric at the insertion of OBD-II vehicle management systems. It’s not a clean line but is decent approximation.

American vehicles are configured for the open interstates between cities. The reality is except for mid-America also known as the “Great Flyover” . For the most part those interstates passing through the cities and their burbs exhibit traffic moving at a crawl if moving at all.

The reality of America is that in my life time the population has grown from 150 million souls to 370 million. Things have changed a lot since the interstates were started in the 1950’s.

Bogie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
608 Posts
It;s funny that you Americans always referred to your engines in cubic inches whereas over here our engines were always in CC's.......for some reason you have now changed to CC's but we still refer to your engines in cubic inches.
We always refer to the older engines in cubic inches.
We use metric to refer to engines that the factories used metric designation, probably starting in the 90's.

As Bogie mentioned, back in the 70's there was an initiative to switch to the metric system in the U.S.
It basically freaked people out, because rather than just realizing how much simpler the metric system is, they were all hung up on the conversion difficulty.
e.g. If they were going to buy fuel in litres, they felt that they had to convert it to gallons, so that they could compare it to past pricing.
I think the first success that we had with the Metric system was the "2 litre" bottles of soda...

So then the government seemed to back off the idea, but we ended up with cars that were part SAE and part Metric.
So if you were working on late 70's and 80's cars, you had to buy a Metric set of tools anyway, and you had to have both SAE and Metric on hand just to work on one car...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
You do not need to fear the complicated fuel injection 2000 forward 5.3 engines can run on a half a dozen wires if left in stock form. You need to flash the security off the ecm and run a return style fuel pump and maybe the drive by wire pedal.

Here is an old video explaning the basics.


If you want to make more horsepower then stock thats where a bit of programming comes into play.

But they are far from a night mare to run stand alone. Even the overdrive transmissions have become plug and play at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Sadly, over here, american cars (apart from the Chrysler 300 n mustangs) are virtually non-existant on our roads. The only time you will see a 57 Chevy etc would be at a car show. If I had an LS type engine n something went wrong with the electrics, I would be in serious trouble as there is probably only a handful of firms in the whole country that could actually sort it.

I remember when we went from gallons to litres at the pumps...............Absolute brain melt!!!...........we were all tryin to multiply the price by 4.5 in our heads to understand the price!!!!........................after a few months, the only solution was look at the price on the board n drive into the forecourt of the garage with the smallest one!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
Well running a Landrover v8 stand alone can be done.

As far as LS serviceability that is a amazon shop and ship having the thing within 3 days if not next day. In stock form 450, 000 kilometers is not uncommon for a LS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
GM certainly own Vauxhall ( n they also owned Lamborghini at one time too, infact it was Lambo that developed the V10 engine for the viper!!) but Holdens are totally different n specific to Australia. There isn't a single vauxhall with a v8 apart from the Monaro (this is an incredibly rare car, currently on autotrader UK there are 5 secondhand ones in the whole country!!) this is perhaps the rebadged Holden you are thinking of.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top