specs on 96 LT1 V8

[razoredge]

Anybody know these off the top of their head ? Im looking for the engine that was used in the last of the B bodies. It was LT1 correct ? Well please set me straight and let me know the specs. HP, Torq, RPM's and even mileage if thats possible. Edited September 25, 2005 by razoredge

[CSpec]

Specs for the 1996 Caprice:

4.3 Liter SFI V8
Block: Cast Iron
Cylinder Head: Cast Iron
Hydraulic lifters: Yes/Roller 
Bore & Stroke (in.): 3.74 x 3.00
Bore & Stroke (mm): 95.0 x 76.2
Cam drive: Chain
Redline (rpm): 5000
Displacement (liters/CID): 4.3/263
Compression ratio: 9.4:1
Horsepower @ engine rpm: 200 @ 5000
Torque (lb.-ft.): 240 @ 2400
Engine oil (quarts): 4.0
Engine Coolant (quarts): 15.1
Recommend fuel (unleaded): 87 Octane
City: 18 mpg
Highway: 36 mpg
Combined: 26 mpg
Towing Capacity: 5000 lbs

Edited September 25, 2005 by CSpec

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

36mph HIGHWAY????? how cant it get 2x its city mileage under any conditions?

[razoredge]

Thanks, not a bad engine but its clear that the 1996 3.8 SII had better performance than this much larger engine. Exactly what I thought.

[Drew Dowdell]

The 4.3 wasn't the LT-1. You're looking for the specs on the 5.7

[razoredge]

Which was in the SS ?

[Sixty8panther]

C-Spec: you posted the 267 statistics for a 80s Caprice.... not even close to the LT1. 36 MPG does sound pretty amazing though that's an eye opener.

[Drew Dowdell]

Which was in the SS ?

[post="20028"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The 5.7 litre LT1 was in the Impala SS, Roadmaster, Fleetwood, and upper trim Caprice from 1993-1996.

The specs were:
260 hp
330 ft/lbs torque
17/26 city/highway

[CSpec]

C-Spec: you posted the 267 statistics for a 80s Caprice.... not even close to the LT1. 36 MPG does sound pretty amazing though that's an eye opener.

[post="20031"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Huh? I got the specs straight from GM:

http://media.gm.com/division/chevrolet/pro...mp/capspec3.htm

[rkmdogs]

Huh? I got the specs straight from GM:

http://media.gm.com/division/chevrolet/pro...mp/capspec3.htm

[post="20156"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

.... But you looked in the wrong column! :o

[razoredge]

I asked this question just to see where the 231 Series II (3.8) V6 stood in "refinement" to the V8's of the day. I do realize that the SII was new in 96 and these V8's had been around awhile. I was courious as to the therory that more refinement as is now in the new LS engines applied to the 3.8/231 could bring the power of the 231 up rather than the downslide we currently see it undergoing. In all fairness I add figures for the 90-94 L27 3.8. Specs on 3800 231 ci V6 are L27 '90-94 170hp - 225lb ft L36 '95-0? 205hp - 230lp ft data per cubic inch 231ci series "1"achieved .73hp per cubic inch - .97lbft torque per ci. 231ci Series II achieved .88hp per cubic inch - .99lbft torque per ci. 350ci LT1........achieved .74 hp per cubic inch - .94lpft torque per ci. 263ci 4.3 V8....achieved .76 hp per cubic inch - .91lbft torque per ci. so to not reach to far I have takin the specs from a 01 Corvette 350 which I believe is the LS1 rather then the 400hp LS2. LS1 350ci - 350hp @ 1.0hp per ci. - 370lbft torque @ 1.07lbft per ci. In therory this would imply the current 231's or 3800's should be at 231hp @ 1.0hp per cube and 247lbft @ 1.07lbft per cube I just find it rather interesting ^_^

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

how do you get to old information??

[rkmdogs]

I asked this question just to see where the 231 Series II (3.8) V6 stood in "refinement" to the V8's of the day. I do realize that the SII was new in 96 and these V8's had been around awhile. I was courious as to the therory that more refinement as is now in the new LS engines applied to the 3.8/231 could bring the power of the 231 up rather than the downslide we currently see it undergoing. In all fairness I add figures for the 90-94 L27 3.8.

Specs on 3800 231 ci V6 are
L27 '90-94 170hp - 225lb ft
L36 '95-0? 205hp - 230lp ft

data per cubic inch

231ci series "1"achieved .73hp per cubic inch - .97lbft torque per ci.
231ci Series II achieved .88hp per cubic inch - .99lbft torque per ci.
350ci LT1........achieved .74 hp per cubic inch - .94lpft torque per ci.
263ci 4.3 V8....achieved .76 hp per cubic inch - .91lbft torque per ci.

so to not reach to far I have takin the specs from a 01 Corvette 350 which I believe is the LS1 rather then the 400hp LS2.
LS1 350ci - 350hp @ 1.0hp per ci. -  370lbft torque @ 1.07lbft per ci.

In therory this would imply the current 231's or 3800's should be at
231hp @ 1.0hp per cube and 247lbft @ 1.07lbft per cube

I just find it rather interesting  ^_^

[post="20739"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hey razor,
your comparison doesn't hold water!
It is like comparing apples to oranges, 'cause they are both fruit!

In order for your theory to be applicable, parts would have to be interchangable,
which on the Chevy engines, they are not!

Just because they may have common design characteristics, or dimensional
similarities, does not make them "enhancements" on a prior design.
In fact, although they are all referred to as "small-block Chevy" engines,
there are major design differences in each successive generation, hence
the Gen II, Gen III, and Gen IV titles to recognize these variations.
The LT 1 family does not share components with the LS1 family at all,
and the LS 2 is again based on the "LS1" concepts, but the internals are entirely
different!
Your analogy brings back an old wives' theorem, "figures never lie, but Liars always figure!"
Hell, the sb 283 Chevy was alleged to put out 1hp/cu.in. back in 1957!

The only commonality to these various engines is the assigned title numbers,
which do not reflect engine dimensions, capacities or any other figure other than those dreamed up by the sales and advertising boys--- and girls! Edited September 28, 2005 by rkmdogs

[razoredge]

WTF are you talking about and did you just call me a "Liars always figure!"

I really really dont know what you are talking about. Kinda sounds like you are talking about the same thing I was talking about but its hard to tell because of the pointlessness of your post.

None of the 38 engines were the same either, but that both was and was'nt the point of my post. Further where did I say the 350's were all the same ? Im pretty sure I made it very evident I was talking about refinement levels and where the various engines stood in power per cube at those points of developement. If you can read what I wrote without drawing assumptions you will note that I was only stateing that with further refinement much like the V8 engines have recieved in recent years the performance of the Buick based PR V6 engine should have increased to levels I have shown in my "liar figureing".

Was there something wrong with this ? Did I step into some territory I was not supposed to tread on ?

In 1957hp was a gross rateing, then for 1957 Corvette we had a

base power rating was 220hp [.77 per ci.] w/Two Carter four barrels - 245 hp [.84 per ci] and a hotter version cranked out 270hp [.93 per ci.], while the Rochester FI developed 283hp [1.0 per ci.]

Gross and wasnt the days of simply adding lots of gas and air feeding carburators, more compression, cam grinds, and no pollution and no economy concerns nice.

Engines were restricted by emissions and ecomomy requirements since early 70's and have been in a steady state or refinement since while at the same time meeting stricter requirements. So you are right " your comparison doesn't hold water!" Neither does your post have any relevence on what my post was about. Thanks for the input however.

Now do you have some input as to why the 38 PR V6 couldnt be refined to the levels of the V8 ? That would place some water deeper into the well. Edited September 29, 2005 by razoredge

[rkmdogs]

Hey razor, chill out!

I got on your case, because the way you started this thread, it sounded like you wanted some honest info, for its' value.
But the impression I got was that you were playing a semantics game, with the disclosure that you were not pleased that the Buick 3800 engine did not seem to enjoy the same degree of development that was expressed with the Chevy
small-block engine designs.
You sounded then, like you had a chip on your shoulder, and some other axe to grind!

Now if you want to discuss and compare these two engine designs, thru their
respective service lives, that's fine!

And I totally agree with you, that somebody pulled the plug on development
of the 3800. Back in the '80's this was considered one of the most respected
and potent powerplants around........ but after the Grand Nationals, the
corporate gurus pulled the plug on Buick engineering. The only thing they were
allowed to do was develop the Indy racing engines, and ultimately they had that
taken away from them too.
Don't blame the designers and engineers, blame the bean-counters and the
string-pullers at the top who decreed who could do what, with what!
The new GM corporate V-6 got the nod for the development dollars.
Buick even had the pressure-aspirated versions taken away from them, after
they had to share it with Pontiac!
With power-train development reassigned thru-out the corporation, many programs that were fruitful came to a halt.

And I'm sorry if you don't understand my English........ it is all words that
Webster includes in his book! http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

BTW, my statement of "Liars always figure" was not directed at you, so don't get your feathers all ruffled! I was refering to the fact that published figures
released for advertising purposes sometimes, reflect a political agenda and are not
"true" performance values. Edited September 30, 2005 by rkmdogs

[razoredge]

I understand any english, I didnt understand the point of your post. You stated a bunch of obvious well known stuff that had nothing to do with the developement aspect I was talking about. I took some honest info for its value, added some more honest info for its value, put it all together and came up with the fact that the current 38 is not at its value. My post was inspire by one of the recent topics that had statemements about the V8's being "refined" while the 38 was "primitive". So I figured through specs I would see just where it stood in givin time periods and generations of developement compared to this V8 refinement. I found just exactly what I suspected. It was on par right up until recently. Of course I alway knew it was not primitive because I read the basic summary of the series II development in 95 and have openly complained about addition of a fly by wire being passed off as another series of engine rather than any solid engineering such as the LS engines recieved. I think you read something into my post that was not there and then said my data comparision held no water and lairs figure. I believe I was well on track and proved what I had suspected. the new 3.9 figures into this in the back of my mind too but that would really confuse people and who knows what forms of deficencys I would have then. Edited September 30, 2005 by razoredge

[razoredge]

from my edit "I took some honest info for its value, added some more honest info for its value, put it all together and came up with the fact that the current 38 is not at its value."

[rkmdogs]

Razor, You are flogging a dead horse...............!!!!!!

[razoredge]

aint kill a horse yet my friend, whats your point ? Was there something wrong with my theory ? Did I tread on some territory I was not supposed too ?

[rkmdogs]

The 3800 engine design is a white elephant! There will not be any further "development" done on it because it will be replaced by the VVT 3.9L corporate V-6.----- or something else not as antiquated.

[razoredge]

There it is right there, yes the so powerfull word used to down anything Buick V6, antiquated. So I did go somewhere I was not supposed to, ey ? Yet Im sure we support anything LS related and use that oh so powerful word "refined". Well the 3.6 is a Australian built V6 and really expensive and complex, will prove to be a financial nightmare for each and every used car buyer. Then it really doesnt perform that outstandingly well by comparision per dollar, not to mention N American jobs, inability to fill the demand of everybody wanting it in every GM model, not to mention the lack of exclusive that comes from doing so. Well this topic was not about saving or destroying the pushrod engines but once again just to see where this engine stood in developement. If this 10 year olds design is antiquated "just think of how primitive the automobile itself is Barney" "we should have those hovering personalized carpets by now, right Fred ?"

[rkmdogs]

Razor, --- And you said I rambled? I think the pot just called the kettle black!!!!!!!!