IHRA HP rating for 1998 LT1

[KRatcliff]

It is the only V8 that Pontiac submitted for 1998. No performance advantage at all. In fact, it is probably a mistake for me to run one instead of claiming a 1999 - 2002 and running a LS1.

But I am fond of the LT1 and it is cheaper so I don't mind being a little slower than the others.

[Ed Wright]

Makes me wonder how one would be any slower it it were called a 1997.

[Marine One]

Originally Posted by KRatcliff

It is the only V8 that Pontiac submitted for 1998. No performance advantage at all. In fact, it is probably a mistake for me to run one instead of claiming a 1999 - 2002 and running a LS1.

But I am fond of the LT1 and it is cheaper so I don't mind being a little slower than the others.

And now I know the rest of the story. Referencing NHRA's 1997 engine blueprint specs for Chevrolet, based on bore / stroke numbers, it appears the only thing cited is LT1.

If that is the case, would it be safe to say that since 1997 was the first year for the C5 Corvette that a guy could claim a C5 as a 1997 LT1, even though every 97 Corvette produced came with an LS1?

[Marine One]

98 Chevrolet engine blueprint specs have LT1 numbers listed too. Does this mean any 98 Camaro, Corvette, Firebird can run LT1?. Based on what I am reading, the first year LS1 bore/ stroke / rod length numbers show up for Chevrolet or Pontiac is 1999.

http://www.nhraracer.com/content/gen...634&zoneid=132

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by Marine One

98 Chevrolet engine blueprint specs have LT1 numbers listed too. Does this mean any 98 Camaro, Corvette, Firebird can run LT1?. Based on what I am reading, the first year LS1 bore/ stroke / rod length numbers show up for Chevrolet or Pontiac is 1999.

The 1998 F-Bodies are all listed as LT1's.

The Corvette was not submitted from 97-99. The first year for an LS1 Corvette in the guide is 2000. So you can't claim a 97-99 Corvette at all.

[RULER]

To say that a LT1 in a1998 F-body is the same as what Ford is doing just show's you really don't get it and probly never will. It may be true that no LT1's were installed in 98 but what performance advantage doe's it have over a 97, NONE!!!!! end of story.

[BlueOval Ralph]

O but it is, it is a paper car/combo that was never built, you couldn't buy one at your dealer, just like the Mustang 352, 428 or 281 they only built the S/C combo you can't even buy the above combos from a dealer, you can order a few of the parts that are not production but not a turnkey engine!

Originally Posted by RULER

To say that a LT1 in a1998 F-body is the same as what Ford is doing just show's you really don't get it and probly never will. It may be true that no LT1's were installed in 98 but what performance advantage doe's it have over a 97, NONE!!!!! end of story.

[KRatcliff]

Originally Posted by BlueOval Ralph

O but it is, it is a paper car/combo that was never built, you couldn't buy one at your dealer, just like the Mustang 352, 428 or 281 they only built the S/C combo you can't even buy the above combos from a dealer, you can order a few of the parts that are not production but not a turnkey engine!

Yes, B.O., you are correct. It is just like the Ford combos you had mentioned. So similar since those Ford combos were in prior year offerings that met all emission standards, were VIN registered, and certainly offer zero performance advantage over the cars that they powered that roamed the streets of this fine nation.

You have offered up a perfect example of comparison.

Will you be at Topeka? Mebbe you can come by and scoff at my paper car. It will be a dirty piece-o-crap that won't be hard to spot and I will be the one standing there looking like I have better places to be.