bogus wrote:

There is a fine line between "wrong" and "disagree".

bogus wrote:

From a street perspective, yes, the LT1 is a fine engine. From a drag (or even road race) perspective, not so fine.

The performance options are not there for it. But the engine has shown to be durable and reliable, on the street, for lots of miles. More so in many cases than the L98.

bogus wrote:

However, the L98 does have the advantage of being a conventional smallblock. Hense, performance parts are plentiful.

I think the biggest problem is perspective. I am not a drag racer. Period. End of discussion. I do appreciate the hobby, it just isn't me. And as a drag car, the Corvette in general, leaves a lot to be desired. IRS just doesn't cut it for drag racing, and using a car like the Vette or Viper as a drag racer seems like the waste of a damned good chassis... it's like using a 72 Chevelle as an autocrosser, there are better tools for the task at hand.

bogus wrote:

My perspective is simple: A street car that has more guts than stock, but not so much that it loses its drivability. Is there a practical purpose to that 650hp street car? For the most part, I figure that 500hp is a good max point for the C4, perhaps more for the C5 or C6, but not at the expense of drivability (Z06 and ZR1 prove my point). I have driven tempermental performance cars... it really becomes exhausting, and detracts from the goal - a nice drive.

bogus wrote:

Oh, isn't batch and bank-to-bank the same thing? I think we were arguing that all 8 went at once versus 4 at a time. They are all batch until sequential showed up.

bogus wrote:

Perhaps this will clarify my place... and if nothing else we can agree to disagree.

bogus wrote:
I am not arguing when I ask this question: Are my posts so wrong that you disagree with them that much? Are you that contrary as to wish them to be that wrong? Or was your statement a typo?

I read it and had an issue, but assumed you meant "I don't disagree..."

To be honest, if my tech was that wrong, I don't think I would be running this site...

zoe6 wrote:


So.. Joe I'm confussed.. you don't agree with 99.9% of what Andy says tech wise. I have gotten 100% good advise tech wise.

bogus wrote:
Joe -

Business IS business... but IB handled the take over of CF much like the Nazi take over of Czechslovakia... with brutal efficency.

They were enforcing the rules of CF with authority and no compassion anymore. It lost its fun.

I can dig back into emails, but the bottom line is that they drove good ppl away in an attempt to create their own insular little world.

It was interesting... some weeks back, my name came up in regards to an article I sent into CE... Several ppl were like, "where did he go" and some answered with vague references to this place. Some of the CF members are so myopic, they would rather I come back than they risk visiting here.

I loved the fact ppl missed me, but gee...

Also, the business model for IB is interesting. It's what makes sites like this worth owning and how we get to set our ad rates.

1. Ppl post.
2. Ppl reply.
3. This happens a LOT.
4. Over 10+ years, you get lots of hits and lots of posts.
5. Everytime someone does a search (yahoo or google), your site is always on the first page.
6. Short of epic disaster, that legacy is always there.

This is how IB leverages the sites they own. They paid real good money to get that legacy. They then came in and cleared out the key ppl who created that legacy. I think that is what pisses me off the most. They wanted the legacy, but didn't give a damn about the ppl who created it.

zoe6 wrote:

Good for us bad for them. I see a lot of people lose their way and then focus. Lot of egos get in the way of good sound practice and judgement. I would think that if people with credability complained then there must be validity to the stated problem. So the bottom line is they never learned to listen!
Thanks for the comment about dad! Erin

JeffK wrote:
I'm not looking for massive or really any performance gains. I'm just tired of seeing the SES light on for the EGR system.

JeffK wrote:
It looks like pcmforless does about the same thing as tbiparts does. Except he is about 10 minutes from me and at 1/2 the price. Unless you have heard bad things about him. Plus while I'm there I can get a new map and tps connector.

383tpimachine wrote:
This does not work with 1985 correct?

bogus wrote:
First off, keep it sequential. It's MUCH better than batch for drivability, and since you are on the street, you want that.

Eagle223usa wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure by the noise the pressure plate came apart.

-=Jeff=- wrote:
Honestly, i would buy the ball /socket set and cut the flanges off the headers and weld the ball style on there..

joeld wrote:
Hey Joe,
my concern is with the actual bore size of the GM gasket.
With my engine being .040 over I was concerned about the fire ring being too close to the edge of the cylinder wall. I wasn't sure if the advertised specs on this gasket were a true 4.0 bore size or if in fact it was a little more to allow for any over bore engines.
As far as the thickness, I'm not actually trying for the .51 thickness. This just happens to be what this gasket is.
What I am trying to do is get the best sealing gasket for a simple street driven car. This gasket is the GM replacement for a alum head L98 and I was "leaning" towards using all GM gaskets.
The piston is down in the hole.

Could just go with Fel-Pro #1003 and get on with this.
Any suggestions?
Thanks for the reply
Joel

joeld wrote:
Is the GM gasket #12557236 a 4.0 inch bore or is it a 4.10 inch bore size? My engine is 40 over and I'm installing head gaskets because of a small external leak at #5&7.

I know most Fel-Pro gaskets are a 4.166 inch bore size, but I would prefer to use the composition from GM.

I was thinking someone might have actually measured one of the GM's. The parts guys certainly don't have this info.

Thanks
Joel

Calm wrote:
Hi Gurus.

Need your advise.

I spun a rod last week and have pulled my motor. My LT1 is an Eagle 383 rotating assy. Cast. 5.7 rods. KB Hyper slugs.

I have searched the forums and found many* engine builders that claimed Scat is FAR superior to Eagle (*BLOCKMAN is one).

Any of you heard about them? Dealt with them? Had any dealings with them? Are they trustworthy?

Reason I ask is they deal with both Scat AND Eagle cranks.

They claim that BOTH are equal in quality. That they have sold and built many stroker kits (and engines) using both and have absolutlely no preference.

Funny, but it costs more (up here) to gring my crank than to purchase a replacement, thus the plan to replace.

jdtireman wrote:
Quote:

SpectatorRacing wrote:
Just leave the roof on...cheaper.

I keep banging my helmet on it. Also I like to drive with the roof off but notice a lot more chassis movement. Seriously, I am going to have a machinist friend have a go at this project for me and see what he comes up with.

bogus wrote:
Interesting... when my climate controls are off, so is the compressor. I never feel it cycle.

bogus wrote:

as for the compressor, the clutch shouldn't seize, that's odd... but a new compressor and clutch will fix it.

BillH wrote:

My next shoot will probably be Summit or Kirker, guys on some forums have had good things to say about Kirker but I've no experience with them. And I can walk n the door and pick up Summit.

Note: Summit's latest tool catalog now has both single stage ( from $82/gal) and 2 stage (from $140). I'll probably try a single stage with clearcoat next. Clearcoat makes for easier cleanup of the tire marks & oil at the track.

BillH wrote:
Quote:

corvetteronw wrote:
My air compressor which is a 5hp, 20 Gal Coleman oilless unit sprays 6.5 SCFM @40psi and 5.5 SCFM @90psi.
Looks like most HVLP guns require more than that.
Still searching for the right combination.
Oh well, this will make a nice war story some day.

Yep, spray guns are in the "continuous use" catagory like an air sander.
But, your 5 horse will put out enough air until the tank runs down and the compressor kicks on. The compressor ratings are when the compressor is running.

I've done a boatload with my 2horse, 12 gal tank. You just have to wait on the compressor. I can usually get a panel done before the compressor kicks in. It's not that big of a deal.

If you're going to keep the HF, use it to see how long you can shoot before the compressor comes on.

Josh wrote:
Wouldn't an incomplete burn show up as lean? Incomplete burn = less oxygen used in the burn, so more oxygen in the exhaust. The O2 sensor would see that, and report lean, right?

Josh wrote:

You know more about than I do, so I'm sure you're right, but I was wondering if you explain the nuts and bolts of it. It seems counter intuitive to me.

CentralCoaster wrote:
Yeah, 1975 is the last year that is smog exempt. And diesels and bikes (so far). In some of the less populated counties, smog is still only required on change of ownership.

bogus wrote:
The dyno IS the sniffer. In CA (and the states that now follow CA emissions) they put it on the dyno at 15 and 25 mph. The sniffer is attached and they capture the results.

BillH wrote:
Well, good luck.

But it's F...kin' insane that you have to dyno a car for smog, especially when it passes a sniffer.

Just another form of taxation.

Dale1990 wrote:
Using an emulator would be the way to go but, unfortunately, I don't have access to another driver so I have to do things the old-fashioned way.

Thanks for the tips on adding advance as the fuel is pulled.

Dale1990 wrote:
I'm not planning on using a Wideband until I get my feet wet a little.

Dale1990 wrote:
I've read that starting with getting the VE straightened out first is the way to go - then spark then back to VE.

Dale1990 wrote:

How do you guys get decent data to find the VE changes? Take a long drive then mull over the thousands of data points? Short drives targeting certain regions of the tables? What's the best way you've found to calculate the changes?

Vetron87 wrote:

I wish I would have known about you, maybe you could have burned my chip. FYI no one outside of me ever touches my vehicles, I do everything! but a man has to know his limitations and burning chips is not mine. Thats why I joined this blog to learn from others. Its called life long learning. Now I'm not pissed just amused that anyone would write this. I thought this was a forum to share information and experiences with corvette owners. Wow

Matatk wrote:

Who pissed on your corn flakes, Joe? I guess everyone should do everything technical on our cars ourselves.

Vetron87 wrote:
I don't know if any gurus have tried them but I was really impressed.

flyboy wrote:
The FSM lists the '91 compression ratio as 10.25:1.
The volume of a 350 cylinder is 4"X3.48"=716.7cc.
113 heads have 58cc chambers. 58cc.
Stock head gasket is .050" thick = 10.cc.
Deck hgt. is .025" = 5cc.
Piston eyebrows = 5cc.
Crevice = 1cc.
-------
Add those numbers and you get 79 c.c.

716.7 divided by 79 = 9.07:1 compression.
I don't get it.

LD85 wrote:
get the car off the ground a ways, no less than 12-15" from the ground to the bottom of the floor jack spot on he rail

It will make the job a lot easier...

Oh, and put a TKO back in, in place of the ZF..

LD85 wrote:
I thought B&M bought McLeod sometime back

tpi421vett wrote:
My machine shop said they have a new owner. The new owner is Paul Lee?. I think that was his name. He is a T/F racer and set up Strasberg Machine as a W/D for them. All this just happened in the last few days. I will know more soon. But they should still be in business... as far as I know... for what it's worth!

jhammons01 wrote:

The second option without an oven is time......would you have any idea how much time is required for the stuff to out-gas over a period of time....sitting in the sun?

bogus wrote:
IIRC, baking is at about 100F-135F or so.

Am I on target?

Mekanic wrote:
Searched autozone/advanced/napa/rockauto

I can't seem to get the pressure plate alone. I have to buy it as a kit with the clutch disk.

So with that said, it's $260 for the pressure plate and stock clutch disk from Autozone.

A stock camaro disk is about $100. Centerforce about $150

so say $360-$410 going that route, and having a stock corvette disk laying around. That I could probably sell for $100 shipped, recouping a bit

Or $460 for a Ram from rockauto.

Unless Andy Almighty knows where one could get a pressure plate all by itself...

sliding wrote:
Canada to Croatia.

Woodstock wrote:
I am helping a friend tuning his 87 with LT4 hotcam, BBK TB, Trickflow heads and Lingenfelter intake.
He always had trouble shifting into gear (TH700) with stock converter. Now I had enough of "160-full open" IAC counts and send him my spare 91 IAC. Previously he used both of his 87 IACs. Sure enough now the IAC works as it should, but the tune still needs some work.

Now the question. Could it be, that using the 89 ARAP code could have ill effects on the 87 IAC, but working correctly with the 91. I believe 88 was an IAC number change, but was the IAC really a different animal?

Usually I am not a believer in GMs part number system, but this one has left me stumbled.

CentralCoaster wrote:
The ECM controls the overdrive solenoid based on several inputs, including the console switch and engine temp.

Here are the miminum coolant temps by year.

84 = 176F
85 = 140F
86-88 = 122F

vetteoz wrote:
Quote:

anesthes wrote:Woah. What application is this!? I know the L98s have no provision for this. Must be a section of code in the LT1 ecm's I wasn't aware of..

O/d engagement on the DNE 4+3 is temp related
Min O/d operating temp varies by year ;
176F on the early cars to 122F on the '87/'88 cars
If temp drops below set point , O/d will kick out or if engine doesn't get hot enough, O/d will never engage.

jhammons01 wrote:
When I had a "too" cold of one in there....my temps would drop below 160° and the O/D would kick out....I'd have to drive a mile and get the temps back up for the O/D to work again.

spro2395 wrote:
Hey
Does anyone know what effect a 160 degree thermostat will have on milage?

flyboy wrote:
Quote:

anesthes wrote:

My biggest complaint with any of them is the poly locks back off. No matter how hard you crank down that allen, it seems sometimes they just back off. Over the years I've had a few pushrods, on different motors, get bent.
- Joe

Now I'm concerned. My mechanic said that after tightening the set screw he gives a final "bump" to the nut with the wrench.

Matatk wrote:
I saw Summit has these on sale:

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/SUM-G6938-16/

I need to pick up roller rockers for my build. Heads are 3/8 stud, non self aligning (has guideplates), centerbolt vcs. I can hardly find any information about them. Some guys claim they are made by scorpion, I can't verify that. Anyone running these or have any personal experience with them?

Matthew

383tpimachine wrote:
My tune is off right now and Im averaging 16.5mpg with mostly light driving. I just opened up the exhaust so maybe that will get better.

bogus wrote:
For all intents and purposes, I have done the LSx conversion... and it is expensive!

Now, to define what I have done:

* LTCC - $399.00
* LS1 coils - $600.00 (I don't remember, will have to check archives)
* Taylor wires - $60.00
* 2nd LTCC harness - $125.00 - this was because the belt grabbed and kill the original
* DynaSpark without cap/rotor - $495.00
* Cool aluminum brackets for coils - $130.00
* Misc Opti harness bits - $80.00

Total: $1829.00

EFI Connection has a cute thing called "Quick Quote" with outlines all the bits you need for that job.

For an 1985-92 Camaro, they quote $1815... however that harness is a different animal and you would have to talk to them.

As for all the work I have done, the smog numbers are impressively low. I still have a stock engine, but next year, when I rebuild, we will see how well this combo works out!

pr0zac wrote:
LE cams all have tight lsa's. what is it doing that you doint like about it?