
To discover the differences between the LT1 and LT4 powerplants, we decided to
take a stock 1994 LT1 Coupe and put it up against a stock 1996 LT4 Coupe, and see just how
much of a variance a few minor internal engine modifications could make. This track test
will also put to rest that endless rumor: "... It's just a set of heads and an intake
manifold bolted onto an LT1 bottom end." In a sense, that's true. However, there are
many more subtle differences in the bottom-end assembly that people seem to overlook. On
the surface, it doesn't really make sense to manufacture an engine, such as the LT4, for
only one year of production. But with the four-valve LT5 already killed, and the new LS1
reserved for the C5, the engineers were
told to redesign the existing small-block to produce at least 10 percent more power than
the LT1 to satisfy the immediate need for extra power.
First, let's start with the obvious-the cylinder heads. As you may already know, the LT4
heads aren't reworked LT1 heads. They are a completely different casting.
GM Powertrain engineers decided to take the easiest and most effective route toward more
power by increasing the volume of the air/fuel movement through it, so they built an
all-new cylinder head.
In comparison to the LT1 head, the new LT4 head has had its intake roof raised by
0.100-inch and the radius, from the port to the valve bowl, has been smoothed out for
better flow. To improve the flow of hot exhaust gases, the exhaust ports have been made
wider, while the rear walls have been reshaped to allow quicker travel of the gases from
the seats to exhaust flange. In addition to the modifications of the ports, the combustion
chamber has been redesigned to improve flow to and from the ports, and larger 2.00/1.55
intake/exhaust valves have been fitted.
The LT4 intake valves are not only larger, but due to their hollow stem design, they're
also lighter. The intake valves weigh 85 grams each (25 fewer than the LT1 valves), while
the exhaust valves, which are partially filled with sodium and potassium to promote better
heat dissipation, weigh 75 grams apiece (20 fewer than the LT1's).
One of the most obvious features of the LT4 over the LT1 is the higher 6300 rpm redline.
Since the redline was increased 500 rpm, the engineers had to improve the valve springs
significantly. They did this by using an egg-shaped, single-coil spring with 100 lbs. of
seat pressure, as opposed to the LT1's 85-lb. pressure. The closed seat pressure is 260
lbs.
The 1.6:1 roller fulcrum, roller-tipped rocker arms are a modified version of Crane's design. By using these extruded
aluminum rocker arms, the engine effectively increases the lift with the added advantage
of less engine friction and a smoother idle than the LT1. The rocker arms sit on special
shouldered 10mm studs, and are tightened down until they bottom out. This design
eliminates the need for any kind of adjustment.
To further maximize the performance potential of the lightweight valves and roller rocker
arms, a larger camshaft was selected. The LT4 cam lift profile is .476 intake/.480
exhaust, while the duration is 203 degrees intake/210 degrees exhaust at 0.050-inch lift.
It also has 115-degree lobe centers and is installed one degree retarded, which raises the
engine's redline by 150 rpm.
Since the LT4 heads have been reshaped, a new intake manifold had to be designed; the LT1
intake will not fit. The new intake's runners are matched to the bigger ports in the heads
and large 3.5-gram injectors replace the LT1's 3.0-gram injectors. In addition, the
external EGR hardware has been eliminated.
There are also several lower end modifications for increased strength. The notches in the
LT4's piston to clear the valves are 3cc smaller than the LT1, resulting in a compression
ratio increase to 10.8:1, from the LT1's 10.5. The top compression rings in the LT4 are
slightly chamfered, causing them to dish when compressed in the cylinders. This new design
produces a better seal under positive compression loads to handle the engine's higher
cylinder pressure. Other bottom-end modifications include undercut and rolled journals in
the crankshaft, steel crankshaft drive with an 8mm chain and a dual mass torsional damper.
With the subtle differences between the LT4 and LT1 in mind, we selected a bone-stock
model of each to see just how wide the gap in ET slips would be. Gerard DeSantis, who owns
the black '96 LT4, met up with David Tortolani's red '94 LT1 at Raceway Park in Englishtown, N.J., so we
could determine if those engine modifications really make a difference in the quarter
mile.

1994 LT1
Owner: David Tortolani
Engine: 5.7-liter SFI V8 LT1
Horsepower: 300@5000 rpm
Torque: 340 lbs.-ft.@4000 rpm
Block: Cast iron, 4-bolt mains
Crankshaft: Cast iron
Pistons: Cast aluminum
Compression: 10.5:1
Cylinder heads: Aluminum with 170cc intake port volume
Combustion chambers: 54.4cc
Valves: 1.94 intake/1.50 exhaust
Valve spring pressure: 85 lbs.
Rocker arms: 1.5:1 adjustable self-aligning, stamped steel
Camshaft: Roller
Lift: .447 intake/.459 exhaust
Duration: 203° intake/210° exhaust@.50-inch
Intake manifold: Aluminum
Torsional Damper: Single mass
On David's first pass, the engine temperature in his gleaming red Coupe was at 160
degrees. After a short burnout to clean off the stock tires, David launched his Vette at
2500 rpm and powershifted the T56 at 5700 rpm. He ran a 14.02 ET at 102.24 mph. His
60-foot time was 2.48, due to excessive tire spin. Since the tires broke loose, David
decided to drop the tire pressure in the rear to 26 psi. It seemed to help, because his
second run was the best one of the day. He let the engine cool to 150 degrees before
making his next run. When the green light flicked on, David brought the revs up to 2500
rpm again, but bogged out of the hole. His 60-foot time was 2.10, and he shifted the same
as he did during the first pass; the result was a 13.68 at 101.80. After the second pass,
David dropped the rear tire pressure even lower to 20 psi and let the engine cool to 140
degrees. This time, he launched at 3000 rpm, but that was way too high for the stock
tires. With a 2.18 60-foot time, the result was a 13.87 at 102.70.
1996 LT4
Owner: Gerard DeSantis
Engine : 5.7-liter MFI V8 LT4
Horsepower: 330@5800 rpm
Torque: 340 lbs.-ft.@4500 rpm
Block: Cast iron, 4-bolt mains
Crankshaft: Cast iron, undercut and rolled journal fillets
Pistons: Cast aluminum
Compression: 10.8:1
Cylinder heads: Aluminum, with 185cc intake port volume
Combustion chambers: 54.4cc
Valves: 1.94 intake/1.50 exhaust
Valve spring pressure: 100 lbs.
Rocker arms:1.5:1 adjustable, self-aligning, stamped steel
Camshaft: Roller
Lift: .447 intake/.459 exhaust
Duration: 202° intake/208° exhaust@.050-inch
Intake manifold: Aluminum, matched runners
Torsional Damper: Dual mass

All Gerard DeSantis wanted to do was get his stock black Coupe into
the 12s. That was his goal of the day. With the LT4's water temperature registering 185
degrees and with 24 psi in the rear tires, Gerard left the line at 4200 rpm and
powershifted at 6500 rpm. Going through the traps in third gear, he ran a 13.00 ET at
107.13 mph, with a respectable 60-foot time of 1.96 seconds. Gerard didn't do any tuning
to his Coupe between passes. He liked the way it hooked up and decided to leave everything
status quo. On his second run, and with the engine temperature reading a higher 195
degrees, Gerard launched at 4500 rpm. The tires grabbed well, yielding a 1.93 60-foot
time, resulting in a 12.95 at 104.89. Having achieved his 12-second goal, Gerard tried to
lower his ET still further. After letting the engine cool down to 185, Gerard went out and
backed up the run with a 12.94 at 104.89-his best effort of the day. The Vette hooked with
a solid bite and he snagged a 60-foot time of 1.92.
After Gerard returned from the 12.94 pass, he was very excited and wanted to make a
back-to-back run. The temperature gauge was showing 200 degrees, but he didn't want to
wait for it to drop. He launched at 4500 rpm and experienced clutch slippage, which
yielded a 1.99 60-foot time with a 13.10 at 105.90.
Conclusion
No doubt a set of drag radials on each car would have been a great help. As a result, the
LT1 would probably see an ET reduction down into the low 13s, while the LT4 would hit
mid-12s. But even in their stock form, the changes provided by the LT4 have shown positive
results.
Being .7 seconds quicker down the quarter-mile proves that extra horsepower can always be
found in the cylinder heads. The GM Powertain engineers knew this, which is why the
majority of the modifications that were designed into the LT4 centered on the heads
themselves. These were design changes that worked, and worked well.
Nevertheless, a bone-stock LT1-powered Corvette that can run mid-13s, all the while
providing excellent handling and cornering performance, is an achievement that most other
cars will never lay claim to.
Special thanks to Vette Magazine for the
article!
| ADDITIONAL TECH INFORMATION | |||
| LT4 Longblock | LT1 / LT4 variables | GMPP LT4 heads | LT1 vs LT4 Vette |
| Rebuilding the LT1 | Cam Selection R&R | Head Flow Comparo | HOME 96Legacy |