five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I've seen some information on the internet (exact source escapes me now) that indicated the 2000 "regular" LS1 was rated at 305 HP, and the 2000 SS was rated at 320 HP. My engine/transmission came from a 2000 SS, and I've added an LS6 intake and long-tube 1-3/4" to 2-1/2" collector headers.

Last weekend at the track the best ET was 13.48 and best MPH 104.3, at 5800' elevation and 8000' density altitude (ET's should be better, 60' times were crappy due to spinning at the hit). Using NHRA conversions for elevation only, that translates to 12.50 @ 112 MPH at sea level. Weight going down the track was 3485 lbs according to the track scales. Using some on-line horsepower calculators, they're estimating about 365 rear wheel HP and 460 engine HP at sea level.

Does any of this add up? Were SS's rated higher than "regular" LS1 models?

bad86z28

iTrader: (1)

There may have been a few options that gave the SS model a bump in horsepower. As a comparison, a friend of mine had a 2000 WS6 (essentially the same drivetrain as the SS) that we put an LS6 intake on, 1 3/4" headers and GMMG exhaust with cats and he put down 350 HP to the rear wheels through an auto. I wouldn't think you're too far off on the calculations.

bluegrassz

iTrader: (3)

The last time at the track, I run a 12.01 at 112.54 mph with a 1.63 60 ft. The track is at 1200ft, but I dont know what the DA was at the evening. Running down the track, my setup is 3400 lbs.

I have never had my setup dynoed, but I thought these numbers might help. Some calculators say I am pushing 386 hp to the rear wheels, while others say 326 to the wheels. I guess it does not really matter, but having the numbers would be nice.

Zepher

iTrader: (1)

SS had a slight increase in HP from the air intake tract, otherwise both Z28 and SS LS1's are the same for the same year.

98, 01-02 had 28lbs injectors
99-00 had 26lbs injectors
01-02 had the LS6 intake as well as a different cam than the other years.

My friends bone stock 02 WS6 Trans Am T56 put down 323rwhp on a Dynojet.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

15 HP from air inlet changes? Wow.

I guess I should have mentioned that part, since most 3rd gen LS swaps have something other than stock air inlet. Mine is 3-1/2" cone filter behind the left headlight, to 3-1/2" 45 degree elbow and tube to the MAF, and a 3-1/2" to 4" 90 degree elbow to the stock TB.

Oh, another thing, this engine has 241 heads. My "other" 2000 LS1/4L60E from a "regular" Camaro has 853 heads. From other internet searches, the 241 heads weren't supposed to be used until the 2001 model year. I wasn't able to determine the relative merits of 241 vs. 853 heads.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Wouldnt be concerned with the ratings. They all dyno between 290-320 depending on transmission and dyno. I've seen Z28's make more hp than SS's, because all dynos vary.

Some stripped Z28's have been outrunning SS's because of the weight difference between the models.

FWIW, majority of bolt on cars will dyno 335-350whp depending. This is your exhaust/tune/LS6 intake car. If you had a 99-00 with the slightly larger cam, and put on a LS6 manifold you should make 5-10whp more than 01-02's. I will have to get my 99 trans am dyno tuned soon, but I was expecting 340whp thru the auto with headers/exhaust/lid/filter/tune and LS6 intake.

I dont think there are any differences in the head castings that will give hp differences. Only thing I can think of is that the 241's may have more material on the castings which makes it more desirable for porting, just like some of the older 90's LT1 heads.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I did a little more searching on the 241 vs. 853. Apparently the 853's were the last of the sand cast heads; starting in 2001 model year they went to semi-permanent molds, which give a smoother surface finish - port/chamber changes were minimal. And, some late 2000 model year cars got the 241's, although there isn't any apparent pattern to build date or what particular model (SS, WS6, "plain" f-body, etc.) got them. Since the model year change-over can start in June/July, and even earlier for the up-line parts like castings, it isn't too surprising that some 2000's got the 241's.

1ADan

iTrader: (4)

another thing that may have helps was the use of the LS6 intake on the later fbody engines instead of the old LS1 intake. definitely would give a boost in power

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

Most of the difference in the horsepower ratings was based on GM marketing, not anything to do with actual output. The cars were so grossly under-rated in the first place, that GM could take the liberties of claiming a higher number on the SS cars. Functionally their motors were the same, and I doubt that the altered air intake path amounted to much of anything.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

They got a slightly smaller cam which balances everything out. They had tighter LSA for more overlap but slightly less duration/lift. 01-02 with the LS6 intake deleted EGR from the factory. The greater LSA on the 01-02 cam helped the motor do a self EGR effect and allow the motor to pass emissions.

An LS6 intake on the 99-00 setup should make more power. Every now and then you hear about factory freaks that ran stronger than they should have. I'm wondering if any of those cars recieved the LS6 cam as well as the LS6 intake. I've recently seen vids of a mid 12 second 110+ mph STOCK 01-02 SS on just drag radials. 6spd car. That seems abit quicker than the majority of the stock cars out there.

Or even some that still recieved the 99-00 cam with the LS6 intake. Could be worth 10whp and that could give it an edge.

Atilla the Fun

kid, I'm ignoring everyone else's replies and just giving you the facts about your OP:
The '00 SS had the cold air induction, and a better-flowing cat-back. IDK about the tune in the computer. But all the other hardware was identical. The SS did get synthetic lubes, but the base may have also, IDK.
With the LS6 intake swapped on, and using standard hot rod correction, (as opposed to SAE correction), a pure stock '00 SS is a solid 399 crankshaft horses. But that may be with headers, I don't have the actual dyno file handy today.
Are you running the '00 cam? Or an aftermarket stick?
When "Revvin' Evan" Evan J. Smith of Muscle Mustangs magazine tested the then-new '98 Z28/T56, in New Jersey, in cold air, on Eagle GS-C tires at 28 psi, he managed a 12.89 at 109.18, exactly as the car came off the showroom floor. Some years later, he ran a new '01 SS in hot humid August afternoon conditions, again near sea level, and ripped a 12.96 best.
Those cars are close to 3700 pounds with driver.
I think those are good benchmarks for you, if you're running the '00 cam. Lots of online "info" is fake B.S., but I'll vouch for Evan's honesty. He's a skilled driver, too.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Yes, stock '00 bumpstick as far as I know. The only things I took off the original engine were the intake, EGR, exhaust manifolds, and evap.

I wouldn't even think of calling myself a "skilled" driver. I'm not feathering the clutch to make best use of the available traction off the line, I'm not "speed shifting" down the track. I'm still very happy with the performance so far, and if I can figure out how to get it to stick at the hit without feathering the clutch, I'll be even happier.

The engine/trans also came with a Hurst shifter, which I have been told was an SS feature. So, I didn't know if any other engine changes were part of the SS package that may have been included with the package I got. Sounds like other than the shifter, I didn't get any of the SS goodies.

Convoy25

iTrader: (3)

i also have heard about them being underrated.
i have a 2000 SS with headers and a tune and it makes 320 at the rear wheels

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Agreed, you never know what someone claims "stock". Videos of said car running those times shows conclusive evidence that the car ran those times but you never know what really was done.

FWIW, my 99 TA with just MTI air lid and filter (negligible hp gain) and stock exhaust with a tiny glass pack on it (inside diameter was less than 2") ran 13.4 at 104 on street tires in an automatic. This is in 3000ft DA in august/september PA heat. I have no doubt a skilled 6 spd driver can do high 12's with a stock car in better DA conditions.

13.4 up in 8000' DA is prety strong.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

No argument there. But the 2.02 60' that went with it is pretty lame (2.05 was more common earlier in the day). Should be more like 1.8. Even a low 1.9 would probably mean 13.3's or even high 13.2's.

Atilla the Fun

I didn't mention the shifter because it has nothing to do with horsepower. I could list a bunch of things that were SS that don't affect power.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I only mentioned the shifter because I was told it was part of the SS kit - it had the Hurst logo on the ****, and I didn't know if it was just a **** the previous owner had put on or if it was a genuine Hurst shifter, so shortly after getting the engine/trans, I asked here.

I also posted pics of the exhaust manifolds a couple of years ago when told that 2001 had better exhaust manifolds than 2000, and was told based on the pics that my manifolds were the same as the 2001 pieces. As you know, I no longer have those manifolds, but having only recently seen the differences in advertised HP ratings, plus the 241 vs. 853 observation, all this made me wonder if the SS got anything else like a different cam.

I know heads/cam/tune cars run much better than this, but it seemed this car is running better than I should expect it to for what little I've done to it. For comparison, a kid showed up at the track last year with a 2000 Camaro LS1/4L60E and runs 14.4's (he won the season championship in the "Street" class in it last year). Also, the track has a "fleet" of eight 2000 Camaros that they use for "motivational" events (a company pays the track to let their employees come out and drive these cars in a mini race - run outside the groove, pro tree, usually 1 sec RT's, etc.), and they usually run high-14's. Occasionally a track employee will jump in one of them to race and may run 14.5's.

So, that's why I asked.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

That weight is also abit lighter than alot of the top model Fbodies. 3600lbs wasnt uncommon with those cars with the leather seats/power everything/etc.

So 150 lbs or so less will give you some good times. I dont think your times are far from ordinary. A good bolt on LS1 will run pretty hard. Most everyone I know around my old hometown was into the lsx stuff and are still doing lsx stuff. I was the one of the only thirdgenners. I've seen what all their cars can do with bolt ons and then heads/cam. Some are impressive, some arent. Just the way it goes sometimes. But typical full bolt ons with converter for a strong launch can do bottom 12's at 108-112 depending on the bolt ons and tune. Its a full second faster just about than a similar full bolt on L98

Atilla the Fun

I'd still like to see kid install the smallest Lunati VooDoo cam in this combo, and port/polish his exhaust ports the way I'm doing those LM7 heads. The cam alone is a solid 40 crank HP at sea level, and it shouldn't even require a tune. It's very mild. It doesn't even require new springs or pushrods. Only a few gaskets. It won't change the RPM range, either. Only add lots more torque everywhere. MPG won't suffer, and it'll easily pass emissions with flying colors. It really deserves the VooDoo name.
The head work requires new bolts and gaskets, but if you're gonna buy the gaskets to do the cam, you may as well do this at the same time.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

The 60510?

Can stock LS1 valve springs handle .531" lift?

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

I wouldnt use stock springs for any aftermarket cam. LS6 springs are supposively alittle better and i think good to .575 lift but they only have around 100lb seat pressure or so. Thats not really good for most aftermarket cams.

For peace of mind and to be sure you have good valve control, a good double spring like patriot golds or any other similar spring should drop right in. They have better pressures for the more modern lobes and arent really that expensive. Comp's 918 beehives are fine choice too.

That small voodoo cam would run really well even without a tune. There are guys running LS6 cams and making great power with them, and the voodoo is abit better design. Same with those cheatr cams which have similar specs as the LS7 cam. Mild, drive and idle somewhat like stock but make good power.

Atilla the Fun

I've heard reports of guys successfully doing it. I haven't tried it.

Atilla the Fun

I don't see any problem with 100 pounds on the seat. I've run 90 pounds as high as 7000 rpm without issue, using 1.94" SBC stainless undercut valves. I've run 6200 continuously, with 2.02s, in the same combo. All the way across the nation, in fact.
Hydraulics don't like or need high pressures, seat or open. If you are having problems, use a rev kit. I've never needed to, but it is the correct fix.
Valvesprings really NEED to be tapered OR conical. Double sporings canNOT be. Dual springs will always have spring surge. We don't have to put up with spring surge. LSx engines can't use COMP's 982-16 conical springs (which TFS is now offering under their own part number) But there are the LS6 springs for peace of mind. With the VooDoo, you don't even need the '02-up version, the '01 version will suffice. the '02-up version is GM pn 12499224 and runs around $50/set.
90% of the engines running the 26918s would be better served with the 26915s. COMP knows this, that's why they offer them. But most old-school hot rodders are ingrained with a now-wrong belief that more spring pressure is better. That's why the 26918s are available, and why they sell well.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

Just to echo the comments from above the LS1 mills from the y body and fbodies were the same (per given year). The SS had two "HP" upgrades available. There was a rated 335 hp (SLP LID or center exit cat back) and a rated 345hp version (SLP LID and Center Exit Cat Back exhuast). The firehawk was the 345hp rated WS6 but also included the different hood. You could not get the individual SLP options on the bird like you could the maro, only both and dubbed as the firehawk. A friend of mine had a "335" hp rated 02 SS that made 325hp at the wheels bone stock. Also keep in mind that since the early LT1 days the vette and f bod motors were the same (minus a few accessory differences and 2 vs 4 bolt mains for the LT1). GM must protect the rating for the vette even if other cars share the same mill. On an engine dyno the vette LS3 makes the same power as the 2010 SS mills (within a single %). FWIW the LS3 makes 480 at the crank in stock trim.

My ramblings aside, GM underrated these motors. Intake, exhuast and marketing differences set the advertised power levels more than anything else.

Also FWIW, the stock LQ4 motor with a truck intake makes just shy of 400hp on an engine dyno. When you think about it it makes sense. Larger chamber LS1 heads, 01/02 f bod LS1 cam, and larger displacement. Its just a larger LS1 but rated lower than the f body. Heirachy of platforms gets the more accurate power rating.

vette > fbod > truck even when most of these engines come off the same line.

Atilla the Fun

Before '01, there were differences in cams between the F-twins and the 'vette. For '00, the major difference was the lobe sep.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

Very true, I forgot about this. Thanks for the heads up.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

98-00 LS1 202/210 .472/.479 117.0 LSA


01-02 LS1 198/208 .464/.478 115.5 LSA

Atilla the Fun

According to GM's own LS1 swap booklet, the '98-'99 'vette cam was 12560964, 472/479, 202/210, 117@121. the '98-'00 Z28 cam was 12560965, 500/500, 201/212, 119.5@122. the '00 'vette cam was 12560968, 500/500, 201/212, 115.5@119. the '01-'02 Z28 cam was 12561721, 467/479, 199/210, 116@115. Of these, the '00 'vette cam is definitely the best, but still needs a multi-position timing set so it can be advanced several degrees. That would better match the modest duration. The numbers look normal if it's advanced to a 113 degree intake centerline.
According to Will Handzel, former manager of GM Performance Parts, ( and former editor of Hot Rod magazine before that ) the 12560964 was 199/207, the 12560968 was 198/209, the 12560965 was 198/209, and the 12561721 was 196/207. So the swap booklet must've been trying to correct for the rocker ratio. COMP does NOT correct for rocker ratio, they leave that up to you. For 1.7:1, add 4 degrees, not 3 like the swap booklet.
Anyway, the 12561721 was also used, according to W.H., in the '01-'03 'vette, and the '01-'04 LQ4, and the '02-'03 LQ9, as well as the 327-horse 325-cube 5.3L crate engine.

skinny z

Just a quick aside, what is the standard for duration gains when going from 1.5 to 1.6? On a modest cam with 276/284 advertised, 224/230 @ .050".

Atilla the Fun

In your case, the pushrods will still see 224/230, but the valves will see more like 226/232.
This is part of why the LSx seems to get such great power from such modest cams. Noone ever corrects for rocker ratio.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Wow those are definately different numbers from whats been commonly posted around the interweb I would expect the .500 lift cam to make a good bit more power than the later year cam. I have seen a buddys car make 351whp on a 99 with LS6 intake and bolt ons. Most 01-02's I've seen only make 340whp.
My 99 should be running alot harder than it is now with the LS6 intake and headers/exhaust. Must still need a tune to take advantage of everything. But being 2.73 gears and only running the 1/8 mile as of late, its hard to get a good idea of its true potential.

skinny z

Thanks.