Welcome to the Corvette Forums at the Corvette Action Center!

Still Looking

Me, too

Come on guys, not one of you knows someone selling a 71 LT1? Might consider a 72'. Here are my rules: Must have power steering, no overpriced cars (I know, what is overpriced?), "Must be correct", no accidents and no rust. If to far away I will hiring a professional to inspect. Patina a good thing, I am picky. Regards, Mike in San Diego
I'm looking for a '71 LT-1 coupe. Want ps/pb/pw/t-t. Preferred colors are OO/saddle,blk(#1), WY/blk(#2), BHG/blk(#3), MM/blk(#4), but condition and options can trump the preferred colors. Original, docs, matching #'s. Any help would be appreciated. They -are- harder to find, but there were almsot 2000 of them, so out there -somewhere- is my future baby. Thanks, everyone! Dana (Houston)
 
I'm looking for a '71 LT-1 coupe. Want ps/pb/pw/t-t. Preferred colors are OO/saddle,blk(#1), WY/blk(#2), BHG/blk(#3), MM/blk(#4), but condition and options can trump the preferred colors. Original, docs, matching #'s. Any help would be appreciated. They -are- harder to find, but there were almsot 2000 of them, so out there -somewhere- is my future baby. Thanks, everyone! Dana (Houston)

The best, and most rare color (tied with yellow for the fewest made - '71) of the LT-1's appears to be missing from your list. Must be an oversite!!!!! ;)

Fall_car_pics010.jpg
 
Could it be...???

The best, and most rare color (tied with yellow for the fewest made - '71) of the LT-1's appears to be missing from your list. Must be an oversite!!!!! ;)

Fall_car_pics010.jpg
I'm going out on a limb here, but could it be that NS is also the -fastest- color?? :L
 
I'm going out on a limb here, but could it be that NS is also the -fastest- color?? :L

How could I have left that out?
I don't believe you when you say you were going out on a limb on that one.
I think there might be another physics major on board! :D
 
How could I have left that out?
I don't believe you when you say you were going out on a limb on that one.
I think there might be another physics major on board! :D
Here's a news flash for you: In 2006 (a mere 35 yrs later), the fastest color is DSOM! And here's a REAL coincidence: Crush2 is DSOM. What are the odds???:rotfl
 
Here's a news flash for you: In 2006 (a mere 35 yrs later), the fastest color is DSOM! And here's a REAL coincidence: Crush2 is DSOM. What are the odds???:rotfl

One of my favorite colors. I keep telling my wife (who HATES DSOM) that if I ever by a C6, it's gonna be DSOM or AO!:L
 
One of my favorite colors. I keep telling my wife (who HATES DSOM) that if I ever by a C6, it's gonna be DSOM or AO!:L
Is your wife an Aggie? They -HATE- UT's burnt orange, and DSOM is pretty close to that, LOL! (IMO, it's much nicer/richer than AO, and thorough testing has determined that DSOM -is- faster than AO!)
 
Is your wife an Aggie? They -HATE- UT's burnt orange, and DSOM is pretty close to that, LOL! (IMO, it's much nicer/richer than AO, and thorough testing has determined that DSOM -is- faster than AO!)

I've never considered calling my wife Aggie, but I've called her just about everything else at one time or another!:)

If DSOM is faster than AO, I guess that's the color I'll go with - Either that or SILVER (really fast).....IF I ever buy a C6

I loved all the Orange colors from the muscle car era. I loved Hugger orange, Ontario orange (although that was later), the Mustang (Boss 302) orange, and best of all, that Mopar orange. BEAUTIFUL!
 
The AC option wasn't available until very late in the production run, and only about 250 cars or so came with this option - so if you have one, it's pretty rare. I think the engine compression may have been down a bit in '72 as well due to Federal regulations at that time. I may be mistaken though.
 
Compression was the same. Very little changed, so I don't understand the exclusion of a '72. The horsepower rating is lower because they changed the way they measured it.
 
Compression was the same. Very little changed, so I don't understand the exclusion of a '72. The horsepower rating is lower because they changed the way they measured it.
Someone from this forum sent me an awesome article about the history of the Corvette LT-1's. I still have it somewhere, but I don't know where it is at the moment.

In any event, you are correct that the HP was measured at a different location on the '72, with a different load than the '70 & '71 (the '71 had more of a load than the '70 which reduced its rating from 370 - 330).

The article was (I believe) done by Road & Track, and they took LT-1 vettes from all 3 years out to the track for the 1/4 mile. I "think" the same driver ran all 3 cars, and the times were within ~1/10 of a second of each other. So you pretty much had the same car with pretty much the same performance regardless of the year. I thought the '72 came in last, and I thought it was due to compression ratios.
 
Compression was the same. Very little changed, so I don't understand the exclusion of a '72. The horsepower rating is lower because they changed the way they measured it.

I don't know why the '72 LT-1 was excluded either, but hey, we can all be very particular about certain things with our cars. Maybe the 255 hp rating bothers the guy and he just doesn't realize that the engines are basically the same, and that the HP measurements were just taken in different places.

In any event, YOU have an extremely rare LT-1 (air conditioning).

-JS
 
Someone from this forum sent me an awesome article about the history of the Corvette LT-1's. I still have it somewhere, but I don't know where it is at the moment.

In any event, you are correct that the HP was measured at a different location on the '72, with a different load than the '70 & '71 (the '71 had more of a load than the '70 which reduced its rating from 370 - 330).

The article was (I believe) done by Road & Track, and they took LT-1 vettes from all 3 years out to the track for the 1/4 mile. I "think" the same driver ran all 3 cars, and the times were within ~1/10 of a second of each other. So you pretty much had the same car with pretty much the same performance regardless of the year. I thought the '72 came in last, and I thought it was due to compression ratios.


I find it hard to believe that the 71 and 72 have as much horsepower as the 70 with drop in compression ratio from 70 to 71. Maybe the gearing was different in their test.
 
I'm just telling you what the article stated.
You can believe whatever you like.
 
I wasn't doubting anything you said, I was just wondering how the 71 and 72 kept up with the 70. That's all.
 
Not a problem. You had such a good point that I'm now looking for the article.
I know the compression for the '70 was 11:1 compared to 9:1 for the '71 - I don't know what the compression was for the '72, but I assume it's the same as '71.

I'll post the particulars when I find the article.
 
Well, I found the articles, and I can't believe how bad my memory of them was. I really don't know who wrote them, but they appear to have come from Corvette and Chevy trader, and Corvette Fever - in May 1999.

One article (1970 sees the birth of the LT-1) is written primarily about the engine specs. To quote a couple of early paragraphs:

"And while the big-block Corvettes produced plenty of horsepower, Zora Duntov's Corvette Group wanted to play with an earlier idea of taking a small-block and giving it all-out carburetion.
They picked the 302 small-block planned for use in the Z/28 Camaro, made a few modifications and turned it into the legendary LT-1 which debuted in 1970.
The LT-1 was a hybrid between the 302 and the 350, in essence, the engine was a 302 with a 350 crank."

The second article had to do with the performance of all 3 years ('70 - '72), and it stated the compression ratios as well as hp ratings - gross vs net.
They quoted 1/4 times achieved by cars each of the 3 years, but these times were reported by different magazines in 1970, '71, and '72.

Here are the results from the 1/4 runs:

1970 LT-1:
1/4 run of 14.17 @102.2 w/4.11 gears - reported by Car Life, August '70 issue.

1970 LT-1:
1/4 mile run of 14.04 @102.5 w/4.56 gears - reported by Hi-Perf Cars Supercar Annual.

1972 LT-1:
1/4 mile run of 14.30 @92.0 w/3.70 gears - reported by Motor Trend.

The article went on to say "Accoring to net horsepower numbers, the '72 LT-1's output was down only 20 hp, something that could be made up easily with the installation of a few hop-ups. That explains why '72 LT-1 Corvettes could run right with their older, higher-hp-rated brothers."

They said if the '72 had similar gearing during testing, it would have produced similar times to the '70,'71's.

-John
 
The times and gearing really show how a solid lifter small block loves to rev.:D
 
They quoted 1/4 times achieved by cars each of the 3 years, but these times were reported by different magazines in 1970, '71, and '72.

Here are the results from the 1/4 runs:

1970 LT-1:
1/4 run of 14.17 @102.2 w/4.11 gears - reported by Car Life, August '70 issue.

1970 LT-1:
1/4 mile run of 14.04 @102.5 w/4.56 gears - reported by Hi-Perf Cars Supercar Annual.

1972 LT-1:
1/4 mile run of 14.30 @92.0 w/3.70 gears - reported by Motor Trend.



-John

The time in the middle (102.5 w/4.56 gears) was the time for a "1971" LT-1, not "1970" as originally posted. Sorry for the typo.
 

Corvette Forums

Not a member of the Corvette Action Center?  Join now!  It's free!

Help support the Corvette Action Center!

Supporting Vendors

Dealers:

MacMulkin Chevrolet - The Second Largest Corvette Dealer in the Country!

Advertise with the Corvette Action Center!

Double Your Chances!

Our Partners

Back
Top Bottom