LT1 engine

M

Michael Helphinstine

Hello. I'm new to this organization, so if I seem a little out of step I apologize.
I have recently purchased 1991 Federal coach (cadillac) with a 5.7L engine.
I am told it is the LT1, the same version they used in corvettes back then.
Is there a difference in the performance of what they used in coaches than what they used in the corvettes? If so, what differences?
Also why use a Chevrolet engine in the first place?

Thanks in advance,
Mike Helphinstine
Normal, IL
 
it's really a better engine the the vets had. you have to remember that the caddies were FWD. they wanted the rwd for the limos and hearses as most were not sure that the FWD would stand up to the weight. both engine and transmission were in question. Caddy did not have a rwd power train. so Gm used what they had. to look under the hood is kind of strange. as it sets back so far. it looks tiny in that hole. but can you find a vet that gets over 20 MPG? one other thing that the buyers demanded was fuel mileage. gm came threw for them. it's the rest of us they let down.
 
Lt-1

Up to 93 the engine is a 5.7 TBI Engine 94-96 is the LT-1,I believe the 350 TBI engine was started in 90? 93 Is the first year for the new body style. Like my 93 below.
 

Attachments

  • 363950120.jpg
    363950120.jpg
    45.4 KB · Views: 191
Thanks for the input John and Dan. So Dan, you're saying what I have is in fact a 5.7L TBI (throttle body injection) rather than the LT1 as I was previously told? Hmmm. Bummer.

Mike
 
Michael Helphinstine said:
Thanks for the input John and Dan. So Dan, you're saying what I have is in fact a 5.7L TBI (throttle body injection) rather than the LT1 as I was previously told? Hmmm. Bummer.

Mike
Click to expand...


If it has a thottle body it is not the LT-1 engine. I was under the impression my 92 Roadmaster Buick had the LT-1 engine in it but through another found out it does not because of the thottle body.
 
The 94 rwd caddy was first LT-1 and went through 96. The 93-96 was same body style. The 90-93 could be had with the 350 TBI was not the HP and didn't get the mpg. You can expect 20mph from 90-93 and the LT-1 94-96 will get u 25 mpg. Both engines are very tough and will last several hundred thousand miles easy.
 
1996 Chevy Caprice 9C1

John Royark JR said:
Just ask Jeremy Moberg. He has a S&S Buick with the LT-1 that has just shy of 400,000 and still running strong!!
Click to expand...

HI I have a 1996 Chevy Caprice police Package with the LT1 and it Gets 26 MPG on the Highway. The Get up and Go is Always there. This car has 192000
on It and Still going Strong I am the Second Owner and Have Owned the Car since 2001 when it had 102000 on it. You cant Beat The Engine



Russ
 
thanks again those of you that really know. so answer me this one we know the LT-1 will get in excess of 20 MPG in the 6 door limo loaded. has all the power you need and will last for ever. why then did gm not use it in there trucks instead of the 16 mpg 5.3?? no sense in answering. as it makes no sense. but you do kind of wonder.
 
How to tell the difference between the model years:
  • 1993: Outside mirrors mounted to door skin. Single exhaust pipe on passenger side. Steering wheel is 2-spoke design.
  • 1994: Outside mirrors mounted to door skin. First year for LT-1 engine with dual exhaust pipes and 4-spoke steering wheel design.
  • 1995: First year for outside mirrors to be mounted to door frame. Dual exhaust pipes.
  • 1996: Outside mirrors mounted to door frame. Dual exhaust pipes. First year for Daytime-Running-Lights (DRL) and OBD-2.
 
Like it's earlier relatives being the 327 engine, the LT-1 had to go. I once ask a mechanic why GM would do away with good engines like the 283 and 327 when they were so reliable and he said "EXACTLY". I ask what he was talking about and he said GM can't make money on a reliable engine so they built some that were not sooo good. Guess they went from one extreme to another with 4100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top