<![CDATA[Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost.]]>This car blows my mind. It still weighs over 3400 lbs, is only running 16 lbs of boost (for now), factory style suspension, LT4 23 degree heads, a bolt in turbo kit, and is still using the FACTORY PRODUCTION BLOCK! They are planning on hitting ~7.7 with an increase in boost.

This car is simply amazing.
LINK!

LS-what?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/2476/low-8-second-lt1-factory-block-16-lbs-of-boost.RSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 17:16:38 GMTTue, 26 Apr 2005 17:30:16 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:25:14 GMT]]>It is amazing what you can do with a stack of money and some free time. I mean a guy did walk on the moon you know.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44323https://fargostreet.com/post/44323Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:25:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:23:08 GMT]]>

weshole wrote:
You stated that the heads weren't any good. I have NEVER heard of anything coming from AFR that was no good. 23 degrees or not they will still flow like a sumbitch.
AFRs are very nice, but the 23 degree heads are much worse than the average small block chevy head, 18 degrees, or brodix 15 degree heads. A lot of people ditch 23's when starting to make seriouse hp.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44322https://fargostreet.com/post/44322Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:23:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:10:33 GMT]]>You stated that the heads weren't any good. I have NEVER heard of anything coming from AFR that was no good. 23 degrees or not they will still flow like a sumbitch.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44320https://fargostreet.com/post/44320Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:10:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:07:35 GMT]]>

adog wrote:
Did Phamspeed ever produce their LT1 turbo kit? It would probably be a pretty affordable way to get a front-mounted turbo kit installed.
Havn't heard of it.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44319https://fargostreet.com/post/44319Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:07:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:35:24 GMT]]>Did Phamspeed ever produce their LT1 turbo kit? It would probably be a pretty affordable way to get a front-mounted turbo kit installed.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44310https://fargostreet.com/post/44310Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:35:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:23:28 GMT]]>Anyone remember the pic of the blown apart 5.0 block posted on here? The fact that that did not happen here at at least somewhat impressive. Those PTK turbo kits are really worth it, I guess.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44309https://fargostreet.com/post/44309Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:23:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:10:41 GMT]]>

wannabe wrote:
werent you the one saying how you would blow your car before turboing it, and now this thing totally blows your mind? duh..... what?
Nay, I said I would supercharge it over putting an STS turbo on it. I would put a PTK kit on it over a supercharger however.

Get the facts straight Jack!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44234https://fargostreet.com/post/44234Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:10:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:03:36 GMT]]>

94NDTA wrote:
ok......good job?
werent you the one saying how you would blow your car before turboing it, and now this thing totally blows your mind? duh..... what?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44224https://fargostreet.com/post/44224Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:03:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:58:14 GMT]]>It surprises me that the Mustang/LT1 guys didn't think of using Turbos 10-15 years ago. They seem to run extremely fast with them. That was a nice run. Didn't you say the interior was all there? Is your suspension similar to what he is running (mius the wheelie bar.)?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44223https://fargostreet.com/post/44223Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:58:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:43:20 GMT]]>

theoblivious wrote:
im saying my car is slow and running stock
ok......good job?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44221https://fargostreet.com/post/44221Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:43:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:41:13 GMT]]>im saying my car is slow and running stock

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44220https://fargostreet.com/post/44220Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:41:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:30:57 GMT]]>

theoblivious wrote:
im planning of going deep into the 15's...any congrats there?
What?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44218https://fargostreet.com/post/44218Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:30:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:16:41 GMT]]>im planning of going deep into the 15's...any congrats there?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44216https://fargostreet.com/post/44216Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:16:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:00:34 GMT]]>i figured that i was just giving you shit.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44202https://fargostreet.com/post/44202Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:00:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:36:00 GMT]]>shut up freitag it was a joke.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44182https://fargostreet.com/post/44182Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:36:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:19:00 GMT]]>

mwc1 wrote:
a white guy with a 20 inch cock is impressive..sorry

you fag, Ban him!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44152https://fargostreet.com/post/44152Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:19:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:32:59 GMT]]>a white guy with a 20 inch cock is impressive..sorry

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44148https://fargostreet.com/post/44148Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:32:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:15:27 GMT]]>

Jim wrote:
I think you guys are missing the point. When you have upgraded internals inside of a block, you can expect it to make considerably more power. What would have the car extremely unique is if it had been on stock internals.

On the other hand, DSM's are lightweight. AWD adds quite a bit of weight and they arent slim to begin with. Oh, and we have 1/2 the engine that most of the V8's have, and 550hp on stock internals is not unheard of. Shit, PSI2HI did that.

"built" for boost? yeah. 1/2 the engine of the v8's? yeah.

So is it impressive that we can still go 7's with upgraded internals? yeah, i'm not saying its not impressive that car can as well, but its not ONE of a kind out there.
I think you are missing my point. The LT1 isn't the end all be all motor from GM. The 4g63 is. In fact, a lot of people ditch it for SB2 or SBC motors once they start making insane amounts of hp. It is an inferior motor. Inline motors havea distinct advantage of their blocks being more capable of holding together. V designed engines have to deal with cylinder pressure AND the engine trying to pull itself apart. It's a trade off you get for more cubic inches. FOR THIS ENGINE, this is very impressive. FOR THE AMOUNT OF BOOST, this is impressive. FOR THE CARS WEIGHT, This is impressive. FOR THE DESIGN OF THE HEADS, this is impressive. And last but not least, FOR UTILIZING A STOCK STLYE SUSPENSION, this is impressive.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44140https://fargostreet.com/post/44140Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:15:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:38:00 GMT]]>

camzaro28 wrote:
i believe the dsm motors were built somewhat for boost.
the ltx motors were not built in any way to handle boost, so it wouldnt be smart at all to use stock internals!h

I think you guys are missing the point. When you have upgraded internals inside of a block, you can expect it to make considerably more power. What would have the car extremely unique is if it had been on stock internals.

On the other hand, DSM's are lightweight. AWD adds quite a bit of weight and they arent slim to begin with. Oh, and we have 1/2 the engine that most of the V8's have, and 550hp on stock internals is not unheard of. Shit, PSI2HI did that.

"built" for boost? yeah. 1/2 the engine of the v8's? yeah.

So is it impressive that we can still go 7's with upgraded internals? yeah, i'm not saying its not impressive that car can as well, but its not ONE of a kind out there.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44136https://fargostreet.com/post/44136Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:38:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:10:01 GMT]]>

94NDTA wrote:
So, when those 4g63's run 7's, thats not impressive? Why are they impressive, and this isn't? I know they are smaller, but they run a hell of a lot more boost, and generally are lighter than what they came out of the factory. This car is factory weight, without a 4 link, and horribley designed 23 degree heads.

On non inline engines it is. V8's are basically pulling themselves apart. Not to many V-desing engine can say they have accomplished this.

Im not saying an 8 second pass is not impressive, not in any passenger car. I am saying the fact that its on stock block really doesnt matter.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/44132https://fargostreet.com/post/44132Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:10:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:02:36 GMT]]>

camzaro28 wrote:
i believe the dsm motors were built somewhat for boost.
the ltx motors were not built in any way to handle boost, so it wouldnt be smart at all to use stock internals!h
Yeah, the internals were built for N/A power, and even at that, they weren't the best.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/43942https://fargostreet.com/post/43942Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:02:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:01:40 GMT]]>

95TsiAWD wrote:
all the DSM guys run stock 4g63 blocks, there are no aftermarket. And they have ran 7's.

Stock block means nothing. Stock internals would.
So, when those 4g63's run 7's, thats not impressive? Why are they impressive, and this isn't? I know they are smaller, but they run a hell of a lot more boost, and generally are lighter than what they came out of the factory. This car is factory weight, without a 4 link, and horribley designed 23 degree heads.

On non inline engines it is. V8's are basically pulling themselves apart. Not to many V-desing engine can say they have accomplished this.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/43941https://fargostreet.com/post/43941Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:01:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:58:40 GMT]]>i believe the dsm motors were built somewhat for boost.
the ltx motors were not built in any way to handle boost, so it wouldnt be smart at all to use stock internals!h

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/43937https://fargostreet.com/post/43937Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:58:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Low 8 second LT1, factory block, 16 lbs of boost. on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:19:17 GMT]]>

My NOva wrote:
agreed but still that run for that car is awesome'

Yep, cant argue with that, 8 second 1/4 is fast as hell. 0-170+mph is 8 seconds, damn.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/43927https://fargostreet.com/post/43927Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:19:17 GMT