Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: For the LT1 crew...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    College Station, TX
    Posts
    4,502

    For the LT1 crew...

    Has cmc considered allowing the torqhead conversion to get rid of the opti for reliability issues? Looks like the kit is about $1650 all in and uses a factory tune. Way cheaper solution than swapping to LS and swapping the trans could make the LT cars more attractive again. Thoughts?
    To hell with the rules, the guidelines and the politics....built the car to my wishes and having fun being the underdog running with the Wolves!

  2. #2
    Senior Member Grass-Passer
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pearland.TX
    Posts
    430
    I have been looking at This company and 2 others. One of them offer a box you plug-in and it illuminates the coil and distributor part of the opti. it makes it a multiple coil packs it only runs about $400 plus coils. Which you can pick up a set of coils in any junkyard pretty reasonable.
    https://www.bailey-eng.com/product/l...der-converter/

  3. #3
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    College Station, TX
    Posts
    4,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Storm Trooper View Post
    I have been looking at This company and 2 others. One of them offer a box you plug-in and it illuminates the coil and distributor part of the opti. it makes it a multiple coil packs it only runs about $400 plus coils. Which you can pick up a set of coils in any junkyard pretty reasonable.
    https://www.bailey-eng.com/product/l...der-converter/
    That system from Baily still uses the opti for a signal which is prone to failure from moisture. The Torqhead system removes it from the car along with the LT ECU and replaces it with a new balancer/24X pickup wheel and all new modern LS style coils but uses a factory LT1 tune in an LS style ECU. No moisture issues to ever worry about again and you don't even have to remove the timing cover. I'm considering it on our WRL car for additional durability.
    To hell with the rules, the guidelines and the politics....built the car to my wishes and having fun being the underdog running with the Wolves!

  4. #4
    Senior Member Grass-Passer Supercharged111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    887
    411 is massively cheaper, would just need a spec tune cooked up. This would absolutely work.

    http://www.aicmctexas.com/showthread...T1-Opti-Issues
    RM CMC Director

  5. #5
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    College Station, TX
    Posts
    4,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Supercharged111 View Post
    411 is massively cheaper, would just need a spec tune cooked up. This would absolutely work.

    http://www.aicmctexas.com/showthread...T1-Opti-Issues
    I like engineered packages. What you described makes me think "rigged" and not thoroughly figured out. Considering we have a 93' your setup requires a significant amount of work the torqhead system does not.
    To hell with the rules, the guidelines and the politics....built the car to my wishes and having fun being the underdog running with the Wolves!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Grass-Passer Supercharged111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    887
    I have a 93. It requires a crank hub, 4x reluctor, timing cover, and 411 PCM with a yet to be approved tune. Nothing rigged about it, pin the 93 harness to the 411 PCM and you're done. No cutting, soldering, and arguably less work than the torqhead setup. Opti stays, but serves only as a distributor.
    Last edited by Supercharged111; 03-06-2019 at 04:52 PM.
    RM CMC Director

  7. #7
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby Fbody383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Pearland, TX
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by AI#97 View Post
    That system from Baily still uses the opti for a signal which is prone to failure from moisture.
    I'm not convinced the solid state parts and signal is an issue once the high voltage is out of the opti. On the bench I can get good signals from what others thought was dead solid state parts.
    #39 CMC Camaro
    Orange is Fast!
    CMC-NT01 FTW!

  8. #8
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    College Station, TX
    Posts
    4,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Fbody383 View Post
    I'm not convinced the solid state parts and signal is an issue once the high voltage is out of the opti. On the bench I can get good signals from what others thought was dead solid state parts.
    Interesting. Only reason I am considering these options is that LS swapping the car nets nothing more than a lighter wallet and higher oil temps. If I use an aluminum engine, there is no way I can make minimum weight even with max ballast so I have to use an IRON LS which defeats the purpose of the swap. The LT is a good engine and cheap to build. Junk LS engines are cheap but so is an aftermarket solution to the common LT issues of the opti. Personally, with the history of stuff I've seen in CMC over the years, some from directors, I'd put the torqhead system on the car and as long as it met the dyno numbers AND I wasn't out winning every race, I doubt any of the regular racers would give two shits.
    To hell with the rules, the guidelines and the politics....built the car to my wishes and having fun being the underdog running with the Wolves!

  9. #9
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby Fbody383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Pearland, TX
    Posts
    3,066
    In chasing the issues on the 88 we've learned more than we wanted to. I'm tempted to try the LTCC to get the spark load out of the opti.

    I guess i'm on the 'clean living' side of the LT1 river... never really had any issues. We think my old motor just needs rings and bearings and would good to go.

    I also tend to agree with you on the torqhead approach, I just really don't like the price. If the curve looks the same - which I expect - I would be in the likely to not protest camp. Even if it won a lot of races. Might take some additional on-track data, but the little I read is the output should be the same.
    #39 CMC Camaro
    Orange is Fast!
    CMC-NT01 FTW!

  10. #10
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    College Station, TX
    Posts
    4,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Fbody383 View Post
    In chasing the issues on the 88 we've learned more than we wanted to. I'm tempted to try the LTCC to get the spark load out of the opti.

    I guess i'm on the 'clean living' side of the LT1 river... never really had any issues. We think my old motor just needs rings and bearings and would good to go.

    I also tend to agree with you on the torqhead approach, I just really don't like the price. If the curve looks the same - which I expect - I would be in the likely to not protest camp. Even if it won a lot of races. Might take some additional on-track data, but the little I read is the output should be the same.
    Theoretically regarding the fuel/timing curve, it's stock and therefore SHOULD be the same. The only possibility for a performance advantage would be spark energy from the coil arrangement so you MIGHT see a uniform gain across the entire curve which the LT1 cars are already addressing with restrictor plates. The curve would look the same. Not like you would be adjusting the timing every 200 rpm to manipulate the shape of the curve.
    To hell with the rules, the guidelines and the politics....built the car to my wishes and having fun being the underdog running with the Wolves!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •