Team Camaro Tech banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello All, First thread so here goes. What makes a Pre 1973 LT1 engine incompatible with air conditioning ? If a man wanted to build one similar to an LT1 & put in an '81 what should he NOT use to make it compatible with air ? Is it the cam, the heads, vacuum, or a combo of all ? If cam, what's the most lift & duration to use? Seeking knowledge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
403 Posts
Welcome to the site.

IIRC the only issue was the rpm that the compressor could withstand. I think the only change when the '72 LT-1 Vettes could be ordered with A/C was to lower the redline from 6500 rpm to 5600 rpm.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
As stated, solid lifter engines, due to their high revving ability, were deemed not compatible with AC because the compressor couldn't take the higher RPM.

Only the 72 LT1 had a solid lifter cam with AC.

Today's cars (like my 02 Z28 and 05 Vette) turn the compressor off when you go WOT. The miracle of computer controlled cars...
 

·
Gold Lifetime Member
Joined
·
3,360 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,848 Posts
You can thank the 425 horse 409 for this GM policy that was implemented by a raft of warranty claims. It was GM policy from 1965 on that no vehicle equipped with a solid tappet could have A/C as an option. This is why you can not have A/C with a 375 horse 396 L-78 optioned Camaro. It had solid lifters. Same goes for a the Z/28 no A/C or automatic (it had a manual tranny because loose torque converters hadn't been invented yet.)

Big Dave
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top