Jump to content

1,000 HP Supercharged Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon Offered From A Name You May Remember

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

Gorehamj Senior Enthusiast

Gorehamj

Posted
Posted

slp tahoe.png

John Goreham
Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
2-7-2019

Specialty Vehicle Engineering, Inc. (formerly SLP) has announced its newest vehicles, 1,000 hp versions of the Chevy Tahoe, Chevy Suburban, and the GMC Yukon SUVs. You may remember Specialty Vehicle Engineering, Inc. (formerly SLP) as the manufacturer who created the Firehawk back in the day.

slp curve.png

The company's latest creations are the all-new and incredibly fast, 2019 High Output, Stage 2 Tahoe, Suburban and Yukon powered by a custom 416 C.I.D. (6.8L) supercharged LT-1-based engine. The powerplant delivers 1000 horsepower and 875 lb.-ft of torque, and features a blueprinted LT-1 Aluminum block, Race-Quality computer-balanced rotating assembly including forged 4340 steel crankshaft and forged steel H-Beam rods, forged aluminum pistons, CNC ported high-flow LT4 cylinder heads, custom supercharger, and 8 Rib Belt Drive System.

 

The vehicle comes with a 3 Year/36,000 Mile Engine and Supercharger Assembly Limited Warranty. A Heavy-Duty transmission upgrade is standard on the Stage 2 1000HP package and includes a 12 month/12,000 mile warranty.

slp engine.png
About Specialty Vehicle Engineering, Inc.
For more than 25 years, Specialty Vehicle Engineering has been a Second Stage Vehicle Manufacturer and Tier One Supplier to GM and its dealers, having built over 65,000 cars, trucks, and SUV specialty vehicles; making it the #1 GM Specialty Vehicle Manufacturer in the USA. The company was chosen as the exclusive builder of the current generation Yenko Supercars.

 

mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted

Lord oh....MIGHTY!  Folks, have your cake too!  Hope they upped the brakes on this thing?

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, mookdoc6 said:

Lord oh....MIGHTY!  Folks, have your cake too!  Hope they upped the brakes on this thing?

Bigger gas tank too I hope. :rolleyes:

 

PRETTY

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted

This Suburban checks most of the boxes for a second vehicle when I win the $Million +  lottery!  I imagine the check engine light would be activate by this mod...  ;-)

L86 All Terrain Senior Enthusiast

L86 All Terrain

Posted
Posted

Most of us can't afford a regular Yukon/Tahoe lol. A pretty awesome piece of kit though for sure. It probably has enough power to even surprise some C7 Z06 owners from a stop light in 4x4. I would assume it also has a built trans, axles, brakes, all the goodies. A SLT Yukon is about $85K in Canada, this would put you in the $115,000 ballpark? 

SS502 Senior Enthusiast

SS502

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, L86 All Terrain said:

Most of us can't afford a regular Yukon/Tahoe lol. A pretty awesome piece of kit though for sure. It probably has enough power to even surprise some C7 Z06 owners from a stop light in 4x4. I would assume it also has a built trans, axles, brakes, all the goodies. A SLT Yukon is about $85K in Canada, this would put you in the $115,000 ballpark? 

My guess is $125,000 in USD

SS502 Senior Enthusiast

SS502

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, L86 All Terrain said:

Most of us can't afford a regular Yukon/Tahoe lol. A pretty awesome piece of kit though for sure. It probably has enough power to even surprise some C7 Z06 owners from a stop light in 4x4. I would assume it also has a built trans, axles, brakes, all the goodies. A SLT Yukon is about $85K in Canada, this would put you in the $115,000 ballpark? 

You know GM will jack the price way up and as you said, most can't afford a regular one. So they will price it for huge profit because those who can and want something like that usually have deep pockets and don't care...sad but true.

 

Information on the G8 Firehawk: The basic kit starts at $18,995 on top of price of G8 GT and if you want some serious stopping power to go with the engine mods you will have to shell out another $4,995 on top of that for SLP’s Competition Brake Package. So 10 years ago it cost $23,980.00 on a G8.....so I'll stick to my guess :(

L86 All Terrain Senior Enthusiast

L86 All Terrain

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, SS502 said:

You know GM will jack the price way up and as you said, most can't afford a regular one. So they will price it for huge profit because those who can and want something like that usually have deep pockets and don't care...sad but true.

Now that I think about it, it should cost considerably more than a Caddy Escalade given the work that was done. Brakes, trans, complete forged 416 build (minus your core engine), a massive roots blower probably much larger than 2.3L. 

 

I guess I cant complain too hard, Ford wants $100,000 for a Harley Davidson F150 here which is essentially a re-badged F150 Lariat with a tonneau cover and no performance parts. 

richamor Enthusiast

richamor

Posted
Posted

Chart says 810HP not 1000. BIG difference when you start talking that sort of money. For the "standard" version I'd go with the $125K rangs. But for one loaded properly with brakes and suspension to handle that I'd put it around $145K or so.

 

In 1997 the SLP camaro was $40K and over depending on dealer add ons. That was when a regular off the lot camaro z28 was around $20K .

SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, richamor said:

Chart says 810HP not 1000. BIG difference when you start talking that sort of money. For the "standard" version I'd go with the $125K rangs. But for one loaded properly with brakes and suspension to handle that I'd put it around $145K or so.

 

In 1997 the SLP camaro was $40K and over depending on dealer add ons. That was when a regular off the lot camaro z28 was around $20K .

Not only that, look at what it says the factory engine makes. Uhhh...495HP....

 

Sketchy stuff

  • 2 weeks later...
Juniorss Enthusiast

Juniorss

Posted
Posted
On 2/12/2019 at 9:10 PM, richamor said:

Chart says 810HP not 1000. BIG difference when you start talking that sort of money. For the "standard" version I'd go with the $125K rangs. But for one loaded properly with brakes and suspension to handle that I'd put it around $145K or so.

 

In 1997 the SLP camaro was $40K and over depending on dealer add ons. That was when a regular off the lot camaro z28 was around $20K .

At first I thought the chart was RWHP, but I looked again and you are right, it is showing flywheel.   I wonder what they used for a trans to stand behind the power and weight of the truck..

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...