AFR 205s, mild FTI cam, stock LS1 bottom end

[Grant]

My '99 FRC, which is used mostly for open tracking. When I first put it together it was more of a DD, and I occasionally used it to pull a karting trailer. As I was also concerned with valvetrain longevity, the cam was kept mild.

224/229 0.570/0.578 114 LSA cam, degreed to 112 degrees at the intake centerline
205cc AFR heads, 60cc chambers.
0.036" Cometic gaskets for a 0.030" quench.
11.8:1 CR.
Stock bottom end with Katech rod bolts.
1-3/4 LG Longtubes, no cats.
UD pulley.
VaraRam 2b intake.
LS6 intake manifold.
HPTuners, tuned by me.
Stock throttle body.
Stock 75mm MAF with stock screen.
C5 Z06 Ti mufflers.
28.8 lb injectors @ 92% DC
LuK Pro Gold clutch with 12lb Fidanza flywheel.
Stock everything else.
All pulls done in 4th gear on stock 3.42s, with 315/30/18 rear tires (at 32 psi) on a DynoJet 248.

The setup offers impressive knock resistance. On 93 octane (and once even 92), it doesn't really ever knock. The only time I've had issues with detonation is when my condenser was blocked by grass and coolant temps hit 225F after multiple laps (I would say the problems started at 220F). Even when the AF hit 14.2:1 and timing at 6000 was 27 degrees, the car did not knock. It was actually much more knock prone when it was totally stock with just a K&N filter! It is really nice to be able to run pump gas on the road course. I suppose the AFR heads, flat-top pistons and tight quench are to thank for this?

The blue pull was the first one of the day, while the red one was the last:
http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc86/gbeaty/before_after_4-15-09_FRC_dyno.png
Most all of the gains shown were from AF tuning.

25 (green) vs. 27 (red) vs. 23 (blue) degrees of timing. No other changes were made:
http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc86/gbeaty/25vs27vs23_degreestiming.png
I normally ramp up timing after the torque peak, but that didn't seem to do anything here. The motor just seemed to like whatever timing I gave it, so I left it at 25.

Red graph: Open MAF (stock, with the stock C5 air bridge and a smooth coupler to the stock throttle body)
vs.
Blue graph: All of that connected to a VaraRam2B with a Green filter:
http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc86/gbeaty/openMAF_vs_VaraRam2B.png
The MAF reads differently with the intake removed, causing the A/Fs to go richer (this is visible in the logs as well). The previous pull was too lean in the mid-range, so it made more power with the richer A/F. The higher AF on the top end was probably offset by slightly better flow.

Overall I'm very impressed with how well the car moves with so little dynoed power (compared to other cars I've owned). It is pretty light, being 3225 with 10 gallons of gas and me in the car, but its trapped as high as 124.5 on a cold night (using PerformanceBox DAQ, manually averaging the speed over the last 66'; our drag strip is worthless for hooking up if you don't run drag tires) with a 11.8 ET on Kumho MX tires. Its pretty close to stock '08 Vipers in terms of acceleration, which put down over 100 more whp (though theirs is peakier, with maximum torque occuring at 5100 and the rev limit coming in at 6250). Still I'd hoped it would make more power, but its probably held back by the ~95 kPa MAP reading at redline.

I don't want to put many more parts on this motor that won't be able to migrate over to a 7.0L. Since I'm going into the front of the motor to fix an oil drip, I thought I'd get a more aggressive cam from Ed and see what it will do. I also figure I'll add a 100mm MAF, air bridge and larger injectors, since those parts should be needed with more displacement and will probably help this engine some as well. If I can catch a good deal on a FAST I might toss one on there too.

Any comments? Is this roughly what would be expected?

[SStrokerAce]

There is a lot more in the camshaft and with a switch to different springs you should have no durability issues.

The FRC cars always run well for the power they make, only bad thing I can see is that I've seen C5 ZO6's make 415rwhp with a VJ, stock cam, FAST intake, headers and tweaking everything.

The throttle body is also another place to play..

Do you have the run files or just graphs?

Bret

[Grant]

There is a lot more in the camshaft and with a switch to different springs you should have no durability issues.
Ed has more or less told me the same thing, though Tony at AFR didn't think there was much left in the cam. I just need to decide whether or not to dump more money in this motor or hold out for a 7.0L.

The FRC cars always run well for the power they make, only bad thing I can see is that I've seen C5 ZO6's make 415rwhp with a VJ, stock cam, FAST intake, headers and tweaking everything.
Well thats depressing, but I didn't think I'd ever heard of a C5Z trapping over 120 with just bolt-ons?

On the back straight of PBIR, my GPS DAQ indicates the car was barely touching 148. I drove an '08 Viper to 154 on the same straight, which had the benefit of a higher entry speed, one less shift and cooler weather. So it seems like its doing alright, but more is always better ;)

The throttle body is also another place to play..
I'd imagine its responsible for most of my 5-6 kPa of vacuum in the intake...

Do you have the run files or just graphs?
Files. I looked and made sure the weather data looked accurate for the conditions.

[SStrokerAce]

Shoot me a e-mail with run008. bret @ bauer-racing.com, I want to compare it to another small cam setup I have in the files.

I know for sure that this car makes over 410rwhp with bolt ons, has to do it with bolt ons internal work is not allowed in the rules.

http://www.rogues-racing.com/wp-content/Pics/Articles/JuniorJ/JuniorASP91.jpg
http://www.scca.com/popup/imageviewer.aspx?imageid=385

FWIW I honestly think Tony doesn't have a clue when it comes to camshafts, then again I think the heads are most of the reason your numbers aren't very high.

Bret

[Gh0st]

Bret,

What heads DO you like(besides yours of course)

[SStrokerAce]

Out of the box... not much. Almost every head out there at any price needs some TLC to be right... and at that point you would just pay for the T4P 243s. On top of that everyone uses the same springs on their heads so IMHO those go in the trash so good parts can go on there and again that will raise the cost.

The LS1 bore is what makes a off the shelf choice tough, but my problem with the 205's is that they are just too small, to get a LS1 head that small you need to reduce the CSA a lot in some areas and all that does is make that spot have a very high velocity which is NOT GOOD contrary to what some people will say. The 225cc AFR head would be a better choice than the 205cc head...

Actually the funiest thing that people can look up for themselves is TQ output on LS2 motors running 205cc AFRs and L92 heads, the L92 heads with the big "low velocity" runners make a ass ton more TQ, which is just more proof that the "high velocity" in cylinder heads is BS.

Bret

[Grant]

When I got the setup, the 205s were the new hotness. Plenty of people seem to make good power with them, so I can't see that being a major cause not making much power (if indeed I am even short on power)? Whatever the case, its really hard to sift through the BS and figure out what really makes these cars go. Its easier than with turbo cars I suppose (I came from Supras), but the gulf between "shop built" and "garage built" dyno numbers seems too wide to be real.

The thing that always raised alarm bells for me was the 5-6 kPa of pressure drop. I'd think the car would pick up a decent amount with just a ported TB and bigger MAF (or SD tune).

I never much cared about those last dozen or so ponies before, because I was past the limit of the terrible stock C5 brakes; even with good pads and ducting you chew through them very quickly. But I'll soon have some 14.25" Wilwoods up front...

[SStrokerAce]

Grant,

This setup is basically out of the box 243 heads and a cam close to the size of yours.

Heads = Stock VJ, stock valves, little bit of blending, milled .007".
Cam = More lift and more overlap but it's close in duration.

http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/qq302/rquinlan3/Cam%20swap/dynosheet800.jpg

BTW another thought for you.... there are some threads on here that talk about it but a TPIS 90mm conversion to a LS6 intake would be a good way to knock down that Kpa restriction you have... that should make for a healthy gain right there.

How good of pads? I just put my 2nd set of Hawks on my Silverado and use HP+ on my Camaro and I love those things, even with R Comps I have NEVER been able to smoke them, with both the stock 12" rotors and the C5 conversion.... that's with more weight than you have. Actually my favorite test is the 125-0mph for 14 times around the highway by my house, works well as a brake test track!

As you have said about shop cars and the real world... there are two totally different worlds there. Shop cars usually have lots of dyno tweaking going on, with both the cars and the dynos but the problem is CUSTOMERS live in the real world.... what they get is the most important! (Side Note: Every set of the T4P 243s has made 440rwhp+ with any transmission or cam! All on tough dynos... I just need a big cam, M6 and a happy dyno now!!!!)

Bret

[Grant]

This setup is basically out of the box 243 heads and a cam close to the size of yours.
Thanks... Its interesting how his holds power to 7000, whereas mine drops like a rock! Though, that dyno is STD corrected, while the graph I posted was SAE (my STD numbers are 432/413).

How good of pads? I just put my 2nd set of Hawks on my Silverado and use HP+ on my Camaro and I love those things, even with R Comps I have NEVER been able to smoke them, with both the stock 12" rotors and the C5 conversion.... that's with more weight than you have. Actually my favorite test is the 125-0mph for 14 times around the highway by my house, works well as a brake test track!
The problem isn't so much fade as it is cracked rotors (though they are $25 ea, so this is really more of an annoyance) and severely tapered pad wear. The PBR calipers (even the ones one the C6Z, sadly) flex way too much, and don't reduce pressure on the leading pad edge like proper calipers do. The result is a pad thats worn all the way down on one end and maybe 3/4 of the way on another. I've had tappering so bad that it felt like I'd boiled the fluid (which I hadnt; I run SRF) because only a small section of the pad was touching the rotor until heavy brake pressure was applied. I think the increase in piston travel could get so bad you wouldn't be able to achieve brake lockup, but I pit in before then! I think the T1 guys just replace their calipers every season.

You end up going through pads and rotors like crazy. Finding a long pedal when looking at a wall at 150 isn't fun :(

I read the 90mm/LS6 thread, but I also noticed you port TBs; what kind of gains do you see with those? Do you flow them at all? The numbers from a FAST setup (~5% pressure drop, starting with ~420whp, usual gains of ~20whp) make me think most of the gains are in the throttle body. But I suppose ported FASTs are what people really gain with, and they pick up power everwhere, even at RPMs when the pressure drop is negligible.

[Grant]

There is a lot more in the camshaft and with a switch to different springs you should have no durability issues.
Ed has recommended a few PAC springs to me, but this is the crux of the problem: all of the "proven" setups out there seemingly use the quickest lobes they can, and I don't have the slightest clue if that works in a road racing application. People talk like their lobes are more "extreme" than what was commonly run in the past, but I have no clue what that means in terms of valvetrain service life.

[Ed Curtis]

Out of the box... not much. Almost every head out there at any price needs some TLC to be right... and at that point you would just pay for the T4P 243s. On top of that everyone uses the same springs on their heads so IMHO those go in the trash so good parts can go on there and again that will raise the cost.

The LS1 bore is what makes a off the shelf choice tough, but my problem with the 205's is that they are just too small, to get a LS1 head that small you need to reduce the CSA a lot in some areas and all that does is make that spot have a very high velocity which is NOT GOOD contrary to what some people will say. The 225cc AFR head would be a better choice than the 205cc head...

Actually the funiest thing that people can look up for themselves is TQ output on LS2 motors running 205cc AFRs and L92 heads, the L92 heads with the big "low velocity" runners make a ass ton more TQ, which is just more proof that the "high velocity" in cylinder heads is BS.

Bret

Agree with the basic thoughts in your post but the AFR 205 heads have always shown to be the best aftermarket cylinder head out there, in terms of stock OEM architecture. The smallest section of the runner, just before the short turn can be improved and believe me, Tony knows about this since we've spoken about it in the past. In spite of it's high production status, this head is a great bang for the buck and no other aftermarket company can touch it. Even when compared to the almighty 243 heads Joe M put out. Just over $2100 for the AFR 205 heads is a great deal.

Yes the Pioneer springs should be considered a point of improvement but with the lobes used on Grant's camshaft, they would be fine for a season of racing. I mentioned to him I would like to use the 1221 or the 1521 springs in place of the stockers since it's a pretty easy swap out. Why weren't these used in the first go around? These heads are a couple of years old, springs such as the 1521 were not available nor a requirement with the profile.

Reading through all this, the point of particular concern appears to be in the inlet tract, namely the throttle body and intake manifold. This is the area I agree with you and would address first and *then* possibly a different camshaft profile with matching springs. Unless of course if you want to *donate* a set of Joe's heads to the cause, I'm sure Grant will oblige ... ;)

Ed

[SStrokerAce]

Ed,

Problem is I don't even go to a 1221 on Joey's heads... the tried and true beehive works like a champ and since I use these for stock cube motors that's all they need even with the 2.000" valve. Now throw a 1518 spring on there which is my spring of choice for stock cubes and you have a bullet proof valvetrain for a street or track car. The 1221's are the next step up for me, then the 1518's.

If I broke down the pricing on the T4P 243's without a cam and springs (which I do NOT sell) we would be in the same ball park as the AFRs.... that seems pointless to me and one of the big reasons I don't consider them honestly viable ANYMORE. $2,390 MSRP for the AFR's, now add milling, good springs, some labor time tweaking them and not to mention the margin on them as a dealer stinks.... hence why when you buy them from LG with upgraded springs they run $2650-$2850 without milling.

Bret

BTW isin't the core boxes on the AFR basically the same as the 243? That pretty much just makes them a more expensive version of a OEM casting with Tony's port in them...

[66duece]

looks like you have a pretty stout setup..i like the 350ft.lbs of TQ at 3000rpms..i would guess that dyno is pretty stingy,or more "real world",if you will..just go to one of the toke dynos and you might see a 20hp gain..
if it was me,i would try a 90 fast or one of those TPIS conversions and a ported TB before a cam change..

[SStrokerAce]

Ed has recommended a few PAC springs to me, but this is the crux of the problem: all of the "proven" setups out there seemingly use the quickest lobes they can, and I don't have the slightest clue if that works in a road racing application. People talk like their lobes are more "extreme" than what was commonly run in the past, but I have no clue what that means in terms of valvetrain service life.

Yeap... that's the game of camshafts, just like the game of cylinder heads is flow numbers.... Notice how niether one of these focus on results and what works?

The problem is LS1 tuner shops rarely have a clue when it comes to anything in the valvetrain, they jump on the lobe of the week and forget about the fundamentals... It's kind of like going out on a track or autox and throwing shuffle steering, where too look & puting the car on the right line out the window because you now have new set of trick racing gloves.


Thanks... Its interesting how his holds power to 7000, whereas mine drops like a rock! Though, that dyno is STD corrected, while the graph I posted was SAE (my STD numbers are 432/413).

Amazingly I don't use new "aggressive" cam lobes and pay attention to mass (along with a lot of other details), and what do you know the valvetrain is rock solid to well past where it needs to be making it safe for when mistakes like a missed downshift happen.

The problem isn't so much fade as it is cracked rotors (though they are $25 ea, so this is really more of an annoyance) and severely tapered pad wear. The PBR calipers (even the ones one the C6Z, sadly) flex way too much, and don't reduce pressure on the leading pad edge like proper calipers do. The result is a pad thats worn all the way down on one end and maybe 3/4 of the way on another. I've had tappering so bad that it felt like I'd boiled the fluid (which I hadnt; I run SRF) because only a small section of the pad was touching the rotor until heavy brake pressure was applied. I think the increase in piston travel could get so bad you wouldn't be able to achieve brake lockup, but I pit in before then! I think the T1 guys just replace their calipers every season.

You end up going through pads and rotors like crazy. Finding a long pedal when looking at a wall at 150 isn't fun :(

Hence why I stick to doing 25 autocrosses a year and do as many as I can at runway sites and kart tracks!

Have you thought about the OEM rotors? I know people think there is no difference but on a C5 the OEM rotors have a directional vane in them compared to all the other cheap aftermarket ones that have a straight vane in them. Makes the OEM rotors far superior to the cheap ones....

Also it doesn't fix the problem with the calipers but very good high temp grease and new sliding pins help with the pad taper. I'm also not a fan of expensive fluids, the Ford Motorcraft forula that I believe is also the DOT3 Valvoline has a very high DRY boiling point and doing flushes with that is as good as ANYTHING I have seen. Fresh DOT3 fluid is the most important thing in a OEM system that you track day IMHO.

I read the 90mm/LS6 thread, but I also noticed you port TBs; what kind of gains do you see with those? Do you flow them at all? The numbers from a FAST setup (~5% pressure drop, starting with ~420whp, usual gains of ~20whp) make me think most of the gains are in the throttle body. But I suppose ported FASTs are what people really gain with, and they pick up power everwhere, even at RPMs when the pressure drop is negligible.

Yeah you can get a stock TB to flow upwards of 1100cfm, stock it's mid to high 900's. Only issue is that a 90mm has so much area if they don't move 1250cfm you need to take the sock out of them! The change to the 90mm TB will get you 90% of the gain of the FAST 90mm intake.

Bret

[SStrokerAce]

looks like you have a pretty stout setup..i like the 350ft.lbs of TQ at 3000rpms..i would guess that dyno is pretty stingy,or more "real world",if you will..just go to one of the toke dynos and you might see a 20hp gain..
if it was me,i would try a 90 fast or one of those TPIS conversions and a ported TB before a cam change..

Yeah I don't see a cam change being worth it.... there is power there but the intake is where he should fix the issues.

[Grant]

Unless of course if you want to *donate* a set of Joe's heads to the cause, I'm sure Grant will oblige ... ;)
No argument here.

looks like you have a pretty stout setup..i like the 350ft.lbs of TQ at 3000rpms..i would guess that dyno is pretty stingy,or more "real world",if you will..just go to one of the toke dynos and you might see a 20hp gain.
To be honest, I'm skeptical that dynojets really vary so much. I understand weather station data can vary, but an inertia dyno seems like a pretty simple machine. Of course STD numbers will be higher than SAE numbers, but most people know the difference there.

Then again I think I've dynoed all of four times in my life ;)

Hence why I stick to doing 25 autocrosses a year and do as many as I can at runway sites and kart tracks!
I do one of those once a month, on a test track near my house. Its halfway in between a road course and a karting track, and its great for testing without being able to hit anything... I just got back from a rental yesterday, and the FRC kicked some ass... I think I've set a street tire lap record (though I'm going back to R-comps next set; I can only get about one hot lap out of these Kumho XSs before they start to overheat).

Have you thought about the OEM rotors?
The $25 NAPA rotors are actually directionally vained, front and rear! Unlike GM's C6Z rotors, they actually have correct right and left sides, too. Some people seem to think the OE rotors might last a bit longer, but its probably not worth the cost. All the T1 guys run the NAPAs, even the C6 Z51 guys who have the option of using larger-diameter OE pieces.

One problem with the smaller-diameter rotors is how hard it is to duct enough air into the center of them. The upright just blocks most of your possible airflow. My spindle ducts end up putting most of the air onto the inside face of the rotor (which may actually be worse than no ducts at all).

Fluid-wise, I do like the Valvoline for an off-the-shelf fluid. Its not quite as good as a Motul 600, but its cheaper and locally available. I run SRF because it lasts so damn long. I'm not sure if I've ever experienced fluid fade with it, and only end up bleeding it once ever few months when I take the calipers off for some reason or another. Many racers don't touch it for a whole season. In the long run it might actually be just as cost effective as something like Motul, which I found I had to bleed prior to every weekend event (even if the last bleeding was only one week ago).

Yeah you can get a stock TB to flow upwards of 1100cfm, stock it's mid to high 900's. Only issue is that a 90mm has so much area if they don't move 1250cfm you need to take the sock out of them! The change to the 90mm TB will get you 90% of the gain of the FAST 90mm intake.
Is that at 28" of water? If so, thats less of a pressure drop than I'd thought.

Looking at my MAP, I'd always suspected the TB was most of the equation. So are those ported FAST dynos which show gains throughout the entire RPM range (such as 2500 RPM, where I've got 101 kPa) BS?

Thanks everyone for the help. I'm not sure why I bothered posting on LS1Tech now ;)

[SStrokerAce]

To be honest, I'm skeptical that dynojets really vary so much. I understand weather station data can vary, but an inertia dyno seems like a pretty simple machine. Of course STD numbers will be higher than SAE numbers, but most people know the difference there.

Then again I think I've dynoed all of four times in my life ;)

I don't believe that :nono:

Dyno to dyno there can be a big difference, some shops have a happy one others don't. Easy way to see that is look at the PRC215 head tests.... one car will make 480SAE on a happy dyno next one will make 440STD on what most would consider normal.

In the end they are just dyno numbers!

Is that at 28" of water? If so, thats less of a pressure drop than I'd thought.

Looking at my MAP, I'd always suspected the TB was most of the equation. So are those ported FAST dynos which show gains throughout the entire RPM range (such as 2500 RPM, where I've got 101 kPa) BS?

TB's are rated like carbs at 20.5"

The FAST will help down low due to the shape of the runners, your also testing on a inertia dyno which seems to test differently than a engine dyno with a water brake.

Thanks everyone for the help. I'm not sure why I bothered posting on LS1Tech now ;)

:biggrinbo:biggrinbo:biggrinbo

Shhh just don't tell our buddy GORRILAVETTE on here that!!!!

Bret

[66duece]

No argument here.


To be honest, I'm skeptical that dynojets really vary so much. I understand weather station data can vary, but an inertia dyno seems like a pretty simple machine. Of course STD numbers will be higher than SAE numbers, but most people know the difference there.

Then again I think I've dynoed all of four times in my life ;)


I do one of those once a month, on a test track near my house. Its halfway in between a road course and a karting track, and its great for testing without being able to hit anything... I just got back from a rental yesterday, and the FRC kicked some ass... I think I've set a street tire lap record (though I'm going back to R-comps next set; I can only get about one hot lap out of these Kumho XSs before they start to overheat).


The $25 NAPA rotors are actually directionally vained, front and rear! Unlike GM's C6Z rotors, they actually have correct right and left sides, too. Some people seem to think the OE rotors might last a bit longer, but its probably not worth the cost. All the T1 guys run the NAPAs, even the C6 Z51 guys who have the option of using larger-diameter OE pieces.

One problem with the smaller-diameter rotors is how hard it is to duct enough air into the center of them. The upright just blocks most of your possible airflow. My spindle ducts end up putting most of the air onto the inside face of the rotor (which may actually be worse than no ducts at all).

Fluid-wise, I do like the Valvoline for an off-the-shelf fluid. Its not quite as good as a Motul 600, but its cheaper and locally available. I run SRF because it lasts so damn long. I'm not sure if I've ever experienced fluid fade with it, and only end up bleeding it once ever few months when I take the calipers off for some reason or another. Many racers don't touch it for a whole season. In the long run it might actually be just as cost effective as something like Motul, which I found I had to bleed prior to every weekend event (even if the last bleeding was only one week ago).


Is that at 28" of water? If so, thats less of a pressure drop than I'd thought.

Looking at my MAP, I'd always suspected the TB was most of the equation. So are those ported FAST dynos which show gains throughout the entire RPM range (such as 2500 RPM, where I've got 101 kPa) BS?

Thanks everyone for the help. I'm not sure why I bothered posting on LS1Tech now ;)
not sure why,but in my experience i've seen as much as a 15hp difference from 2 different dynos i used to go to in my old H/C camaro..identical tune,about the same weather conditions,etc..
in fact,a lot of guys used to complain about the low numbers from the one dyno(my Goat put down 335/338 on it)..my response was "take it to the track and don't worry about the numbers..

[SStrokerAce]

not sure why,but in my experience i've seen as much as a 15hp difference from 2 different dynos i used to go to in my old H/C camaro..identical tune,about the same weather conditions,etc..

Unless guys do that and experince different results they don't believe that. I've seen guys who think they know everything about everything tell me that dynojets repeat within less than 1% :confused:

[66duece]

Unless guys do that and experince different results they don't believe that. I've seen guys who think they know everything about everything tell me that dynojets repeat within less than 1% :confused:i've heard that 1% deal!lol..
i seen a post on toke earlier today with a dyno of one of yours and Willy's build..looked pretty stout,with about 360ft.lbs at 3000rpm..without giving up specs,how big of a cam was that?

[willyfastz]

i've heard that 1% deal!lol..
i seen a post on toke earlier today with a dyno of one of yours and Willy's build..looked pretty stout,with about 360ft.lbs at 3000rpm..without giving up specs,how big of a cam was that?
Bigger than the 224 cam, smaller than a MS3 cam

[SStrokerAce]

Good answer Willy... and that is my BIG camshaft for stock bottom ends

[66duece]

Good answer Willy... and that is my BIG camshaft for stock bottom endslol,i thought it wasn't real small..damn good low end,especialy considering it peaks about 6500..

[willyfastz]

Was it this thread?
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1102348-243-dyno-s.html

[66duece]

Was it this thread?
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1102348-243-dyno-s.htmlyep,that's it

[willyfastz]

yep,that's it
Kinda seems funny seeing our graphs on tech.

[SStrokerAce]

lol,i thought it wasn't real small..damn good low end,especialy considering it peaks about 6500..

Yeah it flat out stomps the MS3 cam, but haven't I said something about talent & knowledge overcoming marketing on here before?

[66duece]

not that i know a lot or do this for a living,but i haven't seen a lot of dyno sheets with that strong of low end TQ peak that high..

[66duece]

Kinda seems funny seeing our graphs on tech.i was thinking the same thing this morning..and probably not too many will comment on the broad powerband.

[SStrokerAce]

not that i know a lot or do this for a living,but i haven't seen a lot of dyno sheets with that strong of low end TQ peak that high..

You mean this setup right?

http://www.hardcorels1.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2811

Bret

[66duece]

You mean this setup right?

http://www.hardcorels1.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2811

Bretthat's the one!

[Nitroused383]

not that i know a lot or do this for a living,but i haven't seen a lot of dyno sheets with that strong of low end TQ peak that high..

Wait until I post up my dyno results in about a week or so. I have a set of basically stock 243 heads I milled, did my own valve job (pain in the ass) and added one of brets cams. My car put down 340/340 with 300 ft lbs of torque at 2000 rpm with headers a few other minor mods and the LS1 intake.

I will tell you right now I gained an ass load of torque down low and the thing revs out to 6500 no problem at all. I get better gas mileage on the highway (28mpg best so far). At 2000 rpm I am pretty confident I have more torque than stock. When tuning the volumetric efficiency tables I went from 88% stock @ 3600rpm 95 map to 110% with the new setup. That right there is telling me something. I am running a cam that is smaller than the one you guys were discussing, I think it's Bret's next size down.

We will see what happens as I also added an LS6 intake, but I feel I will be at 380+ftlbs @ 3600rpm. Hopefully 420+hp, but if not the car feels awesome, they are just numbers anyways. Here check this out, his little cams don't sound little, but they are :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTCNXUkBEYc&feature=channel_page

[66duece]

Wait until I post up my dyno results in about a week or so. I have a set of basically stock 243 heads I milled, did my own valve job (pain in the ass) and added one of brets cams. My car put down 340/340 with 300 ft lbs of torque at 2000 rpm with headers a few other minor mods and the LS1 intake.

I will tell you right now I gained an ass load of torque down low and the thing revs out to 6500 no problem at all. I get better gas mileage on the highway (28mpg best so far). At 2000 rpm I am pretty confident I have more torque than stock. When tuning the volumetric efficiency tables I went from 88% stock @ 3600rpm 95 map to 110% with the new setup. That right there is telling me something. I am running a cam that is smaller than the one you guys were discussing, I think it's Bret's next size down.

We will see what happens as I also added an LS6 intake, but I feel I will be at 380+ftlbs @ 3600rpm. Hopefully 420+hp, but if not the car feels awesome, they are just numbers anyways. Here check this out, his little cams don't sound little, but they are :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTCNXUkBEYc&feature=channel_pagemore average power is the way to go..that impresses me a lot more than a peak #..and makes for faster,more drivable cars evey time!
sounds like you have a strong runner..

[eb02z06]

Pull the Vararam off and you'll pick up another 10 rwhp. They don't show anything on the dyno but down the quarter they work. I bet you that cam has driveabilty close to stock-which is what I'm assuming you asked from Ed. Don't fret the numbers-I've gone 124mph with my Z06 with those numbers with the wrong 3.42 gears.

Just drive it and enjoy it!

[Grant]

Pull the Vararam off and you'll pick up another 10 rwhp.
I did (see the graphs), but didn't bother to re-turn the AF, so it more or less dynoed the same. Honestly I have no idea why VaraRams work as well as they do. They just aren't how you're supposed to design a ram-air intake, and they don't seal very well. I was extremely skeptical, but found mine to pick up ~1 mph in trap speed vs. a radiator-shroud mounted intake.

To be honest, I don't remember what I asked from Ed! It was a long time ago, and my requirements for the car have changed significantly. Back then I was pulling my karting trailer with it, heh. I'm definitely not complaing about its performance, but we all always want more power ;) It has gone 124.5 (averaged over the last 66' on the PerformanceBox) in 32F weather with a half tank of gas (ET was 11.8 with Kumho MXs).

In other news, my motor done blew up at Sebring :( Initial symptoms were blowby and burning oil, followed by light rod knock. I'm not sure on the cause. Oil level, pressure and temperature were and are all normal.