My WS6 w/ L92 heads, 408ci, TH400, Vig 3600, 3650lbs, 325 drag radial | NA Times
06-14-2009, 04:24 PM
#1
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My WS6 w/ L92 heads, 408ci, TH400, Vig 3600, 3650lbs, 325 drag radial | NA Times So far I haven't had the opportunity to spray the car yet.
Good thing because it wasnt ready (rear tunnel needed clearancing due to hitting the rear end) and it wouldnt have been good on the bottle since it kept hitting on motor.
So.....
Decent weather | approx 92 heat index and decent if that prep on track.
7.15 @ 96mph was the previous with a T-brake on easy. (New Jockey)
7.12 @ 94mph with me driving and a 1.58 60ft. (me)
Friday night | approx 102 heat index and shitty track prep.
7.47 @ 95mph 1.787 60ft with 17psi and slouch out the hole on footbrake @ 2000rpm (not stabbing the throttle). (me)
7.39 @ 92mph 1.711 60ft same thing but with the transbrake (me)
8.02 @ 95mph 2.2 60ft transbrake on the burn with the throttle smashed like I mean it. blew the tires off nasty but I got back in it.
7.17 @ 97mph 1.60 60ft footbrake stabbing the throttle from 1500rpm (New Jockey)
7.20 @ 97mph 1.62 60ft same thing w/ weak burnout (New Jockey)
7.23 @ 93.5mph 1.63 60ft same footbrake stapping the throttle from 2000rpm (me)
I have figured that the mph being down was due to me being the heavier driver, shifting too late after the light, shifting first to late, or weather.
It seems like it likes to get a hit from the throttle more than the sudden force of the T-brake. I am wondering if it is time to spray the car now? I might just spray it off the gas than the T-brake and see if it can go on the radial vs waiting to get a set of slicks.
Feels good and is a **** load of fun! Car feels faster getting out of the hole than it did when I want 6.5's on the jug before. I have found that L92's suck for lowend torque N/A but that it doesnt mean **** on the jug. Went from 92mph to 108mph on the jug with way less horsepower.
If the same holds true than it should go 113mph or around 6.0's easily.
Good thing because it wasnt ready (rear tunnel needed clearancing due to hitting the rear end) and it wouldnt have been good on the bottle since it kept hitting on motor.
So.....
Decent weather | approx 92 heat index and decent if that prep on track.
7.15 @ 96mph was the previous with a T-brake on easy. (New Jockey)
7.12 @ 94mph with me driving and a 1.58 60ft. (me)
Friday night | approx 102 heat index and shitty track prep.
7.47 @ 95mph 1.787 60ft with 17psi and slouch out the hole on footbrake @ 2000rpm (not stabbing the throttle). (me)
7.39 @ 92mph 1.711 60ft same thing but with the transbrake (me)
8.02 @ 95mph 2.2 60ft transbrake on the burn with the throttle smashed like I mean it. blew the tires off nasty but I got back in it.
7.17 @ 97mph 1.60 60ft footbrake stabbing the throttle from 1500rpm (New Jockey)
7.20 @ 97mph 1.62 60ft same thing w/ weak burnout (New Jockey)
7.23 @ 93.5mph 1.63 60ft same footbrake stapping the throttle from 2000rpm (me)
I have figured that the mph being down was due to me being the heavier driver, shifting too late after the light, shifting first to late, or weather.
It seems like it likes to get a hit from the throttle more than the sudden force of the T-brake. I am wondering if it is time to spray the car now? I might just spray it off the gas than the T-brake and see if it can go on the radial vs waiting to get a set of slicks.
Feels good and is a **** load of fun! Car feels faster getting out of the hole than it did when I want 6.5's on the jug before. I have found that L92's suck for lowend torque N/A but that it doesnt mean **** on the jug. Went from 92mph to 108mph on the jug with way less horsepower.
If the same holds true than it should go 113mph or around 6.0's easily.
06-14-2009, 07:05 PM
#3
Man, the car looks GREAT! Nice job!
L92's don't suck for low end torque, that I can tell you as Fact. I run L92's.
Is yours a hydraulic set up, probably is.
Your low end torque might be suffering because of the single plane intake, which concerns me because I just bought the same one,lol but more likely because of the nitrous 9" vert, cam etc.
Can't wait to see how she does on the sauce. Nice job so far!
L92's don't suck for low end torque, that I can tell you as Fact. I run L92's.
Is yours a hydraulic set up, probably is.
Your low end torque might be suffering because of the single plane intake, which concerns me because I just bought the same one,lol but more likely because of the nitrous 9" vert, cam etc.
Can't wait to see how she does on the sauce. Nice job so far!
06-14-2009, 07:23 PM
#4
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, the car looks GREAT! Nice job!
L92's don't suck for low end torque, that I can tell you as Fact. I run L92's.
Is yours a hydraulic set up, probably is.
Your low end torque might be suffering because of the single plane intake, which concerns me because I just bought the same one,lol but more likely because of the nitrous 9" vert, cam etc.
Can't wait to see how she does on the sauce. Nice job so far!
L92's don't suck for low end torque, that I can tell you as Fact. I run L92's.
Is yours a hydraulic set up, probably is.
Your low end torque might be suffering because of the single plane intake, which concerns me because I just bought the same one,lol but more likely because of the nitrous 9" vert, cam etc.
Can't wait to see how she does on the sauce. Nice job so far!
No biggie as the car is setup for the jug. I just dont see the car running 6.8's as it is due to the heads. My opinion. If I had to go back I would look at a TFS 235 head instead of my Greg Good ported L92's. The L92's have too big an intake runner.
06-14-2009, 07:40 PM
#5
Are you saying that all things being equal ported 317's will make 60 more hp over L92's down low? I gotta get me some 317's then. 
You can'y even run a real solid roller spring on the L92's because the spring pocket isn't large enough.
06-14-2009, 08:44 PM
#6
Hmm, seems the combo of parts may be off. I can't see the heads being the problem. That cam doesn't look like its designed for low end torque. There are lots of guys making stupid power with the LS3's.
With a 2.01 60 ft, I managed a 8.08 @ 96.48 that tuned into the 12.29 @ 115.78 in my sig.
That was on fully inflated street tires @ 3700 lbs race weight.
With a 2.01 60 ft, I managed a 8.08 @ 96.48 that tuned into the 12.29 @ 115.78 in my sig.
That was on fully inflated street tires @ 3700 lbs race weight.
06-15-2009, 06:56 AM
#7
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't solid rollers down on low end torque inherently compared to hydraulic rollers? Are you saying that all things being equal ported 317's will make 60 more hp over L92's down low? I gotta get me some 317's then.
You can'y even run a real solid roller spring on the L92's because the spring pocket isn't large enough.
Are you saying that all things being equal ported 317's will make 60 more hp over L92's down low? I gotta get me some 317's then. You can'y even run a real solid roller spring on the L92's because the spring pocket isn't large enough.
not that far off but you could see a cathedral head make more lowend. Same transmission 6 more cubes and pretty much the same tune. Only way to know for sure is to change the heads out and I am not doing that unless someone buys my entire topend.
What I was saying is that L92 heads with the intake port size seem better suited for a cylinder that needed the port volume. Solid roller, turbo, nitrous... pick your poison. Doesn't seem to be good for lowend torque on motor.
old dyno:
Trending Topics
06-15-2009, 07:37 AM
#8
One of the great things about this site is almost everyday, if you pay attention and keep an open mind you can learn something new. For example, in your experience so far the
L92's aren't very impressive down low. That's fine and if I paid attention and asked questions about your set up (like your 9" vert nitrous cam etc.) I would know that combo didn't work for low end performance in an L92 N/A application. Big surprise.
What I want to ask you is, if I am telling you I know for a fact that you're wrong about the L92's suffering down low because of my personal experince with them, why do you insist to say they suffer down low N/A?
My L92 headed motor made nearly 700 ft lbs on the dyno with the converter flash and I get my 3240lb car to run a best of 1.29 60fts, 6.0 in the 1/8 mile "N/A"!!!!
You know not what you speak of brother. Open your mind a little and learn something, or just stick to bench racing, whatever.
L92's aren't very impressive down low. That's fine and if I paid attention and asked questions about your set up (like your 9" vert nitrous cam etc.) I would know that combo didn't work for low end performance in an L92 N/A application. Big surprise.
What I want to ask you is, if I am telling you I know for a fact that you're wrong about the L92's suffering down low because of my personal experince with them, why do you insist to say they suffer down low N/A?
My L92 headed motor made nearly 700 ft lbs on the dyno with the converter flash and I get my 3240lb car to run a best of 1.29 60fts, 6.0 in the 1/8 mile "N/A"!!!!
You know not what you speak of brother. Open your mind a little and learn something, or just stick to bench racing, whatever.
06-15-2009, 01:41 PM
#9
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the great things about this site is almost everyday, if you pay attention and keep an open mind you can learn something new. For example, in your experience so far the
L92's aren't very impressive down low. That's fine and if I paid attention and asked questions about your set up (like your 9" vert nitrous cam etc.) I would know that combo didn't work for low end performance in an L92 N/A application. Big surprise.
What I want to ask you is, if I am telling you I know for a fact that you're wrong about the L92's suffering down low because of my personal experince with them, why do you insist to say they suffer down low N/A?
My L92 headed motor made nearly 700 ft lbs on the dyno with the converter flash and I get my 3240lb car to run a best of 1.29 60fts, 6.0 in the 1/8 mile "N/A"!!!!
You know not what you speak of brother. Open your mind a little and learn something, or just stick to bench racing, whatever.
L92's aren't very impressive down low. That's fine and if I paid attention and asked questions about your set up (like your 9" vert nitrous cam etc.) I would know that combo didn't work for low end performance in an L92 N/A application. Big surprise.
What I want to ask you is, if I am telling you I know for a fact that you're wrong about the L92's suffering down low because of my personal experince with them, why do you insist to say they suffer down low N/A?
My L92 headed motor made nearly 700 ft lbs on the dyno with the converter flash and I get my 3240lb car to run a best of 1.29 60fts, 6.0 in the 1/8 mile "N/A"!!!!
You know not what you speak of brother. Open your mind a little and learn something, or just stick to bench racing, whatever.
I was simply comparing my results to another car from the same shop with really only a different set of heads. Heck the other car even has smaller headers. As far as down low and not knowing what I am talking about, even HKE will tell you that the L92 head is a BIG head and has an issue with intake port speed. Raising the height of the intake port makes a difference, valve size makes a difference, etc etc..... My point is a 270cc intake port head vs a 235cc intake port the smaller port has more speed and flow after the valve is open and the port draws in air. From what I have learned this combined with a single plane intake hurt lowend torque? More RPM the better the head will perform vs a smaller head. Heck, even Tooley and the folks from TEA etc will tell ya the same thing. Too big a intake port is an issue.
I am sure you can say it is my combo, but I think it also has to do with the heads on the car since I have compared it to another setup with a different head that is very similiar.
06-15-2009, 02:24 PM
#10
what converter do you run? 6.0 in the 8th on motor is very impressive.
I was simply comparing my results to another car from the same shop with really only a different set of heads. Heck the other car even has smaller headers. As far as down low and not knowing what I am talking about, even HKE will tell you that the L92 head is a BIG head and has an issue with intake port speed. Raising the height of the intake port makes a difference, valve size makes a difference, etc etc..... My point is a 270cc intake port head vs a 235cc intake port the smaller port has more speed and flow after the valve is open and the port draws in air. From what I have learned this combined with a single plane intake hurt lowend torque? More RPM the better the head will perform vs a smaller head. Heck, even Tooley and the folks from TEA etc will tell ya the same thing. Too big a intake port is an issue.
I am sure you can say it is my combo, but I think it also has to do with the heads on the car since I have compared it to another setup with a different head that is very similiar.
I was simply comparing my results to another car from the same shop with really only a different set of heads. Heck the other car even has smaller headers. As far as down low and not knowing what I am talking about, even HKE will tell you that the L92 head is a BIG head and has an issue with intake port speed. Raising the height of the intake port makes a difference, valve size makes a difference, etc etc..... My point is a 270cc intake port head vs a 235cc intake port the smaller port has more speed and flow after the valve is open and the port draws in air. From what I have learned this combined with a single plane intake hurt lowend torque? More RPM the better the head will perform vs a smaller head. Heck, even Tooley and the folks from TEA etc will tell ya the same thing. Too big a intake port is an issue.
I am sure you can say it is my combo, but I think it also has to do with the heads on the car since I have compared it to another setup with a different head that is very similiar.
Yes all good points and the smaller cc port will have more velocity but you can't feed a bigger cube motor with a small head and you're not gonna use a set of 315's on a stock cube motor.
It's all about the set up.
I have a Neal Chance 8" converter that stalls around 4400 but I haven't been able to leave at more than 3500rpms off the footbrake because all of the TORQUE
just blows the tires off.I'm actually looking foward to getting the single plane on there anticipating some low end loss which hopefully will let me leave off the transbrake and give me more up top which is lacking a bit.
we'll see.
06-15-2009, 03:45 PM
#11
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh! Now we are having an actual discussion,lol
Yes all good points and the smaller cc port will have more velocity but you can't feed a bigger cube motor with a small head and you're not gonna use a set of 315's on a stock cube motor.
It's all about the set up.
I have a Neal Chance 8" converter that stalls around 4400 but I haven't been able to leave at more than 3500rpms off the footbrake because all of the TORQUE just blows the tires off.
I'm actually looking foward to getting the single plane on there anticipating some low end loss which hopefully will let me leave off the transbrake and give me more up top which is lacking a bit.
we'll see.
Yes all good points and the smaller cc port will have more velocity but you can't feed a bigger cube motor with a small head and you're not gonna use a set of 315's on a stock cube motor.
It's all about the set up.
I have a Neal Chance 8" converter that stalls around 4400 but I haven't been able to leave at more than 3500rpms off the footbrake because all of the TORQUE
just blows the tires off.I'm actually looking foward to getting the single plane on there anticipating some low end loss which hopefully will let me leave off the transbrake and give me more up top which is lacking a bit.
we'll see.
The transbrake on motor kills my tires when it is on the floor. I have had the best results flashing the converter from 1500-2k rpms.
I can't wait to get some front shocks setup looser and hitting it with all the brake will allow!
06-15-2009, 08:32 PM
#14
Banned
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Memphis
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel the intake is 80% of you low bottom end tq and the heads being 20%. But if you can hook what you have on the brake who cares. Get your chassis in line, leave off the brake and then you have the top end pull with the single plane. Now if you were dead hooking leaving like a turd off the brake you would have other issues.
06-19-2009, 02:52 PM
#15
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel the intake is 80% of you low bottom end tq and the heads being 20%. But if you can hook what you have on the brake who cares. Get your chassis in line, leave off the brake and then you have the top end pull with the single plane. Now if you were dead hooking leaving like a turd off the brake you would have other issues.
I need to take the car to the track with low bottle pressure and spray it off the footbrake and see what happens.
06-19-2009, 02:56 PM
#16
I feel the intake is 80% of you low bottom end tq and the heads being 20%. But if you can hook what you have on the brake who cares. Get your chassis in line, leave off the brake and then you have the top end pull with the single plane. Now if you were dead hooking leaving like a turd off the brake you would have other issues.
I have a single plane and my low end tq is just fine. Its not that. Tuning will help that, also the cam is the biggest part.
06-19-2009, 10:38 PM
#19
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah... Do you have a clue what Manuels car runs? I have yet to hook off the transbrake on motor. It will make a nice difference. My 60fts are in the 1.60-1.65 range on motor. That can get as low as 1.52 or so I figure if it hooks off the brake. I havent found the sweet spot but the T-brake at 4500 must hit harder than a footbrake at 1500 stabbing the nitrous from 3k. I wouldnt doubt it since the T-brake shocks the drivetrain a **** load vs flashing the converter. If I can get the 60ft down it should be in the high 6's on motor. That is about right for the combo and weight.
Last edited by WizeAss; 06-19-2009 at 10:43 PM.
