My mamofied build results
04-16-2012, 08:10 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mamofied build results Finally got my car finished up tonight! A HUGE thank you to Tony Mamo from AFR for all of his help! He put a lot of time in this setup for me. So here it is:
Stock CI LS1
AFR 230's mamofied
custom 235/238 cam
FAST 102 intake mamofied
TSP 1 7/8 headers
4k stall
FAST 36 lb injectors
Yella Terra Rockers
Cincy Speed tuned it for me.
Max power: 442 hp
Max Torque: 390
Stock CI LS1
AFR 230's mamofied
custom 235/238 cam
FAST 102 intake mamofied
TSP 1 7/8 headers
4k stall
FAST 36 lb injectors
Yella Terra Rockers
Cincy Speed tuned it for me.
Max power: 442 hp
Max Torque: 390
04-16-2012, 10:39 PM
#5
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great numbers. No way in hell being over 4500ft above sea level, our cars would see that on a stock LS1. But I do have a question? Why does the air/fuel seem to lean then richen up and then lean throughout the pull? Just curious is all. Again, great numbers. I think for an N/A you would want around 12.8 or so? Seems like around 3500RPM and 4500 it hits 13.8-14.0 ...stoich. There's guys in my area barely netting 360rwhp with good cam and heads, so good job there.
Last edited by Sweet_SS; 04-16-2012 at 10:47 PM.
Trending Topics
04-18-2012, 03:58 PM
#12
Guys,
Thought I would chime in quickly.
Joel had mentioned to me the guys over at Cincy speed mentioned to him that their dyno was on the stingy side and cars that have rolled on other dyno's have rolled less power on their dyno so I decided to call and speak to their operator who works on that dyno (and tuned Joel's car).
I know what your all thinking.....LOL.....they ALL say that, but the reality is some dyno's are stingy....and some aren't and that's the problem with bench racing dyno sheets. The best scenario is a "before" baseline on the same dyno to really learn anything or at the very least a known history of cars that you know produced "X" (and they type of mods associated with that power) but it is what it is and ultimately trap speeds will tell the tale assuming the car is reasonably dialed in.
I asked Joel if he had ever run the car (and what he trapped at the time) and he mentioned low/mid thirteens at 101 MPH.
Anyway, back on topic....so the guy I really needed to speak with was out but I did take the opportunity to ask the guy I was speaking to what some of the typical stock stuff puts out there and he mentioned they have tested a few stock LS3 vehicles that ranged from 317 to 346 RWHP. I don't have details and I would want to verify those figures with the guy that normally runs the dyno but if that is the case this dyno is in fact a bit on the stingy side because M6 LS3 cars usually spit out 375-385 RWHP....350-360 for the A6 versions.
I know Joel will be hitting the track soon but will be doing so with stock suspension on Nitto radials so I'm not expecting to see all this combo is capable of but we should certainly get a better idea. I suspect he will be spinning for a good bit trying to get out of the hole, especially with the higher stall speed and minimal tire capabilities. Even a set of ET streets properly heated and aired down would make a huge difference obviously and are certainly needed at this type of power level with a 4K stall.
I will report back with more accurate info concerning the dyno when I have it and hopefully Joel has some trap speeds to compare to his stock baseline figures in the next couple of weeks.
I am also trying to inquire about the top of the dyno curve.....it should have peaked later than it did and I'm not sure whether there is valve control issues up top or possibly some knock retard but there is more in this combo in peak power if the top of the curve can be sorted out (note its barely off its current peak even as far out at 7K but the middle of the power arc where a 66-6700 peak should have been is kind of missing). Either way I'm sure the car is going to run hard and I know Joel is thrilled with how it feels based on a few emails we have shared lately.
Cheers,
Tony
PS....Regarding valve control and knowing we were building a recipe for good upper RPM power, I did push Joel to hit all the details in the set-up to try and avoid (or minimize) valve control issues with the hyd. roller. We installed lighter weight intake valves, I set the spring up tighter for more seat pressure and less room for oscillation and unwanted harmonics, went with proven lightweight rockers (Yella Terra Ultralites), we have a limited travel lifters and stout pushrods. Now granted I didn't actually do the install but all the right parts are in place for the accurate valve motion necessary to make good high RPM power and a curve that hangs on well which this obviously does (I'm just confident that with some additional fine tuning and tweaking there is even more in it).
Thought I would chime in quickly.
Joel had mentioned to me the guys over at Cincy speed mentioned to him that their dyno was on the stingy side and cars that have rolled on other dyno's have rolled less power on their dyno so I decided to call and speak to their operator who works on that dyno (and tuned Joel's car).
I know what your all thinking.....LOL.....they ALL say that, but the reality is some dyno's are stingy....and some aren't and that's the problem with bench racing dyno sheets. The best scenario is a "before" baseline on the same dyno to really learn anything or at the very least a known history of cars that you know produced "X" (and they type of mods associated with that power) but it is what it is and ultimately trap speeds will tell the tale assuming the car is reasonably dialed in.
I asked Joel if he had ever run the car (and what he trapped at the time) and he mentioned low/mid thirteens at 101 MPH.
Anyway, back on topic....so the guy I really needed to speak with was out but I did take the opportunity to ask the guy I was speaking to what some of the typical stock stuff puts out there and he mentioned they have tested a few stock LS3 vehicles that ranged from 317 to 346 RWHP. I don't have details and I would want to verify those figures with the guy that normally runs the dyno but if that is the case this dyno is in fact a bit on the stingy side because M6 LS3 cars usually spit out 375-385 RWHP....350-360 for the A6 versions.
I know Joel will be hitting the track soon but will be doing so with stock suspension on Nitto radials so I'm not expecting to see all this combo is capable of but we should certainly get a better idea. I suspect he will be spinning for a good bit trying to get out of the hole, especially with the higher stall speed and minimal tire capabilities. Even a set of ET streets properly heated and aired down would make a huge difference obviously and are certainly needed at this type of power level with a 4K stall.
I will report back with more accurate info concerning the dyno when I have it and hopefully Joel has some trap speeds to compare to his stock baseline figures in the next couple of weeks.
I am also trying to inquire about the top of the dyno curve.....it should have peaked later than it did and I'm not sure whether there is valve control issues up top or possibly some knock retard but there is more in this combo in peak power if the top of the curve can be sorted out (note its barely off its current peak even as far out at 7K but the middle of the power arc where a 66-6700 peak should have been is kind of missing). Either way I'm sure the car is going to run hard and I know Joel is thrilled with how it feels based on a few emails we have shared lately.
Cheers,
Tony
PS....Regarding valve control and knowing we were building a recipe for good upper RPM power, I did push Joel to hit all the details in the set-up to try and avoid (or minimize) valve control issues with the hyd. roller. We installed lighter weight intake valves, I set the spring up tighter for more seat pressure and less room for oscillation and unwanted harmonics, went with proven lightweight rockers (Yella Terra Ultralites), we have a limited travel lifters and stout pushrods. Now granted I didn't actually do the install but all the right parts are in place for the accurate valve motion necessary to make good high RPM power and a curve that hangs on well which this obviously does (I'm just confident that with some additional fine tuning and tweaking there is even more in it).
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 04-18-2012 at 06:22 PM.
04-19-2012, 01:44 AM
#13
I am sure the dips in the power are from knock as you can see when the tq takes a dive, and its possibly from being lean. You can clearly see the 13.0 dotted line and it crosses it very plain. Not a good idea. I would have them double check that.
Running higher afr to help numbers is never a good idea. Looks like you may need a better fuel pump as it looks it on the top end. If you were to hook up a fuel pressure gauge, I am sure when that thing hit about 6100 you ran out of pressure and the injector DC went pretty high to try and compensate. Get a better fuel pump and you will see even more increase.
Running higher afr to help numbers is never a good idea. Looks like you may need a better fuel pump as it looks it on the top end. If you were to hook up a fuel pressure gauge, I am sure when that thing hit about 6100 you ran out of pressure and the injector DC went pretty high to try and compensate. Get a better fuel pump and you will see even more increase.
04-19-2012, 02:02 AM
#14
I am sure the dips in the power are from knock as you can see when the tq takes a dive, and its possibly from being lean. You can clearly see the 13.0 dotted line and it crosses it very plain. Not a good idea. I would have them double check that.
Running higher afr to help numbers is never a good idea. Looks like you may need a better fuel pump as it looks it on the top end. If you were to hook up a fuel pressure gauge, I am sure when that thing hit about 6100 you ran out of pressure and the injector DC went pretty high to try and compensate. Get a better fuel pump and you will see even more increase.
Running higher afr to help numbers is never a good idea. Looks like you may need a better fuel pump as it looks it on the top end. If you were to hook up a fuel pressure gauge, I am sure when that thing hit about 6100 you ran out of pressure and the injector DC went pretty high to try and compensate. Get a better fuel pump and you will see even more increase.
I hit everything on the mechanical side of things to insure good valve control and I do feel some additional time spent tuning could really make this package even more special....its certainly not being fully tapped into yet.
One of the frustrating things for someone in my position who tries his best to insure good results for his clients is that without doing the actual install (and being involved in the sorting out of the tune), there are always things outside of your control that effect the outcome of the project.
Its one of the reasons I always dyno any complete engine I build (on the engine dyno)....you never know how things are going to go when its installed in the customers vehicle, but the engine dyno allows you to see exactly what's what....the right oil pressure curve, the power and torque produced, and the shape of the power and torque curve which in this case isn't quite dialed in yet but showing lots of promise.
-Tony
04-19-2012, 02:10 AM
#15
I know the fueling issue is more than likely the problem, but that lean condition on the graph needs to be addressed also. I would put the racetronix kit in from WS6 store along with the hot wire harness and let it eat!
That would take all the kr out as far as fueling being an issue. Those injectors should have no trouble with this combo then. And it would make alot more power up top instead of just diving down.
That would take all the kr out as far as fueling being an issue. Those injectors should have no trouble with this combo then. And it would make alot more power up top instead of just diving down.
04-19-2012, 08:15 AM
#16
There was an older thread where Tony said that 1 7/8 headers were all wrong for the AFR heads and that they would perform better with 1 3/4. My question is,does that only apply to the smaller 205's? Also why use 230's instead of 205's for stock CI motor? Not bashing anyone just curious. Thanks, and sorry for the hijack.
04-19-2012, 11:19 AM
#17
Staging Lane
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hamilton, OH
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Thought I would chime in quickly.
Joel had mentioned to me the guys over at Cincy speed mentioned to him that their dyno was on the stingy side and cars that have rolled on other dyno's have rolled less power on their dyno so I decided to call and speak to their operator who works on that dyno (and tuned Joel's car).
I know what your all thinking.....LOL.....they ALL say that, but the reality is some dyno's are stingy....and some aren't and that's the problem with bench racing dyno sheets. The best scenario is a "before" baseline on the same dyno to really learn anything or at the very least a known history of cars that you know produced "X" (and they type of mods associated with that power) but it is what it is and ultimately trap speeds will tell the tale assuming the car is reasonably dialed in.
I asked Joel if he had ever run the car (and what he trapped at the time) and he mentioned low/mid thirteens at 101 MPH.
Anyway, back on topic....so the guy I really needed to speak with was out but I did take the opportunity to ask the guy I was speaking to what some of the typical stock stuff puts out there and he mentioned they have tested a few stock LS3 vehicles that ranged from 317 to 346 RWHP. I don't have details and I would want to verify those figures with the guy that normally runs the dyno but if that is the case this dyno is in fact a bit on the stingy side because M6 LS3 cars usually spit out 375-385 RWHP....350-360 for the A6 versions.
I know Joel will be hitting the track soon but will be doing so with stock suspension on Nitto radials so I'm not expecting to see all this combo is capable of but we should certainly get a better idea. I suspect he will be spinning for a good bit trying to get out of the hole, especially with the higher stall speed and minimal tire capabilities. Even a set of ET streets properly heated and aired down would make a huge difference obviously and are certainly needed at this type of power level with a 4K stall.
I will report back with more accurate info concerning the dyno when I have it and hopefully Joel has some trap speeds to compare to his stock baseline figures in the next couple of weeks.
I am also trying to inquire about the top of the dyno curve.....it should have peaked later than it did and I'm not sure whether there is valve control issues up top or possibly some knock retard but there is more in this combo in peak power if the top of the curve can be sorted out (note its barely off its current peak even as far out at 7K but the middle of the power arc where a 66-6700 peak should have been is kind of missing). Either way I'm sure the car is going to run hard and I know Joel is thrilled with how it feels based on a few emails we have shared lately.
Cheers,
Tony
PS....Regarding valve control and knowing we were building a recipe for good upper RPM power, I did push Joel to hit all the details in the set-up to try and avoid (or minimize) valve control issues with the hyd. roller. We installed lighter weight intake valves, I set the spring up tighter for more seat pressure and less room for oscillation and unwanted harmonics, went with proven lightweight rockers (Yella Terra Ultralites), we have a limited travel lifters and stout pushrods. Now granted I didn't actually do the install but all the right parts are in place for the accurate valve motion necessary to make good high RPM power and a curve that hangs on well which this obviously does (I'm just confident that with some additional fine tuning and tweaking there is even more in it).
Thought I would chime in quickly.
Joel had mentioned to me the guys over at Cincy speed mentioned to him that their dyno was on the stingy side and cars that have rolled on other dyno's have rolled less power on their dyno so I decided to call and speak to their operator who works on that dyno (and tuned Joel's car).
I know what your all thinking.....LOL.....they ALL say that, but the reality is some dyno's are stingy....and some aren't and that's the problem with bench racing dyno sheets. The best scenario is a "before" baseline on the same dyno to really learn anything or at the very least a known history of cars that you know produced "X" (and they type of mods associated with that power) but it is what it is and ultimately trap speeds will tell the tale assuming the car is reasonably dialed in.
I asked Joel if he had ever run the car (and what he trapped at the time) and he mentioned low/mid thirteens at 101 MPH.
Anyway, back on topic....so the guy I really needed to speak with was out but I did take the opportunity to ask the guy I was speaking to what some of the typical stock stuff puts out there and he mentioned they have tested a few stock LS3 vehicles that ranged from 317 to 346 RWHP. I don't have details and I would want to verify those figures with the guy that normally runs the dyno but if that is the case this dyno is in fact a bit on the stingy side because M6 LS3 cars usually spit out 375-385 RWHP....350-360 for the A6 versions.
I know Joel will be hitting the track soon but will be doing so with stock suspension on Nitto radials so I'm not expecting to see all this combo is capable of but we should certainly get a better idea. I suspect he will be spinning for a good bit trying to get out of the hole, especially with the higher stall speed and minimal tire capabilities. Even a set of ET streets properly heated and aired down would make a huge difference obviously and are certainly needed at this type of power level with a 4K stall.
I will report back with more accurate info concerning the dyno when I have it and hopefully Joel has some trap speeds to compare to his stock baseline figures in the next couple of weeks.
I am also trying to inquire about the top of the dyno curve.....it should have peaked later than it did and I'm not sure whether there is valve control issues up top or possibly some knock retard but there is more in this combo in peak power if the top of the curve can be sorted out (note its barely off its current peak even as far out at 7K but the middle of the power arc where a 66-6700 peak should have been is kind of missing). Either way I'm sure the car is going to run hard and I know Joel is thrilled with how it feels based on a few emails we have shared lately.
Cheers,
Tony
PS....Regarding valve control and knowing we were building a recipe for good upper RPM power, I did push Joel to hit all the details in the set-up to try and avoid (or minimize) valve control issues with the hyd. roller. We installed lighter weight intake valves, I set the spring up tighter for more seat pressure and less room for oscillation and unwanted harmonics, went with proven lightweight rockers (Yella Terra Ultralites), we have a limited travel lifters and stout pushrods. Now granted I didn't actually do the install but all the right parts are in place for the accurate valve motion necessary to make good high RPM power and a curve that hangs on well which this obviously does (I'm just confident that with some additional fine tuning and tweaking there is even more in it).
04-20-2012, 08:44 AM
#18
On The Tree
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel obligated to chime in here...
1) I personally would be VERY wary of questioning the tuner. Tracey Scott is undoubtably one of the top engine tuners in the tri-state area, and the most well known LSX tuner. Tony, I am sure he would be able to answer any question you may have.
2) Cincy Speeds dyno does seem to read 'low' but the bigger point was made, dyno variation is incedibly large not only from city to city, but from dyno to dyno (even on the same type of dyno!) which is why I am bullheaded in saying bench racing dyno numbers is silly, unless you want to compare the cars on the same dyno on the same day just for bragging rights; otherwise there is too much variation. Even a 1-2% difference becomes a substantial number when the overall power/tq is high.
3) Manual stock LS3 cars are NOT reading that low on CS's dyno, i cant speak for autos, but manuals are definitely in the 370-380 range.... Here is some dyno numbers from my car for example:
Red - me
Green - completely stock LS3 c6 corvette
Blue - tune only LS3 corvette (same car)
Red - me
Blue - c6 LS3 with similar cam specs (BooSSt), intake, 1 7/8" headers and full 3" exhaust... (stock heads)
Red - me
Green - 2010 Camaro with nearly the same mods as me (G6X3, 2" headers, 3" exhaust, FAST, etc...) - note camaro will have higher drivetrain loss.
my setup:
LS3 C5
Trick Flow 235 with 225 sized exhaust port diameter
11.68:1 CR
G6X3
LG 1 3/4 no cats
stock gears
Ported FAST 102
STOCK ls2 TB
UD pulley (ATI 10%/10%)
McCleod RST Twin disk
Mobil1 5W30
93 octane
On a local dynapack dyno (reads higher than dynojet) I made 517/490 corrected
1) I personally would be VERY wary of questioning the tuner. Tracey Scott is undoubtably one of the top engine tuners in the tri-state area, and the most well known LSX tuner. Tony, I am sure he would be able to answer any question you may have.
2) Cincy Speeds dyno does seem to read 'low' but the bigger point was made, dyno variation is incedibly large not only from city to city, but from dyno to dyno (even on the same type of dyno!) which is why I am bullheaded in saying bench racing dyno numbers is silly, unless you want to compare the cars on the same dyno on the same day just for bragging rights; otherwise there is too much variation. Even a 1-2% difference becomes a substantial number when the overall power/tq is high.
3) Manual stock LS3 cars are NOT reading that low on CS's dyno, i cant speak for autos, but manuals are definitely in the 370-380 range.... Here is some dyno numbers from my car for example:
Red - me
Green - completely stock LS3 c6 corvette
Blue - tune only LS3 corvette (same car)
Red - me
Blue - c6 LS3 with similar cam specs (BooSSt), intake, 1 7/8" headers and full 3" exhaust... (stock heads)
Red - me
Green - 2010 Camaro with nearly the same mods as me (G6X3, 2" headers, 3" exhaust, FAST, etc...) - note camaro will have higher drivetrain loss.
my setup:
LS3 C5
Trick Flow 235 with 225 sized exhaust port diameter
11.68:1 CR
G6X3
LG 1 3/4 no cats
stock gears
Ported FAST 102
STOCK ls2 TB
UD pulley (ATI 10%/10%)
McCleod RST Twin disk
Mobil1 5W30
93 octane
On a local dynapack dyno (reads higher than dynojet) I made 517/490 corrected
04-20-2012, 08:54 AM
#19
PS....Regarding valve control and knowing we were building a recipe for good upper RPM power, I did push Joel to hit all the details in the set-up to try and avoid (or minimize) valve control issues with the hyd. roller. We installed lighter weight intake valves, I set the spring up tighter for more seat pressure and less room for oscillation and unwanted harmonics, went with proven lightweight rockers (Yella Terra Ultralites), we have a limited travel lifters and stout pushrods.
Compression? Flycut pistons? TIA
04-20-2012, 09:34 AM
#20
Looks good to me. That dip is the converter lockup clutch slipping a bit and probly goes through the higher rpm area which makes it look like valve control problems. I've seen this alot and even more on 98 cars.
If it was a 6 speed it would putout alot higher numbers, torque would definitely be well over 400.
If it was a 6 speed it would putout alot higher numbers, torque would definitely be well over 400.