61cc AFR's, LGM's, C1 cam & LS6. Dyno #'s and graph.
04-09-2005, 02:59 PM
#1
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
61cc AFR's, LGM's, C1 cam & LS6. Dyno #'s and graph. Thanks to Tony Mamo for handling every question I had, even on a Saturday. And Thanks to Rick @ Livernois Motorsports for hooking up the dyno time, taking the time to clean and display my graph and for showing me around that top-notch shop of yours....you guys had some very impressive cars up in the air. I will definately be back for a tune.
Mods in Sig, car is untuned but runs perfect (94 octane) and throws no codes. Graph is below just copy & paste in your browser. I am not technically savy.
Before the heads and Intake I put down like 361/360 on the Livernois mustang dyno....not a good comparison but thats all I got. I do not get it, the car is alot (ALOT) faster above 2,800 RPM's now. I thought HP would be a bit higher. The car pulls like a damn freight train, I built it for torque on the street so I'm very happy with the TQ number. Take a look at the graph and let me know what you guys think.
HP 399 @ 5,600
TQ 396 @ 4,800
http://community.webshots.com/photo/...18185960GpsdcR
Mods in Sig, car is untuned but runs perfect (94 octane) and throws no codes. Graph is below just copy & paste in your browser. I am not technically savy.
Before the heads and Intake I put down like 361/360 on the Livernois mustang dyno....not a good comparison but thats all I got. I do not get it, the car is alot (ALOT) faster above 2,800 RPM's now. I thought HP would be a bit higher. The car pulls like a damn freight train, I built it for torque on the street so I'm very happy with the TQ number. Take a look at the graph and let me know what you guys think.
HP 399 @ 5,600
TQ 396 @ 4,800
http://community.webshots.com/photo/...18185960GpsdcR
Last edited by Mirek; 04-09-2005 at 03:55 PM. Reason: ADD WORKING LINK
04-09-2005, 03:35 PM
#3
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember when you said I should watch out for when we meet on the street? You're going to need a lot more than that to keep up now 
. Nice number none the less, esp on the tq.
. Nice number none the less, esp on the tq. 
04-09-2005, 03:44 PM
#5
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just edited my post and put in a new link. Anything you guys can tell me about the curves would be awesome. I cannot decipher graphs very well.
c1 = 222/222 566/566 --112
I wanted less cam so I could mill the heads down and get good "streetable" power. Symetrical cams are best for torque.
V8maro....yes I recall.....I imagine that 408 will be humbling many fools on Woodward this season.
c1 = 222/222 566/566 --112
I wanted less cam so I could mill the heads down and get good "streetable" power. Symetrical cams are best for torque.
V8maro....yes I recall.....I imagine that 408 will be humbling many fools on Woodward this season.
Last edited by Mirek; 04-09-2005 at 03:57 PM.
04-10-2005, 12:19 AM
#7
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably the reason why your car feels so much faster is because you now have more streetable tq. Look at your 2k mark, you have 300rwtq, that's very good, and it continues to grow. At 3k it seems to dip, I wonder if some knock was detected?
Yeah, I'm sure I'll win a lot of races, but there is always going to be someone faster.
-Steve
Yeah, I'm sure I'll win a lot of races, but there is always going to be someone faster.
-Steve
Trending Topics
04-10-2005, 07:48 AM
#8
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark, thx I hope so I need at least one more HP. Rick @ Livernois actually lost HP when he tuned but he picked up driveability. He has a Cam similar to Mamo's (224/228 58X/58X).
Steve, for alot of people your that guy now haha.
I hope to see you guys running around town this season......
Steve, for alot of people your that guy now haha.
I hope to see you guys running around town this season......
04-11-2005, 08:08 PM
#12
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Jeff,
Not a whole lot going on right now. Sounds like you're making a good bit of power. I will be making my triumphant return to the LS world at the end of July, so brace yourself.
"If something is too hard, give it up. The moral my boy is to never try anything."
Not a whole lot going on right now. Sounds like you're making a good bit of power. I will be making my triumphant return to the LS world at the end of July, so brace yourself.
"If something is too hard, give it up. The moral my boy is to never try anything."
Last edited by Ramair346; 04-12-2005 at 06:41 PM.
04-12-2005, 05:57 PM
#13
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dallas, TX via Grambling State University
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mirek
Tim, what is up brougham ?
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."
Why did you choose AFR heads over other manufactures???
04-12-2005, 09:13 PM
#14
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was that or the TEA 5.3 ltr's.....Close but I elected AFR.....My old old first choice was A.Speed because LGM used them before the AFR's came out. Guarantee for one, AFR is a reputable company you get what you pay for everytime because every product is off the same CNC (I do wish I had a flowsheet though). The price is right, quality, I buy into the small port/superior velocity = low end torque theory because it has been around longer than AFR and my dyno sheet illustrates that. Tony is reliable and stands by his product and backs up everything he says. Pretty easy choice. I have seen higher PEAK dyno numbers with similar size cams and other heads but, as with all things, there is a trade-off.
11:3 compression with the LGM's too I wanted 415-420 to be honest.
11:3 compression with the LGM's too I wanted 415-420 to be honest.
04-12-2005, 09:19 PM
#16
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just the before (sorry).
Bone stock w/ exhaust the car put down 317 on another dynojet.....long ago.
So $2,400 heads, $399cam, $399 intake & $1,900 headers netted me 82 HP (in theory).
Maybe my clutch is slipping, I will see what it traps asap.
Bone stock w/ exhaust the car put down 317 on another dynojet.....long ago.
So $2,400 heads, $399cam, $399 intake & $1,900 headers netted me 82 HP (in theory).
Maybe my clutch is slipping, I will see what it traps asap.
04-13-2005, 07:27 AM
#17
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ramair346
Yeah, I know I'll be faster 
04-13-2005, 10:28 AM
#18
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by v8maro
Hrmmmm, you're back eh? I wonder what you have cooked up, if it's that 346 SR w/spray you'll still need some help.
