Ferrea makes a 2.20 Hollow stem intake valve for L92 heads! Why no CNC'd heads w/them
#1
10 & 11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando Fl.
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrea makes a 2.20 Hollow stem intake valve for L92 heads! Why no CNC'd heads w/them
SO I want better flowing heads on my 4.070 bore L92 motor in my 2002 Formula. Richard at WCCH says that a 2.20 intake valve will work on a 4.070- 4.080 bore as in LS7 heads but that the 1.61 exhaust valve is too big. Ferrea makes a 2.20 Hollow stem intake valve for the L92 heads but none of the vendors on this site offer these as an option for CNC'd LS3/L92 heads. It would seem that going from a 2.165 intake to a 2.20 valve could make the L92s flow better on the intake side, like maybe close to as good as CNC'd LS7 heads.
The Mast new mid bore 12* L92 heads only flow 12 - 15 cfm more in the mid lift then my PRC cnc'd L92s and the same at low lift and .500+ .600 lift. That would not be a good option for over $2500!
The Mast new mid bore 12* L92 heads only flow 12 - 15 cfm more in the mid lift then my PRC cnc'd L92s and the same at low lift and .500+ .600 lift. That would not be a good option for over $2500!
#2
#4
Launching!
iTrader: (4)
Dave...the history on our computers probably looks a lot a like. I've been looking back and forth at the flow numbers on texas-speeds site on the L92's and then over to mast's site on those 12 degree L92 heads. I hadn't found the hollow 2.20" valves though good work on that! I might call texas speed tomorrow and ask them about putting those valves in see what they have to say.
Nick
Nick
#6
OWN3D BY MY PROF!
iTrader: (176)
^ I do.
Especially at the exspense of having to down size the exhaust valve. L92 heads are extremely intake biased. I fail to see why you would want to continue to extend that bias. If you want better heads I would back away from the L92 stuff and step into a really nice cathedral port option. The cost will be larger, but so will the performance.
Especially at the exspense of having to down size the exhaust valve. L92 heads are extremely intake biased. I fail to see why you would want to continue to extend that bias. If you want better heads I would back away from the L92 stuff and step into a really nice cathedral port option. The cost will be larger, but so will the performance.
#7
SO I want better flowing heads on my 4.070 bore L92 motor in my 2002 Formula. Richard at WCCH says that a 2.20 intake valve will work on a 4.070- 4.080 bore as in LS7 heads but that the 1.61 exhaust valve is too big. Ferrea makes a 2.20 Hollow stem intake valve for the L92 heads but none of the vendors on this site offer these as an option for CNC'd LS3/L92 heads. It would seem that going from a 2.165 intake to a 2.20 valve could make the L92s flow better on the intake side, like maybe close to as good as CNC'd LS7 heads.
The Mast new mid bore 12* L92 heads only flow 12 - 15 cfm more in the mid lift then my PRC cnc'd L92s and the same at low lift and .500+ .600 lift. That would not be a good option for over $2500!
The Mast new mid bore 12* L92 heads only flow 12 - 15 cfm more in the mid lift then my PRC cnc'd L92s and the same at low lift and .500+ .600 lift. That would not be a good option for over $2500!
2 different heads and 1 got more options then the other and a different valve angle-
Trending Topics
#8
Launching!
iTrader: (4)
^ I do.
Especially at the exspense of having to down size the exhaust valve. L92 heads are extremely intake biased. I fail to see why you would want to continue to extend that bias. If you want better heads I would back away from the L92 stuff and step into a really nice cathedral port option. The cost will be larger, but so will the performance.
Especially at the exspense of having to down size the exhaust valve. L92 heads are extremely intake biased. I fail to see why you would want to continue to extend that bias. If you want better heads I would back away from the L92 stuff and step into a really nice cathedral port option. The cost will be larger, but so will the performance.
You don't need to downsize the exhaust valve. Obviously we could buy better flowing heads, But isn't half the fun of going fast doing it at the lowest expense possible??Wouldn't it be nice to find out their are a few more horsepower left on the table here? my .02
#11
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pasadena Texas
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at putting larger valves in the 92 heads. The machine shop and I decided against it. Its not worth the expense and there is not a lot of material in the casting to work with. It will need chamber work and will shroud the intake.
#12
OWN3D BY MY PROF!
iTrader: (176)
Then you are running a massive 70+ cc chamber pre milling. To reach a higher compression you are into domed pistons, large chambers (milling would only exacerbate what you just tried to fix in the chambers), and undesirable of getting towards the edge of having to deal with flame propogation, quench, burn, and other issues (versus a smaller chamber and slight dish). L92 heads are good for OEM setups and massive cubes. Beyond that you can spend slightly more on a few different sets of heads and have a lot better setup.
The other thing I'd be interested to know is how large can an L92 intake seat actually go?
#13
I know a few folks managed to put 2.04" valves on a stock LS1 valve seat, so the .035" difference from 2.165" to 2.200" is probably possible on a stock seat. I still say a 1.65" exhaust valve would be much better.
#15
Moderator
iTrader: (20)
If I remember correctly, there was a shop that used epoxy, basically reducing the cross sections in the L92 port and intake runners, and picked up ~70ft-lbs at lower rpm, and I think actually gained about 10 peak hp...and that was on a 427ci motor.
Not to mention, and don't quote me on this, but I think there are some really good head porters out there having better results actually reducing the valve/venturi diameter as well.
Not to mention, and don't quote me on this, but I think there are some really good head porters out there having better results actually reducing the valve/venturi diameter as well.
#16
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (127)
If I remember correctly, there was a shop that used epoxy, basically reducing the cross sections in the L92 port and intake runners, and picked up ~70ft-lbs at lower rpm, and I think actually gained about 10 peak hp...and that was on a 427ci motor.
Not to mention, and don't quote me on this, but I think there are some really good head porters out there having better results actually reducing the valve/venturi diameter as well.
Not to mention, and don't quote me on this, but I think there are some really good head porters out there having better results actually reducing the valve/venturi diameter as well.
#18
OWN3D BY MY PROF!
iTrader: (176)
If I remember correctly, there was a shop that used epoxy, basically reducing the cross sections in the L92 port and intake runners, and picked up ~70ft-lbs at lower rpm, and I think actually gained about 10 peak hp...and that was on a 427ci motor.
Not to mention, and don't quote me on this, but I think there are some really good head porters out there having better results actually reducing the valve/venturi diameter as well.
Not to mention, and don't quote me on this, but I think there are some really good head porters out there having better results actually reducing the valve/venturi diameter as well.
#19
Banned
iTrader: (3)
We've worked on a variety of chamber and port configurations for the L92 heads over the last eight months. Before we release any new programs we want to see resulting trends and developing markets. As engines trend in the larger displacement catagory port and chamber configurations will want to grow as well. With the release of the new FAST intakes for LS3 heads further development of the ports can yeild some nice gains. Reflecting on the title of this thread regarding hollow valves, it's always nice to see more options available. I don't see a lot of applications where a light weight valve is necessary but there are some guys who will benefit. As larger displacement engines are built the operating peak rpms will come down. Solid valves can safely cycle to 6500 rpms with hyd. roller cams and that handles 98% of the street cars we deal with.
The L92/LS3 intake seat rings measure approx. 2.200". A 2.180" valve will comfortably fit while the 2.200" valve could cause fragmentation to the outer edges of the seat. The seats can be changed, but will make for a more expensive pair of heads.
Richard
The L92/LS3 intake seat rings measure approx. 2.200". A 2.180" valve will comfortably fit while the 2.200" valve could cause fragmentation to the outer edges of the seat. The seats can be changed, but will make for a more expensive pair of heads.
Richard
The following users liked this post:
DualQuadDave (03-17-2024)