Hot Rod tested 8 ported LS3/L92 heads!
#61
Flow numbers do not tell the whole story. As stated earlier, worse flowing heads have won these dyno contests.
#62
9 Second Club
iTrader: (33)
If I was building a motor from scratch, I'd seriously concider PRC237cc heads. I really liked the Cathedral port head challange. It was a nice surprize. Big power from such a small motor. I see why Brian Pooley has a hard-on the cathedril port heads.
I wish someone would do a flow test on FAST102 cathedrill vs. FAST102rect (whatever they are calling the LS3 mani)
I am wondering if the cathril one flows better.
I wish someone would do a flow test on FAST102 cathedrill vs. FAST102rect (whatever they are calling the LS3 mani)
I am wondering if the cathril one flows better.
#67
I've yet to see anyone mention the fact that, the mast single plane intake which was used with there mast heads, was im sure, matched perfectly to those runners in height,width,entry angle ,taper,etc
I know that when i was looking at some rec port heads last year, i had spoken to Cary,and he had told me that his intake wasnt going to fit every head out there correctly, due to runner variations between each individual head porters program
Not saying mast doesnt build a nice product,but i think theres alot more to a fair/accurate test than just throwing some parts together and running a couple of dyno pulls
I know that when i was looking at some rec port heads last year, i had spoken to Cary,and he had told me that his intake wasnt going to fit every head out there correctly, due to runner variations between each individual head porters program
Not saying mast doesnt build a nice product,but i think theres alot more to a fair/accurate test than just throwing some parts together and running a couple of dyno pulls
#68
Truthfully, I think I was most impressed with the strong performance of the stock LS3/L92 heads in this application.
I think the real winner here is the the kick-*** 468 shortblock!
Spend the cash on that shortblock...use some cheap LS3/L92 heads (common as water, $500.00 used)and enjoy the 692hp for a few years.
After you have paid your chiropractor for all the neck and spine adjustments, save your lunch money for a few years, then buy something like the MAST heads and bolt on 70hp for the more impressive (albeit $$$) gains.
Or save the $$$ and just hit it with a tiny 75 shot of nitrous when needed.
I think the real winner here is the the kick-*** 468 shortblock!
Spend the cash on that shortblock...use some cheap LS3/L92 heads (common as water, $500.00 used)and enjoy the 692hp for a few years.
After you have paid your chiropractor for all the neck and spine adjustments, save your lunch money for a few years, then buy something like the MAST heads and bolt on 70hp for the more impressive (albeit $$$) gains.
Or save the $$$ and just hit it with a tiny 75 shot of nitrous when needed.
Lol, chiropractor...
Brent
#69
On The Tree
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That article was very interesting to me, I didn't realize how easy it was to make 700hp with one of these. Apparently all you need to do is build a really big engine and use one of Cary's intake manifolds. I'm going to have to try this.
#70
TECH Enthusiast
equal playing field same quality of heads... but change displacement from your avg 364-376 to 454-468....... Its a no brainer......
Bozz
#71
TECH Fanatic
Interestingly the stock LS3/L92 heads equalled or exceeded some of the other heads in BMEP @ power peak rpm.
FWIW, it seems a little strange to me to test these heads on a 468 when the vast majority are probably going on 364-427 engines in the real world. Few of them have 4.185 bores.
My $.02
Jon
Last edited by Old SStroker; 12-22-2010 at 08:56 AM.
#73
I was anxious to see that article too. Big let down IMHO
#74
On a smaller engine the results would have simply been closer. You could probably take the percentage difference in power and apply them to a smaller engine, if that makes sense.
#76
If they tested it on a smaller, normal size engine the power gains from the "aftermarket head" swap would be lessened.
What a awesome magazine article, title reads "ADD 10-15 RWHP WITH A SIMPLE $1500 HEAD SWAP"!!!
Remember the $20 for two years just pays your postage, the magazine makes money from advertising. Not saying there isn't truth to the "checking pushrod length" or "how to assemble xxxxx" but when it comes to advertisors pushing product, they will always look good.
Best one to date was an "oil pan test". They took a full race 496 BBC, threw a stock oil pan on and dynoed, then put on a moroso and picked up 9hp. There you go, an article for a month.... MHO
What a awesome magazine article, title reads "ADD 10-15 RWHP WITH A SIMPLE $1500 HEAD SWAP"!!!
Remember the $20 for two years just pays your postage, the magazine makes money from advertising. Not saying there isn't truth to the "checking pushrod length" or "how to assemble xxxxx" but when it comes to advertisors pushing product, they will always look good.
Best one to date was an "oil pan test". They took a full race 496 BBC, threw a stock oil pan on and dynoed, then put on a moroso and picked up 9hp. There you go, an article for a month.... MHO
#77
TECH Fanatic
Comparing BMEP of engines (or components like heads) at power peak rpm should tell you how well the system is turning air/fuel into torque, and when factoring in rpm, power.
From the HRM article by Holdener, the stock LS3 heads made peak hp of 692 @ 6500. That's 559 lb-ft or 559/468 or 1.195 lb-ft per cube on a 468.
1.195 x 150.8 is 180 psi BMEP.
Another head made 718 peak hp at 6900. That's 1.168 lb-ft per cube or 176 psi BMEP. Sure, more HP but at a higher rpm so it made less torque at it's peak power rpm than did the LS3. Actually it was slightly (~1.2%) better at the 6500 power peak rpm of the LS3s, but at it's 6900 power peak it was slightly less efficient. In that case, 14.7% more flowbench flow @ .650 and 17.8% more at .600 didn't result in much gain.
The Mast heads with the increased valve lift due to 1.8 rockers made 198 psi BMEP at power peak rpm. That's very good, and close to the 200-205 psi BMEP from most Engine Masters Challenge winners when looking at BMEP at power peak.
Jon
#78
I was happy to read the results. For a typical 402-416 with EFI, I expect the cheapie stock LS3 heads (as cast) will be comparable in performance.
Cost of my next build just went down $1500 - gotta love that!
Cost of my next build just went down $1500 - gotta love that!
#79
YEah. I was thinking the same thing. Makes you wanna hold off buying ported LS3s for a 416
#80
From what I can see reading the article the Mast heads were the clear winner, but at a very high price point. With the FAST intake they would still have made more peak HP, and the average torque goes up even more, so although using the Mast intake probably favored the Mast heads a bit, the test with the FAST intake shows they really were the best performing head. How much is the 1.8 Rocker worth? I suspect a bit, but not really sure what the number would be? On a smaller motor I would say 10-15, but not sure that holds true? The second question is what will the new castings from TFS and PRC that are coming out next quarter do at a much lower price point? Will the Mast heads be worth a $1000 premium?
Of the stock castings the WCCH looked to be the best curve, followed by SDPC, and then TEA.
Of the stock castings the WCCH looked to be the best curve, followed by SDPC, and then TEA.