NAVYBLUE210

Hello LS1 Members I have been reading for 7 years learning a ton, posting
A little. My goal is to go 201+ MPH in the Mohave Magnum a 1 1/2 mile
Standing start event on a 12,500 foot concrete runway in the So Cal
Desert in Oct 2015.
Vehicle is a Navy Blue 1999 C5 Coupe M6
I will start with the Engine tonight and try to post driveline,suspension,
And aerodynamics on subsequent days/evenings.

Heads TFS LS3 w/ rev light intake valves
PAC 1219X BeeHives W/ Cryo-Rem & Titanium retainers
Fast 102 Both Heads and Manifold Ported by Tony Mamo
3/8 custom pushrods
Custom Cam specced by either Pat G. Or Martin @ Tick
My attempt would be 235/243 620/610 115 LSA 0 ADV Cam Motion
goal is peak HP ~6800 RPM ~ 575RWHP W/ stable valve train.
From
5000-7000 is my most important range
Stock Rockers W/ CHE Bushings
Searching for hydraulic lifter w/out needle bearings ala Isky solid if one exists
4.175 Bore Diamond Flat Top Pistons ~11.7:1 comp.
3.625 Stroke Callies Magnum
6.35 Callies UltraH Rod
LSX Iron Block perhaps LSX NEXT if I can confirm fitment W/oil pan &
Existing headers.
I have an idea for a ram air system which should be worth at least
30+ HP from 100MPH and beyond.
Will try to do NA but will have Nitrous Outlet Plate W/ 150 shot if needed.
I anticipate this event taking about 45 seconds of WOT
And would only use N20 top of 3rd, 4th, and 5th if needed.
I need 6700 RPM in 5th W/ .74 and 3.42:1 Rear with 275/35/18 Hoosier R6
To reach ~ 203MPH w/out tire growth.
That's about my limit for tonight I'm sure I've exceeded a recommended
Post length more to follow
Dan

mebuildit

Wow, sounds like a plan. Just a quick note though, Blue cars are a little slower than the white ones. Just kidding, looking forward to some pictures. Good luck with your project.

NAVYBLUE210

Thanks for your reply mebuildit,I have been formulating this plan for quite
A while including the finances LOL. My home office is packed with parts and none of them engine yet. Tony is working on the Heads & Intake and I
Hope to have flow #s next week.
I have the clutch, RPS twin- disc, billet-carbon with lightening holes around the perimeter with steel flywheel (24 lbs lighter then stock).
The transmission gears and ring&pinion are packed to go to Atlanta for
REM polish the trans will be assembled local by a good friend of mine
With billet keys and other upgrades.
The rear is a 3 rib Z06 core which will be assembled by Rich Willhoff's
Team at Abel Chevrolet in Rio Vista CA, Hands Down the best Dealer
Service in Nor Cal! Along with the Rem polish ring and pinion is an
Eaton Diff from ECS which is 6lbs lighter then stock, the remaining parts
Are C6 Z06 upgrades shafts and such.
The intent is to reduce reciprocating mass and frictional losses.
Goal is to reduce driveline losses from crank to wheels under 75 HP!
The trans and diff will supported with the ECS Brace, and supported
By the Pfadt transmission mount/brace any suggestions or experience
To reduce NVH would be greatly appreciated!
Plan to have driveline and suspension installed by end of August,
Mid September.
Tomorrow Suspension.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

I think you need more RPM to do this N/A.

That will need a different intake manifold and possibly a different route with the cylidner heads.

I wouldn't use an off the shelf one size fits all head on this deal. 200+mph N/A is a serious attempt. Engine will have to accelerate hard and carry power.

JakeFusion

iTrader: (7)

I'd go 427 at least, Chris Frank ported LS7 heads or his ported TFS LS3 castings, Solid Roller Cam from Cam Motion, Isky, or Bullet with Jesel Pro Rockers and Morel Ultra Pro Lifters... 3/8 or 7/16" pushrods, and a Super Vic intake with 2" headers. Would fly NA. Would be well over 650rwhp maybe even sniff 700rwhp.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

He needs bore area so that enough valve area can be utilized to feed the engine the airflow it needs. He has that.

I wouldn't use the TFS castings in this combination. I also prefer the Crower rockers over Jesel.

I'd also go with a stepped header instead of a 2" straight tube.

NAVYBLUE210

Martin & Jake thank you for posting in my thread. I really appreciate all
That I have learned from your generous contributions over the years!
Martin I spoke with you briefly Thursday afternoon about 12:30
Pacific time to jog your memory. I will return the spec sheet you sent me by
Tuesday next week.
Regarding cylinder heads I am expecting 390 CFM @ .600 intake and hoping
For 260+ CFM @ .600 exhaust Flowed on a 4.155 bore ( my bore will be at
Least 4.175 possibly 4.195) and need an intake to fit under the hood
Of a C5. I have already committed to Tony Mamo for these heads and
Intake and have every confidence in his abilities. If 575 @ the wheels is not
Enough I will use a 150 shot. With an extra 1/2 mile over the Texas Mile
I will have about 8 seconds to go from approx 185-201MPH.
Shifting from 4th-5th @ 7000rpm puts me at ~5200 rpm ~160 MPH around
5/8 mile with 7/8 mile and 1500 rpm to reach my goal.
I chose the stock stroke to utilize a 6.35 inch long rod to reduce piston
Speed and friction.
My existing exhaust is ARH 1 7/8 long tubes with a high flow catted X
Pipe which reduces from 3 thru the X then cats before reducing to 2 1/2 at
A Borla merge muffler in the tunnel before becoming Stingers with
Twin outlets. 3 mufflers total has reduced the infamous drone some what
To 1400-1600 rpm.
I realize LS7 style heads with intake and solid roller W/ Jessel would have
Added 75 + hp and made reaching 201 w/out nitrous much easier but
With money and time in finite supply had to draw the lines somewhere,
(about 7 yrs and probably $30K on top of the original purchase price
When all is said and done. LOL)
Definitely going high end lifters and push-rods, to be determined.

"MAC"

iTrader: (1)

Why wouldn't his fast 102mm work for his goal?

NAVYBLUE210

I believe the Fast 102 matched and ported to the heads will peak at 6800-7000 rpm and still carry another 200 rpm or so before starting to tail off, vs the cathedrals which peak around 6500 rpm based on several
Of Tonys previous builds. The Fast LS3 has slightly shorter and straighter
Runners with larger cross-section that flow ~ 370 CFM ported vs 320-330 CFM for the cathedrals. Off course the cam design is critical and will probably
Need at least 8-12 more degrees of exhaust duration due to 70% exhaust
To intake flow ratio at .600 although, .300-.500 should be 75%+
Hope to have flow #s from Tony by the end of next week.

NAVYBLUE210

My suspension currently has C6 Z51 sway bars and C5Z06 springs and
Will add C6 Z06 shocks ( coil-overs would be ideal if I can score a good
Deal perhaps used ) also have the heavy duty reinforcing tunnel plate.
Also have all new Pfadt bushings to replace original. Blue currently
Has 149K miles. I have tried to plan the work and installs in stages so
That I do not re-do labor ie clutch,trans diff & suspension all at the
Same time will also allow break-in of components before the new
Engine is installed. Also plan to have original trans dif and then
Long block to sell to offset a small portion of cost.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

With the C6ZO6's, we were needing approximately 600whp to reach 180-188MPH at the TX Mile, with the weather being a tremendous factor. A 200 shot of nitrous would get the car to 200-210MPH in the Mile. Personally, I'd never recommend nitrous for an application like this but it's cheap, effective, and relatively simple given you have a VERY good tuner.

gnx7

iTrader: (28)

Lower the car, remove mirrors, and run narrow front tires. That's an overlooked area.

Remember actual DA is different than the altitude listed. When we went it was around 4000ft. It gets hot quickly once the morning runs go by.

NAVYBLUE210

KCS Thank you for that data Pt. I am shooting for 575rwhp on the Dyno.
I am confident my Ram-Air set-up utilizing the license plate area will
Add at least 30 perhaps as much as 45 HP from 100 MPH all
The way through 201. I have had this idea in my head for over 7 years
Since I first purchased the car and have seen it executed on Joe Dedona's
C5Z06 Blower car featured on the cover of GMHTP August 2013.
Vara-Ram was the first mod I added to my car and I noticed a significant
Improvement from 60-160 car also traps 112 with a poor 2.1 60'
Due mainly to driver skill (or lack thereof lol) along with serious wheel-hop
Due to original bushings ( 15 yrs & ~150K miles) and 6 yr old Michelin
Pilot sports. Other mods include Tony Mamo ported 92 Fast & LS2 TB
Previously mentioned exhaust and a tune ( 361 rwhp & 368lb' )
License plate area is more then both ducts of the Vara-Ram and construction
Will have to be stout for 200+ MPH.
Weather at Mohave will be crucial as well. Elevation is ~2000 ft and in
October it can be 60 degrees @ 10:00 AM OR 90 degrees @ 2:00 PM.
Winds could also be tricky, afternoon especially.
Matt owner of GP Tuning one of the best tuners in Nor Cal will be doing
The tuning.
Joes c5 is the same color as mine by the way mebuildit.

NAVYBLUE210

GNX thanks for your suggestions, I forgot about the mirrors, car will be
Lowered to the Pt. Of still safe suspension travel even though concrete runway is very
Smooth. Car will be trailered to event 350+ miles to low to drive with
Carbon-Fiber front splitter on streets/highway. Front tires 245/40/17
Hoosier R6, Rear 275/35/18 R6 on factory optional Magnesium Rims.
Rears tires are 8lbs lighter each then Toyo 305/35/18 R888 and Mag
Rims are 1-1-1/2 lbs lighter then OEM Z06 rims (not chromed).
Slightly shorter tires will drop ~3/8" in height and change effective
Rear gear from 3.42 ~ 3.55.
GNX you are local to me I live in Montara CA and am in The City
4-6 days a week, would like to take you to lunch and benefit from
Your experience running Mohave. We have actually spoken once before
Concerning buying/selling T56 parts.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

What headers are you going to use? What size diameter? As you mentioned, power from about 4800-7400 is going to be most important in the combination I feel.

This will take a cam with more than 8-12 degrees duration split and exhaust events that favor higher rpm cylinder evacuation. If I can hang the torque curve far enough on this one, 575rwhp should be no issue.

The three mufflers worry me, especially at higher RPM's. At lower RPM's exhaust back pressure from restriction normally isn't much if any issue, but once torque peaks and VE starts to fall any restriction on the intake or exhaust side will rear its head quickly.

I like the 3/8" push rod idea although you'll need to do a tapered design for clearance. Tony could enlarge the passages no problem as I've had TEA do this on those heads before for 7/16" push rods. I prefer a Manton 3/8" tapered 5/16" in a .140 wall out of the 3 series line with a Morel 5206 for your purposes.

A solid roller is still not off the tables even with the Fast intake. It will make more hp and especially torque versus the hydraulic. Better valve control as well. Doesn't need a ton of spring pressure either. With the right lobes open pressure wouldn't need to be higher than 525-550ish with seat pressure around 200-225. Crower makes a really nice shaft mount for those TFS Gen X LS3 heads as well.

NAVYBLUE210

Martin the headers are ARH 1 7/8 LT the 1st muffler is actually a Borla
XR1 racing merge box in the tunnel a little ways after the X, think of it
More of a second merge, with conventional stingers at the back this was an attempt to tame down the drone which it has a little bit. If I see a bigger
Drop then 75HP between crank Dyno and wheel Dyno I will take out the
XR1 merge box and retest.
Thank you again for your suggestions I will complete your data sheet
By Tuesday, I plan to have all the engine parts by the end of November
So still have a little time, at this point I am still leaning towards
Running a Hydraulic Roller.But I will check out the Crower Shaft Mount
RR.

mebuildit

Also, another thing to check into is utilizing ceramic bearings where ever you can. Tapered bearings are HP hogs. I know guys that race and install ceramic bearings just in the rear and pick up. Look for any rolling resistance.

"MAC"

iTrader: (1)

Try using lighter wheels and do the hio mod with drilling holes where you can also less rotational weight the better

NAVYBLUE210

Mebuildit
Thank you for your suggestions concerning ceramic bearings. I plan
To use coated bearings in the engine, as well as rem polished gears
In the trans and ring & pinion in the diff. I am not familiar with
Ceramic bearings for the rear but am very interested if you could send
Me a link or direct me where to look that would be cool and much
Appreciated.
Thank You!

"MAC"
As noted in post #14 I am running with optional Magnesium Rims which are
About the lightest wheels available w/out going to Carbon Fiber ~
which I think are at least $6K a set if not $8K or more.
The. Front rims are 17-17.5 lbs @,1 1/2 - 2 lbs lighter each then OEM C5Z06
The rears are are 19.5 lbs@ again 1 1/2- 2lbs lighter each then OEM C5Z06.
The Hoosier R6 Tires in previously mentioned post are 9lbs lighter each in the
Rear and most of that weight is in the tread at the radius.
22 lbs reduction in rear wheel/tire weight is significant! the reduction of
Approx 18lbs of that at the radius and moving it 1/2" toward the center helps
A little also. I don't think I feel comfortable drilling the rims!
Thank You for the suggestions keep them coming!

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Guys,

Thought I would chime in here quickly

Let me start by saying I have known Dan quite awhile....we met at an AETC conference about 5-6 years ago. While committed to his goal as much as the next guy, having been friends with Dan the last few years its my opinion he would rather have a car more comfortable and fun to drive when the smoke clears, even if it means missing his 201 target by a few. And Dan feel free to correct me because I think that qualifying that statement helps others to know what your trying to achieve in the overall package/combination. Especially considering you have already disclosed your not adverse to a little bit of laughing gas which really goes a long way. Makes me a little nervous on a long WOT run but there wouldn't be alot required to help you achieve your bogey. In fact I would use very little to keep things super safe. A 75 shot adds 125 ft/lbs and close to or more than the 75 HP it claims with a good cylinder head....at least that's been my experience. That's all he would need to cinch the deal.

KCS....I caught your quick post which was informative.....wouldn't a car that can go 185 ish in the mile get close to or break 200 with another half of mile of runway? His goal isn't the mile.....he has a little more run off to achieve it....I'm thinking you may have thought he was shooting for that terminal velocity in the standing mile.

Also....I have been pleading with Dan for....ohh.....two years or so to build a larger motor. IMO, the same bore (give or take) with a 4" stroke in a long sleeve Darton block would be the ticket for Dan....you get the long sleeves to properly support the piston skirt at BDC and all is good in the world. With good heads and the right cam it would still make peak power around 66-6700 and carry well (not roll over quickly) to 7200. IMO building the large mill correctly would enable it to make more peak power and there would be no comparison of the two if you were to plot average power/TQ from say 4500 - 7000.....the area under the curve gains from the big bump in displacement would be tremendous. If it were me I would build a 4.185 bore X 4" stroke.....basically a 440 CID mill vs the much smaller 397 he is considering. Hitting that 575 target is no small feat and much more easily attained with a larger engine that will make right about 60 ft/lbs more peak (that's a significant #). This is a long WOT pull and that extra grunt after every gear change would be paying him dividends.....not to mention an LS3 head's cross sectional area would eat up the cubes anyway and cammed properly it would make the same or more power 300 RPM's earlier and still carry well....at least at the RPM's we are discussing.

While I have the podium I will also say I strongly recommended that Dan run a high quality lightweight dual spring with this combination but for reasons that I don't truly understand he is intent on running a single beehive and I'm just not that warm and fuzzy about a single spring in this type of semi endurance application with a cam profile that's reasonably aggressive and a valve that is still over 105 grams (the TFS valve is a large diameter valve and about .100 longer than a conventional LS valve). The reality is the correct dual spring would provide the seat pressure and spring rate more recommended for this type of extended RPM and cam profile aggressiveness and it wont cause any harmonics or negative issues concerning power output.....it just adds measurably to the combination's level of reliability. Not knowing of a single downside with a properly chosen dual the question I cant seem to shake is WHY take the risk?? I dont care if Kate Middleton blesses Dan's beehive after it comes out of the cryo/REM process....its borderline on controlling a valve this heavy at that extended RPM and anything can break.....in the case of a single it just cost you an engine.....a dual you have a far better chance of realizing something is wrong and coasting the car to the side of the road to investigate. I wouldn't want to lose an engine at close to 200 MPH either and if the valve drops into the cylinder at 6800 your going to have a huge shrapnel mess on your hands a few milliseconds later, a windowed block/pan....oil fire perhaps or worse...all these distinct possibilities if an engine like this gives up the ghost at high RPM WOT.....I've seen it in a dyno cell and its not pretty and it happens in the blink of an eye.

Perhaps if a few of you also agree with some of my sentiment and concerns he might just alter the course of the spring selection cause nothing is in stone yet (including the displacement) which while I'm convinced bigger is better in most max effort N/A applications, its not as much of a safety issue as a failed single spring at big RPM. I have a harder time with the valve springs than the displacement suggestion but feel strongly both are not in his best interest in helping him reliably achieve his goals. If some of you feel differently by all means voice those opinions as that is the nature of what makes this place a fun and educational place to hang out.

Let me touch bases on the heads quickly....the "cornerstone" of the airflow portion of this build. I have taken a set of TFS LS3 heads and Mamofied them much like I do the AFR castings from time to time.....just making them more efficient than the more brutish approach of going in and removing a bunch of material looking for gains in peak flow from a larger port which effects other aspects of the flow curve and the power curve. Personally I have had huge success with high flow/high airspeed port designs and this tweaked head certainly qualifies. When I'm done they will flow around 390-395 CFM and about 260 on the exhaust with solid low and mid-lift numbers as well....at less than 260 cc's that's getting it done. I have done quite a few of these for the V2 CTS-V crowd already and they work very well. Its more than enough air to achieve even 600 RWHP if the combination was aggressive enough. Another argument for more displacement is knowing once again that Dan isn't looking for a race car after he gets home from the desert....he wants to keep the camshaft a tad on the conservative side for the driving aspect of things and big motors will swallow alot more cam alot more gracefully than a smaller engine allowing the heads and displacement to really bump the numbers at most of the usable RPM curve Dan is concerned with.

At the end of the day, no matter what direction Dan decides to go on a few of the variables still up for discussion, its going to be an extremely cool project. And make no mistake about the fact that I understand everyone has to do things their own way.....my job is to guide and advise as best I can. I'm excited to be involved and looking forward to the dyno and ultimately the run across the desert.....I can personally attest to the fact that its been a long time coming and I wish Dan all the best with it in spite of the few differences of opinion we encountered.



Cheers,
Tony