LS7 ETP 4" results?
08-30-2007, 01:14 PM
#2
Yea, your right. I have been wondering about them here lately as well. I have a Camaro I am putting an LS2 into and I have searched as well and not found any information on them. The LS7 intake is cheaper than a Fast 90 as well so you could save a little $$$ and that is always good. Anyone have any good information on these things?
08-30-2007, 05:44 PM
#3
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Morton IL
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i too would like to see some info. i'm getting ready to get a new motor and was going to go with these, but the lack of info, plus the great (!!!) results of the tfs heads has me 2nd guessing the ls7 route.
08-30-2007, 06:17 PM
#4
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here is an email i got from carey at etp:
Matt,
Yes I do,
I run them on my street car. I made 640 at the flywheel with a mid 230's hyd. roller, stock ls7 rocker arms on a 11.3 : 1 pump gas, iron 402 with a factory LS7 manifold. We made 580 ft. lbs of torque.
pretty good number from a mild combo.
Matt,
Yes I do,
I run them on my street car. I made 640 at the flywheel with a mid 230's hyd. roller, stock ls7 rocker arms on a 11.3 : 1 pump gas, iron 402 with a factory LS7 manifold. We made 580 ft. lbs of torque.
pretty good number from a mild combo.
08-30-2007, 06:22 PM
#5
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay area, ca.
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Greg Fell
i too would like to see some info. i'm getting ready to get a new motor and was going to go with these, but the lack of info, plus the great (!!!) results of the tfs heads has me 2nd guessing the ls7 route.
Carey chimed in and said the biggest plus is that you can use aftermarket rockers. They have also done some minor work to the intake ports and some to the exhaust ports awell. I dont see the justification, i'd rather run stock sl7 heads. I wouldnt mind seeing some comparrisons side by side though.
I have a friend getting a 427 built with ETP ls7 heads... i'll post up his results when it's done. Theyre still waiting on the heads...
08-30-2007, 06:25 PM
#6
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the trick with these heads is not designing a camshaft that is based on anything you think you know about DCR. Also don't put a 7000rpm head on a 6100 rpm combo. If your going to run a ls7 head then intend on building a higher rpm motor then a comparable catherdral port at say 400ci.
08-30-2007, 08:30 PM
#7
Collections Hold
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: howell mi
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etp ls7
Originally Posted by LS1curious
the trick with these heads is not designing a camshaft that is based on anything you think you know about DCR. Also don't put a 7000rpm head on a 6100 rpm combo. If your going to run a ls7 head then intend on building a higher rpm motor then a comparable catherdral port at say 400ci.
your right on there,
I made peak hp at 6800 rpm, it carried out to 7300 and only lost about 14 hp. It was a 4 inch stroke, 4 inch bore. 114 lsa. It is not the best head to run on a small engine, I don't think the head is too big, but the manifold was designed for a larger displacement engine and will give up a bit of torque on a smaller engine (6 litre). that is why we designed our l92 style head, the manifold makes better power and torque at a lower rpm, but still has some "****" up top on the smaller engines.
Trending Topics
08-31-2007, 12:26 AM
#8
Originally Posted by cary et performance
your right on there,
I made peak hp at 6800 rpm, it carried out to 7300 and only lost about 14 hp. It was a 4 inch stroke, 4 inch bore. 114 lsa. It is not the best head to run on a small engine, I don't think the head is too big, but the manifold was designed for a larger displacement engine and will give up a bit of torque on a smaller engine (6 litre). that is why we designed our l92 style head, the manifold makes better power and torque at a lower rpm, but still has some "****" up top on the smaller engines.
I made peak hp at 6800 rpm, it carried out to 7300 and only lost about 14 hp. It was a 4 inch stroke, 4 inch bore. 114 lsa. It is not the best head to run on a small engine, I don't think the head is too big, but the manifold was designed for a larger displacement engine and will give up a bit of torque on a smaller engine (6 litre). that is why we designed our l92 style head, the manifold makes better power and torque at a lower rpm, but still has some "****" up top on the smaller engines.
08-31-2007, 01:14 AM
#9
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kingsize
Thanks for all your info on the phone today Cary! I will call you in a month or so about the L92's when they are finished with development!
08-31-2007, 02:00 AM
#10
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MatthewJon
What's the lowdown on the L92's?
in standard form out of the box from gm- some of people are saying they were well done by gm-
with more out of them by porting or cleaning it up a bit for a bit more gains-
i am only saying what i have seen on the net-
08-31-2007, 07:09 AM
#11
Originally Posted by njc.corp
in standard form out of the box from gm- some of people are saying they were well done by gm-
with more out of them by porting or cleaning it up a bit for a bit more gains-
i am only saying what i have seen on the net-
with more out of them by porting or cleaning it up a bit for a bit more gains-
i am only saying what i have seen on the net-
08-31-2007, 06:52 PM
#12
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kingsize
These are not a GM L92 Casting. They are ET's own casting. I'll let one of the ET guys chime in here if they want to spill the beans. All I am gonna say is I am gettin some!
i did not know that-
sorry for the info-
08-31-2007, 06:55 PM
#13
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen a a protype, these ET l92's are gonna kick some serious ***.I won't even talk about the flow numbers they are just sick.
Originally Posted by Kingsize
These are not a GM L92 Casting. They are ET's own casting. I'll let one of the ET guys chime in here if they want to spill the beans. All I am gonna say is I am gettin some!
09-01-2007, 09:05 AM
#14
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cary et performance
your right on there,
I made peak hp at 6800 rpm, it carried out to 7300 and only lost about 14 hp. It was a 4 inch stroke, 4 inch bore. 114 lsa. It is not the best head to run on a small engine, I don't think the head is too big, but the manifold was designed for a larger displacement engine and will give up a bit of torque on a smaller engine (6 litre). that is why we designed our l92 style head, the manifold makes better power and torque at a lower rpm, but still has some "****" up top on the smaller engines.
I made peak hp at 6800 rpm, it carried out to 7300 and only lost about 14 hp. It was a 4 inch stroke, 4 inch bore. 114 lsa. It is not the best head to run on a small engine, I don't think the head is too big, but the manifold was designed for a larger displacement engine and will give up a bit of torque on a smaller engine (6 litre). that is why we designed our l92 style head, the manifold makes better power and torque at a lower rpm, but still has some "****" up top on the smaller engines.
I hear that it takes a very very long time to get heads from ETP like LS7 or
any other LSX heads, how is it now?
09-08-2007, 06:44 PM
#15
Originally Posted by cary et performance
your right on there,
I made peak hp at 6800 rpm, it carried out to 7300 and only lost about 14 hp. It was a 4 inch stroke, 4 inch bore. 114 lsa. It is not the best head to run on a small engine, I don't think the head is too big, but the manifold was designed for a larger displacement engine and will give up a bit of torque on a smaller engine (6 litre). that is why we designed our l92 style head, the manifold makes better power and torque at a lower rpm, but still has some "****" up top on the smaller engines.
I made peak hp at 6800 rpm, it carried out to 7300 and only lost about 14 hp. It was a 4 inch stroke, 4 inch bore. 114 lsa. It is not the best head to run on a small engine, I don't think the head is too big, but the manifold was designed for a larger displacement engine and will give up a bit of torque on a smaller engine (6 litre). that is why we designed our l92 style head, the manifold makes better power and torque at a lower rpm, but still has some "****" up top on the smaller engines.
