**Update on missing 50rwhp or so with G5X3 cam, stg 2 TEA heads, all bolt ons**
#1
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**Update on missing 50rwhp or so with G5X3 cam, stg 2 TEA heads, all bolt ons**
First off a big thanks to Louis of LG motorsports for helping me troubleshoot my problems. He's spent a lot of time with me on this during his crazy schedule, and it's much appreciated.
The original thread with my initial progress can be found here:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iii-internal-engine/146431-please-help-missing-over-50rwhp-after-g5x3-lsx-intake-install-dyno-graph-inside.html
I just redynoed after a few changes and came up with exactly the same #'s as before for the most part. The changes included getting rid of the YT rockers/shims/different length pushrods (7.4 intake/7.35 exhaust), and going with all 7.35 pushrods and stock rockers.
Well, it looks like the YT rockers caused no valvefloat with the G5X3 cam and Crane 832 dual springs, as the power is identical up top with stock rockers vs. YT rockers. Since I'm not experiencing any valvefloat, the YT rockers will likely go back on.
Tested the MAF weatherpack plug by going into speed density mode (via pulling the MAF plug) to see if I had a bad weather pack. The #'s in speed density mode were much worse than with the MAF plugged in.
I'm now down to 3 possible options.
Option 1: The cylinder heads got a valve job on the valve seats by a local machine shop while they were replacing my 7 bent valves (2 intake 5 exhaust). It's possible the airflow could have been severly disrupted by this process. My cylinder heads are going back to TEA in the coming weeks for testing with and without the LSX manifold in place. If they aren't fixable, I will be sporting a brand new set of Stg. 2.5 LS6 Massengale Series heads with a 2.055 intake/1.6 exhaust and the special nitrous port (since the nitrous port makes more power under the curve) and hand finishing to competition level. This is the option I will be exhausting first. If I only pick up say 15rwhp or so, I know something is still wrong.
Option 2: Cam is one tooth off. If it was one tooth off, that could explain the huge dropoff in power down low compared to up top (I'm down at least 70rwtq down low). If the cam was one tooth off giving me more advance, I'd have destroyed my engine by now. If the cam was one tooth off giving more retard to the cam, then my p/v would be fine, but I'd be way down on power. However, if my cam was retarded too much, then my cam wouldn't be peaking at 6200rpms like it is now...and 6200rpms is lower than where it should peak.
Option 3: Cam was misground by Comp. Cams. If options 1 and 2 yield no results, I will be swapping in another G5X3 112LSA cam to see if that fixes anything. It's very rare this is an issue, but it has happened before.
Hopefully one of these options will yield the desired results. I should know for sure in the coming months.
The original thread with my initial progress can be found here:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iii-internal-engine/146431-please-help-missing-over-50rwhp-after-g5x3-lsx-intake-install-dyno-graph-inside.html
I just redynoed after a few changes and came up with exactly the same #'s as before for the most part. The changes included getting rid of the YT rockers/shims/different length pushrods (7.4 intake/7.35 exhaust), and going with all 7.35 pushrods and stock rockers.
Well, it looks like the YT rockers caused no valvefloat with the G5X3 cam and Crane 832 dual springs, as the power is identical up top with stock rockers vs. YT rockers. Since I'm not experiencing any valvefloat, the YT rockers will likely go back on.
Tested the MAF weatherpack plug by going into speed density mode (via pulling the MAF plug) to see if I had a bad weather pack. The #'s in speed density mode were much worse than with the MAF plugged in.
I'm now down to 3 possible options.
Option 1: The cylinder heads got a valve job on the valve seats by a local machine shop while they were replacing my 7 bent valves (2 intake 5 exhaust). It's possible the airflow could have been severly disrupted by this process. My cylinder heads are going back to TEA in the coming weeks for testing with and without the LSX manifold in place. If they aren't fixable, I will be sporting a brand new set of Stg. 2.5 LS6 Massengale Series heads with a 2.055 intake/1.6 exhaust and the special nitrous port (since the nitrous port makes more power under the curve) and hand finishing to competition level. This is the option I will be exhausting first. If I only pick up say 15rwhp or so, I know something is still wrong.
Option 2: Cam is one tooth off. If it was one tooth off, that could explain the huge dropoff in power down low compared to up top (I'm down at least 70rwtq down low). If the cam was one tooth off giving me more advance, I'd have destroyed my engine by now. If the cam was one tooth off giving more retard to the cam, then my p/v would be fine, but I'd be way down on power. However, if my cam was retarded too much, then my cam wouldn't be peaking at 6200rpms like it is now...and 6200rpms is lower than where it should peak.
Option 3: Cam was misground by Comp. Cams. If options 1 and 2 yield no results, I will be swapping in another G5X3 112LSA cam to see if that fixes anything. It's very rare this is an issue, but it has happened before.
Hopefully one of these options will yield the desired results. I should know for sure in the coming months.
Last edited by verbs; 03-25-2004 at 01:33 PM.
#3
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Option 2: Cam is one tooth off. If it was one tooth off, that could explain the huge dropoff in power down low compared to up top (I'm down at least 70rwtq down low). If the cam was one tooth off giving me more advance, I'd have destroyed my engine by now. If the cam was one tooth off giving more retard to the cam, then my p/v would be fine, but I'd be way down on power.
Option 3: Cam was misground by Comp. Cams. If options 1 and 2 yield no results, I will be swapping in another G5X3 112LSA cam to see if that fixes anything. It's very rare this is an issue, but it has happened before.
#4
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DenzSS
Who installed the cam? Did they use a degree wheel? Not too long ago I saw a cam installed 8* advanced even though it had 4* advance ground into the cam. Talk about making no real power. Looked good on the dyno, but was absolute crap in the real world.
I agree. Possible, but HIGHLY unlikely.
I agree. Possible, but HIGHLY unlikely.
Last edited by verbs; 03-25-2004 at 01:52 PM.
#6
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DenzSS
Well, then #2 should be off the list.
You are down to bad luck or airflow problems. Tracking these problems down is always a pain.
You are down to bad luck or airflow problems. Tracking these problems down is always a pain.
#7
11 Second Club
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Confederacy
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vote for option #1, I have seen two sets of LS1 heads that had a local NAPA machine shop do their "valve job" on when rebuilding and completely screwed them up. One set was an ex vendor's stage II's and after the valvejob they flowed 250ish, Terry at patriot redid the valvejob on them and they ended up flowing 290, so that is a hell of an increase from just a valve job. I good valve job is KEY to flow.
Trending Topics
#8
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fully in agreement there. Plus, one tooth is a hell of a lot of retard.
IMO, if you're expecting 480rwhp, that probably isn't going to happen. At least not without an incredibly narrow power band.
6200 is way low for a cam that size. Where is the torque peak?
Did you ever post a dyno graph?
IMO, if you're expecting 480rwhp, that probably isn't going to happen. At least not without an incredibly narrow power band.
6200 is way low for a cam that size. Where is the torque peak?
Did you ever post a dyno graph?
#11
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DenzSS
fully in agreement there. Plus, one tooth is a hell of a lot of retard.
IMO, if you're expecting 480rwhp, that probably isn't going to happen. At least not without an incredibly narrow power band.
6200 is way low for a cam that size. Where is the torque peak?
Did you ever post a dyno graph?
IMO, if you're expecting 480rwhp, that probably isn't going to happen. At least not without an incredibly narrow power band.
6200 is way low for a cam that size. Where is the torque peak?
Did you ever post a dyno graph?
As far as 480rwhp, no I'm not expecting that, but I was realistically hoping for 460rwhp with all the new mods, and if I go to LS6 heads I would hope to see 470rwhp.
#12
TECH Resident
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good luck to you. my guess would be that the heads arn't flowing properly due to the valve job. didn't you also say that they only did a valve job on the seats with the bent valves? this could make each port flow different which would not be good for power. best of luck to you, i hope you can get it figured out
#13
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Gomer and I tend to agree again. I think the valve job was messed up when the heads were "fixed". The valve job either makes or breaks any set of heads.
Has a leak down test been done to make sure everything is sealing up as it should with the motor? You may have posted this, I dont recall.
Has a leak down test been done to make sure everything is sealing up as it should with the motor? You may have posted this, I dont recall.
#14
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn, after looking at that graph I'd be more worried about your torque. You basically don't have any. I still wouldn't expect even 460 realistically, but you definitely do have some major issues.
I would take a look at your tuning first, then dig into the heads. It looks like you're hitting some pretty good KR on one of those graphs. Each point of KR can kill up to 10rwtq, so it can eat it up quick.
What kind of timing are you running?
I would take a look at your tuning first, then dig into the heads. It looks like you're hitting some pretty good KR on one of those graphs. Each point of KR can kill up to 10rwtq, so it can eat it up quick.
What kind of timing are you running?
#15
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KGSloan
good luck to you. my guess would be that the heads arn't flowing properly due to the valve job. didn't you also say that they only did a valve job on the seats with the bent valves? this could make each port flow different which would not be good for power. best of luck to you, i hope you can get it figured out
Originally Posted by 99 Black Bird T/A
Gomer and I tend to agree again. I think the valve job was messed up when the heads were "fixed". The valve job either makes or breaks any set of heads.
Has a leak down test been done to make sure everything is sealing up as it should with the motor? You may have posted this, I dont recall.
Has a leak down test been done to make sure everything is sealing up as it should with the motor? You may have posted this, I dont recall.
#16
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DenzSS
Damn, after looking at that graph I'd be more worried about your torque. You basically don't have any. I still wouldn't expect even 460 realistically, but you definitely do have some major issues.
I would take a look at your tuning first, then dig into the heads. It looks like you're hitting some pretty good KR on one of those graphs. Each point of KR can kill up to 10rwtq, so it can eat it up quick.
What kind of timing are you running?
I would take a look at your tuning first, then dig into the heads. It looks like you're hitting some pretty good KR on one of those graphs. Each point of KR can kill up to 10rwtq, so it can eat it up quick.
What kind of timing are you running?
#18
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wavy grapg isn't that unusual. Depending on the wires used and the rest of your mods, that can be pretty normal. Basically it is just a not-so-good tach lead.
The two dips on run 14 are likely detonation. You can detonate pretty easily and pick up no KR.
I'd make a bet that your tuning isn't dead-on.
The two dips on run 14 are likely detonation. You can detonate pretty easily and pick up no KR.
I'd make a bet that your tuning isn't dead-on.
#20
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DenzSS
The wavy grapg isn't that unusual. Depending on the wires used and the rest of your mods, that can be pretty normal. Basically it is just a not-so-good tach lead.
The two dips on run 14 are likely detonation. You can detonate pretty easily and pick up no KR.
I'd make a bet that your tuning isn't dead-on.
The two dips on run 14 are likely detonation. You can detonate pretty easily and pick up no KR.
I'd make a bet that your tuning isn't dead-on.