Dynamometer Results & Comparisons - My mamofied build results

Finally got my car finished up tonight! A HUGE thank you to Tony Mamo from AFR for all of his help! He put a lot of time in this setup for me. So here it is:

Stock CI LS1
AFR 230's mamofied
custom 235/238 cam
FAST 102 intake mamofied
TSP 1 7/8 headers
4k stall
FAST 36 lb injectors
Yella Terra Rockers

Cincy Speed tuned it for me.

Max power: 442 hp
Max Torque: 390

I cant get the graph to upload for some reason. Just as soon as I can i will post it.

Solid numbers....cant wait to see the graph!

Here is the Graph

Great numbers. No way in hell being over 4500ft above sea level, our cars would see that on a stock LS1. But I do have a question? Why does the air/fuel seem to lean then richen up and then lean throughout the pull? Just curious is all. Again, great numbers. I think for an N/A you would want around 12.8 or so? Seems like around 3500RPM and 4500 it hits 13.8-14.0 ...stoich. There's guys in my area barely netting 360rwhp with good cam and heads, so good job there.

Why no tq? Numbers seem low to me. I would've thought you would be well over 400 on tq.

I'm sure your happy with it,nice to see it still making TQ above 5K rpm overall I was expecting to see higher numbers.

This looks like an unlocked converter. That stall will eat numbers regardless, let us know what happens at the track!

The Converter looks locked to me

Congrats on the setup. Looks like it will run really strong

That'sh really good numbers with that 4k stall!!! In for track results

Check out the video of the pull on cincyspeed.com It is titled Joels 4th gen.

Guys,

Thought I would chime in quickly.

Joel had mentioned to me the guys over at Cincy speed mentioned to him that their dyno was on the stingy side and cars that have rolled on other dyno's have rolled less power on their dyno so I decided to call and speak to their operator who works on that dyno (and tuned Joel's car).

I know what your all thinking.....LOL.....they ALL say that, but the reality is some dyno's are stingy....and some aren't and that's the problem with bench racing dyno sheets. The best scenario is a "before" baseline on the same dyno to really learn anything or at the very least a known history of cars that you know produced "X" (and they type of mods associated with that power) but it is what it is and ultimately trap speeds will tell the tale assuming the car is reasonably dialed in.

I asked Joel if he had ever run the car (and what he trapped at the time) and he mentioned low/mid thirteens at 101 MPH.

Anyway, back on topic....so the guy I really needed to speak with was out but I did take the opportunity to ask the guy I was speaking to what some of the typical stock stuff puts out there and he mentioned they have tested a few stock LS3 vehicles that ranged from 317 to 346 RWHP. I don't have details and I would want to verify those figures with the guy that normally runs the dyno but if that is the case this dyno is in fact a bit on the stingy side because M6 LS3 cars usually spit out 375-385 RWHP....350-360 for the A6 versions.

I know Joel will be hitting the track soon but will be doing so with stock suspension on Nitto radials so I'm not expecting to see all this combo is capable of but we should certainly get a better idea. I suspect he will be spinning for a good bit trying to get out of the hole, especially with the higher stall speed and minimal tire capabilities. Even a set of ET streets properly heated and aired down would make a huge difference obviously and are certainly needed at this type of power level with a 4K stall.

I will report back with more accurate info concerning the dyno when I have it and hopefully Joel has some trap speeds to compare to his stock baseline figures in the next couple of weeks.

I am also trying to inquire about the top of the dyno curve.....it should have peaked later than it did and I'm not sure whether there is valve control issues up top or possibly some knock retard but there is more in this combo in peak power if the top of the curve can be sorted out (note its barely off its current peak even as far out at 7K but the middle of the power arc where a 66-6700 peak should have been is kind of missing). Either way I'm sure the car is going to run hard and I know Joel is thrilled with how it feels based on a few emails we have shared lately.

:chug:

Cheers,
Tony

PS....Regarding valve control and knowing we were building a recipe for good upper RPM power, I did push Joel to hit all the details in the set-up to try and avoid (or minimize) valve control issues with the hyd. roller. We installed lighter weight intake valves, I set the spring up tighter for more seat pressure and less room for oscillation and unwanted harmonics, went with proven lightweight rockers (Yella Terra Ultralites), we have a limited travel lifters and stout pushrods. Now granted I didn't actually do the install but all the right parts are in place for the accurate valve motion necessary to make good high RPM power and a curve that hangs on well which this obviously does (I'm just confident that with some additional fine tuning and tweaking there is even more in it).

I am sure the dips in the power are from knock as you can see when the tq takes a dive, and its possibly from being lean. You can clearly see the 13.0 dotted line and it crosses it very plain. Not a good idea. I would have them double check that.

Running higher afr to help numbers is never a good idea. Looks like you may need a better fuel pump as it looks it on the top end. If you were to hook up a fuel pressure gauge, I am sure when that thing hit about 6100 you ran out of pressure and the injector DC went pretty high to try and compensate. Get a better fuel pump and you will see even more increase.

I am sure the dips in the power are from knock as you can see when the tq takes a dive, and its possibly from being lean. You can clearly see the 13.0 dotted line and it crosses it very plain. Not a good idea. I would have them double check that.

Running higher afr to help numbers is never a good idea. Looks like you may need a better fuel pump as it looks it on the top end. If you were to hook up a fuel pressure gauge, I am sure when that thing hit about 6100 you ran out of pressure and the injector DC went pretty high to try and compensate. Get a better fuel pump and you will see even more increase.

George Lara (a well respected tuner friend of mine) said it looks it could be knock retard also....the fact you mention the fueling is also interesting and very much worth a look as well. I hope the run was logged....I'm not sure though.

I hit everything on the mechanical side of things to insure good valve control and I do feel some additional time spent tuning could really make this package even more special....its certainly not being fully tapped into yet.

One of the frustrating things for someone in my position who tries his best to insure good results for his clients is that without doing the actual install (and being involved in the sorting out of the tune), there are always things outside of your control that effect the outcome of the project.

Its one of the reasons I always dyno any complete engine I build (on the engine dyno)....you never know how things are going to go when its installed in the customers vehicle, but the engine dyno allows you to see exactly what's what....the right oil pressure curve, the power and torque produced, and the shape of the power and torque curve which in this case isn't quite dialed in yet but showing lots of promise.

-Tony

I know the fueling issue is more than likely the problem, but that lean condition on the graph needs to be addressed also. I would put the racetronix kit in from WS6 store along with the hot wire harness and let it eat!

That would take all the kr out as far as fueling being an issue. Those injectors should have no trouble with this combo then. And it would make alot more power up top instead of just diving down.

There was an older thread where Tony said that 1 7/8 headers were all wrong for the AFR heads and that they would perform better with 1 3/4. My question is,does that only apply to the smaller 205's? Also why use 230's instead of 205's for stock CI motor? Not bashing anyone just curious. Thanks, and sorry for the hijack.

Guys,

Thought I would chime in quickly.

Joel had mentioned to me the guys over at Cincy speed mentioned to him that their dyno was on the stingy side and cars that have rolled on other dyno's have rolled less power on their dyno so I decided to call and speak to their operator who works on that dyno (and tuned Joel's car).

I know what your all thinking.....LOL.....they ALL say that, but the reality is some dyno's are stingy....and some aren't and that's the problem with bench racing dyno sheets. The best scenario is a "before" baseline on the same dyno to really learn anything or at the very least a known history of cars that you know produced "X" (and they type of mods associated with that power) but it is what it is and ultimately trap speeds will tell the tale assuming the car is reasonably dialed in.

I asked Joel if he had ever run the car (and what he trapped at the time) and he mentioned low/mid thirteens at 101 MPH.

Anyway, back on topic....so the guy I really needed to speak with was out but I did take the opportunity to ask the guy I was speaking to what some of the typical stock stuff puts out there and he mentioned they have tested a few stock LS3 vehicles that ranged from 317 to 346 RWHP. I don't have details and I would want to verify those figures with the guy that normally runs the dyno but if that is the case this dyno is in fact a bit on the stingy side because M6 LS3 cars usually spit out 375-385 RWHP....350-360 for the A6 versions.

I know Joel will be hitting the track soon but will be doing so with stock suspension on Nitto radials so I'm not expecting to see all this combo is capable of but we should certainly get a better idea. I suspect he will be spinning for a good bit trying to get out of the hole, especially with the higher stall speed and minimal tire capabilities. Even a set of ET streets properly heated and aired down would make a huge difference obviously and are certainly needed at this type of power level with a 4K stall.

I will report back with more accurate info concerning the dyno when I have it and hopefully Joel has some trap speeds to compare to his stock baseline figures in the next couple of weeks.

I am also trying to inquire about the top of the dyno curve.....it should have peaked later than it did and I'm not sure whether there is valve control issues up top or possibly some knock retard but there is more in this combo in peak power if the top of the curve can be sorted out (note its barely off its current peak even as far out at 7K but the middle of the power arc where a 66-6700 peak should have been is kind of missing). Either way I'm sure the car is going to run hard and I know Joel is thrilled with how it feels based on a few emails we have shared lately.

:chug:

Cheers,
Tony

PS....Regarding valve control and knowing we were building a recipe for good upper RPM power, I did push Joel to hit all the details in the set-up to try and avoid (or minimize) valve control issues with the hyd. roller. We installed lighter weight intake valves, I set the spring up tighter for more seat pressure and less room for oscillation and unwanted harmonics, went with proven lightweight rockers (Yella Terra Ultralites), we have a limited travel lifters and stout pushrods. Now granted I didn't actually do the install but all the right parts are in place for the accurate valve motion necessary to make good high RPM power and a curve that hangs on well which this obviously does (I'm just confident that with some additional fine tuning and tweaking there is even more in it).

I'll have to dig my dyno sheets out but also can verify that their dyno does seem to be on the stingy side. I had a 02 camaro stock bottom H/C/I car originally tuned and dyno'd in indy. car made 506 hp to the wheels on the indy dyno. a month later i took the car to cincy speed and spun it on their rollers. car dyno'd 486 hp to the wheels. no changes were made in the engine combo just some drivability tuning adjustments.

I feel obligated to chime in here...

1) I personally would be VERY wary of questioning the tuner. Tracey Scott is undoubtably one of the top engine tuners in the tri-state area, and the most well known LSX tuner. Tony, I am sure he would be able to answer any question you may have.

2) Cincy Speeds dyno does seem to read 'low' but the bigger point was made, dyno variation is incedibly large not only from city to city, but from dyno to dyno (even on the same type of dyno!) which is why I am bullheaded in saying bench racing dyno numbers is silly, unless you want to compare the cars on the same dyno on the same day just for bragging rights; otherwise there is too much variation. Even a 1-2% difference becomes a substantial number when the overall power/tq is high.

3) Manual stock LS3 cars are NOT reading that low on CS's dyno, i cant speak for autos, but manuals are definitely in the 370-380 range.... Here is some dyno numbers from my car for example:



Red - me
Green - completely stock LS3 c6 corvette
Blue - tune only LS3 corvette (same car)
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c318/Juicedh22/zo6ftw/Dave_Dyno_Pulls_LS3VetteStock.jpg

Red - me
Blue - c6 LS3 with similar cam specs (BooSSt), intake, 1 7/8" headers and full 3" exhaust... (stock heads)
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c318/Juicedh22/zo6ftw/Dave_Dyno_Pulls_G6X3BooSStVette.jpg

Red - me
Green - 2010 Camaro with nearly the same mods as me (G6X3, 2" headers, 3" exhaust, FAST, etc...) - note camaro will have higher drivetrain loss.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c318/Juicedh22/zo6ftw/Dave_Dyno_Pulls_G6X3Camaro.jpg

my setup:
LS3 C5
Trick Flow 235 with 225 sized exhaust port diameter
11.68:1 CR
G6X3
LG 1 3/4 no cats
stock gears
Ported FAST 102
STOCK ls2 TB
UD pulley (ATI 10%/10%)
McCleod RST Twin disk
Mobil1 5W30
93 octane

On a local dynapack dyno (reads higher than dynojet) I made 517/490 corrected

PS....Regarding valve control and knowing we were building a recipe for good upper RPM power, I did push Joel to hit all the details in the set-up to try and avoid (or minimize) valve control issues with the hyd. roller. We installed lighter weight intake valves, I set the spring up tighter for more seat pressure and less room for oscillation and unwanted harmonics, went with proven lightweight rockers (Yella Terra Ultralites), we have a limited travel lifters and stout pushrods.

What's the open pressure on the springs, and which pushrods?
Compression? Flycut pistons? TIA

Looks good to me. That dip is the converter lockup clutch slipping a bit and probly goes through the higher rpm area which makes it look like valve control problems. I've seen this alot and even more on 98 cars.

If it was a 6 speed it would putout alot higher numbers, torque would definitely be well over 400.

Check out the video of the pull on cincyspeed.com It is titled Joels 4th gen.

Here you go Joel....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=3414565757148&set=vb.147282994113&type=2&theater

What's the open pressure on the springs, and which pushrods?
Compression? Flycut pistons? TIA

Brian,

425 ish open.....165 ish on the seat. Light valve (90 grams) and 11/32 thick wall rods. Ive built a dozen engines with the same valvetrain/spring/cam intensity/pushrod set-up and all of them looked like a solid roller motor on the engine dyno (perfect valve control to 7K or more with a nice arced power curve).

I spoke with Tracy from Cincy Speed today for a bit.....nice guy, and he said there is no knock retard but was willing to invest more time in it after Joel runs it a bit to see if could tweak it some more. There was only so much time to dial it in having to handle all the drivability side of the tune in addition to the WOT stuff.

Looks good to me. That dip is the converter lockup clutch slipping a bit and probly goes through the higher rpm area which makes it look like valve control problems. I've seen this alot and even more on 98 cars.

If it was a 6 speed it would putout alot higher numbers, torque would definitely be well over 400.

Don,

The lock up clutch slipping is an interesting thought. Makes me want to see the curve unlocked to eliminate that variable. Even though the numbers would be lower thru the 4K stall the curve should look "cleaner" if your suggestion is correct (with a nice arc and a 65-6700 power peak I suspect). If Joel (the OP) and Tracy do get time to tweak the tune I will suggest they make a run or two unlocked to see what the shape of the curve looks like that way.

No question this car would have looked a bunch better on the dyno with an M6.....especially if it had a reasonably lightweight clutch flywheel assembly.

Thanks for chiming in.....im really curious about the lock up clutch deal you mentioned.

Regards,
Tony

There was an older thread where Tony said that 1 7/8 headers were all wrong for the AFR heads and that they would perform better with 1 3/4. My question is,does that only apply to the smaller 205's? Also why use 230's instead of 205's for stock CI motor? Not bashing anyone just curious. Thanks, and sorry for the hijack.

Header size depends on application.....for most applications I would say a 1.75 tube on a 346 CID engine would produce more average power and torque however this combo is alot more aggressive and is aimed at producing big numbers in the higher RPM's where it would take advantage of the larger tube diameter more than a milder combo that would warrant less RPM.

Joel wanted big power upstairs....didn't care about how strong the engine was under 4K.....he wanted it to run hard to redline and he was OK with some light cam surge etc. I encouraged him to go a hair smaller with the cam seeing as we were going with the larger heads that would also make for more top end power at the expense of some bottom. The stronger the airflow and more efficient the head is the less cam you need to effectively feed the engine at higher RPM.

A more "rounded package" would be the same or similar set-up with a set of 215's but Joel made it clear he wanted the larger heads on his set-up and a package aimed to really shine from 4-7000 RPM's.

Also, keep in mind that 230 cc's is not a "huge" head.....most ported stock heads are this size or larger but these heads moved 335+ CFM at that finished volume so it does have a good bit of airspeed. Tracy mentioned when he drove the car the power curve felt very linear and it didn't even feel lazy in the lower RPM's but clearly pulled hard when the tach needle started swinging.

-Tony

I still have a problem with how many times the graph is up to and above the 13.0 line. I do not care what the numbers are, it should be safe. That is the most important part.

Wow This thread blew up quick. Sorry I have been crazy busy with work and helping remodel an old house and havent had time to jump on here and see how much attention this thread has got.

First off I must say that this thing is a BEAST. Still have some shift point issues to work out but from launch to redline this thing pulls like a train. It really shines upstairs.

The drivability is awesome as well. Some minor cam surge but nothing that will ever bother me. I have actually had to daily drive the car since monday due to the girlfriends car breaking down and other than my loud exhaust choice starting to get a little old for a daily driver this thing is great. its averageing around 19 mpg even with my heavy right foot. Everything is smooth sailing for me.

I want to give a huge shoutout to Tony Mamo for all the help and patience with all my questions. He has been outstanding with he products he has put out for me and the knowledge he has shared and the customer service is second to none.

I also want to give a huge shoutout to Cincy Speed. Tracey was great on giving me some insight on the tuning aspect of it and Craig was great there as well! Customer service there is great and I would recommend them to anyone in the area.

Overall once we get the few minor bugs worked out on this thing I am going to love it.

It just seems to me numbers are average to low. I see similar cars running budget heads, off the shelf cam and ls6 intakes making similar, if not even higher numbers. I'm sure Tony does great work, but I would be a little disappointed in those numbers.

Now go get some track times!

pretty interesting how the fuel curve dips match/reflect the hp curve
seems more likely to be tune up related unless your lock up is done or your loosing traction, also look how hp drops at 4k when the converter should be coupled
overall a bad ass setup with some more time 460ish hp and 400tq looks possible through a 4k stall!

i wouldn't even be concerned with the #s right now.take it to the track to see what it traps.i've seen people brag about their dyno #s,but can't back them up at the track.i'd be willing to bet your car if faster than the dyno shows..