New Dyno results!!!
03-11-2007, 11:09 PM
#1
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Catlettsburg, Ky
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Dyno results!!! bowl blended, port matched stock heads, comp 503, 1.6:1 pro-mags, 58mm TB, CAI, Hooker LT's, 6spd, 9" 4.11 gears and a few other bolt ons
the lines aren't very dark, but the numbers ring at at 401rwtq, and 403rwhp, both at less than what the stock rev-limiter is set at!
the lines aren't very dark, but the numbers ring at at 401rwtq, and 403rwhp, both at less than what the stock rev-limiter is set at!
03-12-2007, 12:33 AM
#7
TECH Resident
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posts: 753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great numbers. I hope i make some where over 400 but i really just want a strong curve that lasts. I had a 503 and when i got my LE2's i decided to go with the 234/242 or those who know the GM847
Trending Topics
03-12-2007, 12:39 AM
#8
Launching!
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^ just curious but why did you go with a gm847 over the LE2 cam matched to those heads? i have read a lot of people say the GM847 is older technology and the newer cams will give better all around performance. again just curious not trying to tell you did the wrong thing, just trying to gain knowledge. thanks.
03-12-2007, 12:43 AM
#9
TECH Resident
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posts: 753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 97blackz28
^^^ just curious but why did you go with a gm847 over the LE2 cam matched to those heads? i have read a lot of people say the GM847 is older technology and the newer cams will give better all around performance. again just curious not trying to tell you did the wrong thing, just trying to gain knowledge. thanks.
03-12-2007, 12:42 PM
#14
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: WPB, Fl
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a happy dyno to me. No offense but I doubt a cc503 would put down those #'s.
I had one of the fastest cc503 cars on stock heads around and trapped a best of 112.81 on a stock rear.. which equates to about 330 rwhp.
Not seeing a set of stockish heads, slightly ported heads adding another 70 rwhp through a 9 inch, sorry.
Track #'s will tell the whole story.
I had one of the fastest cc503 cars on stock heads around and trapped a best of 112.81 on a stock rear.. which equates to about 330 rwhp.
Not seeing a set of stockish heads, slightly ported heads adding another 70 rwhp through a 9 inch, sorry.
Track #'s will tell the whole story.
03-12-2007, 01:01 PM
#15
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East of LA
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Javier97Z28
Looks like a happy dyno to me. No offense but I doubt a cc503 would put down those #'s.
I had one of the fastest cc503 cars on stock heads around and trapped a best of 112.81 on a stock rear.. which equates to about 330 rwhp.
Not seeing a set of stockish heads, slightly ported heads adding another 70 rwhp through a 9 inch, sorry.
Track #'s will tell the whole story.
I had one of the fastest cc503 cars on stock heads around and trapped a best of 112.81 on a stock rear.. which equates to about 330 rwhp.
Not seeing a set of stockish heads, slightly ported heads adding another 70 rwhp through a 9 inch, sorry.
Track #'s will tell the whole story.
03-12-2007, 01:10 PM
#16
Originally Posted by Javier97Z28
Looks like a happy dyno to me. No offense but I doubt a cc503 would put down those #'s.
I had one of the fastest cc503 cars on stock heads around and trapped a best of 112.81 on a stock rear.. which equates to about 330 rwhp.
Not seeing a set of stockish heads, slightly ported heads adding another 70 rwhp through a 9 inch, sorry.
Track #'s will tell the whole story.
I had one of the fastest cc503 cars on stock heads around and trapped a best of 112.81 on a stock rear.. which equates to about 330 rwhp.
Not seeing a set of stockish heads, slightly ported heads adding another 70 rwhp through a 9 inch, sorry.
Track #'s will tell the whole story.
03-12-2007, 03:15 PM
#18
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Catlettsburg, Ky
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not really sure your reasoning for doubting my numbers. but what ever floats your boat... but for the track times, I HAVE ran on average 89mph in the 1/8th leaving off-idle and on street tires, no power-shifting (a slower time is well worth a tranny that still goes in every gear)
I know I'll get a major argument going here, but I really believe if I'd left at a higher rpm (and hooked) the mph would have went up somewhat, probably closer to 91 so. I really don't have the time to type out my reasoning for it, and it's ***-backwards of what it should be. but maybe someone catches my drift?
I really don't look a whole lot in to dyno numbers either.. just another number to put in your sig and make yourself feel good about something..
not getting pissed, or taking any offense to your replies, I really enjoy reading them, but I'll show you all a couple times slips in about a 2 weeks with some 116 or 117mph trap speeds, just to see if my dyno numbers and track numbers coralate (sp?)
I contribute the numbers to the outstanding work done to the heads by some guy I know in his garage (yeah, that's right, no pro-port job and NO FLOW BENCH) lol... maybe if I'd got a 3-angle valve job done, or even shaved them for a little more compression the numbers would be better?
BTW: it's all in the tune...
I know I'll get a major argument going here, but I really believe if I'd left at a higher rpm (and hooked) the mph would have went up somewhat, probably closer to 91 so. I really don't have the time to type out my reasoning for it, and it's ***-backwards of what it should be. but maybe someone catches my drift?
I really don't look a whole lot in to dyno numbers either.. just another number to put in your sig and make yourself feel good about something..
not getting pissed, or taking any offense to your replies, I really enjoy reading them, but I'll show you all a couple times slips in about a 2 weeks with some 116 or 117mph trap speeds, just to see if my dyno numbers and track numbers coralate (sp?)
I contribute the numbers to the outstanding work done to the heads by some guy I know in his garage (yeah, that's right, no pro-port job and NO FLOW BENCH) lol... maybe if I'd got a 3-angle valve job done, or even shaved them for a little more compression the numbers would be better?
BTW: it's all in the tune...
03-12-2007, 04:22 PM
#20
Originally Posted by Mighty Whitey
I'm not really sure your reasoning for doubting my numbers. but what ever floats your boat... but for the track times, I HAVE ran on average 89mph in the 1/8th leaving off-idle and on street tires, no power-shifting (a slower time is well worth a tranny that still goes in every gear)
I know I'll get a major argument going here, but I really believe if I'd left at a higher rpm (and hooked) the mph would have went up somewhat, probably closer to 91 so. I really don't have the time to type out my reasoning for it, and it's ***-backwards of what it should be. but maybe someone catches my drift?
I really don't look a whole lot in to dyno numbers either.. just another number to put in your sig and make yourself feel good about something..
not getting pissed, or taking any offense to your replies, I really enjoy reading them, but I'll show you all a couple times slips in about a 2 weeks with some 116 or 117mph trap speeds, just to see if my dyno numbers and track numbers coralate (sp?)
I contribute the numbers to the outstanding work done to the heads by some guy I know in his garage (yeah, that's right, no pro-port job and NO FLOW BENCH) lol... maybe if I'd got a 3-angle valve job done, or even shaved them for a little more compression the numbers would be better?
BTW: it's all in the tune...
I know I'll get a major argument going here, but I really believe if I'd left at a higher rpm (and hooked) the mph would have went up somewhat, probably closer to 91 so. I really don't have the time to type out my reasoning for it, and it's ***-backwards of what it should be. but maybe someone catches my drift?
I really don't look a whole lot in to dyno numbers either.. just another number to put in your sig and make yourself feel good about something..
not getting pissed, or taking any offense to your replies, I really enjoy reading them, but I'll show you all a couple times slips in about a 2 weeks with some 116 or 117mph trap speeds, just to see if my dyno numbers and track numbers coralate (sp?)
I contribute the numbers to the outstanding work done to the heads by some guy I know in his garage (yeah, that's right, no pro-port job and NO FLOW BENCH) lol... maybe if I'd got a 3-angle valve job done, or even shaved them for a little more compression the numbers would be better?
BTW: it's all in the tune...