Camshaft discussion: CFM requirements by RPM.
05-04-2004, 01:37 PM
#262
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would tend to agree with that as well. 
I'm just speaking from what I've seen on Dynojets with these engines.
Hell, a buddy of mine used to run 8 thermocouples right at the cylinder head/primary flange back to a dc motor and then out to a paper graph in the back of his Pro Stock car. Of course that was before cheap microchips and the rest of the digital evolution.
He's the best I know of at EGT analysis.
My biggest gripe with intertial dynos is the inability to load an engine to any approximation of a real world degree. Not to mention getting beaten up by Jere for insufficient environmental control.
I'm just speaking from what I've seen on Dynojets with these engines.Hell, a buddy of mine used to run 8 thermocouples right at the cylinder head/primary flange back to a dc motor and then out to a paper graph in the back of his Pro Stock car. Of course that was before cheap microchips and the rest of the digital evolution.
He's the best I know of at EGT analysis.
My biggest gripe with intertial dynos is the inability to load an engine to any approximation of a real world degree. Not to mention getting beaten up by Jere for insufficient environmental control.
05-04-2004, 02:21 PM
#263
Originally Posted by critter
Here is, I think, a good example of what Cstraub and DenzSS have been talking about: TR230 vs. TRex. (cut,paste, and insert link didn't work: here it is as text: http://www.geocities.com/danwade@pac...ex-overlay.jpg sorry about that) This is a forged 346 with Kooks, LS6 intake, Crane rockers, etc. Full details are here.
Note how the TR230 (which is not really a small cam) make more torque and HP below about 5500 RPM although the TRex has about 18 HP more peak. Also note how the TR230 peaks about 6300, which is rather high for a street cam, while the TRex peaks about 6700 or 6800 and has lost hardly anything at 6900. It really seems a stretch to call the TRex a street cam. Sure, you can run it on the street, and folks do, but I have owned or driven enough large cam cars to know that a curve like that is not exactly street friendly. It is fun for a day or so, but gets tiresome quickly.
Note how the TR230 (which is not really a small cam) make more torque and HP below about 5500 RPM although the TRex has about 18 HP more peak. Also note how the TR230 peaks about 6300, which is rather high for a street cam, while the TRex peaks about 6700 or 6800 and has lost hardly anything at 6900. It really seems a stretch to call the TRex a street cam. Sure, you can run it on the street, and folks do, but I have owned or driven enough large cam cars to know that a curve like that is not exactly street friendly. It is fun for a day or so, but gets tiresome quickly.
05-04-2004, 02:30 PM
#264
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LS1BlackZ28
Vendors can get away with making these big cams because people buy them. If they see a cam that makes 450rwhp, they're all over it. They don't care if it makes no torque or peaks at 7k, they just want that trophy dyno sheet. I don't blame the vendors for producing them because they're banking off of them.
Yup. You nailed it on the head. They are just preying on the stupidity of the public. I understand why they are doing it, but I still find it asinine. It's just poor engineering and I do fault them for that.
I have yet to find a pro engine builder that doesn't laugh his *** off everytime someone talks to him about this latest round uber-camshafts.
05-04-2004, 10:14 PM
#265
With all due respect, these "theories" that you guys are discussing here are very interesting and intriguing and make for a great debate, however, I would like to invite you guys out of the classroom theory for a minute and into the real world.....let's look at the two fastest LS6 C5's in the country.....Brent's Cartek 3X equipped vehicle and 3GunTommy's LG Motorsports G53X prepped car. Based on very sound speculation (since neither tuner has publicly quoted cam spec's) it is fair to say that these two cars have camshafts that have intake duration's in the low-mid 230° range with 0.600" -ish lift lobes. These two vehicles are both documented to make 500RWHP out of 346 cubes and have the fastest track times/MPH for full bodied C5's in the country. Are you trying to convince people that Julio and Lou just picked the biggest cams that they could find and viola, big dyno numbers to lure everyone into buying their cams and by sheer coincidence they have the fastest C5's in the country to back up their "dyno queen" numbers?
Surely even you guys would have to admit that there was some trial and error (commonly referred to as R&D!) on their parts and that they "graduated" to using larger camshafts than they previously used because they could make more power and run faster at the track. Case in point, previously Cartek's 2X package used a 224/228 cam and now the 3X package is quite a bit bigger. LG used to rely on his G5 cams and now he stands by his G5X3 cams....again, significantly larger than the original G5 cams. If people here believed what you guys are theorizing, then they (Julio & Lou) should be making more power with smaller cams, not larger ones (directly opposite of what you guys are trying to justify). I don't think this is the case and both of these shops have proved this!
My whole point in bringing this up is that if I bought into everything you guys are trying to convince people of here, no one would be running a cam much larger than a 224° and you'd have them believing that no more power was to be had with a larger cam. I understand what you're saying about making torque with smaller cams but let's get serious for a minute....when you're making an honest 400+ RWTQ on the street, I would actually give up some of that torque in the mid-range for top end power because when you run your car through the gears either at the track or on the street, your motor (especially with a 6 speed car) will spend most of it's time between 4500 RPM and 6500 RPM (depending where you're shifting). I know (speaking from experience) that it is very frustrating to have a car go sideways on the street at 45MPH when you're nailing it in 2nd gear with a 315/35 sized tire. Give me more traction (via less mid-range torque) and more power in the upper RPM range and I'd be happy (and I think most other people in this condition would be too!).
Just my opinion here and please, I'm not trying to flame anyone here based on what they've said, theorized or what they believe. I'd just like to present the "other" side of this discussion that is in favor of whatever makes great power numbers with track times to back it up and more importantly, has the true driveability to be considered a "street car" as opposed to a racecar that happens to be driven on the street. Peace! Discuss on!
Surely even you guys would have to admit that there was some trial and error (commonly referred to as R&D!) on their parts and that they "graduated" to using larger camshafts than they previously used because they could make more power and run faster at the track. Case in point, previously Cartek's 2X package used a 224/228 cam and now the 3X package is quite a bit bigger. LG used to rely on his G5 cams and now he stands by his G5X3 cams....again, significantly larger than the original G5 cams. If people here believed what you guys are theorizing, then they (Julio & Lou) should be making more power with smaller cams, not larger ones (directly opposite of what you guys are trying to justify). I don't think this is the case and both of these shops have proved this!
My whole point in bringing this up is that if I bought into everything you guys are trying to convince people of here, no one would be running a cam much larger than a 224° and you'd have them believing that no more power was to be had with a larger cam. I understand what you're saying about making torque with smaller cams but let's get serious for a minute....when you're making an honest 400+ RWTQ on the street, I would actually give up some of that torque in the mid-range for top end power because when you run your car through the gears either at the track or on the street, your motor (especially with a 6 speed car) will spend most of it's time between 4500 RPM and 6500 RPM (depending where you're shifting). I know (speaking from experience) that it is very frustrating to have a car go sideways on the street at 45MPH when you're nailing it in 2nd gear with a 315/35 sized tire. Give me more traction (via less mid-range torque) and more power in the upper RPM range and I'd be happy (and I think most other people in this condition would be too!).
Just my opinion here and please, I'm not trying to flame anyone here based on what they've said, theorized or what they believe. I'd just like to present the "other" side of this discussion that is in favor of whatever makes great power numbers with track times to back it up and more importantly, has the true driveability to be considered a "street car" as opposed to a racecar that happens to be driven on the street. Peace! Discuss on!
05-05-2004, 07:04 AM
#267
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
Originally Posted by racer7088
John,
Who ever heard of HP helping you go down the track faster. You're just plain crazy!
Who ever heard of HP helping you go down the track faster. You're just plain crazy!
Anyhow, that sort of led into my next question. Obviously the concensus by most of the parties in this thread who have been contributing is that the cams that are being run are too large, the valve events have not been selected optimally, etc...
That now begs the question. What do y'all suggest? I'm not asking for you to publically post a spec, as that would just allow folks to try and copy you. But how about a general spec. Lets just use the max effort packages which folks seem to be using a lot these days.
Heck, we'll use the car I'm driving since John mentioned it above.
G5X3 Cam
Absolute Speed Stg 2.5 heads
Stock 1.7 rockers
977 springs
Comp - R lifters
LG 90 MM Tb
Port matched FAST Intake
M12
4.10's
LG headers (1.75 x 32" primaries)
Mc Leod dual disc clutch
The car made 503.5 rwhp and 451.9 rwtq on Lou's dyno which I have found correlates well with the dyno at MTI. I know its an inertia dyno, (I am looking for an Eddy current dyno so we can do some real load testing). But anyhow, what would you guys do?
05-05-2004, 08:32 AM
#268
? ? ? ? ? ?
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: East of Dallas
Posts: 7,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was hoping this thread would end up more revealing than it started out. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like it will.
What I think this thread will ultimately come to: The cam lobes "we" are using from comp, cam motion, thunder, lunati... aren't ideal for every situation. Depending on the specific engine and head properties, using a different lobe profile that matched would produce better results. So we need a custom cam with the proper lobe, duration, and lift for each individual situation. Who are we gonna call for that......
What I think this thread will ultimately come to: The cam lobes "we" are using from comp, cam motion, thunder, lunati... aren't ideal for every situation. Depending on the specific engine and head properties, using a different lobe profile that matched would produce better results. So we need a custom cam with the proper lobe, duration, and lift for each individual situation. Who are we gonna call for that......
05-05-2004, 08:50 AM
#269
Originally Posted by John B
With all due respect, these "theories" that you guys are discussing here are very interesting and intriguing and make for a great debate, however, I would like to invite you guys out of the classroom theory for a minute and into the real world
John, I can relate to this statement, I am one that you have to prove to also. As far as the LS1 world I am a nobody, a title I am quite comfortable with, but as someone who is in the performance industry, who works with some of the best engine builders in the country. . . I haven't gained their respect on theory.. .it's been done by making power and winning championships.
.....let's look at the two fastest LS6 C5's in the country.....Brent's Cartek 3X equipped vehicle and 3GunTommy's LG Motorsports G53X prepped car. Based on very sound speculation (since neither tuner has publicly quoted cam spec's) it is fair to say that these two cars have camshafts that have intake duration's in the low-mid 230° range with 0.600" -ish lift lobes. These two vehicles are both documented to make 500RWHP out of 346 cubes and have the fastest track times/MPH for full bodied C5's in the country. Are you trying to convince people that Julio and Lou just picked the biggest cams that they could find and viola, big dyno numbers to lure everyone into buying their cams and by sheer coincidence they have the fastest C5's in the country to back up their "dyno queen" numbers?
In no way would I take anything away from either of these guys, the cars, or the companines. House cars are "poster childs" for the business and a way to promote the business. . . marketing and that is business. In the same token, a guy with bracket car, 2 kids, wife, mortgage and a gross income of $40K needs a good pan and pick-up to make power in his car. A $300 wet sump pan is what he NEEDS. Same token, "Team XXX" calls, good shoe, Major sponsorship, got to have the best to win races. They get a $1800 pan with all the bells and whistles which is what they NEED.
I think the point of this thread is: Wakeup, your daily driver is not a race car, with carefully selected parts you can have a strong performer. If the car is a second car, you want a radical piece. . .then buy all means go for it.
Surely even you guys would have to admit that there was some trial and error (commonly referred to as R&D!) on their parts and that they "graduated" to using larger camshafts than they previously used because they could make more power and run faster at the track. Case in point, previously Cartek's 2X package used a 224/228 cam and now the 3X package is quite a bit bigger. LG used to rely on his G5 cams and now he stands by his G5X3 cams....again, significantly larger than the original G5 cams.
Can't comment about this part, don't know either fella. I will make one comment about the performance industry. Each year we come out with the latest and greatest. A few years back we ran huge spring pressures. . .that was the latest. Now the trend is lighter spring pressure in the professional classes to make more HP. Heavy pushrods were out 15 years ago. . .to much weight on the valvetrain, latest trend, put 7/16-3/8" taper on a SBC and make 30HP more. . . Without R&D, we can't learn. Without Marketing we can't eat.
If people here believed what you guys are theorizing, then they (Julio & Lou) should be making more power with smaller cams, not larger ones (directly opposite of what you guys are trying to justify). I don't think this is the case and both of these shops have proved this!
I have never worked with either person. I will comment that a smaller cam can make more power. . .I have seen the dyno sheets to prove it. 20 degrees less duration .100" less lift in the case of an overheaded 360CID Sprint engine. In an overheaded, over cammed situation you are spinning your wheels. I had a gentleman call me off this board, he was given my number, his 346 lost power with his new heads. . .wanted my opinion. After finding out his new heads were almost 250cc of intake volume and this was a daily driver, I was sick for the guy because the new heads were suppose to make the power he wanted over his other set of performance heads. Now, did he get R&D or did he get marketing? Remember, 250cc will sustain 346 CID to 9K rpm. Anyone taking their daily to 9K.
My whole point in bringing this up is that if I bought into everything you guys are trying to convince people of here, no one would be running a cam much larger than a 224° and you'd have them believing that no more power was to be had with a larger cam.
You've missed the point. We are trying to get across that you need to build a COMBINATION. Because of this thread, I looked at a stroker engine for someone, I was UNDERCAMMED. Are some of the profiles out there close, yes. Are they okay for most, yes. Is their any left on table, yes. . . IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR MAX EFFORT STUFF!!!
I understand what you're saying about making torque with smaller cams but let's get serious for a minute....when you're making an honest 400+ RWTQ on the street, I would actually give up some of that torque in the mid-range for top end power because when you run your car through the gears either at the track or on the street, your motor (especially with a 6 speed car) will spend most of it's time between 4500 RPM and 6500 RPM (depending where you're shifting).
IMO, with known torque numbers you gear accordingly. If you have the torque, you can run a taller gear. . .with a taller gear you will go faster. As far as midrange and top end, that is up to the customer, power can be made where ever they want.
I know (speaking from experience) that it is very frustrating to have a car go sideways on the street at 45MPH when you're nailing it in 2nd gear with a 315/35 sized tire. Give me more traction (via less mid-range torque) and more power in the upper RPM range and I'd be happy (and I think most other people in this condition would be too!).
Age old fight between chassis guys and engine guys. . .I'll make the power. . . I'll hook it. Again the customer can choose the RPM for power.
Just my opinion here and please, I'm not trying to flame anyone here based on what they've said, theorized or what they believe. I'd just like to present the "other" side of this discussion that is in favor of whatever makes great power numbers with track times to back it up and more importantly, has the true driveability to be considered a "street car" as opposed to a racecar that happens to be driven on the street. Peace! Discuss on!
John, I can relate to this statement, I am one that you have to prove to also. As far as the LS1 world I am a nobody, a title I am quite comfortable with, but as someone who is in the performance industry, who works with some of the best engine builders in the country. . . I haven't gained their respect on theory.. .it's been done by making power and winning championships.
.....let's look at the two fastest LS6 C5's in the country.....Brent's Cartek 3X equipped vehicle and 3GunTommy's LG Motorsports G53X prepped car. Based on very sound speculation (since neither tuner has publicly quoted cam spec's) it is fair to say that these two cars have camshafts that have intake duration's in the low-mid 230° range with 0.600" -ish lift lobes. These two vehicles are both documented to make 500RWHP out of 346 cubes and have the fastest track times/MPH for full bodied C5's in the country. Are you trying to convince people that Julio and Lou just picked the biggest cams that they could find and viola, big dyno numbers to lure everyone into buying their cams and by sheer coincidence they have the fastest C5's in the country to back up their "dyno queen" numbers?
In no way would I take anything away from either of these guys, the cars, or the companines. House cars are "poster childs" for the business and a way to promote the business. . . marketing and that is business. In the same token, a guy with bracket car, 2 kids, wife, mortgage and a gross income of $40K needs a good pan and pick-up to make power in his car. A $300 wet sump pan is what he NEEDS. Same token, "Team XXX" calls, good shoe, Major sponsorship, got to have the best to win races. They get a $1800 pan with all the bells and whistles which is what they NEED.
I think the point of this thread is: Wakeup, your daily driver is not a race car, with carefully selected parts you can have a strong performer. If the car is a second car, you want a radical piece. . .then buy all means go for it.
Surely even you guys would have to admit that there was some trial and error (commonly referred to as R&D!) on their parts and that they "graduated" to using larger camshafts than they previously used because they could make more power and run faster at the track. Case in point, previously Cartek's 2X package used a 224/228 cam and now the 3X package is quite a bit bigger. LG used to rely on his G5 cams and now he stands by his G5X3 cams....again, significantly larger than the original G5 cams.
Can't comment about this part, don't know either fella. I will make one comment about the performance industry. Each year we come out with the latest and greatest. A few years back we ran huge spring pressures. . .that was the latest. Now the trend is lighter spring pressure in the professional classes to make more HP. Heavy pushrods were out 15 years ago. . .to much weight on the valvetrain, latest trend, put 7/16-3/8" taper on a SBC and make 30HP more. . . Without R&D, we can't learn. Without Marketing we can't eat.
If people here believed what you guys are theorizing, then they (Julio & Lou) should be making more power with smaller cams, not larger ones (directly opposite of what you guys are trying to justify). I don't think this is the case and both of these shops have proved this!
I have never worked with either person. I will comment that a smaller cam can make more power. . .I have seen the dyno sheets to prove it. 20 degrees less duration .100" less lift in the case of an overheaded 360CID Sprint engine. In an overheaded, over cammed situation you are spinning your wheels. I had a gentleman call me off this board, he was given my number, his 346 lost power with his new heads. . .wanted my opinion. After finding out his new heads were almost 250cc of intake volume and this was a daily driver, I was sick for the guy because the new heads were suppose to make the power he wanted over his other set of performance heads. Now, did he get R&D or did he get marketing? Remember, 250cc will sustain 346 CID to 9K rpm. Anyone taking their daily to 9K.
My whole point in bringing this up is that if I bought into everything you guys are trying to convince people of here, no one would be running a cam much larger than a 224° and you'd have them believing that no more power was to be had with a larger cam.
You've missed the point. We are trying to get across that you need to build a COMBINATION. Because of this thread, I looked at a stroker engine for someone, I was UNDERCAMMED. Are some of the profiles out there close, yes. Are they okay for most, yes. Is their any left on table, yes. . . IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR MAX EFFORT STUFF!!!
I understand what you're saying about making torque with smaller cams but let's get serious for a minute....when you're making an honest 400+ RWTQ on the street, I would actually give up some of that torque in the mid-range for top end power because when you run your car through the gears either at the track or on the street, your motor (especially with a 6 speed car) will spend most of it's time between 4500 RPM and 6500 RPM (depending where you're shifting).
IMO, with known torque numbers you gear accordingly. If you have the torque, you can run a taller gear. . .with a taller gear you will go faster. As far as midrange and top end, that is up to the customer, power can be made where ever they want.
I know (speaking from experience) that it is very frustrating to have a car go sideways on the street at 45MPH when you're nailing it in 2nd gear with a 315/35 sized tire. Give me more traction (via less mid-range torque) and more power in the upper RPM range and I'd be happy (and I think most other people in this condition would be too!).
Age old fight between chassis guys and engine guys. . .I'll make the power. . . I'll hook it. Again the customer can choose the RPM for power.
Just my opinion here and please, I'm not trying to flame anyone here based on what they've said, theorized or what they believe. I'd just like to present the "other" side of this discussion that is in favor of whatever makes great power numbers with track times to back it up and more importantly, has the true driveability to be considered a "street car" as opposed to a racecar that happens to be driven on the street. Peace! Discuss on!
Chris
05-05-2004, 08:57 AM
#270
J-rod,
To answer your question, if Jay. . .Absolute correct. . . can supply you the flow numbers on the heads with the intake bolted on, I will give some duration numbers only. Just remember this is not the whole equation to the camshaft. I myself have seen a couple degrees of Valve events equal significant power gains.
Big Tex,
There will be some good stuff coming. As far as cam grinders go, their are 1400 cam grinders in the US. Some of the best are little guys.
Chris
To answer your question, if Jay. . .Absolute correct. . . can supply you the flow numbers on the heads with the intake bolted on, I will give some duration numbers only. Just remember this is not the whole equation to the camshaft. I myself have seen a couple degrees of Valve events equal significant power gains.
Big Tex,
There will be some good stuff coming. As far as cam grinders go, their are 1400 cam grinders in the US. Some of the best are little guys.
Chris
05-05-2004, 09:31 AM
#271
John,
Who ever heard of HP helping you go down the track faster. You're just plain crazy
Who ever heard of HP helping you go down the track faster. You're just plain crazy
05-05-2004, 10:18 AM
#272
J-Rod, do you know what the heads on the car mentioned above flow with the intake in place?
I think the key point that often gets missed is very seldom do people have flow numbers with the LS6/LSX intake in place. These intakes can cut as much as 50 cfm off the intake flow numbers depending on the cylinder head.
My guess is the Absolutes on the car above flow ~325 without intake and 270 to 280 with the intake in place. These would be excellent flow numbers with the intake. I've had an older set of LS6 heads that would only flow 239 with the intake in place.
7000 rpm seems reasonable for the C5 above...lets do a little ghetto math...
346/2*7000 divided by 1728 = 707 cfm needed for the engine
707/8 = 88.4 cfm need per cylinder
Lets say the head flows 275 WITH INTAKE for this calculation
88.4*X=275 solve for X and X is .321
the cam need .321 of 720 degrees of crank rotation to get the air in the cylinder
so a 231.4 degree cam is needed
we know the ghetto math isn't exact so a couple of degrees either way might need to be tweaked. A low 230 something cam say between 231 and 235 sounds like a good starting point.
John speculated the G cams are low 230's as the ghetto math suggests they should be.
I think the key point that often gets missed is very seldom do people have flow numbers with the LS6/LSX intake in place. These intakes can cut as much as 50 cfm off the intake flow numbers depending on the cylinder head.
My guess is the Absolutes on the car above flow ~325 without intake and 270 to 280 with the intake in place. These would be excellent flow numbers with the intake. I've had an older set of LS6 heads that would only flow 239 with the intake in place.
7000 rpm seems reasonable for the C5 above...lets do a little ghetto math...
346/2*7000 divided by 1728 = 707 cfm needed for the engine
707/8 = 88.4 cfm need per cylinder
Lets say the head flows 275 WITH INTAKE for this calculation
88.4*X=275 solve for X and X is .321
the cam need .321 of 720 degrees of crank rotation to get the air in the cylinder
so a 231.4 degree cam is needed
we know the ghetto math isn't exact so a couple of degrees either way might need to be tweaked. A low 230 something cam say between 231 and 235 sounds like a good starting point.
John speculated the G cams are low 230's as the ghetto math suggests they should be.
05-05-2004, 10:26 AM
#273
Blackbird,
Based on your post of 275 cfm. ..lets venture to the exhaust side a little. What would the intake cfm at say. 400" be on the intake side with the intake bolted in place. Then lets look at the exhaust flow at the same lift and compare exhaust %'s, I will then give you some personal "finding" on relating duration split between Int. and Exh.
Chris
Based on your post of 275 cfm. ..lets venture to the exhaust side a little. What would the intake cfm at say. 400" be on the intake side with the intake bolted in place. Then lets look at the exhaust flow at the same lift and compare exhaust %'s, I will then give you some personal "finding" on relating duration split between Int. and Exh.
Chris
05-05-2004, 11:17 AM
#274
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
I have asked Jay for my sheets a few times in the past. I think he has been busy and forgotten about me. 
Anyhow, I called and asked for them again. Once I have that data, I will post it...
Anyhow, I called and asked for them again. Once I have that data, I will post it...
05-05-2004, 12:02 PM
#275
Originally Posted by Cstraub
Blackbird,
Based on your post of 275 cfm. ..lets venture to the exhaust side a little. What would the intake cfm at say. 400" be on the intake side with the intake bolted in place. Then lets look at the exhaust flow at the same lift and compare exhaust %'s, I will then give you some personal "finding" on relating duration split between Int. and Exh.
Chris
Based on your post of 275 cfm. ..lets venture to the exhaust side a little. What would the intake cfm at say. 400" be on the intake side with the intake bolted in place. Then lets look at the exhaust flow at the same lift and compare exhaust %'s, I will then give you some personal "finding" on relating duration split between Int. and Exh.
Chris
So lets say the intake flow is 242 cfm at .400 lift for the sake of the discussion.
Looking forward to an "exhausting" discussion...BTW you want exhaust guess with or without a pipe?
05-05-2004, 12:04 PM
#276
Originally Posted by J-Rod
I have asked Jay for my sheets a few times in the past. I think he has been busy and forgotten about me.
Anyhow, I called and asked for them again. Once I have that data, I will post it...
Anyhow, I called and asked for them again. Once I have that data, I will post it...
05-05-2004, 01:01 PM
#280
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
Originally Posted by DenzSS
That'll work. I need to run down to and get a few heads flowed with the intake attached.
Cylinder Head Stock LS1 Stock LS6 Ported LS1* Ported LS1** Ported LS6
Intake Manifold N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
.200" 137 156 144 164 159
.300" 187 204 200 217 212
.350" 207 225 225 234 236
.400" 223 243 245 253 255
.450" 228 257 261 270 272
.500" 237 268 272 284 300
.550" 242 275 283 296 307
.600" 243 278 292 305 314
Cylinder Head Stock LS1 Stock LS1 Stock LS6 Stock LS6 Ported LS1** Ported LS1** Ported LS1** Ported LS6 Ported LS6
Intake Manifold LS1 LS6 LS1 LS6 LS1 Truck LS6 LS1 LS6
.200" 136 136 156 154 141 163 166 156 153
.300" 184 186 199 204 185 206 211 199 202
.350" 200 206 212 220 205 224 229 217 222
.400" 214 223 224 235 222 237 244 230 241
.450" 222 227 232 247 232 249 257 242 257
.500" 227 236 238 257 241 262 269 253 270
.550" 229 241 243 263 251 265 277 263 280
.600" 235 242 247 265 258 270 283 268 289
* Original Stage II heads from New Dog, Old Tricks; GMHTP May/July 2000
** Latest revision.
Info originally from Chris Endres
"Absolute Speed absolute speed stg2 ls1 port's with a radiused inlet, ls1 intake, and ls6 intake. port volume is 209cc's, 2.02 valve
"
Lift Radiused ls1 ls6
200 159 157 159
300 217 195 212
400 272 236 259
450 288 249 274
500 297 264 288
550 304 270 292
600 309 273 294
TEA 5.3L - OLD TEA design Circa early 2002 (newer heads have better flow numbers) but give you an idea of the delta of going with an intake.
Lift LS1 LS6
0.100 65.14 65.6
0.200 133.1 133.5
0.300 184.3 189.9
0.400 217.1 227.75
0.450 229.2 241.3
0.500 236.3 250.2
0.550 236.3 247.5
0.600 235.7 245.18
Absolute Speed ls1 head flowed on supeerflow sf600s, 28 inches, 3.9 bore
lift radius ls6 intake
200 151 147
300 205 198
400 254 238
450 272 253
500 288 268
550 299 277
600 306 281