LQ4/T56 into my 69 Camaro
12-09-2011, 07:27 PM
#1261
Alvin called it the "perfect storm". I have a combination of mismatched parts. Too big of ports for the low compression and with the cams overlap it ends up hurting my low end performance. I have my eye on a few stroker kits right now. I may take the short cut and buy a assembled short block. Texas Speed has a good deal on them and I will also check with Tick Performance/PCMforless. For the immediate, I will drive it until I get what I want.
12-09-2011, 08:24 PM
#1262
I've been thinking about this all night and actually tried to find this thread to see if I could find a picture of two of the cam installed. I just wanted to see if I could double check to see if the cam is installed straight up.
The car is tuned and drives great, idles perfect, cranks starts, etc.. The problem is if you tune the fueling at a idle to where its happy, that is pulls the most vacuum, has the healthiest sounding idle, etc it will flat out load up the plugs in a matter of a couple of minutes. The car doesn't smoke at an idle or smell bad but it will load up the plugs at an idle.
Also the vacuum is no where near it should be. At 900RPM it idles great but only pulls 4 inches. At 1050 RPM it pulls 6 inches. The vacuum is not a problem but instead a indication that yes something is really going on.
You can lean the idle up to where it actually idles poorly. IE chops, looses vacuum, etc. and it will still load the plugs up. You can't get the car lean enough to not load up the plugs.
This is something you normally only deal with in extremely radical race engines. Never have I had a street engine even try anything close to this.
If it wasn't for this the car would be done. It really does drive great.
I think 1 of 2 things is going on.
1. Its not a real well matched setup. Its a 9.5:1 6.0 with L92 heads and a big but not too crazy cam. Off the top of my head its a 23X 24X on a 112. Some compression would really wake this thing up. But as mismatched as the setup is.. That doesn't explain why the vacuum is THAT low.
2. And the more I think about it far more likely... The cam is not degreed. It might not be off a tooth but it might not be ground correct either. Back around 2007 we had a car come from another shop that did a lot of the same stuff. The original shop tried getting it out and diagnosing it and we gave it a shot. The only thing either of us could come up with was the cam was degreed wrong. The customer took it and changed the cam and it totally fixed the car.
Its a beautiful car. I can't wait to get it done for him so he can get back to enjoying it. Something is definitely up with the car and we just need to figure out what it is and move ahead. I'm going to think about it all weekend but I think what I'm going to recommend is to pull the front cover off, see if the cam actually is degreed correctly and if that looks OK just change it to a cam that would better match the rest of the setup anyway. I believe Tony said the cam was a reground cam from texas? Who was the company that reground the cam?
The car is tuned and drives great, idles perfect, cranks starts, etc.. The problem is if you tune the fueling at a idle to where its happy, that is pulls the most vacuum, has the healthiest sounding idle, etc it will flat out load up the plugs in a matter of a couple of minutes. The car doesn't smoke at an idle or smell bad but it will load up the plugs at an idle.
Also the vacuum is no where near it should be. At 900RPM it idles great but only pulls 4 inches. At 1050 RPM it pulls 6 inches. The vacuum is not a problem but instead a indication that yes something is really going on.
You can lean the idle up to where it actually idles poorly. IE chops, looses vacuum, etc. and it will still load the plugs up. You can't get the car lean enough to not load up the plugs.
This is something you normally only deal with in extremely radical race engines. Never have I had a street engine even try anything close to this.
If it wasn't for this the car would be done. It really does drive great.
I think 1 of 2 things is going on.
1. Its not a real well matched setup. Its a 9.5:1 6.0 with L92 heads and a big but not too crazy cam. Off the top of my head its a 23X 24X on a 112. Some compression would really wake this thing up. But as mismatched as the setup is.. That doesn't explain why the vacuum is THAT low.
2. And the more I think about it far more likely... The cam is not degreed. It might not be off a tooth but it might not be ground correct either. Back around 2007 we had a car come from another shop that did a lot of the same stuff. The original shop tried getting it out and diagnosing it and we gave it a shot. The only thing either of us could come up with was the cam was degreed wrong. The customer took it and changed the cam and it totally fixed the car.
Its a beautiful car. I can't wait to get it done for him so he can get back to enjoying it. Something is definitely up with the car and we just need to figure out what it is and move ahead. I'm going to think about it all weekend but I think what I'm going to recommend is to pull the front cover off, see if the cam actually is degreed correctly and if that looks OK just change it to a cam that would better match the rest of the setup anyway. I believe Tony said the cam was a reground cam from texas? Who was the company that reground the cam?
12-11-2011, 10:00 AM
#1265
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cloudcroft NM, Ulaanbaatar Mongolia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOOST IT!!! 
Toss a different cam in it and procharge or magnacharge it 
I know a stroker would be slick and thats what im doin but your already there throw a little boost at it and if somethin happens then build your stroker 
win win 
Toss a different cam in it and procharge or magnacharge it I know a stroker would be slick and thats what im doin but your already there throw a little boost at it and if somethin happens then build your stroker win win
12-11-2011, 12:49 PM
#1266
AFR's are going to cost $2500 and a stroker kit is around the same money. I think in the end the stroker would yield the most bang for the buck. The heads surely would make fixing my problem easier though. I think I am going to drive it as is until another block can be located or I buy an assembled short block. The car is perfectly fine to drive, just has a minor hiccup. If it were a situation where the car couldnt be driven I would be in a rush to fix it. I am going to run the ***** off of the Camaro in the meantime. Thanks for the suggestions though.
12-11-2011, 12:56 PM
#1267
A "little boost" only cost $6000+ if it were that simple I would have either a twin turbo setup or a Magnacharger. Man how I would love to have the whistle under my hood but for now I am staying N/A and fixin the issues at hand. For curiousity, which stroker are you building? What manufacturer did you go with for the rotating assembly?
12-11-2011, 01:29 PM
#1268
LOL As you said, just drive it. Its ALOT better than the POS I've been dumping cash into.
Cheers-
Jim
12-11-2011, 01:49 PM
#1269
Damn Tony. Thats awfull. Since I know you are just "fedd up" with it, I'll buy your "problem car" AS-IS for $2,000.. I know I should go THAT high, but I've read all the work you did on it
LOL As you said, just drive it. Its ALOT better than the POS I've been dumping cash into.
Cheers-
Jim
LOL As you said, just drive it. Its ALOT better than the POS I've been dumping cash into.
Cheers-
Jim
12-12-2011, 09:39 AM
#1270
That cam seems much more applicable for L92 heads than your other. Here is another similar cam:
Vengeance Racing Stage III LS3/L92 Camshaft 231/243 .617/.624 115+3
I'm not sure how the slightly larger LSA would affect dynamic compression, but there are definate similarities in cams designed for L92 heads.
Vengeance Racing Stage III LS3/L92 Camshaft 231/243 .617/.624 115+3
I'm not sure how the slightly larger LSA would affect dynamic compression, but there are definate similarities in cams designed for L92 heads.
12-12-2011, 02:15 PM
#1271
Well I said effitt and went down to Tick today. I talked to the owner and his son and have decided to have them build me a stroker. I am going with a 408 iron block 11.25-11.5:1 compression, Katech chain, ATI dampener, custom ground Comp Cam, balanced reciprocating assembly, and they are assembling the short block. In the meantime I am going to run the ever living dog **** out of the 6.0, not really, I will prolly find out whats a miss, fix it, and then sell the short block. It will be 6 weeks minimum before the short block is complete. I didnt get a dyno run, just a tune this go round. Whats the use if its not going to be right when I get it back. Sorry no vids this time. I am just thankful Alvin (tuner) was thorough enough to let me know there was a problem rather than just throwing a tune on it and letting it ride. You just dont get service like that any more. Everyone at Tick/Pcm4less were great to deal with. I just wish they were next door to me. Nah scratch that, I would stay broke if they were. Wifey doesnt know I just dropped some coin on the Camaro once again. Guess its time for Tony to start pulling some O/T again. Sorry fellas about the dyno run until next time.
12-12-2011, 03:49 PM
#1274
Used block cleaned, decked, line honed, bored, torque plate honed, forged Wiseco or Manley pistons, Callies or Wiseco crank, Callies or Wiseco H-beam rods, balanced and assembled with flywheel and cam degreed= $3600
ATI balancer= approx. $400
Katech timing chain= $150-175
ARP studs for main caps=$200
Custom Comp Cam= $350-375
In other words, ENOUGH!!! Lol!!!! I will end up getting new lifters, etc. etc.
Whats sad, there really is nothing that wrong with my setup except a rich condition on idle. But to fix that I was looking at $600 labor to change the cam while it was down there, plus a cam, plus miscellaneous parts, might as well pull the heads and mill them bastards to bring up compression, new head gaskets, maybe shorter push rods, and the list kept getting longer and longer. I got to thinking " I am half way to the price of a larger cube motor just trying to remedy this one, why not?! This way If something happens to one of my heads from here forward I can take one off of the shelf and it will simply bolt right on. No worries on mismatched parts. Tick seems to think the new combo might just be worth 500 at the wheel. I hope he is right. If I can squeeze out 500 to the wheels and have them hook your looking at knocking on 10's back door. That would equal to a flat 7 in the eighth. All this would highly depend on gearing and the ability to hook. Either of which will prolly never happen. It is good to think about though. I have to have some way of justifying the cost.
ATI balancer= approx. $400
Katech timing chain= $150-175
ARP studs for main caps=$200
Custom Comp Cam= $350-375
In other words, ENOUGH!!! Lol!!!! I will end up getting new lifters, etc. etc.
Whats sad, there really is nothing that wrong with my setup except a rich condition on idle. But to fix that I was looking at $600 labor to change the cam while it was down there, plus a cam, plus miscellaneous parts, might as well pull the heads and mill them bastards to bring up compression, new head gaskets, maybe shorter push rods, and the list kept getting longer and longer. I got to thinking " I am half way to the price of a larger cube motor just trying to remedy this one, why not?! This way If something happens to one of my heads from here forward I can take one off of the shelf and it will simply bolt right on. No worries on mismatched parts. Tick seems to think the new combo might just be worth 500 at the wheel. I hope he is right. If I can squeeze out 500 to the wheels and have them hook your looking at knocking on 10's back door. That would equal to a flat 7 in the eighth. All this would highly depend on gearing and the ability to hook. Either of which will prolly never happen. It is good to think about though. I have to have some way of justifying the cost.
12-12-2011, 05:00 PM
#1276
I genuinely believe your 6.0L issues could be corrected with a cam swap (and possibly a few other minor things). Your LQ4 with L92 heads is essentially the same set up as my LY6. My motor only has a 9.67:1 commpression ratio.....very close to what your motor has with the 70cc chambered L92s. So I don't think static compression ratio alone is your issue. I think its partially your dynamic (cranking) compression. At my house (which is 4500ft above sea level; much higher with weather figured in) my motor only cranked 135psi with the old cam (228/230-114LSA) and pulled 12 in/hg of vacuum. Due to the thin air up here, these numbers would be more favorable closer to sea level. This data was taken with my firstcam installed on a 114 intake centerline (IVC of 48 ABDC @.050) when it really should have been installed on a 112 ICL (IVC of 46 ABDC @.050). It's a long story why it was installed that way, but bottom line...the 112ICL would have netted slighly higher cranking compression since the intake valve would have been closing 2 degrees earlier. But either way the car made respectable power.
Can you refresh me on what the specs are on your current cam? Even better than that...do you possibly have a cam card for it that shows the intake valve closing point @ .050? Also, have you (or would you be willing to) do a cranking compression test on your motor?
Finally, I'm curious what you had in it for fuel and spark plugs when it went to the tuners? If it was anything higher than 89 for the fuel and anything colder than an NGK TR5s (or TR55s) then that may have contributed to the loading up at idle issue. Remember that these truck motors were built by GM to run on 87 octain fuel while propelling a much heavier vehicle (load) in all types of weather conditions. Then add to that the fact that you now have a cam in there that is bleeding off much more cylinder pressure than the stock, and in my humble opinion your octane requirement goes down even further.
Higher octain fuels are much harder to ignite than lower octane fuels and (I would think) would be much more likely to load up the plugs if not completely burned up in such a low cylinder pressure environment. Plus, if you happened to have had a colder than stock plug in there.....it would only be worse. When I first started my LY6, I did it on NGK TR6 plugs. I could lean the carb out to the point where the thing would have an off idle stuble (very lean) and it would still load up the plugs at an idle. And that was with 87 octane fuel too. Once I switched to TR5 plugs, I haven't had an issue since.
I know you're probably ready to get passed this and move on to a stroker, but I just thought I'd share some of my not-so-professional opinions since you think you might want to sort out the 6.0L first. Remember.....if you swap the cam yourself, it'll only cost you the price of a custom cam and possibly a balancer bolt if your using stock torque to yield. All of the gaskets are reusable and you've already got good springs and pushrods. Just my thoughts. No matter what you do.......you know I'll be following along!
12-12-2011, 09:27 PM
#1278
Tony....I'm not sure what to say here brother. I'm really pysched (and jealous) that you're building a stroker, but I'm sorry you're doing it under these unplanned circumstances.
I genuinely believe your 6.0L issues could be corrected with a cam swap (and possibly a few other minor things). Your LQ4 with L92 heads is essentially the same set up as my LY6. My motor only has a 9.67:1 commpression ratio.....very close to what your motor has with the 70cc chambered L92s. So I don't think static compression ratio alone is your issue. I think its partially your dynamic (cranking) compression. At my house (which is 4500ft above sea level; much higher with weather figured in) my motor only cranked 135psi with the old cam (228/230-114LSA) and pulled 12 in/hg of vacuum. Due to the thin air up here, these numbers would be more favorable closer to sea level. This data was taken with my firstcam installed on a 114 intake centerline (IVC of 48 ABDC @.050) when it really should have been installed on a 112 ICL (IVC of 46 ABDC @.050). It's a long story why it was installed that way, but bottom line...the 112ICL would have netted slighly higher cranking compression since the intake valve would have been closing 2 degrees earlier. But either way the car made respectable power.
Can you refresh me on what the specs are on your current cam? Even better than that...do you possibly have a cam card for it that shows the intake valve closing point @ .050? Also, have you (or would you be willing to) do a cranking compression test on your motor?
Finally, I'm curious what you had in it for fuel and spark plugs when it went to the tuners? If it was anything higher than 89 for the fuel and anything colder than an NGK TR5s (or TR55s) then that may have contributed to the loading up at idle issue. Remember that these truck motors were built by GM to run on 87 octain fuel while propelling a much heavier vehicle (load) in all types of weather conditions. Then add to that the fact that you now have a cam in there that is bleeding off much more cylinder pressure than the stock, and in my humble opinion your octane requirement goes down even further.
Higher octain fuels are much harder to ignite than lower octane fuels and (I would think) would be much more likely to load up the plugs if not completely burned up in such a low cylinder pressure environment. Plus, if you happened to have had a colder than stock plug in there.....it would only be worse. When I first started my LY6, I did it on NGK TR6 plugs. I could lean the carb out to the point where the thing would have an off idle stuble (very lean) and it would still load up the plugs at an idle. And that was with 87 octane fuel too. Once I switched to TR5 plugs, I haven't had an issue since.
I know you're probably ready to get passed this and move on to a stroker, but I just thought I'd share some of my not-so-professional opinions since you think you might want to sort out the 6.0L first. Remember.....if you swap the cam yourself, it'll only cost you the price of a custom cam and possibly a balancer bolt if your using stock torque to yield. All of the gaskets are reusable and you've already got good springs and pushrods. Just my thoughts. No matter what you do.......you know I'll be following along!
I genuinely believe your 6.0L issues could be corrected with a cam swap (and possibly a few other minor things). Your LQ4 with L92 heads is essentially the same set up as my LY6. My motor only has a 9.67:1 commpression ratio.....very close to what your motor has with the 70cc chambered L92s. So I don't think static compression ratio alone is your issue. I think its partially your dynamic (cranking) compression. At my house (which is 4500ft above sea level; much higher with weather figured in) my motor only cranked 135psi with the old cam (228/230-114LSA) and pulled 12 in/hg of vacuum. Due to the thin air up here, these numbers would be more favorable closer to sea level. This data was taken with my firstcam installed on a 114 intake centerline (IVC of 48 ABDC @.050) when it really should have been installed on a 112 ICL (IVC of 46 ABDC @.050). It's a long story why it was installed that way, but bottom line...the 112ICL would have netted slighly higher cranking compression since the intake valve would have been closing 2 degrees earlier. But either way the car made respectable power.
Can you refresh me on what the specs are on your current cam? Even better than that...do you possibly have a cam card for it that shows the intake valve closing point @ .050? Also, have you (or would you be willing to) do a cranking compression test on your motor?
Finally, I'm curious what you had in it for fuel and spark plugs when it went to the tuners? If it was anything higher than 89 for the fuel and anything colder than an NGK TR5s (or TR55s) then that may have contributed to the loading up at idle issue. Remember that these truck motors were built by GM to run on 87 octain fuel while propelling a much heavier vehicle (load) in all types of weather conditions. Then add to that the fact that you now have a cam in there that is bleeding off much more cylinder pressure than the stock, and in my humble opinion your octane requirement goes down even further.
Higher octain fuels are much harder to ignite than lower octane fuels and (I would think) would be much more likely to load up the plugs if not completely burned up in such a low cylinder pressure environment. Plus, if you happened to have had a colder than stock plug in there.....it would only be worse. When I first started my LY6, I did it on NGK TR6 plugs. I could lean the carb out to the point where the thing would have an off idle stuble (very lean) and it would still load up the plugs at an idle. And that was with 87 octane fuel too. Once I switched to TR5 plugs, I haven't had an issue since.
I know you're probably ready to get passed this and move on to a stroker, but I just thought I'd share some of my not-so-professional opinions since you think you might want to sort out the 6.0L first. Remember.....if you swap the cam yourself, it'll only cost you the price of a custom cam and possibly a balancer bolt if your using stock torque to yield. All of the gaskets are reusable and you've already got good springs and pushrods. Just my thoughts. No matter what you do.......you know I'll be following along!
12-12-2011, 10:22 PM
#1280
I am suspect of the cam also. I do not have a cam card and I did not degree it in. I simply installed it straight up and down and went with it. I am picking up the car tomorrow and as soon as I get a chance I will do a cranking compression on each cylinder. I had TR55's in it when it went down to the tuners but he tried to swap in some TR6's to see if it made a difference with no avail. It currently has 93 octane fuel in it as that was what I was told by the tuner to run. I havent had time to experiment with anything other than 93 as I feared the start up tune was timed to run the higher octane. I have no way of know whats what on the electronic end of this engine. I appreciate the information and I may have jumped the gun and moved forward but that will not stop me from experimenting with the 6.0. I will more than likely not change the cam in the 6.0 as I am dumping what funds I have into the new engine. Thanks for the insight and I do value what you say. I will post the compression numbers as soon as I get them. Thanks again
After thinking about it, your low-ish vacuum doesn't really suprise me that much with your current cam and static compression ratio combo. My new cam (231/239-110) only pulls 8 in/hg at the same 900 RPM where my old cam (228/230-114) used to pull 12 in/hg. This is certainly due to a 14 degree increase in overlap @ .050. My current cam and your current cam have the exact same amount of overlap @ .050 (15 degrees) but you have more duration on both the intake and exhaust. So without knowing what ICL your cam is installed on, I can only suspect that yours has a later intake valve closing point (less dynamic compression) and a later exhaust valve closing (contributes to lower vacuum?).
In any event....I don't blame you for moving forward with the stroker. It's something I want for myself in the future too and you're probably smart to not throw a bunch of money at a new cam for the 6.0L if it's not what you ultimately want in the end. But until you get the stroker together......I'm sure the only thing your 6.0L won't do well is idle. I'll bet it pulls real hard on the top end and you'll have a blast driving it around. At the end of the day, that's all that really matters.....that you have fun running the car the way it was meant to be ran!!! Plus.....I'll bet your current cam profile would absolutely love the spray, given the huge exhaust lobe! But that's a whole other pot of money...........