Dyno Tune Complete Happy with Numbers!
07-17-2009, 08:47 AM
#1
Dyno Tune Complete Happy with Numbers! Whats up everybody, car hit the dyno at Speed Inc. yesterday and very pleased with the numbers that it put down. Put down 462rwhp and 416rwtq. Mods are in sig, a big thanks to all the sponsors who helped me out on this project.
I realize I probably left a little power on the table with the smaller cam selection but I didn't really want to flycut the pistons inside the car, just a personal preference for me I know many do it with no problems. Included two graphs, there was a problem with the rpm lead so the graph showing rpm is kind of messed up but you can see the other graph by speed and how smooth the curve is. Can't wait to drive it
.
Jeff
I realize I probably left a little power on the table with the smaller cam selection but I didn't really want to flycut the pistons inside the car, just a personal preference for me I know many do it with no problems. Included two graphs, there was a problem with the rpm lead so the graph showing rpm is kind of messed up but you can see the other graph by speed and how smooth the curve is. Can't wait to drive it
.Jeff
07-17-2009, 09:00 AM
#2
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Very good power man !!
I was reading you sig and when I saw stg III Livernois heads I had to look at your graph. Just as I suspected she would be a little soft on Torque on the bottom end. 330 rwtq @ 3000 ? I'd be expecting 345+ but thats just me. Nothing wrong with that cam. I'll bet that cam offers near stock drivability with a good tune.
What is the port size of the stg III heads 237 cc ?? If so that is just too big IMO, a TFS 215 would've provided a huge bump in port velocity helping to make much more low end torque. One last question, what is the compression ??
Not knocking your setup at all, just pointing out a few things and asking for clarification as well. I could be wrong.
462 rwhp 416 rwtq is a pretty stout end result. Any interest in running an EWP? Would add a few, and would help increase gas mileage as well. Just for reference my 402 gets 27 mpg actual on the highway at 75 mph in 6th with the cruise set.
I was reading you sig and when I saw stg III Livernois heads I had to look at your graph. Just as I suspected she would be a little soft on Torque on the bottom end. 330 rwtq @ 3000 ? I'd be expecting 345+ but thats just me. Nothing wrong with that cam. I'll bet that cam offers near stock drivability with a good tune.
What is the port size of the stg III heads 237 cc ?? If so that is just too big IMO, a TFS 215 would've provided a huge bump in port velocity helping to make much more low end torque. One last question, what is the compression ??
Not knocking your setup at all, just pointing out a few things and asking for clarification as well. I could be wrong.
462 rwhp 416 rwtq is a pretty stout end result. Any interest in running an EWP? Would add a few, and would help increase gas mileage as well. Just for reference my 402 gets 27 mpg actual on the highway at 75 mph in 6th with the cruise set.
Last edited by allngn_c5; 07-17-2009 at 09:09 AM.
07-17-2009, 09:20 AM
#3
Very good power man !!
I was reading you sig and when I saw stg III Livernois heads I had to look at your graph. Just as I suspected she would be a little soft on Torque on the bottom end. 330 rwtq @ 3000 ? I'd be expecting 345+ but thats just me. Nothing wrong with that cam. I'll bet that cam offers near stock drivability with a good tune.
What is the port size of the stg III heads 237 cc ?? If so that is just too big IMO, a TFS 215 would've provided a huge bump in port velocity helping to make much more low end torque. One last question, what is the compression ??
Not knocking your setup at all, just pointing out a few things and asking for clarification as well. I could be wrong.
462 rwhp 416 rwtq is a pretty stout end result. Any interest in running an EWP? Would add a few, and would help increase gas mileage as well. Just for reference my 402 gets 27 mpg actual on the highway at 75 mph in 6th with the cruise set.
I was reading you sig and when I saw stg III Livernois heads I had to look at your graph. Just as I suspected she would be a little soft on Torque on the bottom end. 330 rwtq @ 3000 ? I'd be expecting 345+ but thats just me. Nothing wrong with that cam. I'll bet that cam offers near stock drivability with a good tune.
What is the port size of the stg III heads 237 cc ?? If so that is just too big IMO, a TFS 215 would've provided a huge bump in port velocity helping to make much more low end torque. One last question, what is the compression ??
Not knocking your setup at all, just pointing out a few things and asking for clarification as well. I could be wrong.
462 rwhp 416 rwtq is a pretty stout end result. Any interest in running an EWP? Would add a few, and would help increase gas mileage as well. Just for reference my 402 gets 27 mpg actual on the highway at 75 mph in 6th with the cruise set.
Hey man, thanks for the kind words I don't mind a little questioning or constructive feedback lol. The intake runner on the Liv Stg III head runs 220cc. I figured with those heads torque could be a little soft I am still happy with the number though. I wanted the stage III's for a year or so down the road when I go a little bigger on the cubes. I agree with you on the cam, I wanted to go biggest for my goals without flycutting right now, I pick the car up in a couple of hours here but I assume the drivability will be good.
I looked at both the AFR and TFS heads and end the end decided to go with the Livernois combo they were a bit cheaper and pretty comparable in my opinion. I also wanted a car that would make good power and torque throughout the rev range not just a dyno queen looking for a peak # which I think I did a pretty good job of accomplishing. Compression ratio remains stock with thickness of head gasket I used etc. I do want to throw some nitrous at it very soon though and that should help the low end torque a lil
.I had given some thought to the EWP and might be an option here pretty soon when I want to spend the money on doing it. I still expect my car to knock down some pretty good gas mileage.
Thanks for the kind words man
Jeff
07-17-2009, 09:31 AM
#4
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looking forward to hearing your comments after the first drive. Best wishes my friend and congrats being in the over 450 rwhp club !!!
On a side note, I'd like to see a flow chart on those stgIII's and compare to some as cast 220cc TFS and CNC'd TFS 215's just ***** and giggles. I am imagining the stg III from livernois does equally as well up top, but the graph suggests that low lift numbers are less then stellar. Either way regardless of how you got there the end results are quite respectable.
One last thing, you said stock compression ?? What is that 10.5 to 1 ??
3.898 B, 3.622 S, HEAD in CC's, and gasket . Could you fill in the blanks please...
On a side note, I'd like to see a flow chart on those stgIII's and compare to some as cast 220cc TFS and CNC'd TFS 215's just ***** and giggles. I am imagining the stg III from livernois does equally as well up top, but the graph suggests that low lift numbers are less then stellar. Either way regardless of how you got there the end results are quite respectable.
One last thing, you said stock compression ?? What is that 10.5 to 1 ??
3.898 B, 3.622 S, HEAD in CC's, and gasket . Could you fill in the blanks please...
07-17-2009, 10:27 AM
#7
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I got the runner size which is 220cc's, but what is the combustion chamber?
59cc's 65cc' 72cc's ??
My tfs 215's have a 215 runner and a 59cc CHAMBER. Need B/S/Gasket/CC's to get compression.
59cc's 65cc' 72cc's ??
My tfs 215's have a 215 runner and a 59cc CHAMBER. Need B/S/Gasket/CC's to get compression.
Trending Topics
07-17-2009, 01:03 PM
#12
Thanks guys, still rolling on the stock rear for now.....will be doing a MWC Fab 9" in September or October. I am afraid to take it to the track with the nittos and 10 bolt now:-). Thanks for all the compliments and kind words.
Jeff
Jeff
07-17-2009, 01:11 PM
#13
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I don't blame you with that stock diff. You could still go and just roll out first and then get on it for an idea of what she will trap. No harm in that.
Will you be doing gears as well? 3.73's ??
Will you be doing gears as well? 3.73's ??
07-17-2009, 01:16 PM
#14
07-17-2009, 02:51 PM
#17
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good power man !!
I was reading you sig and when I saw stg III Livernois heads I had to look at your graph. Just as I suspected she would be a little soft on Torque on the bottom end. 330 rwtq @ 3000 ? I'd be expecting 345+ but thats just me. Nothing wrong with that cam. I'll bet that cam offers near stock drivability with a good tune.
What is the port size of the stg III heads 237 cc ?? If so that is just too big IMO, a TFS 215 would've provided a huge bump in port velocity helping to make much more low end torque. One last question, what is the compression ??
Not knocking your setup at all, just pointing out a few things and asking for clarification as well. I could be wrong.
462 rwhp 416 rwtq is a pretty stout end result. Any interest in running an EWP? Would add a few, and would help increase gas mileage as well. Just for reference my 402 gets 27 mpg actual on the highway at 75 mph in 6th with the cruise set.
I was reading you sig and when I saw stg III Livernois heads I had to look at your graph. Just as I suspected she would be a little soft on Torque on the bottom end. 330 rwtq @ 3000 ? I'd be expecting 345+ but thats just me. Nothing wrong with that cam. I'll bet that cam offers near stock drivability with a good tune.
What is the port size of the stg III heads 237 cc ?? If so that is just too big IMO, a TFS 215 would've provided a huge bump in port velocity helping to make much more low end torque. One last question, what is the compression ??
Not knocking your setup at all, just pointing out a few things and asking for clarification as well. I could be wrong.
462 rwhp 416 rwtq is a pretty stout end result. Any interest in running an EWP? Would add a few, and would help increase gas mileage as well. Just for reference my 402 gets 27 mpg actual on the highway at 75 mph in 6th with the cruise set.
TFS are making more power on the dyno, but it seems like their tracks times are just the same as AFR and TSP LS6 headed cars. If you already have the stg 3 heads keep em'. The $$$ difference between those heads and TFS 215s on a 346ci isn't worth 10 more rwhp.
Last edited by SLOC5LS6; 07-17-2009 at 03:02 PM.
07-17-2009, 02:55 PM
#18
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a 64cc chamber is about a 10.5:1 compression. You can mill TFS 215s down to 59cc with a healthy cam because of the valve angles. It's different with LS6 heads, if you mill to 59cc and stick in anything over 230s, you'll need to flycut the pistons and not everyone wants to flycutt.
07-17-2009, 02:57 PM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea gears for sure......I was thinking 4.11's first of all for N/A and I figured that even spraying a 100 shot in the future switching over to a 28" tall tire should give me enough room to trap out at the top of 4th. I had a Cobra that I sold not too long ago that I had 4:30's full bolt ons and a 150 shot and you talk about fun!
Last edited by SLOC5LS6; 07-17-2009 at 03:03 PM.
07-17-2009, 03:52 PM
#20
Great numbers! It's nice to see someone actually happy with their dyno for a change. Usually it's, "I only made 399 rwhp with a (insert moderate cam specs here) cam...WTF is wrong with my car?" HAHA.