AFR 205's + 228/228 113* = 500 RWHP!!
10-11-2009, 08:22 AM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I spoke with Tony Mamo several times about where I wanted to be with a H/C combination for this motor, conservative yet stout with an ability to see 7000 rpm & not nose over.
His recommendations included a set of milled AFR 205's that he would invest some additional time porting/optimizing by hand (think you guys refer to this as "Mamofied 205's" in other builds I have seen), of course one of his ported FAST 90/ported LS2 TB combos, and Tony also recommended a custom grind single pattern cam due to the flow characteristics of the ported heads and the fact I wanted to also make as much low speed TQ as possible while not hurting the big HP numbers upstairs (yes...like most I wanted the have your cake and eat it to scenario!). I of course also included some of the other popular supporting bolt ons, LG Pros including 3" mufflers, Cadillac Racing Lifters, YT 1.7 roller rockers, EWP & UD pulley.
I installed the components a year ago, run it up on a Mustang dyno with good results.
I also spent the bulk of this summer learning how to tune via a multitude of emails, reading, watching DVD's, collaborating with a friend who has very in depth understanding of the tuning software. Very key component to bringing the entire package together! This made the dyno session very quick, the numbers were hit within a few runs.
As this tuning process went on all the classic clutch problems began to develop, and ultimately I had to replace that. In my quest for power I decided I should have 4:10 rear installed at the same time, an LS7 clutch, LS2 Flywheel, new Slave & remote bleeder. My thinking was the 4:10's would hopefully ease the life of the clutch.
In the same building I had the parts installed was a Dyno Dynamics eddy current dyno, and after finding out about an previous dyno day I decided to review some runs & met with some of the participants. They had a good turn out and certainly not a generous dyno with a bonestock C6Z06 making a best run of 441 RWHP which seems to be in line (or lower honestly) than most of the online results I have read about. Realistically, I was hoping for 475+ and was obviously pretty thrilled when we rolled a couple of runs in the high 490's and one run that just eeked out 500 RWHP!! I was also quite pleased with the low RPM torque output....most of the higher powered (typically big cam) stock displacement builds don't make those kinds of numbers under 4000 RPM's, at least from what I have observed pouring over the various results. And the torque (440 RWTQ) feels very good in the car btw....you can really feel it push you in the seat above 4K.
Needless to say there were several very impressed onlooker's as the runs took place, my Black 3X Vert had done proud!
Looks like Tony may have prescribed just the recipe I needed to try and maintain the best of both worlds. It wasn't a budget build by any stretch but I'm really happy about the results and wanted to share.
Here is copy of all the runs I made....I was also impressed how consistent they were (Tony....thanks for helping out with the dyno graph!)
Cheers,
Dale
I spoke with Tony Mamo several times about where I wanted to be with a H/C combination for this motor, conservative yet stout with an ability to see 7000 rpm & not nose over.
His recommendations included a set of milled AFR 205's that he would invest some additional time porting/optimizing by hand (think you guys refer to this as "Mamofied 205's" in other builds I have seen), of course one of his ported FAST 90/ported LS2 TB combos, and Tony also recommended a custom grind single pattern cam due to the flow characteristics of the ported heads and the fact I wanted to also make as much low speed TQ as possible while not hurting the big HP numbers upstairs (yes...like most I wanted the have your cake and eat it to scenario!). I of course also included some of the other popular supporting bolt ons, LG Pros including 3" mufflers, Cadillac Racing Lifters, YT 1.7 roller rockers, EWP & UD pulley.
I installed the components a year ago, run it up on a Mustang dyno with good results.
I also spent the bulk of this summer learning how to tune via a multitude of emails, reading, watching DVD's, collaborating with a friend who has very in depth understanding of the tuning software. Very key component to bringing the entire package together! This made the dyno session very quick, the numbers were hit within a few runs.
As this tuning process went on all the classic clutch problems began to develop, and ultimately I had to replace that. In my quest for power I decided I should have 4:10 rear installed at the same time, an LS7 clutch, LS2 Flywheel, new Slave & remote bleeder. My thinking was the 4:10's would hopefully ease the life of the clutch.
In the same building I had the parts installed was a Dyno Dynamics eddy current dyno, and after finding out about an previous dyno day I decided to review some runs & met with some of the participants. They had a good turn out and certainly not a generous dyno with a bonestock C6Z06 making a best run of 441 RWHP which seems to be in line (or lower honestly) than most of the online results I have read about. Realistically, I was hoping for 475+ and was obviously pretty thrilled when we rolled a couple of runs in the high 490's and one run that just eeked out 500 RWHP!! I was also quite pleased with the low RPM torque output....most of the higher powered (typically big cam) stock displacement builds don't make those kinds of numbers under 4000 RPM's, at least from what I have observed pouring over the various results. And the torque (440 RWTQ) feels very good in the car btw....you can really feel it push you in the seat above 4K.
Needless to say there were several very impressed onlooker's as the runs took place, my Black 3X Vert had done proud!
Looks like Tony may have prescribed just the recipe I needed to try and maintain the best of both worlds. It wasn't a budget build by any stretch but I'm really happy about the results and wanted to share.
Here is copy of all the runs I made....I was also impressed how consistent they were (Tony....thanks for helping out with the dyno graph!)
Cheers,
Dale
How much $$$ was it for the extra work on the heads???
10-12-2009, 08:25 AM
#25
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said on CF what is the correction factor number used? I'm willing to bet its something in the 1.14-1.15 ball park to get that Dyno Dynamics to read like a dyno jet. Dyno dynamics read extremely low on the HP side but the tq is pretty close when comparing the two dynos UNLESS that dial is turned boosting the numbers up.
Not doubting its a stout combo but its just not realistic being on that brand of dyno unless its fudged to read higher IE extremely high CF.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...lls-video.html
Here is a good thread showing what DD dynos will read if they aren't fudged. The torque numbers they put out are close to what SAE dynojets read but the HP is quite a bit lower 13-14%. Once you correct it to "read" like a dynojet it boosts the HP and really pumps the tq up.
A local shop to me did this and the CF was 1.15 or something crazy high.
For those that don't watch the video the car made 494rwhp and 455rwtq on a dynojet SAE and only made 435rwhp on the DD using DD SAE.
Not doubting its a stout combo but its just not realistic being on that brand of dyno unless its fudged to read higher IE extremely high CF.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...lls-video.html
Here is a good thread showing what DD dynos will read if they aren't fudged. The torque numbers they put out are close to what SAE dynojets read but the HP is quite a bit lower 13-14%. Once you correct it to "read" like a dynojet it boosts the HP and really pumps the tq up.
A local shop to me did this and the CF was 1.15 or something crazy high.
For those that don't watch the video the car made 494rwhp and 455rwtq on a dynojet SAE and only made 435rwhp on the DD using DD SAE.
10-12-2009, 12:16 PM
#26
As I said on CF what is the correction factor number used? I'm willing to bet its something in the 1.14-1.15 ball park to get that Dyno Dynamics to read like a dyno jet. Dyno dynamics read extremely low on the HP side but the tq is pretty close when comparing the two dynos UNLESS that dial is turned boosting the numbers up.
Not doubting its a stout combo but its just not realistic being on that brand of dyno unless its fudged to read higher IE extremely high CF.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...lls-video.html
Here is a good thread showing what DD dynos will read if they aren't fudged. The torque numbers they put out are close to what SAE dynojets read but the HP is quite a bit lower 13-14%. Once you correct it to "read" like a dynojet it boosts the HP and really pumps the tq up.
A local shop to me did this and the CF was 1.15 or something crazy high.
For those that don't watch the video the car made 494rwhp and 455rwtq on a dynojet SAE and only made 435rwhp on the DD using DD SAE.
Not doubting its a stout combo but its just not realistic being on that brand of dyno unless its fudged to read higher IE extremely high CF.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...lls-video.html
Here is a good thread showing what DD dynos will read if they aren't fudged. The torque numbers they put out are close to what SAE dynojets read but the HP is quite a bit lower 13-14%. Once you correct it to "read" like a dynojet it boosts the HP and really pumps the tq up.
A local shop to me did this and the CF was 1.15 or something crazy high.
For those that don't watch the video the car made 494rwhp and 455rwtq on a dynojet SAE and only made 435rwhp on the DD using DD SAE.
In fact it could prbably have been tuned a bit better under 4K smoothing out and increasing it somewhat so the ramp up to peak wouldn't have looked so fast and dramatic, but the lead in torque numbers and peak torque numbers are exactly what this type of package should produce....the dyno isnt going to read correctly for half the curve and then inflate on the back half. The torque numbers would have been skewed the entire run.
You want to call BS.....call BS on a 500 RWHP 346 with a BIG cam in the low 240's that makes close to 400 RWTQ at 3K. A motor that small with that big a cam will simply not be efficient at that RPM (too much cam overlap). Its basically an impossible target to hit unless you managed to somehow run variable valve timing. You would need at least a 6.0 liter to get close to that type of low RPM torque with that large a stick installed (and probably a 383 is more realistic).
I will say it again....what this combo does better than most is H-A-N-G the torque curve out past peak (its very effective at processing air and has excellent valve control as well which is also critical).....and that is exactly what's required to make big power folks.
In short, there is nothing suspect with these dyno results....Dale spent a bunch of money hitting all the details and it shows. Take from it what you will
-Tony
10-12-2009, 01:09 PM
#27
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver International Airport, Colorado USA
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems reasonable to me. His Hp/TQ numbers look very similar to my dyno graph..up to 5250 Rpm's...
It is from 5250 Rpm's that by virtue of the Hp Formula: Hp=TQ X RPM/5252 that the '500' HP number is blowing people away. Any time you can hang on to a torque curve past 5250..the HP difference becomes exponential.
Somehow they got this thing to hang on, which is pretty impressive.
Based on Tony's logic and the fact that many of us have similar HP/TQ dyno numbers up to 5250 Rpm's..I do not see any reason to doubt it. I mean he has duplicated higher Rpm airflow before. That is what he does.
Congrats to the OP..
..WeathermanShawn..
It is from 5250 Rpm's that by virtue of the Hp Formula: Hp=TQ X RPM/5252 that the '500' HP number is blowing people away. Any time you can hang on to a torque curve past 5250..the HP difference becomes exponential.
Somehow they got this thing to hang on, which is pretty impressive.
Based on Tony's logic and the fact that many of us have similar HP/TQ dyno numbers up to 5250 Rpm's..I do not see any reason to doubt it. I mean he has duplicated higher Rpm airflow before. That is what he does.
Congrats to the OP..
..WeathermanShawn..
10-12-2009, 02:18 PM
#28
Excellent results!
I do not find it hard to believe, especially when my previous combo with no where near the quality of parts was able to lay down 446/411 with hardly no time at all spent on the tune.
My setup was a similar cam with out of the box 205s milled to 62ccs. I had cheap headers and an LS6 intake with my own ported stock throttle body.
The OP has the additional work on the heads from Tony, the worked over Fast setup, ewp, good headers, and lots of time spent as mentioned to dial the tune in.
I say congrats to a well put together combo that included "attention to detail", which is what often makes a combo perform, or disappoint.
I am anxious to see what this car can trap. Mine, de-tuned a bit(-16rwhp/10 rwtq) and then through a M9 and 3.5" drive shaft afterwards without knowing how much more power that would rob, was able to trap 122+ consistently.
I do not find it hard to believe, especially when my previous combo with no where near the quality of parts was able to lay down 446/411 with hardly no time at all spent on the tune.
My setup was a similar cam with out of the box 205s milled to 62ccs. I had cheap headers and an LS6 intake with my own ported stock throttle body.
The OP has the additional work on the heads from Tony, the worked over Fast setup, ewp, good headers, and lots of time spent as mentioned to dial the tune in.
I say congrats to a well put together combo that included "attention to detail", which is what often makes a combo perform, or disappoint.
I am anxious to see what this car can trap. Mine, de-tuned a bit(-16rwhp/10 rwtq) and then through a M9 and 3.5" drive shaft afterwards without knowing how much more power that would rob, was able to trap 122+ consistently.
10-12-2009, 02:52 PM
#29
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with your pumped up theory is the engine made exactly the type of torque you would expect a highly optimized 346 CID build to make....and produced the exact curve you would expect to see.
In fact it could prbably have been tuned a bit better under 4K smoothing out and increasing it somewhat so the ramp up to peak wouldn't have looked so fast and dramatic, but the lead in torque numbers and peak torque numbers are exactly what this type of package should produce....the dyno isnt going to read correctly for half the curve and then inflate on the back half. The torque numbers would have been skewed the entire run.
You want to call BS.....call BS on a 500 RWHP 346 with a BIG cam in the low 240's that makes close to 400 RWTQ at 3K. A motor that small with that big a cam will simply not be efficient at that RPM (too much cam overlap). Its basically an impossible target to hit unless you managed to somehow run variable valve timing. You would need at least a 6.0 liter to get close to that type of low RPM torque with that large a stick installed (and probably a 383 is more realistic).
I will say it again....what this combo does better than most is H-A-N-G the torque curve out past peak (its very effective at processing air and has excellent valve control as well which is also critical).....and that is exactly what's required to make big power folks.
In short, there is nothing suspect with these dyno results....Dale spent a bunch of money hitting all the details and it shows. Take from it what you will
-Tony
In fact it could prbably have been tuned a bit better under 4K smoothing out and increasing it somewhat so the ramp up to peak wouldn't have looked so fast and dramatic, but the lead in torque numbers and peak torque numbers are exactly what this type of package should produce....the dyno isnt going to read correctly for half the curve and then inflate on the back half. The torque numbers would have been skewed the entire run.
You want to call BS.....call BS on a 500 RWHP 346 with a BIG cam in the low 240's that makes close to 400 RWTQ at 3K. A motor that small with that big a cam will simply not be efficient at that RPM (too much cam overlap). Its basically an impossible target to hit unless you managed to somehow run variable valve timing. You would need at least a 6.0 liter to get close to that type of low RPM torque with that large a stick installed (and probably a 383 is more realistic).
I will say it again....what this combo does better than most is H-A-N-G the torque curve out past peak (its very effective at processing air and has excellent valve control as well which is also critical).....and that is exactly what's required to make big power folks.
In short, there is nothing suspect with these dyno results....Dale spent a bunch of money hitting all the details and it shows. Take from it what you will
-Tony
Ask any dyno dynamics owner what correction factor number they use. I guarantee the shops posting numbers in the ball park with SAE dyno jets are using something in the 1.14 ballpark at sea level and higher depending on the elevation. If that is legit in your book then pump these results away. I know this combo is stout, but I also know these numbers here are inflated for comparison purposes.
10-12-2009, 03:41 PM
#30
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver International Airport, Colorado USA
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Blu:
Nice video! Maybe I am missing the obvious here or I need glasses. Did that dyno pull you posted on your vid just go out to 5600 Rpm's?
Maybe I am just having a hard time reading that dyno graph, but I see the HP/TQ cross at 5250 Rpms then it ends? If you could post both the Dynojet and Dyno Dynamics graphs up that would help make your point.
Thanks..P.S. car sounds good!
..WeathermanShawn..
Nice video! Maybe I am missing the obvious here or I need glasses. Did that dyno pull you posted on your vid just go out to 5600 Rpm's?
Maybe I am just having a hard time reading that dyno graph, but I see the HP/TQ cross at 5250 Rpms then it ends? If you could post both the Dynojet and Dyno Dynamics graphs up that would help make your point.
Thanks..P.S. car sounds good!
..WeathermanShawn..
10-12-2009, 04:01 PM
#31
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Blu:
Nice video! Maybe I am missing the obvious here or I need glasses. Did that dyno pull you posted on your vid just go out to 5600 Rpm's?
Maybe I am just having a hard time reading that dyno graph, but I see the HP/TQ cross at 5250 Rpms then it ends? If you could post both the Dynojet and Dyno Dynamics graphs up that would help make your point.
Thanks..P.S. car sounds good!
..WeathermanShawn..
Nice video! Maybe I am missing the obvious here or I need glasses. Did that dyno pull you posted on your vid just go out to 5600 Rpm's?
Maybe I am just having a hard time reading that dyno graph, but I see the HP/TQ cross at 5250 Rpms then it ends? If you could post both the Dynojet and Dyno Dynamics graphs up that would help make your point.
Thanks..P.S. car sounds good!
..WeathermanShawn..
Compare the tq on both and then compare the HP on both rpm based. This is a non fudged dyno dynamics dyno. The said car is healthy on both runs and made 503rwhp a few months later on a dynojet. So you tell me what happens to the numbers if they dial it up to the 1.13 to 1.14 CF to get the numbers more in line with a dynojet?
10-12-2009, 04:53 PM
#32
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver International Airport, Colorado USA
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blu, I am probably just as not well educated on the Dyno Dynamics system.
What I am confused about is why the one run is only to ~5700 Rpm's? Are you saying the Dyno Dynamics overestimates HP, or that the correction factor makes comparison useless?
I always like to know if I am comparing the same data. If one run only goes out to 5700 Rpm's and the others past 6600..well what is fair about that comparison?
I am a little confused. Anybody else? It is important otherwise what is the point of dynoing on anything but a Dynojet and utilizing SAE correction factors?
What I am confused about is why the one run is only to ~5700 Rpm's? Are you saying the Dyno Dynamics overestimates HP, or that the correction factor makes comparison useless?
I always like to know if I am comparing the same data. If one run only goes out to 5700 Rpm's and the others past 6600..well what is fair about that comparison?
I am a little confused. Anybody else? It is important otherwise what is the point of dynoing on anything but a Dynojet and utilizing SAE correction factors?
10-12-2009, 05:47 PM
#34
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blu, I am probably just as not well educated on the Dyno Dynamics system.
What I am confused about is why the one run is only to ~5700 Rpm's? Are you saying the Dyno Dynamics overestimates HP, or that the correction factor makes comparison useless?
I always like to know if I am comparing the same data. If one run only goes out to 5700 Rpm's and the others past 6600..well what is fair about that comparison?
I am a little confused. Anybody else? It is important otherwise what is the point of dynoing on anything but a Dynojet and utilizing SAE correction factors?
What I am confused about is why the one run is only to ~5700 Rpm's? Are you saying the Dyno Dynamics overestimates HP, or that the correction factor makes comparison useless?
I always like to know if I am comparing the same data. If one run only goes out to 5700 Rpm's and the others past 6600..well what is fair about that comparison?
I am a little confused. Anybody else? It is important otherwise what is the point of dynoing on anything but a Dynojet and utilizing SAE correction factors?
Dyno Dynamics SAE read a lot lower HP than dynojets unless they are corrected higher (fudge factor) to read closer to what a dynojet would put out. From what I have seen in the past its either 1.13 to 1.14 in the settings which I think DD already has a calculation built in for it. Alvin on here had a great post on this topic. https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...-dynamics.html
The only reason I get involved in things like this is dynos now are used as marketing tools to pump products instead of strictly a tuning tool which is the reasoning for their existence.
10-12-2009, 07:24 PM
#36
Blu,
Im going to quote myself again assuming you blew over it convinced Dale's numbers are inflated.
Now your "inflated" dyno example above is obviously flawed IMO just looking at the peak torque above 450 RWTQ and especially looking at the torque output at 4K. It looks jacked up....someone knowledgeable like myself and others with alot of hands on dyno experience (especially concerning this type of Gen III package) would be able to pick up on that just like the examples I used above. This is physics to a point guys and some things are possible and some things aren't when you have an engine of "X" size with "X" compression ratio
Now you may have also wanted to raise the BS flag on my original 224/228 package that made 435-440 RWTQ and 475-481 RWHP (depending on the day and the dyno), especially four-five years ago when aggressive packages were having a hard time achieving that. Yet those results were confirmed on a half a dozen different dynos in two different States. Dale's curve looks VERY similar to mine but hangs the torque curve further out a little better as you would expect and I hoped for with a slightly larger cam and the deeper breathing heads. Its exactly what I would have drawn on a napkin if Dale and I were at a bar discussing what the most optimistic result of the work we were discussing could produce. We already had a proven recipe (my former package).....Dale just financed the newer slightly more aggressive version of it.
-Tony
PS....Also note the peak RWTQ is the same as my combination which isn't a coincidence. It should be similar with the same displacement, induction, exhaust, and most importantly the same compression. In fact the bulk of peak torque output is displacement and compression based (assuming similar flowing heads, induction, exhaust). Power is a completely different animal however and doesn't even require monster torque output to show well. In fact big cammed cars usually make less peak torque (unless they have alot of static compression), but much like Dale's curve hang it out there longer (bringing horsepower along with it as a mathematical function of RPM) due to simply holding the valves open longer. But as most of you already know, that's not a free lunch because of low speed power/torque penalties. We accomplished the same thing with a more refined approach where Dale invested more money than most with a professionally prepped set of cylinder heads (and intake manifold) which is the key to engine breathing 101 and shouldn't be discounted....and he invested time and money in the smaller details as well....all of which add to the bottom line come dyno day.
Im going to quote myself again assuming you blew over it convinced Dale's numbers are inflated.
You want to call BS.....call BS on a 500 RWHP 346 with a BIG cam in the low 240's that makes close to 400 RWTQ at 3K. A motor that small with that big a cam will simply not be efficient at that RPM (too much cam overlap). Its basically an impossible target to hit unless you managed to somehow run variable valve timing. You would need at least a 6.0 liter to get close to that type of low RPM torque with that large a stick installed (and probably a 383 is more realistic).
I will say it again....what this combo does better than most is H-A-N-G the torque curve out past peak (its very effective at processing air and has excellent valve control as well which is also critical).....and that is exactly what's required to make big power folks.
In short, there is nothing suspect with these dyno results....Dale spent a bunch of money hitting all the details and it shows. Take from it what you will
I will say it again....what this combo does better than most is H-A-N-G the torque curve out past peak (its very effective at processing air and has excellent valve control as well which is also critical).....and that is exactly what's required to make big power folks.
In short, there is nothing suspect with these dyno results....Dale spent a bunch of money hitting all the details and it shows. Take from it what you will
Now you may have also wanted to raise the BS flag on my original 224/228 package that made 435-440 RWTQ and 475-481 RWHP (depending on the day and the dyno), especially four-five years ago when aggressive packages were having a hard time achieving that. Yet those results were confirmed on a half a dozen different dynos in two different States. Dale's curve looks VERY similar to mine but hangs the torque curve further out a little better as you would expect and I hoped for with a slightly larger cam and the deeper breathing heads. Its exactly what I would have drawn on a napkin if Dale and I were at a bar discussing what the most optimistic result of the work we were discussing could produce. We already had a proven recipe (my former package).....Dale just financed the newer slightly more aggressive version of it.
-Tony
PS....Also note the peak RWTQ is the same as my combination which isn't a coincidence. It should be similar with the same displacement, induction, exhaust, and most importantly the same compression. In fact the bulk of peak torque output is displacement and compression based (assuming similar flowing heads, induction, exhaust). Power is a completely different animal however and doesn't even require monster torque output to show well. In fact big cammed cars usually make less peak torque (unless they have alot of static compression), but much like Dale's curve hang it out there longer (bringing horsepower along with it as a mathematical function of RPM) due to simply holding the valves open longer. But as most of you already know, that's not a free lunch because of low speed power/torque penalties. We accomplished the same thing with a more refined approach where Dale invested more money than most with a professionally prepped set of cylinder heads (and intake manifold) which is the key to engine breathing 101 and shouldn't be discounted....and he invested time and money in the smaller details as well....all of which add to the bottom line come dyno day.
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 10-12-2009 at 07:42 PM.
10-13-2009, 09:04 AM
#40
I try to be enviro friendly & don't feel the small gains for being cat less is worth while.
The 3" muffler's are pleasing sound quality wise, quiet & no drone! According to LG's website with back to back dyno runs these have good gains. Not an enjoyable experience to install, I don't think the tips will every line up properly.