Vengeance VRX5 dyno results (LS6 engine) :-/
07-04-2010, 02:38 PM
#41
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing that I like here in your combo imo is the headers. Too much intake, little to much cam, way to much valve spring, etc.... Your torque tells the story. Something is not happy in your setup.
07-04-2010, 07:00 PM
#42
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ I went with the 675 valve spring to get additional life... the valvespring should have little to zero impact on performance characteristics.
I disagree with the "too much intake" comment as well. As stated earlier, I am seeing 99-101 kPa inside the manifold during WOT, which is exactly where it should be. Furthermore, if you look as some of the testing (such as done by spectacle solutions, as well as feedback from intake 'experts' such as Mamo) on a stock cube ls1/6 all which show GAINS from the FAST102 over the Fast90, and ls6 manis. I am half tempted to put the stock mani back on just to dyno for evidence, but realllllly dont want to go thru all that effort just to show some people what has already been shown on this very board in other threads.
Some of you dont understand the dynamics involved with intake manifold tuning. The plenum volume has an affect, and when large, it never results in a drop in top end power, only bottom end, due to the reduced air velocities in the chamber. Runner length is the primary determining factor for top end power, and where peak is located, and I dont think there ANY difference at all in the runner port diameter, maybe some adjustments in length, and flow, but not diameter. For the TB, I am still at 90mm, and do have hte transition to the 102mm before entering the plenum, but that flow upset would caust issues in transients, but not in steadystate top end results (at least not very much)
Too much cam??? I dont see how. I got a cam that would still have relative street manners, yet give top end performance for a car that sees road racing (though thats a wish as of late) and autox.
As far as the headers.... the LG pros have been used for years now on the C5s and c5z's with great results. Yes, there are 1 7/8 headers now that offer advantages, but I think THAT would be more overkill on stock cubes. This would have a much more pronounced affect than an overly large plenum volume.
To the drama dude on here, the other cars making 430/440 were either running LGPros, or kooks, most had UDPs, no mention on waterpump, but that parasitic loss would not account to very much power/tq loss, maybe 5hp and maybe 5ft*lbs...
With regards to the AFR looking 'bad'... I dont see how. ignoring the cute picture on the dyno plot, the real story is in the datalog results shown. It floats right around the commanded line, which was tested at various levels to see affect on performance. If you think that actual vs commanded line looks bad, I would LOVE to see one that follows signficantly better.
Personally, I would say if anything is showing as needed improvement, MAYBE a more open axleback muffler, but I dont see that getting mroe than 5hp or so. My guess is it is with the block, might be showing it's age. Did a compression test and got 170 across all cylinders on a warm engine, but think I may take it and have a leak down to get more detailed results. And that is IF I really feel the need. I plan to take it to the track, and see what it does there.
I disagree with the "too much intake" comment as well. As stated earlier, I am seeing 99-101 kPa inside the manifold during WOT, which is exactly where it should be. Furthermore, if you look as some of the testing (such as done by spectacle solutions, as well as feedback from intake 'experts' such as Mamo) on a stock cube ls1/6 all which show GAINS from the FAST102 over the Fast90, and ls6 manis. I am half tempted to put the stock mani back on just to dyno for evidence, but realllllly dont want to go thru all that effort just to show some people what has already been shown on this very board in other threads.
Some of you dont understand the dynamics involved with intake manifold tuning. The plenum volume has an affect, and when large, it never results in a drop in top end power, only bottom end, due to the reduced air velocities in the chamber. Runner length is the primary determining factor for top end power, and where peak is located, and I dont think there ANY difference at all in the runner port diameter, maybe some adjustments in length, and flow, but not diameter. For the TB, I am still at 90mm, and do have hte transition to the 102mm before entering the plenum, but that flow upset would caust issues in transients, but not in steadystate top end results (at least not very much)
Too much cam??? I dont see how. I got a cam that would still have relative street manners, yet give top end performance for a car that sees road racing (though thats a wish as of late) and autox.
As far as the headers.... the LG pros have been used for years now on the C5s and c5z's with great results. Yes, there are 1 7/8 headers now that offer advantages, but I think THAT would be more overkill on stock cubes. This would have a much more pronounced affect than an overly large plenum volume.
To the drama dude on here, the other cars making 430/440 were either running LGPros, or kooks, most had UDPs, no mention on waterpump, but that parasitic loss would not account to very much power/tq loss, maybe 5hp and maybe 5ft*lbs...
With regards to the AFR looking 'bad'... I dont see how. ignoring the cute picture on the dyno plot, the real story is in the datalog results shown. It floats right around the commanded line, which was tested at various levels to see affect on performance. If you think that actual vs commanded line looks bad, I would LOVE to see one that follows signficantly better.
Personally, I would say if anything is showing as needed improvement, MAYBE a more open axleback muffler, but I dont see that getting mroe than 5hp or so. My guess is it is with the block, might be showing it's age. Did a compression test and got 170 across all cylinders on a warm engine, but think I may take it and have a leak down to get more detailed results. And that is IF I really feel the need. I plan to take it to the track, and see what it does there.
07-05-2010, 11:32 AM
#46
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ I went with the 675 valve spring to get additional life... the valvespring should have little to zero impact on performance characteristics.
I disagree with the "too much intake" comment as well. As stated earlier, I am seeing 99-101 kPa inside the manifold during WOT, which is exactly where it should be. Furthermore, if you look as some of the testing (such as done by spectacle solutions, as well as feedback from intake 'experts' such as Mamo) on a stock cube ls1/6 all which show GAINS from the FAST102 over the Fast90, and ls6 manis. I am half tempted to put the stock mani back on just to dyno for evidence, but realllllly dont want to go thru all that effort just to show some people what has already been shown on this very board in other threads.
Some of you dont understand the dynamics involved with intake manifold tuning. The plenum volume has an affect, and when large, it never results in a drop in top end power, only bottom end, due to the reduced air velocities in the chamber. Runner length is the primary determining factor for top end power, and where peak is located, and I dont think there ANY difference at all in the runner port diameter, maybe some adjustments in length, and flow, but not diameter. For the TB, I am still at 90mm, and do have hte transition to the 102mm before entering the plenum, but that flow upset would caust issues in transients, but not in steadystate top end results (at least not very much)
Too much cam??? I dont see how. I got a cam that would still have relative street manners, yet give top end performance for a car that sees road racing (though thats a wish as of late) and autox.
As far as the headers.... the LG pros have been used for years now on the C5s and c5z's with great results. Yes, there are 1 7/8 headers now that offer advantages, but I think THAT would be more overkill on stock cubes. This would have a much more pronounced affect than an overly large plenum volume.
To the drama dude on here, the other cars making 430/440 were either running LGPros, or kooks, most had UDPs, no mention on waterpump, but that parasitic loss would not account to very much power/tq loss, maybe 5hp and maybe 5ft*lbs...
With regards to the AFR looking 'bad'... I dont see how. ignoring the cute picture on the dyno plot, the real story is in the datalog results shown. It floats right around the commanded line, which was tested at various levels to see affect on performance. If you think that actual vs commanded line looks bad, I would LOVE to see one that follows signficantly better.
Personally, I would say if anything is showing as needed improvement, MAYBE a more open axleback muffler, but I dont see that getting mroe than 5hp or so. My guess is it is with the block, might be showing it's age. Did a compression test and got 170 across all cylinders on a warm engine, but think I may take it and have a leak down to get more detailed results. And that is IF I really feel the need. I plan to take it to the track, and see what it does there.
I disagree with the "too much intake" comment as well. As stated earlier, I am seeing 99-101 kPa inside the manifold during WOT, which is exactly where it should be. Furthermore, if you look as some of the testing (such as done by spectacle solutions, as well as feedback from intake 'experts' such as Mamo) on a stock cube ls1/6 all which show GAINS from the FAST102 over the Fast90, and ls6 manis. I am half tempted to put the stock mani back on just to dyno for evidence, but realllllly dont want to go thru all that effort just to show some people what has already been shown on this very board in other threads.
Some of you dont understand the dynamics involved with intake manifold tuning. The plenum volume has an affect, and when large, it never results in a drop in top end power, only bottom end, due to the reduced air velocities in the chamber. Runner length is the primary determining factor for top end power, and where peak is located, and I dont think there ANY difference at all in the runner port diameter, maybe some adjustments in length, and flow, but not diameter. For the TB, I am still at 90mm, and do have hte transition to the 102mm before entering the plenum, but that flow upset would caust issues in transients, but not in steadystate top end results (at least not very much)
Too much cam??? I dont see how. I got a cam that would still have relative street manners, yet give top end performance for a car that sees road racing (though thats a wish as of late) and autox.
As far as the headers.... the LG pros have been used for years now on the C5s and c5z's with great results. Yes, there are 1 7/8 headers now that offer advantages, but I think THAT would be more overkill on stock cubes. This would have a much more pronounced affect than an overly large plenum volume.
To the drama dude on here, the other cars making 430/440 were either running LGPros, or kooks, most had UDPs, no mention on waterpump, but that parasitic loss would not account to very much power/tq loss, maybe 5hp and maybe 5ft*lbs...
With regards to the AFR looking 'bad'... I dont see how. ignoring the cute picture on the dyno plot, the real story is in the datalog results shown. It floats right around the commanded line, which was tested at various levels to see affect on performance. If you think that actual vs commanded line looks bad, I would LOVE to see one that follows signficantly better.
Personally, I would say if anything is showing as needed improvement, MAYBE a more open axleback muffler, but I dont see that getting mroe than 5hp or so. My guess is it is with the block, might be showing it's age. Did a compression test and got 170 across all cylinders on a warm engine, but think I may take it and have a leak down to get more detailed results. And that is IF I really feel the need. I plan to take it to the track, and see what it does there.
Intake, I know thoughts, theories and aspects of intakes and what there suppose to do and where there suppose to do it at. I think the 102 are best fitted for larger cube motors, or engines with very high VEs. I know this from using a few on mild 346s to wild 346s etc...
Camshaft, your not to far off on cam. I would have suggested something a tad smaller imo, but would rather suggest something more based on your combo and wants/needs out of the car and rpm range.
I am glad to see that you did do a CT and CLT tests on the motor, to verify you don't have rings/ valve job going south on you or what not. Props there, most people on this site wouldn't even take the time to do that.
All and all, good luck with the build, and hope you sort out the issues or problems that are going on with it. I only give suggestions on here and never knock what people are doing or try to do, just what works for me.
Joe
07-07-2010, 11:37 AM
#47
TECH Addict
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wood River, IL
Posts: 2,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about we take the car where the numbers really matter? The track maybe? Hell after my cam install, I gained 5 tq. I wasn't pleased with the numbers it was making but my car shows other wise on the street. Don't go by my track numbers, I slip the clutch to save the 10 bolt. Go to the track and see what it can do.
07-10-2010, 09:27 AM
#53
guys are giving some good answers, and you argue with guys that have already been there done that with these setups.
your cars not making the power. simple. when a cam only ls1(yours being cam, intake ls6) makes as much power, I'd be trying something different.
07-10-2010, 11:04 AM
#55
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, when looking for IMs, I got the same input from Spectacle, and several other shops. Somewhere on here, there is even a dyno comparison between the intakes, though on an ls2.
07-10-2010, 11:08 AM
#56
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
god you get on tech and bring the CSS bullshit here.
guys are giving some good answers, and you argue with guys that have already been there done that with these setups.
your cars not making the power. simple. when a cam only ls1(yours being cam, intake ls6) makes as much power, I'd be trying something different.
guys are giving some good answers, and you argue with guys that have already been there done that with these setups.
your cars not making the power. simple. when a cam only ls1(yours being cam, intake ls6) makes as much power, I'd be trying something different.
I agree, something needs to be examined (or really, put to a real test at the track) but I do not agree with some of hte suggestions, such as the valve springs accounting for a loss in power, or the IM is the problem, for reasons, such as stated above. And the only other 'argument' i gave was with regards to not having the same mods as those who made 430-440. My next step is to take the car to D. Popp for a compression/Leak down, in case the one I did was inaccurate, jsut to get a second look at it. To see if it is a tired short block or not.
07-10-2010, 09:02 PM
#57
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Romeoville, IL
Posts: 1,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MY 2002 Z06 with ported fast 90 intake, LS2 tb, kook's 1 7/8" header/3" ORXP, stock 243 heads, vararam CAI intake, UD pulley, Prc dual valve spring kit, 42 lb injectors and a MS4 cam. The car put down 438rwhp and 386rwtq on a mustang dyno. Now with that being said my stock injectors maxed out at 5800rpms. They were at 99% duty cycle. What is the duty cycle of your injectors?
My cam pulled strong past the 6400 peak and only fell off a few hp to 7000rpms.
07-11-2010, 10:03 AM
#60
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^ What he said.
MY 2002 Z06 with ported fast 90 intake, LS2 tb, kook's 1 7/8" header/3" ORXP, stock 243 heads, vararam CAI intake, UD pulley, Prc dual valve spring kit, 42 lb injectors and a MS4 cam. The car put down 438rwhp and 386rwtq on a mustang dyno. Now with that being said my stock injectors maxed out at 5800rpms. They were at 99% duty cycle. What is the duty cycle of your injectors?
My cam pulled strong past the 6400 peak and only fell off a few hp to 7000rpms.
MY 2002 Z06 with ported fast 90 intake, LS2 tb, kook's 1 7/8" header/3" ORXP, stock 243 heads, vararam CAI intake, UD pulley, Prc dual valve spring kit, 42 lb injectors and a MS4 cam. The car put down 438rwhp and 386rwtq on a mustang dyno. Now with that being said my stock injectors maxed out at 5800rpms. They were at 99% duty cycle. What is the duty cycle of your injectors?
My cam pulled strong past the 6400 peak and only fell off a few hp to 7000rpms.
Oh, i am well below my max duty cyle, at like ~60% I put in 60lbrs to handle a dry shot (harris speed works plate kit)