Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

Stock bottom end 346
Stem racing 241's with stock valves
Stem cleaned Typhoon with 85mm tb
EPS 234/246 110+3 cam
Edelbrock Victor headers
Dual exhaust
U/D pulley and Lid etc
Tuned by Brandon @ Fast Motorsports
Dyno @ Dean's Performance

This pull shows 447.5/423.3 but it was the cleanest graph. Their dyno tends to be wavey, and they showed me a stock GTO graph that was the same way. I'm not sure why, but it's just a dyno. It is a dynojet 248x, and is inline with Speed Inc as both have had the same cars on them. Lines are drawn through the bumps for ease of reading, the graph is unchanged and the peak numbers are unaltered.

The best pull was 450/423, but that graph had a break in it and just looked bad. The throttle was rolled into right around 4000, and this run was pulled to 6600. Other runs previous were pulled higher, so no need for repeating 7k pulls as we saw what the cam will do past peak.

The early-ish peak (around 6200) I am contributing to the Typhoon. I wanted to see how far it can be pushed and I think it's just running out of air up top since the kPa are dropping to 95. A ported FAST should take it north of 460-465, at which point the 241's may be the restriction There was zero knock through the entire run, every time.

I'm pleased with this combo, it works well together and it looks like it can be shifted at 6700 not 7000 like I anticipated. It's a cheap combo too.

390 rwtq at 4300
423 rwtq at 4900
390 rwtq at 6000

360 rwhp at 4600
450 rwhp at 6200 (in seperate graph 448 in this)
440 rwhp at 6600

Here it is, comments welcome:

chrs1313

iTrader: (24)

congrats and i get to pop your cherry...

i cant wait to see what this thing will do with a ported Fast intake on it...

also might want to mention before people ask...

CR, flycutting, m6, e85

that tq is sick...i only had 410tq

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

Correct Chris, this is with 58cc heads and the pistons are fly cut.

Counting the reliefs, final compression was about 11.7 to 11.8 depending on which calculator used.

It is tuned on e85, but would run on 93. I'd do what you do though and splash some 100 in for safety. I considered that, but then found out I can make my own e85 in the winter

john563

iTrader: (17)

Damn wonder what this would do with my 5.3 heads(fly cut) and ported 90/90 in an A4..Might have to give geoff a call..Nice numbers!

Nitroused383

iTrader: (10)

I still can't believe you didn't degree that cam in lol. Too bad he started the pull around 4000. That typhoon isn't helping you at all. Great results for the setup though, that 420 ftlbs of torque indicates a lot of potential up top when you get things figued out.

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

Yeah I didn't get an adjustable chain, so I had to go dot to dot. I know it should be degree'd in to be perfect. I will next time the front cover is off and I'll see where it was. I do wish he started the pull at 3000, but it's not like I won't be dragging this car to every dyno day I can this summer! I am getting a big drop on the kpa with the Typhoon still.. and I put 4 hours of work into fixing it! I'll keep my eyes open for a good deal on a fast and then port that out and swap. I'm impressed with the cam and the way the heads are holding their own as well.

This combo will break 475 with my 241's before I move on, I promise that.

Squirts11

iTrader: (14)

Congrats bud. Impressive #'s for those 241's you ported, particularly with that typhoon intake.

I'm also surprised it peaked around 6200, but like you said, an improved intake (ported fast intake/tb) would really contribute serious numbers up top.

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, I really think so too.. the higher it went, the more the kPa dropped, the bigger restriction that intake became.

This is a budget build though, I wanted to see what I could do with budget parts.

The heads cost $950, the cam was a normal price, the intake is cheaper than an LS6 and only has 4 hours into fixing it, which was $200. The headers are cheap, about the price of Pacesetters, and the exhaust is fabbed up with a couple bullet mufflers. I did upgrade my injectors and pump, but that is IT. I have less than $3,500 in the heads/cam/intake/exhaust/fuel, EVERYTHING.

The heads and cam alone from STEM/EPS cost just $1400 shipped and ready to bolt in.

I think with a ported FAST.. it's not unreasonable to expect 465 to 470 rwhp and 435 rwtq with the 241's.

Red99TA

iTrader: (11)

Nice numbers - realize they're STD so SAE numbers will be a little lower (I think 4% is the correction between the two). This is about the exact same as what I put down with my LS6 intake/TB but different heads/cam. You've actually got a little more torque than my setup did as well. Nice example of making good power on a budget.

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

STD is just the sea level correction factor.

http://www.z06vette.com/forums/f5/sa...sepower-40259/

That talks about it.

You can see right on the paper the correction factor is 1.04, seems to be in line with other dyno graphs I see.

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

did a little more looking, and the difference between STD and SAE should be about 2.6%

https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...corrected.html

Which would put the SAE numbers at about the 440/410 area.

This is just the graph I was given, I am not a dyno operator lol.

Red99TA

iTrader: (11)

I'm not trying to give you grief - When I had my last dyno done (last summer) I didn't realize it was STD until I got home and wasn't as pleased with the results as I originally was. Not sure where I heard the 4% number from.

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

No greif taken.. I didn't know the difference, I just searched on this site to see what the difference was.

I'm not trying to hide anything, just putting it out there, good or bad.

02*C5

iTrader: (1)

Again Congrats PIB hope u hit that 475 mark. What heads are you thinking of going with next. 243s, AFR, or TFs?

Hardtop

iTrader: (3)

Nice results. Looking at your graph it looks like a 6500 rpm shift point would be better than 6700. Of course track results will determine what is best. Congrats.

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

C5 - not sure what heads yet after the 241's.. I am considering ALL of them right now but need to upgrade the intake and optimize that first.

Hardtop - thanks! And yeah, I'll be trying a few different shift points, the lower the better obviously as I am a stock bottom end down to even stock rod bolts.


ALSO I talked to my tuner and the STD at 1.04 was more representative of real numbers. The SAE was at 1.024 anyway. The difference from 1.024 to 1.04 was because of the fact the dyno cell was 100 degrees plus with 85% humidity, and the computer weather station was in a slightly cooler area of the shop and reading a lower temp, so that was a correction of the correction. On a normal day, those would be SAE numbers. It was hotter than ***** during the dyno.

Titanws6

iTrader: (35)

Very nice number, its always good to see budget builds put up good results when piece together properly. I am a little envious of your TQ for sure, I went with a 230/230 cam to bring in the max TQ sooner, but am kinda of disappointed with how it turned out, that, and it was a PITA for my tuner to tune. How was the valvetrain, I have read alot about these EPS lobes being relatively quiet, curious how your turned out, and what size PR are you running?

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

I had people tell me that cam has too much split to make torque, and reverse splits make the best midrange power. Those people were wrong apparently.

My valvetrain is LS7 lifters, standard diameter 7.350 pushrods, PAC 1518 springs, stock valves, locks, retainers. Yes, beehive springs on a cam like that. That's how friendly these EPS lobes are! Yes, my valvetrain is relatively quiet. It isn't a sewing machine, that's for sure.

Damian

iTrader: (89)

I didn't notice the #'s were STD. Prob a 435-440/410 car corrected.

Paint_It_Black

iTrader: (1)

Honestly I thought so too. But after talking to the tuner again about this, SAE correction at the weather station was 1.024, but due to the higher temperature in the dyno cell (over the weather station), he used a STD of 1.04 (1.6% more than SAE) to represent what would be closer to actual numbers.

Taking it at a 1.6% change to SAE it would have been 443/416 (from the broken 450/423 graph), but that also wouldn't have accounted for the temp difference between what was actually at the car and what the weather station said it was. Which is why he used the 1.04.

I hope that makes sense.. and another reason I am not a huge fan of dyno numbers, but they are what they are.