J-Rod

So, does it count when we get mineshaft air and the cars runs an insane ammount of MPH?

Actually, I've discussed this with both Pat and Tony. I've also discussed a smaller port L92 to get rid of some of the port volume to get velocity up. I think the best thing you could do to an L92 is fill the port with epoxy and rework it instead of making a port that is already big, way too big...

The L92 fixes some issues to be sure with the cathedral port, but people loose sight of what this head is. Its the leftovers from the orginal Z06 project that didn't make the cut N/A. So, they sent the heads to Chapman, and he came up with the LS7. GM spent a lot of time on the L92, and didn't want to loose that. But, the head was never "optimzied" around where it could have been. It just is what it is...

I'm not saying the L92 is junk. Its a "good" head for the money. But, can it be improved on? Most certainly.... I've said more than once, and I will say it here again. I will take airspeed and velocity over raw flow numbers any day. I can get you any flow number you want to achieve so long as you let me make the port big enough.

I got a lot of heat in the L92 head thread where I've made the same assertions. I promise you, if you talked to some of the better cylinder heads guys indepedant of Tony (no offense Tony) like Darin Morgan and you said, which is more important I bet you $1000 he'd say velocity and airspeed win every time...

What folks fail to recognize is that keeping up airpseed is what initally fills the cylinder, and its also what fills the cylinder the last little bit before the valve shuts. You only have X ammount of time during the intake stroke to move that column of air and fuel. The more efficently you get it moving, the more you get in. Also, if it has velocity, then you get some inertia filling of the cylinder of the column of air. That leads to situations on high end motors wher you get whats called inertial supercharging (think Pro Stock) where your motor is making over 100% Volumetric efficency.

Congrats to Pat and Tony for proving that simple physics are still in effect, even in the LSx world....

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Yank 3200.

I'm thinking that at my 4200 lb race weight, 119mph in 1000' air would be about right.

If you take away the 1.85 rockers that my previous combo had gained me, my starting baseline would have been 384rwhp. That means I gained 120rwhp with heads/cam/and intake porting.

That was a Tony Mamo call. He wanted to use a lobe that anyone could buy and duplicate. So we used a catalog lobe and not a custom lobe.

If I still had the stock converter, that would be a great tip, but I'm not sure if softened run-flats would hold up to my 3200 stall and all this torque.

I know this is going to sound cliche', but it's exactly like stock. Really. Took some tuning, but it's just like stock in every way except when you punch it.

If you had the same heads and Mamo ported FAST 102 and optimized your airbox and deleted the MAF to keep from pulling a huge vacuum at WOT, I would say definitely YES.

8ByGoat

iTrader: (2)

Wow....

What was going on with your car originally? Looking at the graph it did not peak anywhere close to where it should have.

Looking at the graph you pulled the catback too right?

CyberGrey Z28

iTrader: (4)

I don't understand what's wrong with tuning a vehicle on the dyno then taking it to the track to confirm numbers as the OP stated his plans were.

Seems like you someone is a little jealous/hater and thinks their validation is required lol.

Amazing results Pat and Tony, waiting for the results of the AFR 210 V2.

IH8FORD

iTrader: (6)

My porter has also suggested that We epoxy the floor up on my l-92 heads to make them more efficient. But I am going to hold off. I want to go back to an aftermarket Cathedral port head like these AFr's so I can use more nitrous. None really makes an l-92 with a thick deck.

BTW nice results I may be in the market for a new top end soon.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

My stock engine is an L76 6.0L. That means the stock cam is a DOD/AFM cam around 200/209 .472/.479" lift. Pretty pathetic cam. All the 6.0L G8s peak around 5600 rpm. Mine did a little better because of the 1.85 rockers and FAST 102 intake, but it was in desperate need of more cam and more airflow. Most bolt-on G8s dyno in the 370-380rwhp range and the ones with all the squirrel mods (like mine) make close to 400rwhp.

We pulled the quiet stock mufflers behind the axle to get 504rwhp. The stock mufflers were not restrictive enough to pull when we were making 397rwhp, but the best power we could make with stock mufflers in current form was 490rwhp. Here's the overlay.

bozzhawg

No sir, you have twisted my words, dynos are used for tunning purposes.... and regardless of who it is I will still maintain take it to the track.... But as Carol Shelby said it a long time ago, HORSEPOWER SELLS CARS, TORQUE WINS RACES..... HORSEPOWER IS SEXY........ Horsepower sells products,

Whether it be AFR,L92,Trickflow, etc..... if a company travels around site to site and markets a product, and they tell you it can do this.....
As a consumer you have the right to say show me..... Only people who would take the questions as hating are insecure themsleves....or allegances and alliances are shown...

You don't buy a TV, a cellphone, a car, or anything else without proof So why would this neuroprocess not be applied here?.......... Nothing against Pat G...... I am saying to Tony put some track data to go with these heads and intakes he promotes and sells...

I just questioned the title too because it leads you to believe that this is a measurement of the L92 vs the AFR.... but they did that already and we know the outcome....
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...h/results.html

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

The AFR heads in that test were nothing like mine. The flow numbers of my AFR230v2 heads crush those 225s.

Head flow numbers:
Lift Int. Exh.
.200 166 131
.300 234 189
.400 285 229
.500 323 246
.550 330 251
.600 333 255
.650 334 260

Plus I'm sure they didn't have a Mamo ported FAST, yada, yada. The gains were real and I backed them up on the same dyno and disclosed everything I did (including cam specs). No need to discredit the results from an apples to oranges magazine comparison.

HuMi

Its a locked converter. Who gives a F about a locked converter. If you made the power with it unlocked..id be impressed. You dont race a converter locked. I didnt think Pat G would stoop that low to pump up a combo.

MikeG

iTrader: (33)

Most guys with autos post locked numbers. What's the big deal? Anyone with any knowledge about autos whatsoever would know that this thing is still well over 450 unlocked. He posted locked numbers last time, so posting unlocked numbers this time would make for an inaccurate comparison.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

When you're trying to see the gains you make at rpm below 4000 rpm (and you don't have the luxury of having an engine dyno at your disposal) you get a much better representation of the torque curve with a locked torque converter. This way, guys with manual transmissions can compare my locked curves to theirs. So I beg to differ, many people couldn't care less about what a converter does for multiplying torque. They want to see the A-B gains at lower and higher rpm. This is what I reported. Sorry if you don't agree.

69LT1Bird

iTrader: (1)

Patrick, thanks for posting the head flow numbers. That thing should tick off a few Camaro's and Vette's in your area.

For the fun of it I dumped your data into Performance Trends, cam, 1 7/8 headers, the numbers from your heads you gave and I winged the intake flow. With 15% driveline loss I came up with 495@6400 rwhp and 449@5200 rwtq, pretty close for just playing.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Holy Sheeeeet.....Its J-Rod

Damn dude.....did someone just lift that rock from the hurricane shelter!

What you should have said is look at other people besides Tony who also focus on velocity....LOL

Lots of air with lots of airspeed is the home run scenario.....this is a fact. The L92/LS3 cylinder heads are an inefficient design coming from the perspective of a cylinder head designer who is looking for more than just total airflow. Im also carefully examining and keeping an eye on CSA (cross sectional area) and airspeed (velocity of the charge).....its the latter two categories that the L92 fails to deliver, not to mention is also handicapped by a very weak exhaust port which in a street car with a full exhaust would have a larger negative effect than a race car with a perfectly sized merge collector, no mufflers, and the right sized extension pipe coming off the header. As Jarrod said....is it a good head for the money? Sure it is, but its better placed on a much larger engine that wouldn't be as handicapped by the large runner and even then its still not an overly effective design.....the bigger engine would just mask its flaws a little better. To really make it better you would have to reduce the size of the intake port while increasing or maintaining its current airflow (preferably increasing total CFM and reducing the CSA).

Lets face it.....the L92's have never produced the hero numbers their peak airflow would leave you to believe is possible. I guarantee the ported L92 headed motor that made 465 -470 on the same dyno Pats combo just came off of had potentially 20 more CFM (peak) over the cathedral AFR 230 but there is alot more to a very efficient head design than a peak number and that's what you guys need to take a step back and soak in. The flow curve is also important and its another area the new 230 V2 head shines.....its explosive in the lower and midlifts and that helps the engine carry power which as you can see it did very well in spite of the conservative cam timing.

Gotta run.....Jarrod, drop me a line one of these days and lets catch up!

Regards,
Tony

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

TM here....

Whats your problem?

It would have been cheesy if Patrick posted an unlocked baseline to a locked baseline agreed.....without question, but that's clearly not what happened here.

If you wanted to learn anything about mods to an auto equipped hot rod I would think ALL of your testing would be locked allowing you to see exactly what happened with the mod in question....otherwise you would be forced to test those mods at the track which adds about a dozen uncontrollable variables to the mix (an unlocked converter can skew the dyno results and low RPM testing is impossible).

Here's the deal.....Pat picked up 105 or so HP with the swap. You want to call bullshit wait till he only traps 3-4 more MPH instead of the 7-8 that type of an increase in a 4200 lb car would typically net.

He has some data at the track when he ran his car with all the "squirrel mods" (love that nick name btw....LOL)....lets see what he does with the new combo.

You just come across like a silly hater....when he lays down the increase at the dragstrip worthy of this power increase will you hop on the thread and man up?

I look forward to that day

-Tony

NicD

iTrader: (7)

Using locked numbers takes the converter variable out of the mix since different converters are going to have different losses. Of course it doesn't get raced that way, this was for a comparison on the engine combo. I would have thought this was pretty obvious until you posted.

bozzhawg

Tony

Just because some don't agree with you you automatically call it hating, we should be able to agree and disagree.... The only reason I question this is because it seems like you have a grudge or vandetta against the L92 heads... and by you pounding your chest and the coments you have made and the title suggest that your saying you don't like the head and I have made a better head or your head is superior.....

Now as I stated and Pat G answered, and this is not to Pat G , good run Pat G, but I am talking directly to you, what happend in the Sick Flow Less doe Test?.......

Because your wording is leading people to believe that they buy these heads brownfields/AFR they will have the answer.... The key with the L92's which has been shot to death is you have to have the correct camshaft events, lobe ramps, to make them work.... period.... First it was said that they did not make enough low end torque due to the port size, velocity, well they are placed in production Silverado, Escalades, GMC, etc... that neeed the low- mid torque and grunt.....GM is not putting them on for no reason....

I don't think guys are hating but this was posted as a marketing strategy so you must respect as one gives their opinion whether or not if it goes along the lines of your conventinal thinking, because the L92 defied much of your marketing campaign of smaller port, faster velocity......

The AFR 225's could not stand up to the test, so I find it ineresting that you increased the port cc.... to 230cc.... This reminds me of the Vortec/AFR battle, now your making a L92/AFR 230 battle.....

You said never, but their are guys with 6.0/L92 combos who have made 480-500 rwhp easy...... So to say never is misleading, they just didn't do it with a Mamo ported Intake or brownfield/AFR head....

Trickflow,MastMotorsport have developed cast offs of the L92's and I have yet to see them pound their chest or crap on the L92 heads.....

As a consumer, you have to expect for people to question motive....

I'm out

69LT1Bird

iTrader: (1)

Since I haven't seen it yet, how much is the ported intake?
How much for a pair of heads, ready to bolt on?

Sofls1

iTrader: (16)

Wow there is some serious hate in here....

Congrats on the results Patrick and Tony!

WSsick

iTrader: (13)

I love when the big guys get in here and have a chat, clues the rest of us in.


I am pretty sure that is just for the heads, but completely worked. I called AFR a while ago for a friend looking into heads and it was about $3800 or so for fully Mamofied 205s. If someone corrects me though about the 4300, I will delete this post.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Only the rest of you with an open mind who don't have what I like to call "selective" reading abilities....


Concerning price, when your looking to make more power than the average bear it stands to reason your going to pay more than the average bear. I think that is pretty logical.

Unfortunately big power usually costs big money. It wont even take a newbie in this hobby very long to figure that out (of course that logic pretty much covers most things in life).

Pats heads could be duplicated for approximately $3600 if someone was to get in touch with me personally and had the time to wait depending on how busy I was and how many projects I had on my plate at the time. But truthfully, a build of this nature (or any "optimized" build) should never be rushed....the more carefully you plan the higher the likelihood of stronger results.....this is a fact. There is a reason the same guys usually put up better than average numbers on a consistent basis.....those are the guys sweating every detail, carefully planning, and very likely investing a little more in the project in an effort to pick those extra "nickel and dimes" that add up come dyno day.

Pat and I have easily six months into this project....or certainly close to it. Then somewhere along the path we decided to wait for the new 230 heads adding a little more to the lead time. Fact of the matter is good things are worth waiting for and most of the rushed projects I see lead to disappointment because corners were cut in lieu of time constraints.

The other issue I would like to make clear is the additional work I performed to Pats heads (optimizing the castings and installing lighter weight valves) may have been worth a whopping 10 RWHP (looking at peak numbers only) but I'm sure the lighter valves helped this combo carry a bit better past peak. To some its worth the additional cost.....to others it's a luxury. If your looking for every pony in the stable its obviously worth consideration, no different than guys who spend extra money on the manifold work...some deem it worth it, others opt to take a pass.

What I'm trying to say is an out of the box head would have performed admirably well also and I'm sure in a few short months as more of the V2 stuff hits the street (and the various chassis dyno's), I'm confident that you will see more independent results that will be very positive.

For those with a glass half full approach to life this is a very positive thing. AFR has invested a bunch of time and energy to offer you guys a significantly better head for the same price our original LS heads were being sold for (which till this day still hold their own out in the field almost six years later), essentially adding even more value to the hobby we all love and come to spend time here to learn (and of course share our failures and accomplishments!).



Cheers,
Tony