LS3 Shortblock, AFR 225, StreetSweeper, FAST 102....I dont need no stinkin stroker!!!
10-26-2010, 12:12 PM
#21
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (46)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How difficult was that 102 TB to tune in?
Driveability under 1800rpm, light load & low rpm?
Idle & return to idle characterisctics?
Sorry for the many questions, I'm considering something like you've got going. /Tx's
Sounds like a fun ride!
Is this the cam?
The popular "StreetSweeper" Camshaft
Specs: 236*-240*-111*-.630"-.610"
Driveability under 1800rpm, light load & low rpm?
Idle & return to idle characterisctics?
Sorry for the many questions, I'm considering something like you've got going. /Tx's
Sounds like a fun ride!
Is this the cam?
The popular "StreetSweeper" Camshaft
Specs: 236*-240*-111*-.630"-.610"
I personally didnt tune it but there were no issues with it. Took about 4-5 hours to get it to where its at. There is more room for improvement and I will get a detailed tune on it once I get a few thousand miles on it.
Driveability is not an issue at all. There are no drawbacks to a throttle body this big. At least not on my setup. I can just tap the trottle ever so slightly and it responds instantly. I can be cruising along and tap it and there is zero hesitation or any kind of stumble. No idle issues. Car starts up just fine. The issues that you may see where the car stambles off idle or at low RPMs is when the throttle body size doesnt match the intake size. The air tumbles, especailly at low velocity, where you have this step and it creates issues during light throttle and low RPM.
That is the cam that I have. Doesnt buck at low RPM which is what I was looking for. I can cruise around at 1100 RPM with no surging.
10-26-2010, 02:38 PM
#22
TECH Enthusiast
Contrary to the intarweb legend that most 224+ cammed LS3s put down 500+whp - as I type this there's a 231/231 112 cammed LS3 two posts below yours that made 470whp. I'm sure given enough time, the legend will evolve that factory cammed LS3s are making 500+whp. Congrats on what looks to be a very clean build and I'm sure you'll find some more hp going forward.
The popular "StreetSweeper" Camshaft
Specs: 236*-240*-111*-.630"-.610"
Specs: 236*-240*-111*-.630"-.610"
Anthony i am not being synical when I say this but since you brought it up, we can look at the 2 intelligently..... This is a blog board to dicuss techinical information, but now I see why certain guys do not post anymore....
First, the cam in the other thread is not 231/231 112 LSA....the correct information is 231/236 112 LSA.....
As I have always stated whether cathedral or square, camshaft events/lobe characteristics, must be selected properly to make either work or reach optimal efficiency.....
regardless who is doing the test, a LS3 package with 9.50* of overlap could be a limiting factor(most know this), also talking on 112 LSA which will also be a limiting factor of where max cylinder pressure would be reached..... You must have a complete understanding of the functionality of whats going on in correlation to cylinder fill.... I know a few weeks ago you were thirsty for knowledge but reading a few internet dynos will not give you a comprehensive understanding or qualitatively correlate a educated guess of what is true .... I can look at certain variables of most combinations and the story will be presented.....
Now Athony this is a good lesson of how camshaft timing plays a roll.... If you look at the two you can see the difference in LSA a 111 vs 112.... Now this is a general overvue but you noticed the 111 peaked earlier than the 112? Now some might say well the exhaust duration splits are different but one has a split of 4 the other 5 which is 1* is minimal.....
A.the 6.2/AFR hit 400lbs rwtq at 3200 rpms
B.the 6.2/LS3 hit 400lbs rwtq at 3500 rpms
This is not due to smaller port equals more velocity theory.... You have less LSA combined with more intake duration, combined with more compression.... So there are a lot of different things going on..... But the amazing thing is how close it is... Most will try to say that the smaller port theory is coming into play here, and making more torque, but actually its not....
To compensate for the lost low end with longer duration cams, the basic principle or rule of thumb to regain the low-mid range torque is to raise the compression....
And with cathedrals you have to run longer intake duration typically to hold the intake valve open longer to fill the cylinder during the induction stroke, plus time to complete the transition form exhaust to induction stroke or efficiently excuvate the exhaust gases at higher rpms... It needs more time to fill the cylinder to a desired point or higher power producing level at higher rpms..... so you see 236+ intake durations in order here....
now A. is on a 111, we know that the cathedrals/valve can accept a little more overlap and its not a major restriction.... plus the A. setup has more intake duration...... plus 11.5 compression.....
Now you add up:
AFR 225s milled to 59cc (roughly 11.5:1)
Mototron 60# injectors (flow matched)
FAST 102 mm
Nick Williams 102 mm throttle body
2004 Corsa Sport
Custom Intake(ported)
Powerbond UDP
Monster Lvl II with billet flywheel
GZ Motorsports vacuum pump
The combination of these extra parts should produce what it did or even more...... Good run..... Not taking anything away from it....... But these mods 5hp here, 10 hp there will add up to produce more power.... You have over 10 upgrades that should yeild more power or the power it did make....
Now look at B. 112 LSA, 231 (less intake duration), Stock Heads/Intake Manifold/TB/injectors........ No UD pulley, and 9.50* of overlap..... 10.7 compression..... No portwork, no lightweight flywheel, no 102 ported intake,no 102mm TB.....
No one is hating here,No one is saying one is better than the other, but only discussing the functionality is going on.... In this case Athony, your not comparing apples to apples...... When looking at cost, its up to the consumer to rationalize whether the cost is worth it in correlation to their budget......
If you don't educate yourself whether through actual expeirence or reading, you will always be a customer......
Bozz
Last edited by bozzhawg; 10-26-2010 at 02:47 PM.
10-26-2010, 05:51 PM
#25
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (46)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The oiling system is using a Melling pump. Also have a cooler installed but its not hooked up yet.
As for the intake I see no reason to change anything. It was within 10 degrees of ambient. Im not going to go crazy to try to lower it more. I personally dont care what the IAT's are when Im in traffic. And when the car is moving the slit in the hood is providing plenty of air over the intake.
As for the intake I see no reason to change anything. It was within 10 degrees of ambient. Im not going to go crazy to try to lower it more. I personally dont care what the IAT's are when Im in traffic. And when the car is moving the slit in the hood is providing plenty of air over the intake.
10-26-2010, 06:00 PM
#26
10-26-2010, 06:29 PM
#27
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (46)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Oh4GTO: The version of the street sweeper you have is this?
if so very interesting....
Anthony i am not being synical when I say this but since you brought it up, we can look at the 2 intelligently..... This is a blog board to dicuss techinical information, but now I see why certain guys do not post anymore....
First, the cam in the other thread is not 231/231 112 LSA....the correct information is 231/236 112 LSA.....
As I have always stated whether cathedral or square, camshaft events/lobe characteristics, must be selected properly to make either work or reach optimal efficiency.....
regardless who is doing the test, a LS3 package with 9.50* of overlap could be a limiting factor(most know this), also talking on 112 LSA which will also be a limiting factor of where max cylinder pressure would be reached..... You must have a complete understanding of the functionality of whats going on in correlation to cylinder fill.... I know a few weeks ago you were thirsty for knowledge but reading a few internet dynos will not give you a comprehensive understanding or qualitatively correlate a educated guess of what is true .... I can look at certain variables of most combinations and the story will be presented.....
Now Athony this is a good lesson of how camshaft timing plays a roll.... If you look at the two you can see the difference in LSA a 111 vs 112.... Now this is a general overvue but you noticed the 111 peaked earlier than the 112? Now some might say well the exhaust duration splits are different but one has a split of 4 the other 5 which is 1* is minimal.....
A.the 6.2/AFR hit 400lbs rwtq at 3200 rpms
B.the 6.2/LS3 hit 400lbs rwtq at 3500 rpms
This is not due to smaller port equals more velocity theory.... You have less LSA combined with more intake duration, combined with more compression.... So there are a lot of different things going on..... But the amazing thing is how close it is... Most will try to say that the smaller port theory is coming into play here, and making more torque, but actually its not....
To compensate for the lost low end with longer duration cams, the basic principle or rule of thumb to regain the low-mid range torque is to raise the compression....
And with cathedrals you have to run longer intake duration typically to hold the intake valve open longer to fill the cylinder during the induction stroke, plus time to complete the transition form exhaust to induction stroke or efficiently excuvate the exhaust gases at higher rpms... It needs more time to fill the cylinder to a desired point or higher power producing level at higher rpms..... so you see 236+ intake durations in order here....
now A. is on a 111, we know that the cathedrals/valve can accept a little more overlap and its not a major restriction.... plus the A. setup has more intake duration...... plus 11.5 compression.....
Now you add up:
AFR 225s milled to 59cc (roughly 11.5:1)
Mototron 60# injectors (flow matched)
FAST 102 mm
Nick Williams 102 mm throttle body
2004 Corsa Sport
Custom Intake(ported)
Powerbond UDP
Monster Lvl II with billet flywheel
GZ Motorsports vacuum pump
The combination of these extra parts should produce what it did or even more...... Good run..... Not taking anything away from it....... But these mods 5hp here, 10 hp there will add up to produce more power.... You have over 10 upgrades that should yeild more power or the power it did make....
Now look at B. 112 LSA, 231 (less intake duration), Stock Heads/Intake Manifold/TB/injectors........ No UD pulley, and 9.50* of overlap..... 10.7 compression..... No portwork, no lightweight flywheel, no 102 ported intake,no 102mm TB.....
No one is hating here,No one is saying one is better than the other, but only discussing the functionality is going on.... In this case Athony, your not comparing apples to apples...... When looking at cost, its up to the consumer to rationalize whether the cost is worth it in correlation to their budget......
If you don't educate yourself whether through actual expeirence or reading, you will always be a customer......
Bozz
if so very interesting....
Anthony i am not being synical when I say this but since you brought it up, we can look at the 2 intelligently..... This is a blog board to dicuss techinical information, but now I see why certain guys do not post anymore....
First, the cam in the other thread is not 231/231 112 LSA....the correct information is 231/236 112 LSA.....
As I have always stated whether cathedral or square, camshaft events/lobe characteristics, must be selected properly to make either work or reach optimal efficiency.....
regardless who is doing the test, a LS3 package with 9.50* of overlap could be a limiting factor(most know this), also talking on 112 LSA which will also be a limiting factor of where max cylinder pressure would be reached..... You must have a complete understanding of the functionality of whats going on in correlation to cylinder fill.... I know a few weeks ago you were thirsty for knowledge but reading a few internet dynos will not give you a comprehensive understanding or qualitatively correlate a educated guess of what is true .... I can look at certain variables of most combinations and the story will be presented.....
Now Athony this is a good lesson of how camshaft timing plays a roll.... If you look at the two you can see the difference in LSA a 111 vs 112.... Now this is a general overvue but you noticed the 111 peaked earlier than the 112? Now some might say well the exhaust duration splits are different but one has a split of 4 the other 5 which is 1* is minimal.....
A.the 6.2/AFR hit 400lbs rwtq at 3200 rpms
B.the 6.2/LS3 hit 400lbs rwtq at 3500 rpms
This is not due to smaller port equals more velocity theory.... You have less LSA combined with more intake duration, combined with more compression.... So there are a lot of different things going on..... But the amazing thing is how close it is... Most will try to say that the smaller port theory is coming into play here, and making more torque, but actually its not....
To compensate for the lost low end with longer duration cams, the basic principle or rule of thumb to regain the low-mid range torque is to raise the compression....
And with cathedrals you have to run longer intake duration typically to hold the intake valve open longer to fill the cylinder during the induction stroke, plus time to complete the transition form exhaust to induction stroke or efficiently excuvate the exhaust gases at higher rpms... It needs more time to fill the cylinder to a desired point or higher power producing level at higher rpms..... so you see 236+ intake durations in order here....
now A. is on a 111, we know that the cathedrals/valve can accept a little more overlap and its not a major restriction.... plus the A. setup has more intake duration...... plus 11.5 compression.....
Now you add up:
AFR 225s milled to 59cc (roughly 11.5:1)
Mototron 60# injectors (flow matched)
FAST 102 mm
Nick Williams 102 mm throttle body
2004 Corsa Sport
Custom Intake(ported)
Powerbond UDP
Monster Lvl II with billet flywheel
GZ Motorsports vacuum pump
The combination of these extra parts should produce what it did or even more...... Good run..... Not taking anything away from it....... But these mods 5hp here, 10 hp there will add up to produce more power.... You have over 10 upgrades that should yeild more power or the power it did make....
Now look at B. 112 LSA, 231 (less intake duration), Stock Heads/Intake Manifold/TB/injectors........ No UD pulley, and 9.50* of overlap..... 10.7 compression..... No portwork, no lightweight flywheel, no 102 ported intake,no 102mm TB.....
No one is hating here,No one is saying one is better than the other, but only discussing the functionality is going on.... In this case Athony, your not comparing apples to apples...... When looking at cost, its up to the consumer to rationalize whether the cost is worth it in correlation to their budget......
If you don't educate yourself whether through actual expeirence or reading, you will always be a customer......
Bozz
Everyone knows the last few HP become harder and harder to make. Also I dont know how his car drives, how the throttle responds, etc. There are so many things about a setup other than the final numbers. I look at everything which includes driveability. I am not knocking on his setup but now that I see it you conveniantly left out the header portion to make your agument. Dont tell me they dont make a difference because they do.
But like I said before I wasnt trying to squeeze every last HP out of the engine. I also bought the current parts because they will work great when i go with more cubes. I could just transfer over my high priced top end. Also I can get mreo money back for the AFR heads because I got em for a good price so I dont consider that money wasted. Porteing stock heads without being absolutely sure you are going to keep them forever is money wasted.
10-26-2010, 07:23 PM
#29
TECH Enthusiast
I just looked at the other thread and I dont see the point you are trying to make. For one he is running 1 7/8 headers. I have 1 3/4. He would at a minimum need to port his heads and the intake to get to 500. All of that starts adding up in price. Hes just fortunate that he already has the LS3 heads so there is money saved there.
Everyone knows the last few HP become harder and harder to make. Also I dont know how his car drives, how the throttle responds, etc. There are so many things about a setup other than the final numbers. I look at everything which includes driveability. I am not knocking on his setup but now that I see it you conveniantly left out the header portion to make your agument. Dont tell me they dont make a difference because they do.
But like I said before I wasnt trying to squeeze every last HP out of the engine. I also bought the current parts because they will work great when i go with more cubes. I could just transfer over my high priced top end. Also I can get mreo money back for the AFR heads because I got em for a good price so I dont consider that money wasted. Porteing stock heads without being absolutely sure you are going to keep them forever is money wasted.
Everyone knows the last few HP become harder and harder to make. Also I dont know how his car drives, how the throttle responds, etc. There are so many things about a setup other than the final numbers. I look at everything which includes driveability. I am not knocking on his setup but now that I see it you conveniantly left out the header portion to make your agument. Dont tell me they dont make a difference because they do.
But like I said before I wasnt trying to squeeze every last HP out of the engine. I also bought the current parts because they will work great when i go with more cubes. I could just transfer over my high priced top end. Also I can get mreo money back for the AFR heads because I got em for a good price so I dont consider that money wasted. Porteing stock heads without being absolutely sure you are going to keep them forever is money wasted.
Bozz
Last edited by bozzhawg; 10-26-2010 at 09:12 PM.
10-26-2010, 10:36 PM
#31
Originally Posted by bozzhawg
Actually most LS3 combos above 224 intake durations have put down 500rwhp/450rwtq+
In the square port heads vs. cathedral port heads thread you threw out the following numbers -
Originally Posted by bozzhawg
On 6.0's Most L92 combos 220-230 intake durations put down 450-490rwhp. Now try that with most cathedral port heads, we know they need more duration right? 230-240's+
When looking at cost, its up to the consumer to rationalize whether the cost is worth it in correlation to their budget......
10-27-2010, 12:01 AM
#32
Do some more actual wrenching and internet reading kid before you speak...... Did you ever figure out which way the crank turns?
The conversation went over your head.....
a waste of time..... I now understand why UD and others don't post, too many internet mechanics, who don't even know how to turn a crank properly....
Bozz
The conversation went over your head.....
a waste of time..... I now understand why UD and others don't post, too many internet mechanics, who don't even know how to turn a crank properly....
Bozz
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.
10-27-2010, 04:31 AM
#34
Yes, enough said to demonstrate you're clueless. What does this - ...have to do with this? - Tell me, what does setting lifter preload have to do with turning a crank properly? Even with the mention of running through the valves in their firing order, you think I'm asking "how to turn a crank properly"? Pure genius.
I think you've missed the intent of my posts in this thread. There aren't any empirical tests or physics needed to demonstrate that you consistently inflate L92 results. And in case you missed it, I did show my proof - Bullshit. Most 6.0 L92 220-230 intake duration combos make 45x - 46x rwhp. More bullshit. Most 500 rwhp LS3s are running mid 230s intake duration. LS3s running anything approximating 224 intake duration are putting down substantially less than 500 rwhp.
Now, who exactly is the one dispensing Kool-Aid in this forum?
Originally Posted by anthony soprano
I'm sorry guys, I've searched as best I can and I can't find a definitive answer. Looking at the motor from the front, does the crank pulley rotate clockwise, or counter-clockwise?
I'm setting lifter pre-load and running through the valves in their firing order.
I'm setting lifter pre-load and running through the valves in their firing order.
Originally Posted by bozzhawg
I now understand why UD and others don't post, too many internet mechanics, who don't even know how to turn a crank properly....
Have you done any actual test? If so prove it and do not use any one elses internet dyno numbers, use your own emperical test on your dyno or track.......
Sounds like you are speaking with no actual experience but only talking about articles and dynos you have read off the internet aka internet mechanic..... You never speak about the actual function or physics of an engine..... But show the proof?
Bozz
Sounds like you are speaking with no actual experience but only talking about articles and dynos you have read off the internet aka internet mechanic..... You never speak about the actual function or physics of an engine..... But show the proof?
Bozz
Originally Posted by bozzhawg
On 6.0's Most L92 combos 220-230 intake durations put down 450-490rwhp. Now try that with most cathedral port heads, we know they need more duration right? 230-240's+
Originally Posted by bozzhawg
Actually most LS3 combos above 224 intake durations have put down 500rwhp/450rwtq+
Now, who exactly is the one dispensing Kool-Aid in this forum?
10-27-2010, 06:31 PM
#36
TECH Enthusiast
You have missed the entire point of this and other threads, you are trying to create some battle or competition between cathderals or square ports, but your primative view and small horizon could not see that this was not about a competition between cathedrals vs square ports, I was stating that the L92 heads are not as bad as marketed... but your primative, barbaric, unsynthezizing mental issue only see a A vs B and that was clearly not the intent...... If all you took and were able to process out of all the information discussed over the past few weeks was a cathedral vs square port competition, then it speaks volumes of your cognitive level of processing information and very premature.... Your comments are impotent...... And you sound like a troll ID or alter ego for another member here..... Ventriloquism
You cannot even explain or understand the relationship between the cylinder,exhaust,heads,intake, etc....
Now lets see how much of a copy cat this guy is, 99aggie and Pat G made this comment below, and now he is regurgetating this all over the board.... Here is what 99Aggie said:
But 99Aggie was talking about on their Mustang dyno in G8's that they have done...... The real focus here is how Soprano does not have a clue, with no technical information to back his juvenilish behavior.... He is only reciting what someone else told him..... practicing an art of Ventriloquism......
But since you have a hardtime believing let me take you to school son:
RWHP..SPLIT.......CAM.................OVERLAP
486/435 6 232/238 .595/.605 114 ......7
485/439 3 231/234 .643/.598 111......10.50
485/445 9 227/236 .630/.605 113.......5.5
484/436 8 227/235 .614/.621 114........3
482/435 4 230/234 .612/,598 114...... 4
479/430 4 232/236 .600/.600 113 .......8
479/437 8 224/232 .625/.625 113........2
478/425 6 224/230 .609/.612..114.......?
477/462 6 224/230 .581/.591 114 ......-1
475/425 6 224/230 .581/.591 114.......-1
469/420 8 227/235 .614/.621 114........3
468/439 13 216/229 .561/.562 113.......-3.50
462/420 8 227/235 .639/.621 114 .......3
461/421 11 234/245 .641/.607 111........17.50
460/446 8 223/231 .610/.617 113........1
459/436 2 222/224 .566/.568 112.......-1
458/430 12 228/240 .610/.612 115........4
456/427 12 228/240 .610/.612 115........4
452/419 16 224/240 .588/.591 ...?........?
452/412 16 228/244 .615/.615 115........6
451/403 4 232/236 .600/.600 113........8
450/400 2 228/230 .588/.591 ..?.........?
446/404 12 228/240 .611/.610...?.........?
438/405 4 228/232 .612/.600 111........8
438/403 4 232/236 .600/.600 113........8
Now you show me several of your fuzzy math heads put down 470-480 with a 224 intake duration cam on a 6.0.... If a 6.0/L92 can produce this, how can you not understand how with more displacement and better shrouding, a 224-230 cam could not produce 490-500rwhp?
Now this one takes the cake, he is comparing a L92 vs a LQ9 then ask about what variables separate the two....lol LQ9= 364ci....... L92= 376 12 more cubes son.... Do some research of what happens when you increase displacement....... Proof here that he is trying to create some war but at the same time doesn't know that the two motors have different displacements.....
Proof? LS3 still have PTVC issues with more duration, so running upper mid 230's+ would still be an issue? Do you know what the valve drop of a LS3 is? Have you even measured let alone driven a LS3? Installed a cam in a LS3? No so your voice or view is irrelevent and your just talking out of your azz.... You run a mid 230 or higher cam if you want to on a stock LS3.....and please show us the grenade you built aftermath...... I m sure fly cutting is over your head.....
Son you have drank the kool-aid and are a walking zombie....
I have never ,ever said cathedral ports where trash, I have only said the L92's are not as bad as they proclaim... So ask yourself if a man will distort info to make his product look superior vs a man that says ok, that product is good, but this product is not that bad either.... Who do you believe?
You go with whatever is popular here or advertised, one minute your were I want 5.3's, then you say you bought L92's but you got them bare, then after a influx of AFR post surface here lately now your on their nutz....
Make up your mind? You are like a Ventriloquist, talking with someone elses hand up your culo......
Ventriloquist:
Ventriloquism, or ventriloquy, is an act of stagecraft in which a person (a ventriloquist) manipulates his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere, usually a puppeteered "dummy". The act of ventriloquism is ventriloquizing, and the ability to do so is commonly called in English the ability to "throw" one's voice. However, the term "throwing one's voice" is misleading, because it implies that a sound's physical origin has changed, when really the change has been perceptual and not physical.
I am not angry with you, I really feel sorry for you... Its like watching a teenage girl go down the wrong path in life and end up on a stripper pole....
I will ignore you from now on, due to lack of substance.... not worth my time....
Its like arguing with an autistic child.....
Bozz
But since you have a hardtime believing let me take you to school son:
RWHP..SPLIT.......CAM.................OVERLAP
486/435 6 232/238 .595/.605 114 ......7
485/439 3 231/234 .643/.598 111......10.50
485/445 9 227/236 .630/.605 113.......5.5
484/436 8 227/235 .614/.621 114........3
482/435 4 230/234 .612/,598 114...... 4
479/430 4 232/236 .600/.600 113 .......8
479/437 8 224/232 .625/.625 113........2
478/425 6 224/230 .609/.612..114.......?
477/462 6 224/230 .581/.591 114 ......-1
475/425 6 224/230 .581/.591 114.......-1
469/420 8 227/235 .614/.621 114........3
468/439 13 216/229 .561/.562 113.......-3.50
462/420 8 227/235 .639/.621 114 .......3
461/421 11 234/245 .641/.607 111........17.50
460/446 8 223/231 .610/.617 113........1
459/436 2 222/224 .566/.568 112.......-1
458/430 12 228/240 .610/.612 115........4
456/427 12 228/240 .610/.612 115........4
452/419 16 224/240 .588/.591 ...?........?
452/412 16 228/244 .615/.615 115........6
451/403 4 232/236 .600/.600 113........8
450/400 2 228/230 .588/.591 ..?.........?
446/404 12 228/240 .611/.610...?.........?
438/405 4 228/232 .612/.600 111........8
438/403 4 232/236 .600/.600 113........8
Now you show me several of your fuzzy math heads put down 470-480 with a 224 intake duration cam on a 6.0.... If a 6.0/L92 can produce this, how can you not understand how with more displacement and better shrouding, a 224-230 cam could not produce 490-500rwhp?
The L92 makes ~10% more torque than the cathedral head LQ9. The L92 also has the benefit of more cam (both lift & duration), more compression, variable valve timing, and a host of other variables that aren't being accounted for; improvements in exhaust, intake, tune, etc. Has anyone determined how much of that 10% torque bump was a result of the square ports vs. the other variables?
Proof? LS3 still have PTVC issues with more duration, so running upper mid 230's+ would still be an issue? Do you know what the valve drop of a LS3 is? Have you even measured let alone driven a LS3? Installed a cam in a LS3? No so your voice or view is irrelevent and your just talking out of your azz.... You run a mid 230 or higher cam if you want to on a stock LS3.....and please show us the grenade you built aftermath...... I m sure fly cutting is over your head.....
Son you have drank the kool-aid and are a walking zombie....
I have never ,ever said cathedral ports where trash, I have only said the L92's are not as bad as they proclaim... So ask yourself if a man will distort info to make his product look superior vs a man that says ok, that product is good, but this product is not that bad either.... Who do you believe?
You go with whatever is popular here or advertised, one minute your were I want 5.3's, then you say you bought L92's but you got them bare, then after a influx of AFR post surface here lately now your on their nutz....
Make up your mind? You are like a Ventriloquist, talking with someone elses hand up your culo......
Ventriloquist:
Ventriloquism, or ventriloquy, is an act of stagecraft in which a person (a ventriloquist) manipulates his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere, usually a puppeteered "dummy". The act of ventriloquism is ventriloquizing, and the ability to do so is commonly called in English the ability to "throw" one's voice. However, the term "throwing one's voice" is misleading, because it implies that a sound's physical origin has changed, when really the change has been perceptual and not physical.
I am not angry with you, I really feel sorry for you... Its like watching a teenage girl go down the wrong path in life and end up on a stripper pole....
I will ignore you from now on, due to lack of substance.... not worth my time....
Its like arguing with an autistic child.....
Bozz
Last edited by bozzhawg; 10-27-2010 at 09:53 PM.
10-27-2010, 09:05 PM
#37
You have missed the entire point of this and other threads, you are trying to create some battle or competition between cathderals or square ports, but your primative view and small horizon could not see that this was not about a competition between cathedrals vs square ports, I was stating that the L92 heads are not as bad as marketed... but your primative, barbaric, unsysthezizing mental issue only see a A vs B and that was clearly not the intent...... If all you took and were able to process out of all the information discussed over the past few weeks was a cathedral vs square port competition, then it speaks volumes of your cognitive level of processing information and very premature.... Your comments are impotent...... And you sound like a troll ID or alter ego for another member here..... Ventriloquism
You cannot even explain or understand the relationship between the cylinder,exhaust,heads,intake, etc....
Now lets see how much of a copy cat this guy is, 99aggie and Pat G made this comment below, and now he is regurgetating this all over the board.... Here is what 99Aggie said:
But 99Aggie was talking about on their Mustang dyno in G8's that they have done...... The real focus here is how Soprano does not have a clue, with no technical information to back his juvenilish behavior.... He is only reciting what someone else told him..... practicing an are of Ventriloquism......
But since you have a hardtime believing let me take you to school son:
RWHP..SPLIT.......CAM.................OVERLAP
486/435 6 232/238 .595/.605 114 ......7
485/439 3 231/234 .643/.598 111......10.50
485/445 9 227/236 .630/.605 113.......5.5
484/436 8 227/235 .614/.621 114........3
482/435 4 230/234 .612/,598 114...... 4
479/430 4 232/236 .600/.600 113 .......8
479/437 8 224/232 .625/.625 113........2
478/425 6 224/230 .609/.612..114.......?
477/462 6 224/230 .581/.591 114 ......-1
475/425 6 224/230 .581/.591 114.......-1
469/420 8 227/235 .614/.621 114........3
468/439 13 216/229 .561/.562 113.......-3.50
462/420 8 227/235 .639/.621 114 .......3
461/421 11 234/245 .641/.607 111........17.50
460/446 8 223/231 .610/.617 113........1
459/436 2 222/224 .566/.568 112.......-1
458/430 12 228/240 .610/.612 115........4
456/427 12 228/240 .610/.612 115........4
452/419 16 224/240 .588/.591 ...?........?
452/412 16 228/244 .615/.615 115........6
451/403 4 232/236 .600/.600 113........8
450/400 2 228/230 .588/.591 ..?.........?
446/404 12 228/240 .611/.610...?.........?
438/405 4 228/232 .612/.600 111........8
438/403 4 232/236 .600/.600 113........8
But since you have a hardtime believing let me take you to school son:
RWHP..SPLIT.......CAM.................OVERLAP
486/435 6 232/238 .595/.605 114 ......7
485/439 3 231/234 .643/.598 111......10.50
485/445 9 227/236 .630/.605 113.......5.5
484/436 8 227/235 .614/.621 114........3
482/435 4 230/234 .612/,598 114...... 4
479/430 4 232/236 .600/.600 113 .......8
479/437 8 224/232 .625/.625 113........2
478/425 6 224/230 .609/.612..114.......?
477/462 6 224/230 .581/.591 114 ......-1
475/425 6 224/230 .581/.591 114.......-1
469/420 8 227/235 .614/.621 114........3
468/439 13 216/229 .561/.562 113.......-3.50
462/420 8 227/235 .639/.621 114 .......3
461/421 11 234/245 .641/.607 111........17.50
460/446 8 223/231 .610/.617 113........1
459/436 2 222/224 .566/.568 112.......-1
458/430 12 228/240 .610/.612 115........4
456/427 12 228/240 .610/.612 115........4
452/419 16 224/240 .588/.591 ...?........?
452/412 16 228/244 .615/.615 115........6
451/403 4 232/236 .600/.600 113........8
450/400 2 228/230 .588/.591 ..?.........?
446/404 12 228/240 .611/.610...?.........?
438/405 4 228/232 .612/.600 111........8
438/403 4 232/236 .600/.600 113........8
So, let's use the numbers you've provided above. Even though you left out the 415 rwhp example, 60% of 6.0 L92 swaps made 45x - 46x rwhp...or less. 60% in my book is *most*. BTW, at least two of the 450+ example above have never posted their dyno graphs. I know because I've looked for them. If you toss out those examples the results become even more skewed to the downside. And where are all those 490 rwhp results? I can't find them. That makes this statement inflated bullshit -
Originally Posted by bozzhawg
On 6.0's Most L92 combos 220-230 intake durations put down 450-490rwhp. Now try that with most cathedral port heads, we know they need more duration right? 230-240's+
Originally Posted by bozzhawg
Now you show me several of your fuzzy math heads put down 470-480 with a 224 intake duration cam on a 6.0....
If a 6.0/L92 can produce this, how can you not understand how with more displacement and better shrouding, a 224-230 cam could not produce 490-500rwhp?
Originally Posted by bozzhawg
Actually most LS3 combos above 224 intake durations have put down 500rwhp/450rwtq+
Now this one takes the cake, he is comparing a L92 vs a LQ9 then ask about what variables separate the two....lol LQ9= 364ci....... L92= 376 12 more cubes son.... Do some research of what happens when you increase displacement....... Proof here that he is trying to create some war but at the same time doesn't know that the two motors have different displacements.....
Proof? LS3 still have PTVC issues with more duration, so running upper mid 230's+ would still be an issue? Do you know what the valve drop of a LS3 is? Have you even measured let alone driven a LS3? Installed a cam in a LS3? No so your voice or view is irrelevent and your just talking out of your azz.... You run a mid 230 or higher cam if you want to on a stock LS3.....and please show us the grenade you built aftermath...... I m sure fly cutting is over your head.....
Son you have drank the kool-aid and are walking zombie....
I have never ,ever said cathedral ports where trash, I have only said the L92's are not as bad as they proclaim... So ask yourself if a man will distort info to make his product look superior vs a man that says ok, that product is good, but this product is not that bad either.... Who do you believe?
I have never ,ever said cathedral ports where trash, I have only said the L92's are not as bad as they proclaim... So ask yourself if a man will distort info to make his product look superior vs a man that says ok, that product is good, but this product is not that bad either.... Who do you believe?
You go with whatever is popular here or advertised, one minute your were I want 5.3's, then you say you bought L92's but you got them bare, then after a influx of AFR post surface here lately now your on their nutz....
Make up your mind? You are like a Ventriloquist, talking with someone elses hand up your culo......
Ventriloquist:
Ventriloquism, or ventriloquy, is an act of stagecraft in which a person (a ventriloquist) manipulates his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere, usually a puppeteered "dummy". The act of ventriloquism is ventriloquizing, and the ability to do so is commonly called in English the ability to "throw" one's voice. However, the term "throwing one's voice" is misleading, because it implies that a sound's physical origin has changed, when really the change has been perceptual and not physical.
Bozz
Ventriloquist:
Ventriloquism, or ventriloquy, is an act of stagecraft in which a person (a ventriloquist) manipulates his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere, usually a puppeteered "dummy". The act of ventriloquism is ventriloquizing, and the ability to do so is commonly called in English the ability to "throw" one's voice. However, the term "throwing one's voice" is misleading, because it implies that a sound's physical origin has changed, when really the change has been perceptual and not physical.
Bozz
1. a retarded person mentally equal to a child between three and eight years old
2. a very foolish or stupid person
Origin: Fr imbécile < L imbecilis, imbecillus, feeble, weak, prob. < in-, without + baculus, staff (see bacillus): hence “without support”
adjective
very foolish or stupid
also imbecilic im′·becil′·ic (-sil′ik)
10-29-2010, 06:35 PM
#39
On The Tree
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bozz, I'm curious how many engines you've actually built and cams you've speced. Because you have apparently put yourself in charge of 'Team LS3/L92/Square Port' after less than a year's membership. And you are coming across as a complete tool the way you have to jump every thread if there is even a hint of "square vs cathedral" and try to go toe to toe with guys like Brian Tooley, Shawn @ VA Speed, Tony Mamo, and Pat G. It's lame when every thread turns into a pissing match because someone calls you out on your massaged numbers and phony physics, and then your big ego takes off and good threads end up in the Bench Racing Section. Give it a rest dude.
10-31-2010, 12:16 PM
#40
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (46)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah your right. Bozz seems like a doush. Comes in here, takes a ****, then leaves. What's worse is that his **** is exaggerated so it's more like explosive diarrhea.