bozzhawg

9" robs power on dynos
4.11 rob power on dynos

so for dyno racing you are not helping yourself there...........

Now as for the track? I put money on the the tack results being more favorable to your desired goals......counting that your a good driver....

Don't get too wrapped up in the dyno numbers... Because the fact is you used the 9" for its strength and stoutness and the 4.11's for quickness.....

Plus you increased 40 cubes(364-404), and went from a 4.000 to a 4.010 bore.... Your cylinder fill requirements have changed slightly...... And slightly more intake duration such as a 230-231 and you would see different results....

Plus keep your LS3 intake don't waste the $850+ on a fast 102 which only shows marginal 5-10hp(sometimes they lose power) gain above a L76/LS3 intake/ported.

Bozz

WKMCD

iTrader: (2)

We got 35hp but it took Shawn Miller modifying it on the engine dyno to make that happen.

bozzhawg

Well ok.... You prob have one of the best teams tunning your stuff in the country, so your stuff does not count......

just kidding..

Bozz

PwrdbyLS1

iTrader: (5)

All run are in 4th gear. 91 octane is not enough for high horsepower engine... We can find 94 octane gaz, but its a Ethanol mix..

Thanks for hints, Big cam is my next mod

lt1773

iTrader: (1)

it could be the problem of the small cam

PwrdbyLS1

iTrader: (5)

The little cam is not helping for sure.

I check for more information about our 94 oct gas, its a 10% ethanol mix. Do you think its a good option running this Ethanol mix and add more timing to my tune?

mikesanto70

I know old thread but....


you consider 227/235 .639 .621 on a 404 to be a "small" cam???? What would be a mid sized cam for the street on that set up!!!!

mikesanto70

I know old thread but....


you consider 227/235 .639 .621 on a 404 to be a "small" cam???? What would be a mid sized cam for the street on that set up!!!!

screaminz847

I'd consider that to be a small cam on 346, absolutely tiny on a 400+ CI motor.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

I'd like to know why anyone would use a LSK lobe with the heaviest valve GM has ever produced for a LS motor.

That is a stupid aggressive lobe that IMO shouldn't be used with anything other than a stupid light weight valve train or with solid lifters. Which the L92 valve train weight is FAR from light weight.

I also hardly ever use a LSL lobe on the exhaust anymore. No point in lifting the exhaust valve that high, that fast or that quickly.

12.6 is a bit rich also, I'd bet it picks up with a leaner AFR.

PwrdbyLS1

iTrader: (5)

At the time, I wanted a big for my 6.0 with big lift to take potential of my ported L92. Now I'm fighting the find more high rpm hp.

I have now a more stable lope with my new cam. The new cam is 235/243 .610 .627 114+2 with HUC lobes(I dont see these lobes often..). Also have a new bored engine(had to change all pistons because of failure), now I have a 408 with -8 pistons(around 11.1:1) I add ls3 hollow stem valves. I'll remove my hi-flow cats and i've add 2 dual cutouts.

I hope the better flowing exhaust will free up some hp in the top. I also thinking about changing my PRC dual springs, they have around 15k miles of aggressive driving. I'll try the car on a track soon to see the new times..

The car is now only running with 94 oct. gas, with around 12.5 AFR. Richer because of a 10% ethanol in the gas.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

I actually use the HUC lobes a lot along with the LXL lobes and Extreme Marine lobes. I rarely use the LSL lobes and if I do I pair it with a nice non-aggressive exhaust lobe like an Extreme RPM lobe. I have NEVER seen a cam with LSK lobes I liked let alone performed well and didn't have serious valve-train problems.