As cast TFS 220/Stock LS6/Stock TB/1 x 3/4"/custom cam
10-14-2012, 02:07 PM
#122
Brian Tooley has always told me the 1.57 exhaust valve favors the larger 1x7/8" primary. The 1.57 keeps velocity up as is, and using a 1x3/4" primary is only choking the flow coming out of the valve. Using the larger primary will always allow more flow and doesn't kill the velocity either as the 1.57 valve does that itself along with the exhaust runner not being overly large in the first place.
I'd say there would be a 10-20rwhp gain depending on cam timing, cylinder heads, exhaust after the collector, and the compression of the motor among many other determining factors.
Haven't had the truck to Infineon.
I spoke to Brian Tooley at length yesterday. Got the valve back in place but I am gonna pull the motor out anyway. I have the motor ready to pull out of the truck right now, just 2 bolts and lift it out.
Gonna swap the valves to a 2.10" LS3 valve, put the old springs back on it (barely used) and put it back on the dyno just to see what it does. It will have a little more compression due to a head gasket change, will be 13.5-1 now instead of 12.95 (4.125" bore / .054 going to 4.1" bore / .040). Then I will see if it is a push rod issue (5/16 .080 wall). If it clears up I will run it like this for a while. Only worry is the preload change with the thinner gasket. Right now I am .050" on the exhaust and .060" on the intake.
I do however see a cam change in the near future. So if I still have a problem, I will most likely pull this cam, stick a bigger one in it and upgrade the pushrod to a 5/16 .120 wall as I don't think I can get a 3/8 push rod to work. Might be able to fit a 11/16 push rod but not sure.
Sorry to hijack
I spoke to Brian Tooley at length yesterday. Got the valve back in place but I am gonna pull the motor out anyway. I have the motor ready to pull out of the truck right now, just 2 bolts and lift it out.
Gonna swap the valves to a 2.10" LS3 valve, put the old springs back on it (barely used) and put it back on the dyno just to see what it does. It will have a little more compression due to a head gasket change, will be 13.5-1 now instead of 12.95 (4.125" bore / .054 going to 4.1" bore / .040). Then I will see if it is a push rod issue (5/16 .080 wall). If it clears up I will run it like this for a while. Only worry is the preload change with the thinner gasket. Right now I am .050" on the exhaust and .060" on the intake.
I do however see a cam change in the near future. So if I still have a problem, I will most likely pull this cam, stick a bigger one in it and upgrade the pushrod to a 5/16 .120 wall as I don't think I can get a 3/8 push rod to work. Might be able to fit a 11/16 push rod but not sure.
Sorry to hijack
10-14-2012, 04:33 PM
#123
That is completely false. The 1x7/8" primaries make the same exact power up to 4000-4500rpm as the smaller primary does and then completely takes off and runs away after 4500-5000rpm in torque and horsepower.
Brian Tooley has always told me the 1.57 exhaust valve favors the larger 1x7/8" primary. The 1.57 keeps velocity up as is, and using a 1x3/4" primary is only choking the flow coming out of the valve. Using the larger primary will always allow more flow and doesn't kill the velocity either as the 1.57 valve does that itself along with the exhaust runner not being overly large in the first place.
I'd say there would be a 10-20rwhp gain depending on cam timing, cylinder heads, exhaust after the collector, and the compression of the motor among many other determining factors.
Brian Tooley has always told me the 1.57 exhaust valve favors the larger 1x7/8" primary. The 1.57 keeps velocity up as is, and using a 1x3/4" primary is only choking the flow coming out of the valve. Using the larger primary will always allow more flow and doesn't kill the velocity either as the 1.57 valve does that itself along with the exhaust runner not being overly large in the first place.
I'd say there would be a 10-20rwhp gain depending on cam timing, cylinder heads, exhaust after the collector, and the compression of the motor among many other determining factors.
I actually read this information on a post from Brian.
I've posted this about a thousand times, but I'm going to post it one more time.
In the back to back testing we did, heads with 1.55" exhaust valves MADE MORE POWER EVERYWHERE WITH 1 7/8" HEADERS COMPARED TO 1 3/4"
Heads with 1.57" valves seemed to make about the same power either way.
In the back to back testing we did, heads with 1.55" exhaust valves MADE MORE POWER EVERYWHERE WITH 1 7/8" HEADERS COMPARED TO 1 3/4"
Heads with 1.57" valves seemed to make about the same power either way.
Not trying to argue with anyone at all, just would like to know if larger primaries would be worth it. 10-20 hp would definately be worth while (for me) to go to 1 7/8. But ever since i read that post it's stopped me from making the purchase.
10-14-2012, 07:17 PM
#124
I actually read this information on a post from Brian.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...results-2.html
Not trying to argue with anyone at all, just would like to know if larger primaries would be worth it. 10-20 hp would definately be worth while (for me) to go to 1 7/8. But ever since i read that post it's stopped me from making the purchase.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...results-2.html
Not trying to argue with anyone at all, just would like to know if larger primaries would be worth it. 10-20 hp would definately be worth while (for me) to go to 1 7/8. But ever since i read that post it's stopped me from making the purchase.
With a properly spec'd cam even with a stock cam the 1x7/8" headers tested against 1x3/4" by TSP and numerous other places and on dyno's everywhere have shown this.
Take a look at this:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...-only-ls1.html
Read through that thread and then read this post: https://ls1tech.com/forums/16078991-post54.html
10-15-2012, 12:16 AM
#125
Martin,
I have Performance Trends Engine Analyzer that I play with a lot. Every motor I have modeled in it has been pretty much spot on (with in 2-3%) given I have ALL the details. I am playing around with a new grind given various changes. But let's just say it won't be small and looking to carry the power to 7800 through the traps. My truck is technically street driven, but not a lot. It does have a glide and currently a 4,600 rpm 8.5" verter. Right now it needs more like 5,400-5,700 for motor. Not sure what I will have it set to if I can make power to 7,800, but probably closer to 5,400 since I do have a 2 stage set up on it as well.
I have Performance Trends Engine Analyzer that I play with a lot. Every motor I have modeled in it has been pretty much spot on (with in 2-3%) given I have ALL the details. I am playing around with a new grind given various changes. But let's just say it won't be small and looking to carry the power to 7800 through the traps. My truck is technically street driven, but not a lot. It does have a glide and currently a 4,600 rpm 8.5" verter. Right now it needs more like 5,400-5,700 for motor. Not sure what I will have it set to if I can make power to 7,800, but probably closer to 5,400 since I do have a 2 stage set up on it as well.
10-15-2012, 08:02 AM
#126
Martin,
I have Performance Trends Engine Analyzer that I play with a lot. Every motor I have modeled in it has been pretty much spot on (with in 2-3%) given I have ALL the details. I am playing around with a new grind given various changes. But let's just say it won't be small and looking to carry the power to 7800 through the traps. My truck is technically street driven, but not a lot. It does have a glide and currently a 4,600 rpm 8.5" verter. Right now it needs more like 5,400-5,700 for motor. Not sure what I will have it set to if I can make power to 7,800, but probably closer to 5,400 since I do have a 2 stage set up on it as well.
I have Performance Trends Engine Analyzer that I play with a lot. Every motor I have modeled in it has been pretty much spot on (with in 2-3%) given I have ALL the details. I am playing around with a new grind given various changes. But let's just say it won't be small and looking to carry the power to 7800 through the traps. My truck is technically street driven, but not a lot. It does have a glide and currently a 4,600 rpm 8.5" verter. Right now it needs more like 5,400-5,700 for motor. Not sure what I will have it set to if I can make power to 7,800, but probably closer to 5,400 since I do have a 2 stage set up on it as well.
It seems you have a pretty good understanding of valve events already, but if you'd like a second opinion or my opinion just let me know. I'd be more than glad to help your set-up.
10-15-2012, 11:03 AM
#127
Very nice numbers for those mods! Super impressive considering the LS6 intake and 1 3/4" headers.
Martin is specing out a build for me right now with very similar parts.
Martin is specing out a build for me right now with very similar parts.
10-15-2012, 05:00 PM
#131
10 Second Club
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kearney, NE
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bwolf--
Just looked over your in town scan....
Log the MAF in (Hz) in the Table Display....
Add the Dynamic Cylinder Air (g/cyl) in your table display as well and run another scan....
Otherwise it looks like you mulitply the lower section of the MAF (2100hz or soo - 1500hz) by .975...
I cant help you much tho without the MAF Hz and G/cyl being logged.
Just looked over your in town scan....
Log the MAF in (Hz) in the Table Display....
Add the Dynamic Cylinder Air (g/cyl) in your table display as well and run another scan....
Otherwise it looks like you mulitply the lower section of the MAF (2100hz or soo - 1500hz) by .975...
I cant help you much tho without the MAF Hz and G/cyl being logged.
10-16-2012, 10:31 AM
#132
Brian has always been a large help to me and I agree with a lot of things he says, but that post was made 2 years ago, and even if he still feels that way I will have to disagree with him here.
With a properly spec'd cam even with a stock cam the 1x7/8" headers tested against 1x3/4" by TSP and numerous other places and on dyno's everywhere have shown this.
Take a look at this:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...-only-ls1.html
Read through that thread and then read this post: https://ls1tech.com/forums/16078991-post54.html
With a properly spec'd cam even with a stock cam the 1x7/8" headers tested against 1x3/4" by TSP and numerous other places and on dyno's everywhere have shown this.
Take a look at this:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...-only-ls1.html
Read through that thread and then read this post: https://ls1tech.com/forums/16078991-post54.html
Thanks for the info...good thread.
10-16-2012, 11:55 PM
#133
Bwolf--
Just looked over your in town scan....
Log the MAF in (Hz) in the Table Display....
Add the Dynamic Cylinder Air (g/cyl) in your table display as well and run another scan....
Otherwise it looks like you mulitply the lower section of the MAF (2100hz or soo - 1500hz) by .975...
I cant help you much tho without the MAF Hz and G/cyl being logged.
Just looked over your in town scan....
Log the MAF in (Hz) in the Table Display....
Add the Dynamic Cylinder Air (g/cyl) in your table display as well and run another scan....
Otherwise it looks like you mulitply the lower section of the MAF (2100hz or soo - 1500hz) by .975...
I cant help you much tho without the MAF Hz and G/cyl being logged.
As far as updates go...I got my under drive in the mail today so I will be installing that in the next day or two. After I post up my next scan I will get the 85mm maf installed with the new FTP lid.
As far as track times...Well i went and it was ugly. My clutch was very much on the outs but my friends convinced me to see what it would do. Mind you the track we have up here sits at 4400 feet above sea level and the DA when I ran it at 2pm was 6400 feet. Well with a shitty *** clutch that wouldnt even let me heat up the tires nor launch worth a dam I could only muster a 2.3-2.4 60'. I couldnt heat my 315 Dr's and every launch no matter how much i went off it would light the tires up...no prep at all. I shouldn't have been running the car considering the condition of the clutch but after the track it gave me motivation to change it out. So now I'm breaking my new clutch. Martin: I came across a killer local deal otherwise I was going order from you. Anyways best of that day with a 6400 DA was a 12.5 @117 with a 2.3 60'
I have a feeling when I get the clutch broke in and finally get my 8.8 in (week or two) with 4.10 gears I should be able to make some nice passes. I will be racing in Sacramento from here on out as our local track is now closed. Sacramento is about 65-70 feet above sea level and has good air. Every car runs SLOW at our local track...high altitude and crap air.
Last edited by bwolfZ28; 10-17-2012 at 12:06 AM.
10-17-2012, 09:52 AM
#136
No problem!
Brian that is awesome! 117mph at 6400 DA!!!! As adamantium said that is 124-125 at sea level! Not many H/C/I cars can lay claim to that!
Wait until we get this thing pulling to 6500-6600rpm like it should, you're only going to go faster!
Thanks for the help. I will add those parameters and complete another scan and post it up.
As far as updates go...I got my under drive in the mail today so I will be installing that in the next day or two. After I post up my next scan I will get the 85mm maf installed with the new FTP lid.
As far as track times...Well i went and it was ugly. My clutch was very much on the outs but my friends convinced me to see what it would do. Mind you the track we have up here sits at 4400 feet above sea level and the DA when I ran it at 2pm was 6400 feet. Well with a shitty *** clutch that wouldnt even let me heat up the tires nor launch worth a dam I could only muster a 2.3-2.4 60'. I couldnt heat my 315 Dr's and every launch no matter how much i went off it would light the tires up...no prep at all. I shouldn't have been running the car considering the condition of the clutch but after the track it gave me motivation to change it out. So now I'm breaking my new clutch. Martin: I came across a killer local deal otherwise I was going order from you. Anyways best of that day with a 6400 DA was a 12.5 @117 with a 2.3 60'
I have a feeling when I get the clutch broke in and finally get my 8.8 in (week or two) with 4.10 gears I should be able to make some nice passes. I will be racing in Sacramento from here on out as our local track is now closed. Sacramento is about 65-70 feet above sea level and has good air. Every car runs SLOW at our local track...high altitude and crap air.
As far as updates go...I got my under drive in the mail today so I will be installing that in the next day or two. After I post up my next scan I will get the 85mm maf installed with the new FTP lid.
As far as track times...Well i went and it was ugly. My clutch was very much on the outs but my friends convinced me to see what it would do. Mind you the track we have up here sits at 4400 feet above sea level and the DA when I ran it at 2pm was 6400 feet. Well with a shitty *** clutch that wouldnt even let me heat up the tires nor launch worth a dam I could only muster a 2.3-2.4 60'. I couldnt heat my 315 Dr's and every launch no matter how much i went off it would light the tires up...no prep at all. I shouldn't have been running the car considering the condition of the clutch but after the track it gave me motivation to change it out. So now I'm breaking my new clutch. Martin: I came across a killer local deal otherwise I was going order from you. Anyways best of that day with a 6400 DA was a 12.5 @117 with a 2.3 60'
I have a feeling when I get the clutch broke in and finally get my 8.8 in (week or two) with 4.10 gears I should be able to make some nice passes. I will be racing in Sacramento from here on out as our local track is now closed. Sacramento is about 65-70 feet above sea level and has good air. Every car runs SLOW at our local track...high altitude and crap air.
Wait until we get this thing pulling to 6500-6600rpm like it should, you're only going to go faster!
10-17-2012, 11:40 PM
#137
Martin: I couldn't be more pleased with this combo. My overall goal for this car is to get into the 10's N/A. I think with the right stuff I can get it done...at least I hope so. The car is amazing too drive and I think everyday someone comments saying "that thing sounds nasty" and I get a big cheese grin and say thanks. Thanks Tick Performance!!!
10-18-2012, 08:45 AM
#138
As stated above, those times are nothing to be ashamed of. Very nice combo. I apologize if I missed it, but are you running upgraded fuel pump/injectors - and you still have the LS6 intake on there, correct?
I have Martin looking into the LS3 valved 243 setup with a similar cam, very excited about the possibilities with this type of setup.
I have Martin looking into the LS3 valved 243 setup with a similar cam, very excited about the possibilities with this type of setup.
10-18-2012, 03:42 PM
#139
As stated above, those times are nothing to be ashamed of. Very nice combo. I apologize if I missed it, but are you running upgraded fuel pump/injectors - and you still have the LS6 intake on there, correct?
I have Martin looking into the LS3 valved 243 setup with a similar cam, very excited about the possibilities with this type of setup.
I have Martin looking into the LS3 valved 243 setup with a similar cam, very excited about the possibilities with this type of setup.
With the small valve-train gremlins knocked out of the way along with Brian's small new modifications, it will be a solid 460-470rwhp car.
Although I've seen plenty of cars that trapped 123-125@stock weight make 460-475rwhp+ to the rear wheels, so I think the dyno Brian dyno'd on is very conservative to say the least
.
10-19-2012, 12:23 AM
#140
He actually has the Fast 102 on there now, but with the LS6 intake it made over 440rwhp and 407rwtq.
With the small valve-train gremlins knocked out of the way along with Brian's small new modifications, it will be a solid 460-470rwhp car.
Although I've seen plenty of cars that trapped 123-125@stock weight make 460-475rwhp+ to the rear wheels, so I think the dyno Brian dyno'd on is very conservative to say the least.
With the small valve-train gremlins knocked out of the way along with Brian's small new modifications, it will be a solid 460-470rwhp car.
Although I've seen plenty of cars that trapped 123-125@stock weight make 460-475rwhp+ to the rear wheels, so I think the dyno Brian dyno'd on is very conservative to say the least
.I should have a new scan log uploaded tomorrow so we can check out the data. I added the Dynamic Air Cylinder to my scanner.