My 450WHP Mamofied 1LE SS
12-11-2012, 11:32 PM
#22
This is interesting. I've been trying to plan my build and just started looking at AFR 215s with a cam similar. You have the 2.055 intake... I'm guessing the heads are "Mamofied." Did you go with the hollow-stem option?
I wonder if I could get away with a slightly tighter ICL with a 61 or 60cc chamber if I kept the shelf 2.02 valve. I'd like to see the torque up just a little bit, so maybe a 60cc or 59cc chamber with that cam would work. I like the table-top torque and clean pull to 7k.
I wonder if I could get away with a slightly tighter ICL with a 61 or 60cc chamber if I kept the shelf 2.02 valve. I'd like to see the torque up just a little bit, so maybe a 60cc or 59cc chamber with that cam would work. I like the table-top torque and clean pull to 7k.
12-12-2012, 05:30 AM
#23
My valves are lightened, but not hollow stemmed. And yes the heads are mamofied.
You could bump the torque with the cam alone, but it's going to hurt the idle quality aty minimum, it will also make the hp curve peakier from what I understand. If you haven't spoken to Tony yet you really should. Even if you decide not to go with his stuff it is well worth your time do get a download from a true expert.
Every comment, opinion, and prediction Tony has made about my build has been dead on...and he's one hell of a nice guy to boot.
You could bump the torque with the cam alone, but it's going to hurt the idle quality aty minimum, it will also make the hp curve peakier from what I understand. If you haven't spoken to Tony yet you really should. Even if you decide not to go with his stuff it is well worth your time do get a download from a true expert.
Every comment, opinion, and prediction Tony has made about my build has been dead on...and he's one hell of a nice guy to boot.
12-12-2012, 07:48 AM
#24
Nice setup. I worked with Tony as well and he did my heads. They were nothing short of perfect to the point where it was almost a shame to put them on the car and get them dirty, but I did it anyways 
My setup is somewhat similar with a FAST 90 instead of the 102 and a smaller cam (AFR 6016 - 224/228). I had Tony port a new LS6 oil pump while it was apart as well.
One thing I did do was go with a 3/8 double taper pushrod. I was actually pleased with the way they cleaned the upper 600 RPM of the curve.
My setup is somewhat similar with a FAST 90 instead of the 102 and a smaller cam (AFR 6016 - 224/228). I had Tony port a new LS6 oil pump while it was apart as well.
One thing I did do was go with a 3/8 double taper pushrod. I was actually pleased with the way they cleaned the upper 600 RPM of the curve.
Last edited by vettenuts; 12-12-2012 at 07:53 AM.
12-12-2012, 03:05 PM
#28
I think I posted elsewhere but I did some home brewed analysis and found the double taper to be almost twice as stiff as the 11/32 plus the tapered design helps kill some of the harmonics. I don't want to go off topic but I can post a link to my findings.
12-24-2012, 12:26 PM
#30
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: POULSBO WA.
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why no ARP rod bolts??? I would be REALLY REALLY skeered to take it past 6500. Even for piece of mind wouldn't that be a GREAT investment for a 100 bucks? Can someone enlighten me on thiis? Tony your thoughts? Anyone?
12-24-2012, 02:49 PM
#32
I can say that in my own ignorance I did not anticipate spinning past 6800, thats about where im shifting now. I did not pull the motor to do this work. If I did, id do rod bolts. I think we can all agree 7k is pushing it.
For now and for me it is a risk I am accepting. As said above I cannot get the car to 7k in any gear except at the track, which will be a rare occurance. The roads in NH are not like out west...
For now and for me it is a risk I am accepting. As said above I cannot get the car to 7k in any gear except at the track, which will be a rare occurance. The roads in NH are not like out west...
07-12-2013, 01:25 AM
#38
OK guys, this is my third attempt at posting in this f’n thread so I’m clearly having issues from my hotel room connection. Anyway, this post will serve as the baseline run for the new NA Meth dyno results thread I will be posting in the coming days. I’m sorry, no meth results posted yet as I am still trying to have a chat with Snow and Tony.
What I wanted to do here is set the stage, describe the changes I made over the winter and the change in my dyno results from what are posted up top. Same dyno, same tune. The changes I made to the hardware are as follows:
1) Restall 3200 CDS TC to 4C. . .3600ish
2) Replace trans with refurbed RPM Level 7 4L60E
3) Replace Accel 9000 wires with MSD Superconductors
4) Replace TR55 plugs with TR6ix (one step colder)
5) !FRA mod to lower airbox
6) Replace sewer line intake hose with silicone modded for two nozzles (shown in build thread linked above if interested)
7) Switch from winter blend to summer blend 93 octane fuel
8) 98F humid ambient compared to 60ish dry ambient
The curves below are an overlay of my lid-lifted 450whp run back in Nov with the baseline run I made in preparation for meth last Friday. As you can see I lost significant power and was leaner. I do not believe the lean condition is a result of the !FRA mod. I installed the meth because I started getting pinging when I made my first WOT runs after filling up on summer blend fuel and I only installed the !FRA the night before the dyno runs, which was months later. (FWIW, we showed on the dyno that the !FRA mod gave the same MAP reading as lifting the lid.)
I think an argument could be made that any combination of the TC, trans, fuel, and one step colder plugs could have reduced my power. . .as well as poor correction by the dyno for the ambient conditions which were very different between runs. I don’t really want to debate the cause because we have no way of telling for sure. I just wanted to show this significant difference and folks can draw their own conclusions on the significance of the changes as they pertain to the reduction in HP. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE THE CAUSE, SUPPLY SOME DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE PLEASE. Everyone on this forum can make 20 arguments for these reductions given the mods, they are obvious.
As a precursor to what I will be posting in the meth thread I am going to repost the above curves with the smoothing turned off below. What you can see is that the lower HP run was much lumpier. You can feel this in the car as you mash the gas, but you really cant hear any ping. The motor just feels a little gravelly (like driving on a gravel road), if that is a word. The main reason I can feel this difference is because the meth eliminates the lumpiness and smoothes out the curve at the push of a button. . .but I’m getting ahead of myself. Anyway, same curves as above, no smoothing. Note the difference in the smoothness of the line. I think I’m going to call the rougher line a “micro-ping” condition. That is ping that you can feel in the car and measure on the dyno, but not so much hear. Let me know if you have a more accepted or better term, I’m not trying to coin a new phrase. I’m just not aware of one that describes this condition as accurately as I would like.
OK, that's it for now. I promise meth results are coming. . .dont expect big numbers, but it should be an interesting read. I think if nothing else it will give us all an idea of what is possible. But I really would like to have a chat with some experts before I make an *** of myself yet again.
Steve
What I wanted to do here is set the stage, describe the changes I made over the winter and the change in my dyno results from what are posted up top. Same dyno, same tune. The changes I made to the hardware are as follows:
1) Restall 3200 CDS TC to 4C. . .3600ish
2) Replace trans with refurbed RPM Level 7 4L60E
3) Replace Accel 9000 wires with MSD Superconductors
4) Replace TR55 plugs with TR6ix (one step colder)
5) !FRA mod to lower airbox
6) Replace sewer line intake hose with silicone modded for two nozzles (shown in build thread linked above if interested)
7) Switch from winter blend to summer blend 93 octane fuel
8) 98F humid ambient compared to 60ish dry ambient
The curves below are an overlay of my lid-lifted 450whp run back in Nov with the baseline run I made in preparation for meth last Friday. As you can see I lost significant power and was leaner. I do not believe the lean condition is a result of the !FRA mod. I installed the meth because I started getting pinging when I made my first WOT runs after filling up on summer blend fuel and I only installed the !FRA the night before the dyno runs, which was months later. (FWIW, we showed on the dyno that the !FRA mod gave the same MAP reading as lifting the lid.)
I think an argument could be made that any combination of the TC, trans, fuel, and one step colder plugs could have reduced my power. . .as well as poor correction by the dyno for the ambient conditions which were very different between runs. I don’t really want to debate the cause because we have no way of telling for sure. I just wanted to show this significant difference and folks can draw their own conclusions on the significance of the changes as they pertain to the reduction in HP. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE THE CAUSE, SUPPLY SOME DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE PLEASE. Everyone on this forum can make 20 arguments for these reductions given the mods, they are obvious.
As a precursor to what I will be posting in the meth thread I am going to repost the above curves with the smoothing turned off below. What you can see is that the lower HP run was much lumpier. You can feel this in the car as you mash the gas, but you really cant hear any ping. The motor just feels a little gravelly (like driving on a gravel road), if that is a word. The main reason I can feel this difference is because the meth eliminates the lumpiness and smoothes out the curve at the push of a button. . .but I’m getting ahead of myself. Anyway, same curves as above, no smoothing. Note the difference in the smoothness of the line. I think I’m going to call the rougher line a “micro-ping” condition. That is ping that you can feel in the car and measure on the dyno, but not so much hear. Let me know if you have a more accepted or better term, I’m not trying to coin a new phrase. I’m just not aware of one that describes this condition as accurately as I would like.
OK, that's it for now. I promise meth results are coming. . .dont expect big numbers, but it should be an interesting read. I think if nothing else it will give us all an idea of what is possible. But I really would like to have a chat with some experts before I make an *** of myself yet again.
Steve
