C6 Grandsport EPS cam full exhaust 499/463 Mustang Dyno
#23
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
Interesting, I had my other car on this same dyno a couple months back and the numbers seemed spot on. It's a 99 Trans Am, 346 LS1, T56, similar EPS 222/226 114 baby cam, ported 243's, LS6 intake, ported TB, Kooks LT's and True Dual system and it made 424/412 which seemed spot on. The numbers on this C6 seemed on the high side so I wanted to post them because I was so impressed.
** EDIT CORRECT CAM SPECS: 226/234 114+2 .598/.612 **
** EDIT CORRECT CAM SPECS: 226/234 114+2 .598/.612 **
My old h/c LS1 did 387rwhp on a Mustang dyno and 365ish torq. Good for 117mph on the quarter with stock gear, street tires, 2.2 0-60ft and full weight. The ported FAST got me to 404..
Anyway, who cares, the Vette is badass and must pull like a rocket!! No offenses, its always the same with dyno, just a tuning tool..
Last edited by Johnnystock; 01-21-2013 at 03:27 PM.
#24
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the best way to tell would be to run them at the track.
My 69 in my sig made 440/390 with the parts listed on a Mustang Dyno with ported Fast 90/90. On a Dynojet it made 452/425 with an LS6 intake.
So I was very impressed with my 99's #'s with a smaller cam, lesser $$$ heads and intake. And very impressed with this C6's numbers hence why I'm going with an EPS cam for my 69"s new 383 bottom end.
My 69 in my sig made 440/390 with the parts listed on a Mustang Dyno with ported Fast 90/90. On a Dynojet it made 452/425 with an LS6 intake.
So I was very impressed with my 99's #'s with a smaller cam, lesser $$$ heads and intake. And very impressed with this C6's numbers hence why I'm going with an EPS cam for my 69"s new 383 bottom end.
#25
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sacramento Ca
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buddy of mine made 460/420 with a cam almost indentical to this one through an auto and 3200 stall in an 01 Blazer. Doesn't seem to far off to me. Bigger isn't always better, especially with the square port heads