680 RWHP N/A H/C/I pump gas LS7 Monte Carlo SS update, +10 now 690 RWHP!
07-13-2013, 08:31 PM
#1
680 RWHP N/A H/C/I pump gas LS7 Monte Carlo SS update, +10 now 690 RWHP! The preliminary results are in: Beck sheetmetal vs. LSX.....the LSX added 10 more peak RWHP (690 vs 680) and lost 3 RWTQ (540 vs 537) and added ever so slightly more under the upper curve! What is very interesting in terms of the heads up comparison that really requires analysis or you'll miss the details is the primary difference between the LSX and the Beck Sheetmetal.....the LSX moves the torque peak up a staggering 500 RPM from 5800 to 6300 RPM so the 540 RWTQ of the Beck vs the 537 RWTQ peak of the LSX becomes very interesting and debatable.....I'll say more about this in a few minutes.
Here's the dyno sheet below:
Now, for those that really want to be blown away...the weather conditions in the Pacific Northwest today were incredible compared to the rest of the country for this time of year.....Barometer 29.94, humidity 30%, and temperature 69.5 as measured by the dyno weather station at 10:48AM this morning. When you look at Run 10 above Uncorrected which means that this is the actual horsepower being made by the vehicle the number a mind boggling 709 RWHP / 552 RWTQ
For the unlearned you might ask, why does this matter or why is this important? If my car was at Pacific Raceways this morning rather than on the dyno (as some of you would prefer!!!) where the weather conditions during this time of the day would be almost identical it would be making drag strip runs pounding 709 RWHP to the pavement because this is the actual amount of power being made by the car given the actual weather conditions outside for this time of day! And before we have people crying foul on the weather conditions (which some will) this morning's weather conditions equates to a DA of about +1000'
Here is the dyno graph still with smoothing at 5 but uncorrected and still compared to the 680 RWHP run with the Beck intake where outside weather conditions were basically SAE at the time of the 680 run because the correct factor for SAE then was 1 compared to .97 today:
So now, the $64,000 question....what would the car actually run better with...the Beck or the LSX? The easiest way to stifle this debate (or maybe create a bigger one since Internet Forums are famous for varying opinions!) is to simply drop the numbers into a simulation program like QUARTER Pro and see what it turns out! I saved you the trouble and did this for you to stimulate even more debate.....here are the projected results at the drag strip; given the parameters I entered the LSX nips the Beck by only a very narrow 0.02 seconds in the quarter mile while pulling harder on the top end (as you would expect) with almost 1/2MPH in trap speed!!!
For those like me in need of technical details on these dyno runs I am sharing freely again. What took place tuning-wise between these intakes will be very surprising for you like it was for me....after trying multiple tuning changes (adding and subtracting timing, changing A/F ratio's and even experimenting with delaying End Of Injector Timing by as much as 60 degrees) the same tune for the Beck worked best for the LSX, in other words, bolt it on and let 'er rip!!!
So now what? I am still going to explore options for an even larger TB for the LSX, either a NW 107mm or a Whipple 112mm (since I am hampered by the E38 PCM which requires DBW) to see if the added airflow will still increase the overall HP & TQ enabling me to crack 700 RWHP SAE corrected with a puny 258 degree duration camshaft, stock short block and 92 octane gas......sorry no track times until I settle this debate!
For those not following this saga here is a link to the previous update where I made an exhaust change to net 680 RWHP over the previous 660 RWHP set-up https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...-680-rwhp.html
Oh, and of course...for those not familiar with the LSX intake here is a picture below (with MAF removed for photo but used on dyno runs) showing where I made an adapter plate to mount my NW 102mm TB vertically on top of the LSX which is set-up for a 4150/4500 type TB/Carb:
To say that I am delighted with the results is beyond an understatement! For those who didn't know, my original goal before undertaking this upgrade was set out to see if I could hit 650 RWHP!
Here's the dyno sheet below:
Now, for those that really want to be blown away...the weather conditions in the Pacific Northwest today were incredible compared to the rest of the country for this time of year.....Barometer 29.94, humidity 30%, and temperature 69.5 as measured by the dyno weather station at 10:48AM this morning. When you look at Run 10 above Uncorrected which means that this is the actual horsepower being made by the vehicle the number a mind boggling 709 RWHP / 552 RWTQ
For the unlearned you might ask, why does this matter or why is this important? If my car was at Pacific Raceways this morning rather than on the dyno (as some of you would prefer!!!) where the weather conditions during this time of the day would be almost identical it would be making drag strip runs pounding 709 RWHP to the pavement because this is the actual amount of power being made by the car given the actual weather conditions outside for this time of day! And before we have people crying foul on the weather conditions (which some will) this morning's weather conditions equates to a DA of about +1000'
Here is the dyno graph still with smoothing at 5 but uncorrected and still compared to the 680 RWHP run with the Beck intake where outside weather conditions were basically SAE at the time of the 680 run because the correct factor for SAE then was 1 compared to .97 today:
So now, the $64,000 question....what would the car actually run better with...the Beck or the LSX? The easiest way to stifle this debate (or maybe create a bigger one since Internet Forums are famous for varying opinions!) is to simply drop the numbers into a simulation program like QUARTER Pro and see what it turns out! I saved you the trouble and did this for you to stimulate even more debate.....here are the projected results at the drag strip; given the parameters I entered the LSX nips the Beck by only a very narrow 0.02 seconds in the quarter mile while pulling harder on the top end (as you would expect) with almost 1/2MPH in trap speed!!!
For those like me in need of technical details on these dyno runs I am sharing freely again. What took place tuning-wise between these intakes will be very surprising for you like it was for me....after trying multiple tuning changes (adding and subtracting timing, changing A/F ratio's and even experimenting with delaying End Of Injector Timing by as much as 60 degrees) the same tune for the Beck worked best for the LSX, in other words, bolt it on and let 'er rip!!!
So now what? I am still going to explore options for an even larger TB for the LSX, either a NW 107mm or a Whipple 112mm (since I am hampered by the E38 PCM which requires DBW) to see if the added airflow will still increase the overall HP & TQ enabling me to crack 700 RWHP SAE corrected with a puny 258 degree duration camshaft, stock short block and 92 octane gas......sorry no track times until I settle this debate!
For those not following this saga here is a link to the previous update where I made an exhaust change to net 680 RWHP over the previous 660 RWHP set-up https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...-680-rwhp.html
Oh, and of course...for those not familiar with the LSX intake here is a picture below (with MAF removed for photo but used on dyno runs) showing where I made an adapter plate to mount my NW 102mm TB vertically on top of the LSX which is set-up for a 4150/4500 type TB/Carb:
To say that I am delighted with the results is beyond an understatement! For those who didn't know, my original goal before undertaking this upgrade was set out to see if I could hit 650 RWHP!
07-14-2013, 10:43 AM
#4
https://ls1tech.com/forums/17042718-post14.html
I have a MAST 4500 LS7 that I am thinking of getting rid of.
It has a FAST 4 barrel 2000 cfm body. Throttle body is cable driven, but has a custom set-up that utilizes drive by wire. Drive by wire is easily removed if you choose.
K and N Filter... have both 2" and 4".
It has a FAST 4 barrel 2000 cfm body. Throttle body is cable driven, but has a custom set-up that utilizes drive by wire. Drive by wire is easily removed if you choose.
K and N Filter... have both 2" and 4".
Great results btw, can't wait to see what it does at the track!
07-14-2013, 11:14 AM
#6
No problem man!Heres his FS thread for better pics of it.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/parts-cla...ttle-body.html
07-14-2013, 01:16 PM
#7
Bad *** Job.
However, there are much higher flowing TB's out there you can use if that is the way you are looking to go. Also, if you use your DBW stepper motor to run a rod connected to a traditional TB, it will work just fine. Think about the Harrop and the way they use the DBW setup to control 8 individual throttle body's at once. I belive you would stand to see a fairly significant gain over your current setup.
https://www.accufabracing.com/thrott...-throttle-body
This is the one I have on my car. 615RWHP N/A through a TH400, 9", tall drag tires, etc... Not as high flowing as the Accufab (2600 cfm), but flows plenty well while still allowing some decent street manners as far as throttle tip in. >>> http://www.summitracing.com/parts/acc-74209
However, there are much higher flowing TB's out there you can use if that is the way you are looking to go. Also, if you use your DBW stepper motor to run a rod connected to a traditional TB, it will work just fine. Think about the Harrop and the way they use the DBW setup to control 8 individual throttle body's at once. I belive you would stand to see a fairly significant gain over your current setup.
https://www.accufabracing.com/thrott...-throttle-body
This is the one I have on my car. 615RWHP N/A through a TH400, 9", tall drag tires, etc... Not as high flowing as the Accufab (2600 cfm), but flows plenty well while still allowing some decent street manners as far as throttle tip in. >>> http://www.summitracing.com/parts/acc-74209
Trending Topics
07-16-2013, 01:47 PM
#10
Banned
iTrader: (1)
!["MAC"'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%237f3b59' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>"</text></svg>)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you turd you built my ultimate dream car (for mostly drag purposes that is). Looks awesome btw amazing numbers! take it to the track and let us know what you ran. I am assuming those where computer generated numbers for the 1/4 mile based on your set up. (if i am wrong please correct me) I will be building one just not this color and with a BBC tho.
07-16-2013, 11:13 PM
#13
Thanks again for the props guys!
Yes, this was a simulation.
I paid $2200 for it years ago when P.I. sold them but they are about $1700 new now from MAST.
I would in a heart beat but cable isn't compatible with the stock E38 computer.
It already is!
I am assuming those where computer generated numbers for the 1/4 mile based on your set up.
How much is the LSX intake?
Why not run a Holley HP and convert to cable TB?
Any plans to port the LSX at all?
03-19-2014, 01:31 PM
#14
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey John, just have a few questions regarding your ridiculously well sorted engine:
How streetable is it? By that I mean reliability and maintenance needs driving mostly on the street ~10k miles/year.
If I could, I'd have three: one in a truck, one in a CTS-V and one in a vette
And what do you think of this intake for your motor?
How streetable is it? By that I mean reliability and maintenance needs driving mostly on the street ~10k miles/year.
If I could, I'd have three: one in a truck, one in a CTS-V and one in a vette
And what do you think of this intake for your motor?
03-19-2014, 04:16 PM
#15
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 4,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey John, just have a few questions regarding your ridiculously well sorted engine:
How streetable is it? By that I mean reliability and maintenance needs driving mostly on the street ~10k miles/year.
If I could, I'd have three: one in a truck, one in a CTS-V and one in a vette
And what do you think of this intake for your motor?
NA 690 HP Small Footprint LS Engine. New X-Ram Manifold tested. Nelson Racing Engines. Episode 209 - YouTube
How streetable is it? By that I mean reliability and maintenance needs driving mostly on the street ~10k miles/year.
If I could, I'd have three: one in a truck, one in a CTS-V and one in a vette
And what do you think of this intake for your motor?
NA 690 HP Small Footprint LS Engine. New X-Ram Manifold tested. Nelson Racing Engines. Episode 209 - YouTube
03-19-2014, 08:08 PM
#16
How streetable is it? By that I mean reliability and maintenance needs driving mostly on the street ~10k miles/year.
And what do you think of this intake for your motor?
07-11-2014, 05:52 PM
#20
Any updates John from after the broken valvespring incident on your motor?
Great talking the other night. Thanks for the insight.
