my afr dyno
my afr dyno i was hoping for better 
but these numbers are at 66cc with the fast 90 and 90tb with a corsa exhaust resulted in 434.2rwhp and 402.3rwtq from 413.6rwhp and 388.3rwtq. the last run on there was with PPls6 style 59cc heads and an ls6 intake with an 85mm bbk TB.
2100 for heads
800 for intake
600 for TB
all for 20hp. is it worth it???????
http://www.picturejudge.com/memberpi...s/IM000378.JPG
edit: no cutout through cats
but these numbers are at 66cc with the fast 90 and 90tb with a corsa exhaust resulted in 434.2rwhp and 402.3rwtq from 413.6rwhp and 388.3rwtq. the last run on there was with PPls6 style 59cc heads and an ls6 intake with an 85mm bbk TB.2100 for heads
800 for intake
600 for TB
all for 20hp. is it worth it???????
http://www.picturejudge.com/memberpi...s/IM000378.JPG
edit: no cutout through cats
Last edited by pdd; Aug 18, 2004 at 01:44 PM.
Well you dropped compression by about a point right? So I going to say thats worth about 10hp. When factoring in the drop in compression you are looking at 30 hp over an already pretty stout setup. I think its a nice jump all things considering. Was it worth it? That is up to you my friend. Either way congrats on the new setup.
TECH Resident
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
From: Tulsa, Ok
that's not a bad gain. still i would've expected a little different.
what i'm really curious about is your curve. both your setups look like they have the same, really eratic torque curve. is there a reason for that? i would think both setups would've had a much smoother curve.
edit: was the car tuned with both setups?
what i'm really curious about is your curve. both your setups look like they have the same, really eratic torque curve. is there a reason for that? i would think both setups would've had a much smoother curve.
edit: was the car tuned with both setups?
Originally Posted by KGSloan
that's not a bad gain. still i would've expected a little different.
what i'm really curious about is your curve. both your setups look like they have the same, really eratic torque curve. is there a reason for that? i would think both setups would've had a much smoother curve.
edit: was the car tuned with both setups?
what i'm really curious about is your curve. both your setups look like they have the same, really eratic torque curve. is there a reason for that? i would think both setups would've had a much smoother curve.
edit: was the car tuned with both setups?
Trending Topics
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 1
Congrats on the numbers but it seems that the PP heads did ok considering you added intake, 90mm and tuning with the AFR's.
This is why I tell people if you dyno 400-420RWHP with heads/cam dont bother changing heads. It is a waste of money.
If you added the LSX and 90mm to the PP heads you would see a similar gain with tuning imo. (430 range easily)
This is why I tell people if you dyno 400-420RWHP with heads/cam dont bother changing heads. It is a waste of money.
If you added the LSX and 90mm to the PP heads you would see a similar gain with tuning imo. (430 range easily)
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
72.27cc = 9.1 CR
71.71cc = 9.2 CR
71.05cc = 9.3 CR
70.59cc = 9.4 CR
70.03cc = 9.5 CR
69.74cc = 9.6 CR
68.91cc = 9.7 CR
68.35cc = 9.8 CR
67.79cc = 9.9 CR
67.23cc = 10.0 CR
66.67cc = 10.1 CR (stock LS1 head spec)
66.11cc = 10.2 CR
65.55cc = 10.3 CR
64.99cc = 10.4 CR
64.43cc = 10.5 CR (stock LS6 head spec)
63.87cc = 10.6 CR
63.31cc = 10.7 CR
62.75cc = 10.8 CR
62.19cc = 10.9 CR
61.63cc = 11.0 CR
61.07cc = 11.1 CR
60.51cc = 11.2 CR
59.95cc = 11.3 CR
59.39cc = 11.4 CR
58.83cc = 11.5 CR
58.27cc = 11.6 CR
.
11.4-10.2= 1.2 Drop in Compression
71.71cc = 9.2 CR
71.05cc = 9.3 CR
70.59cc = 9.4 CR
70.03cc = 9.5 CR
69.74cc = 9.6 CR
68.91cc = 9.7 CR
68.35cc = 9.8 CR
67.79cc = 9.9 CR
67.23cc = 10.0 CR
66.67cc = 10.1 CR (stock LS1 head spec)
66.11cc = 10.2 CR
65.55cc = 10.3 CR
64.99cc = 10.4 CR
64.43cc = 10.5 CR (stock LS6 head spec)
63.87cc = 10.6 CR
63.31cc = 10.7 CR
62.75cc = 10.8 CR
62.19cc = 10.9 CR
61.63cc = 11.0 CR
61.07cc = 11.1 CR
60.51cc = 11.2 CR
59.95cc = 11.3 CR
59.39cc = 11.4 CR
58.83cc = 11.5 CR
58.27cc = 11.6 CR
.
11.4-10.2= 1.2 Drop in Compression
!LS1 11 Second Club
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 7,133
Likes: 2
From: Miami
Hmm.
True, the cc difference does not provide an apples to apples comparison.
Nevertheless, I would have expected a bit more than what resulted.
20hp and 20tq is significant, so enjoy your newfound power.
Take it to the track now.
True, the cc difference does not provide an apples to apples comparison.
Nevertheless, I would have expected a bit more than what resulted.
20hp and 20tq is significant, so enjoy your newfound power.
Take it to the track now.
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by SouthFL.02.SS
Hmm.
True, the cc difference does not provide an apples to apples comparison.
Nevertheless, I would have expected a bit more than what resulted.
20hp and 20tq is significant, so enjoy your newfound power.
Take it to the track now.
True, the cc difference does not provide an apples to apples comparison.
Nevertheless, I would have expected a bit more than what resulted.
20hp and 20tq is significant, so enjoy your newfound power.
Take it to the track now.
The heads are good.He was running 11.2-1 cmpression with the patriots then took them off and used box stock AFR's and added the 90mm intake and still gained good power everywhere.Now if he just had stock heads there would of been a huge gain. I personally like these heads.
The torque curve is the setup.I tuned all around it and the curve looked the same everytime.Of course the dyno graph setup makes it look more dramatic.
The torque curve is the setup.I tuned all around it and the curve looked the same everytime.Of course the dyno graph setup makes it look more dramatic.
I like making big numbers as well as anyone.. but holy ****, that much money for a 20hp gain and not even that much on the torque numbers (where these heads are supposed to shine)?? And not to mention that for $2100 he got a set of heads that in my opinion need another $1000 spent on porting to be optimized. I'll wait for some more independant results like pdd's before I puke up the money for a set of these.
I dont think that is bad, you picked up good power and torque, while losing almost a full point of compression. Plus if you ever decide to spray the car you have nice 3/4" decks to help keep the heads down. Also what Maf and lid are you running, if you are running a stock maf, then a 90mm TB isnt really helping much as it can only flow are much air as the smallest restriction.
Wonder what Tony's car compression ratio was on his Car? He did 470rwhp, thats a far cry from Pdd numbers, wonder why there is some much difference in power? That and I think Tony was using a 224 cam or close to it and got 470?
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by 2MCHPWR
why did you want the lower compression? how much does it cost to get the compression back up to about 11:1?
