g5x3, and AFR205's, and lsx 90mm hp #'s.
03-01-2005 | 08:47 PM
#21
Originally Posted by 2c5s
What makes you think it's worth 30 rwhp?????? I say 10-15 rwhp. Ask me how I know that.
If your not building an all out race engine, does it really matter. I know you paid for it, they refunded and it sucks. But in the big picture, it just a number on a dyno.
462 rwhp or 475 rwhp....... You are in the top percentile as far as rwhp goes, with 346 CI TO BOOT! BTW, you aint going feel the extra h.p. either.
I did not see any gears listed in your sig. so throw some 4.10's in there, it will feel like you added 50rwhp.
If your not building an all out race engine, does it really matter. I know you paid for it, they refunded and it sucks. But in the big picture, it just a number on a dyno.
462 rwhp or 475 rwhp....... You are in the top percentile as far as rwhp goes, with 346 CI TO BOOT! BTW, you aint going feel the extra h.p. either.
I did not see any gears listed in your sig. so throw some 4.10's in there, it will feel like you added 50rwhp.
Well, I'm not sure how much compression would be affected (don't have any numbers in front of me), but assuming a 3% horsepower loss with 1 pt of compression equals ~15 rwhp on his setup. And I figured 7cc's is worth more than 1 point compression (I was assuming closer to 2) but I could be wrong. It was only a guess.
But like others said, maybe its a blessing in disguise. With 59cc maybe you would have had clearance issues and required valve reliefs.
Regardless, you are losing power, but you got your money back, so life goes on.
03-01-2005 | 08:53 PM
#22
Like everyone says life goes on. I just expected more is all. I am still working with my tuner on the car. We are having problems with the map sensor currently. I was hoping that this had something to do with the numbers. I'll see what happens over the next couple of days. I'm at work with nothing to do and I am stewing over this right now.
-matt
-matt
03-01-2005 | 08:56 PM
#23
Once you get it tuned, can you get a sound clip? I would like to see how this setup sounds. I'm thinking about TEA or AFR with an FMS cam, but with that kind of power, I might consider the LG cam if it is really streetable. Thanks and good luck!
03-01-2005 | 09:05 PM
#24
What head gasket did they use also...I'll bet you anything its the stock GM gasket or something equivalent regarding thickness.
An .040 gasket for tighter quench and a 59 cc head would be a huge difference (huge in my book) and would have easily put you over 480 RWHP.
A big cam NEEDS compression or the dynamic CR of the engine is too low. I think your results are very good considering what actually went down. You have LESS compression than when you had your factory heads on the car.
Are the pistons notched? Did you tell them to do so?
Get everything soughted out correctly (correct head gasket, milled heads, etc. ) and you will be in the 480's without a problem.
4% reduction for a full point lost in CR....4% of FLYWHEEL #'s....not rear wheel #'s. Do the math....The delta from the CR alone should add 20+
Dave Freiberger (Hot Rod Magazine) did some great testing on an engine dyno proving the 4% to be a valid figure...perhaps he could chime in here quickly if he stumbles across this thread.
Nasty SS....If you decide to get into the motor again, feel free to touch bases with me on any details I could help you with to aid you in extracting the most out of this combination when you put it back together....Call me at AFR if I can help.
Regards to all,
Tony M.
An .040 gasket for tighter quench and a 59 cc head would be a huge difference (huge in my book) and would have easily put you over 480 RWHP.
A big cam NEEDS compression or the dynamic CR of the engine is too low. I think your results are very good considering what actually went down. You have LESS compression than when you had your factory heads on the car.
Are the pistons notched? Did you tell them to do so?
Get everything soughted out correctly (correct head gasket, milled heads, etc. ) and you will be in the 480's without a problem.
4% reduction for a full point lost in CR....4% of FLYWHEEL #'s....not rear wheel #'s. Do the math....The delta from the CR alone should add 20+
Dave Freiberger (Hot Rod Magazine) did some great testing on an engine dyno proving the 4% to be a valid figure...perhaps he could chime in here quickly if he stumbles across this thread.
Nasty SS....If you decide to get into the motor again, feel free to touch bases with me on any details I could help you with to aid you in extracting the most out of this combination when you put it back together....Call me at AFR if I can help.
Regards to all,
Tony M.
03-01-2005 | 09:26 PM
#25
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
From: Warner Robins, GA
Originally Posted by goober35
Nasty SS the only problem with Milling the heads would be P/V problems. This might be a blessing. I am not sure but i dont thing the G5X3 will clear with any milled heads. I think u have to knotch the pistons with stock heads so if you had milled heads u might have a big problem Some one corect me if i am wrong.
03-01-2005 | 09:40 PM
#26
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
What head gasket did they use also...I'll bet you anything its the stock GM gasket or something equivalent regarding thickness.
An .040 gasket for tighter quench and a 59 cc head would be a huge difference (huge in my book) and would have easily put you over 480 RWHP.
A big cam NEEDS compression or the dynamic CR of the engine is too low. I think your results are very good considering what actually went down. You have LESS compression than when you had your factory heads on the car.
Are the pistons notched? Did you tell them to do so?
Get everything soughted out correctly (correct head gasket, milled heads, etc. ) and you will be in the 480's without a problem.
4% reduction for a full point lost in CR....4% of FLYWHEEL #'s....not rear wheel #'s. Do the math....The delta from the CR alone should add 20+
Dave Freiberger (Hot Rod Magazine) did some great testing on an engine dyno proving the 4% to be a valid figure...perhaps he could chime in here quickly if he stumbles across this thread.
Nasty SS....If you decide to get into the motor again, feel free to touch bases with me on any details I could help you with to aid you in extracting the most out of this combination when you put it back together....Call me at AFR if I can help.
Regards to all,
Tony M.
An .040 gasket for tighter quench and a 59 cc head would be a huge difference (huge in my book) and would have easily put you over 480 RWHP.
A big cam NEEDS compression or the dynamic CR of the engine is too low. I think your results are very good considering what actually went down. You have LESS compression than when you had your factory heads on the car.
Are the pistons notched? Did you tell them to do so?
Get everything soughted out correctly (correct head gasket, milled heads, etc. ) and you will be in the 480's without a problem.
4% reduction for a full point lost in CR....4% of FLYWHEEL #'s....not rear wheel #'s. Do the math....The delta from the CR alone should add 20+
Dave Freiberger (Hot Rod Magazine) did some great testing on an engine dyno proving the 4% to be a valid figure...perhaps he could chime in here quickly if he stumbles across this thread.
Nasty SS....If you decide to get into the motor again, feel free to touch bases with me on any details I could help you with to aid you in extracting the most out of this combination when you put it back together....Call me at AFR if I can help.
Regards to all,
Tony M.
Tony, that's what I was trying to say earlier, but I'm not as knowledgable as you and didn't know exactly the figures to use. Thanks for the info!
03-02-2005 | 12:16 AM
#27
I used the mls gaskets (which were on the car originally). The pistons are not notched. I had check the p to v and got ~.12. I would have had to fly cut and was ready to do so I had known so. There are pros and cons to this scenario. I have the crappy gas here in california so I don't have to worry about that along with the fact that i didnt have to flycut. I am upset due to wanting to get the most hp possible, but I'm not going to tear the car back apart at this point. Now due to the lower compression I am going to have to buy a supercharger. 
-matt
-matt
03-02-2005 | 12:35 AM
#28
Originally Posted by 2c5s
.
462 rwhp or 475 rwhp....... You are in the top percentile as far as rwhp goes, with 346 CI TO BOOT! BTW, you aint going feel the extra h.p. either.
I did not see any gears listed in your sig. so throw some 4.10's in there, it will feel like you added 50rwhp.
462 rwhp or 475 rwhp....... You are in the top percentile as far as rwhp goes, with 346 CI TO BOOT! BTW, you aint going feel the extra h.p. either.
I did not see any gears listed in your sig. so throw some 4.10's in there, it will feel like you added 50rwhp.
03-02-2005 | 03:40 PM
#29
those head gaskets are the worst for getting the quench tight. You definitely have 10-20 on the table from loss of 7 ccs and .015 thousandths of gasket thickness.
If you eek out 470-475 with tuning then add another 15.. theres your 490 number your lookign for
If you eek out 470-475 with tuning then add another 15.. theres your 490 number your lookign for
03-02-2005 | 04:51 PM
#30
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
From: Warner Robins, GA
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
What head gasket did they use also...I'll bet you anything its the stock GM gasket or something equivalent regarding thickness.
An .040 gasket for tighter quench and a 59 cc head would be a huge difference (huge in my book) and would have easily put you over 480 RWHP.
A big cam NEEDS compression or the dynamic CR of the engine is too low. I think your results are very good considering what actually went down. You have LESS compression than when you had your factory heads on the car.
Are the pistons notched? Did you tell them to do so?
Get everything soughted out correctly (correct head gasket, milled heads, etc. ) and you will be in the 480's without a problem.
4% reduction for a full point lost in CR....4% of FLYWHEEL #'s....not rear wheel #'s. Do the math....The delta from the CR alone should add 20+
Dave Freiberger (Hot Rod Magazine) did some great testing on an engine dyno proving the 4% to be a valid figure...perhaps he could chime in here quickly if he stumbles across this thread.
Nasty SS....If you decide to get into the motor again, feel free to touch bases with me on any details I could help you with to aid you in extracting the most out of this combination when you put it back together....Call me at AFR if I can help.
Regards to all,
Tony M.
An .040 gasket for tighter quench and a 59 cc head would be a huge difference (huge in my book) and would have easily put you over 480 RWHP.
A big cam NEEDS compression or the dynamic CR of the engine is too low. I think your results are very good considering what actually went down. You have LESS compression than when you had your factory heads on the car.
Are the pistons notched? Did you tell them to do so?
Get everything soughted out correctly (correct head gasket, milled heads, etc. ) and you will be in the 480's without a problem.
4% reduction for a full point lost in CR....4% of FLYWHEEL #'s....not rear wheel #'s. Do the math....The delta from the CR alone should add 20+
Dave Freiberger (Hot Rod Magazine) did some great testing on an engine dyno proving the 4% to be a valid figure...perhaps he could chime in here quickly if he stumbles across this thread.
Nasty SS....If you decide to get into the motor again, feel free to touch bases with me on any details I could help you with to aid you in extracting the most out of this combination when you put it back together....Call me at AFR if I can help.
Regards to all,
Tony M.
Tony, when you send the heads out milled, do you stamp them somewhere for new chamber size?
03-02-2005 | 05:59 PM
#31
Milling info...
Originally Posted by jub jub
Tony, when you send the heads out milled, do you stamp them somewhere for new chamber size?
On the actual deck of the head by the intake interface so it doesn't interfere with any head gasket sealing.
It will be stamped with the milling information as well as the final cc figure.
(For example .024 62 cc's)
03-04-2005 | 07:04 PM
#33
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
What head gasket did they use also...I'll bet you anything its the stock GM gasket or something equivalent regarding thickness.
An .040 gasket for tighter quench and a 59 cc head would be a huge difference (huge in my book) and would have easily put you over 480 RWHP.
A big cam NEEDS compression or the dynamic CR of the engine is too low. I think your results are very good considering what actually went down. You have LESS compression than when you had your factory heads on the car.
Are the pistons notched? Did you tell them to do so?
Get everything soughted out correctly (correct head gasket, milled heads, etc. ) and you will be in the 480's without a problem.
4% reduction for a full point lost in CR....4% of FLYWHEEL #'s....not rear wheel #'s. Do the math....The delta from the CR alone should add 20+
Dave Freiberger (Hot Rod Magazine) did some great testing on an engine dyno proving the 4% to be a valid figure...perhaps he could chime in here quickly if he stumbles across this thread.
Nasty SS....If you decide to get into the motor again, feel free to touch bases with me on any details I could help you with to aid you in extracting the most out of this combination when you put it back together....Call me at AFR if I can help.
Regards to all,
Tony M.
An .040 gasket for tighter quench and a 59 cc head would be a huge difference (huge in my book) and would have easily put you over 480 RWHP.
A big cam NEEDS compression or the dynamic CR of the engine is too low. I think your results are very good considering what actually went down. You have LESS compression than when you had your factory heads on the car.
Are the pistons notched? Did you tell them to do so?
Get everything soughted out correctly (correct head gasket, milled heads, etc. ) and you will be in the 480's without a problem.
4% reduction for a full point lost in CR....4% of FLYWHEEL #'s....not rear wheel #'s. Do the math....The delta from the CR alone should add 20+
Dave Freiberger (Hot Rod Magazine) did some great testing on an engine dyno proving the 4% to be a valid figure...perhaps he could chime in here quickly if he stumbles across this thread.
Nasty SS....If you decide to get into the motor again, feel free to touch bases with me on any details I could help you with to aid you in extracting the most out of this combination when you put it back together....Call me at AFR if I can help.
Regards to all,
Tony M.
Now if by any chance someone rads this and knows i am thinking about a setup almost identical to this one. 59cc AFR 205 a G5X3, and eventually fast90mm however wouldl ike big cubes one day possibly, how would a 408 react with these heads? would it be a waste to put 205s on a 408?
I know the 225s would be better, but i dont want 225 on stock cubes only one day to decide i wont go 408.
Thanks
Louie
