White_Hawk

iTrader: (3)

What are the specs on your cam? Based on yor numbers, it shouldn't be a big deal to give them out.

-Geoff

RGKSR

iTrader: (9)

Geoff,

I guess your right. I don't think anyone will rush in and copy them!!!!

The cam specs are 235/248 .646/.615 114LSA +2 advance

I'll be getting a Cartek designed cam in the next few weeks. Those guys really impressed me. Julio had some great ideas thatmade lots of sense.

I want to be a Gentleman like Kevin (WKMCD).

My choice to go with L92 heads wasn't based on a budget build, it was something new at the time. I have about $2K into the heads. My old combo (ported 243's / LS6 intake / MTI R1 cam) could have worked better than what I have now. But with a new cam...........................

Bob K.

WKMCD

iTrader: (2)

Sometimes less really is more.

Don't give up on the L92's. It looks like the intake lobe is an LSK lobe. I purposely didn't go that route because I wanted to maximize the spring life. BTW: I'm running 921's.

Good luck Bob.

White_Hawk

iTrader: (3)

I think you have something else wrong, that cam isn't that far off. The only thing I can see is that maybe the LSK lobe and that giant intake valve aren't getting along and you are hanging it open. I can't imagine what spring it would take to keep that lifter down at RPM. Can you post the graph? It might show something.

I wouldn't give up yet, it sounds like you are only a little shy on power. It could be something simple. You will definitely do better if you spend another $4000 on it, but that is your call.

Geoff

mike c.

iTrader: (1)

I think your #'s are real LOW. my 346ci on a mustang dyno did 463hp 414tq. KTECH just did a 402ci w/l92 heads,ect and got 604hp on a engine dyno. in a m6 car that should be around 530-540hp.

Jessica

Why wouldn't he?

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Without seeing the graph, it's hard to tell if there is valve control issues or if something else is going on. The cam timing events are right in the window of what's been working with L92s. It is certainly on the conservative side, but there must be other factors at hand contributing to the power not being as good as it could be. Please post a graph so we can see the curves.

In my opinion, you should look at other factors before you ditch the cam. Where is your timing? L92s need about 4 degrees more timing than cathedral port heads. You should be in the 30-34 degree range at WOT. Your exhaust is too small. You need 1 7/8" headers. What springs are you running? Like others have said, look at your tune and your supporting mods before you trade out the cam. You might wind up chasing your tail otherwise.

Stang's Bane

iTrader: (22)

I think Kevin has something here. The LSk's are shooting you in the foot. Like Geoff said, that big *** vlave is having problems with that much lift and quick ramp.

Pat, curious to know if he changed the exhaust setup after your specd the cam? It doesn't look like it. The extra split should make up for a lot of the smaller primary problem.

These are really hard to nail for huge power production, but they seem to respond really well to a mild cam and make monster torque way down low. Seems to really throw a kink in the "must have small runners to make big torque" theories. Seems to me that optimized locaized velocities in these heads make up for the lower overall port velocity.


(That sounds pretty good huh?? )

Keith

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

If he has good valve control, the LSKs will not hold him back, rather, they will make more power than XE-Rs. Only if your heads back up at .600" lift does it make sense to run an XE-R lobe on the intake. Without more info (graph, timing curve, spring setup), it will be difficult to diagnose on the net. The longer exhaust duration would be more likely to help than to hurt with the undersized exhaust headers. The L92s are very sensitive to too much overlap and too early of an intake valve opening. Bob's cam has neither.

RGKSR

iTrader: (9)

Guy's,

No need to start a war.

The whole L92 thing was new when I started this build.

What I need is help posting the flow sheet and dyno chart.

Thanks guys,
Bob K.

2c5s

iTrader: (11)

I have 10.9 cr and 1 3/4 headers and LSK lobes on a 110+0..... see sig!

LostCauseZ06

iTrader: (4)

hrmmmm.. interesting thread....

the_merv

iTrader: (88)

This setup discussed here is very similar to what I have, just about the same compression also.
I am building a 402/L92 setup, with the Heads still Factory Stock, just milled down .025".
Patrick G recommended the Cam that I have, it's a little bit tighter than this one here, it will be good to compare it when I Dyno mine..

I think the Cam with these Heads is the deciding factor..like earlier stated, they still are in the experimental stages, there probably isn't enough L92 setups out there yet to get a good baseline for a Cam.

Here are the Cams that were recommended by Patrick G.
It would be nice to see the results for a comparison..
His: 235/248, .646/.615, 114+2LSA
Mine: 243/247, .621(XFI)/.612(X-ER), 114+3LSA

White_Hawk

iTrader: (3)

What valve springs?

-Geoff

camarokid94

iTrader: (2)

wow good luck i hope you can get it all figured out...!

RGKSR

iTrader: (9)

Geoff,

I'm using Manley Nextek Dual springs with Ti retiners.

Bob K

2c5s

iTrader: (11)

AFR 8019

WKMCD

iTrader: (2)

921's on mine. I would think that Julio at Cartek would have caught valve float if that was the problem. These big intake valves are really not that heavy.

RGKSR

iTrader: (9)

Julio and Mike @ Cartek said that the Manley valve springs would not live too long with this cam.

He recommended Comp 921's in the future.

Bob K.

ringram

Timing under WOT?

MAP under WOT?