New 402/L92 Results
I was expecting more too!!!
Originally Posted by Shoulder Shaker
Wow. I was expecting more. Well if it drives good to you, enjoy.
I hope this improves the torque.
Bob K.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
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
Five Reasons the Camaro Was the Most Pivotal Player in the Pony Car Wars 2.0
Brett Foote
Originally Posted by RGKSR
I swapped the cam last week. I just walked in the door from getting the car tuned.
The Patrick G. cam made more RWHP (460 vs 451) and RWTQ (421 vs 414).
I am happier with the newer cam as I feel that it is more driveable down low.
I can cruise @ 1K, and it pulls cleanly. I think if I was going to race the car, I might put the 1st cam back in.
Like I said in the very 1st post, I was never unhappy with the cam, but the L92 heads are still new and I wanted to play.
Who knows, next maybe a different set of heads? I just want good power under the curve.
Bob K.
The Patrick G. cam made more RWHP (460 vs 451) and RWTQ (421 vs 414).
I am happier with the newer cam as I feel that it is more driveable down low.
I can cruise @ 1K, and it pulls cleanly. I think if I was going to race the car, I might put the 1st cam back in.
Like I said in the very 1st post, I was never unhappy with the cam, but the L92 heads are still new and I wanted to play.
Who knows, next maybe a different set of heads? I just want good power under the curve.
Bob K.
I looked at your graph..... armchair QB time for me.
1. You need to check Lash and Coil Bind on your springs.... I bet money those springs are all over the place.
2. You NEED 1 7/8 headers for L92/LS3 heads... they beat AFR flow numbers on the intake.... so what!? They flow 48cfm less at .600 lift than AFRs. Help those heads.... get an exhaust that flows freely and prevents reversion/backup etc etc.
3. What pushrods are you running... I hope it is not 7.4's..... after checkin pushrod length the shop working on mine found that you need shorter pushrods for the L92/Patriot Extreme combinations. Think of too much spring control as a slinky... the longer the more it moves... the tighter the more control on the valvetrain.
Good luck.
I think you should be making about 510rwhp with the right headers, and a better intake. I am not fond of the L76.... not yet anyway.
I'm always willing to listen!
Originally Posted by Forteen3GT
I made it to post 79 before feeling the need to reply to this tread.
I looked at your graph..... armchair QB time for me.
I'm always willing to listen.
1. You need to check Lash and Coil Bind on your springs.... I bet money those springs are all over the place.
The springs were installed and set up by a local shop, but you make a good point.
2. You NEED 1 7/8 headers for L92/LS3 heads... they beat AFR flow numbers on the intake.... so what!? They flow 48cfm less at .600 lift than AFRs. Help those heads.... get an exhaust that flows freely and prevents reversion/backup etc etc.
I kept the 1 3/4 for torque. When I was at Cartek, they said that the 1 3/4 headers were not a problem. Maybe I'll get some 1 7/8 ARH/LG/Kooks in the future.
3. What pushrods are you running... I hope it is not 7.4's..... after checkin pushrod length the shop working on mine found that you need shorter pushrods for the L92/Patriot Extreme combinations. Think of too much spring control as a slinky... the longer the more it moves... the tighter the more control on the valvetrain.
Pushrod length was checked at the shop that set uo the heads. Now I'm getting the heads milled and installing thinner head gaskets, so I'll recheck the pushrods.
Good luck.
I think you should be making about 510rwhp with the right headers, and a better intake. I am not fond of the L76.... not yet anyway.
I'm hearing rumors about a FAST L92 compatable intake. My problem is there's not much clearance under a C5 hood.
I looked at your graph..... armchair QB time for me.
I'm always willing to listen.
1. You need to check Lash and Coil Bind on your springs.... I bet money those springs are all over the place.
The springs were installed and set up by a local shop, but you make a good point.
2. You NEED 1 7/8 headers for L92/LS3 heads... they beat AFR flow numbers on the intake.... so what!? They flow 48cfm less at .600 lift than AFRs. Help those heads.... get an exhaust that flows freely and prevents reversion/backup etc etc.
I kept the 1 3/4 for torque. When I was at Cartek, they said that the 1 3/4 headers were not a problem. Maybe I'll get some 1 7/8 ARH/LG/Kooks in the future.
3. What pushrods are you running... I hope it is not 7.4's..... after checkin pushrod length the shop working on mine found that you need shorter pushrods for the L92/Patriot Extreme combinations. Think of too much spring control as a slinky... the longer the more it moves... the tighter the more control on the valvetrain.
Pushrod length was checked at the shop that set uo the heads. Now I'm getting the heads milled and installing thinner head gaskets, so I'll recheck the pushrods.
Good luck.
I think you should be making about 510rwhp with the right headers, and a better intake. I am not fond of the L76.... not yet anyway.
I'm hearing rumors about a FAST L92 compatable intake. My problem is there's not much clearance under a C5 hood.
Bob K.
Launching!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
From: cobourg ON
Are these the ported numbers? seems high for stock flow numbers..... thanks
Geoff, I ordered a smaller sized cam from Synergy.... for 2 reasons:
#1, I will always use a nitrous converter and wanted to improve low end torque, it has been proven that big cams move power up... not down.
#2, I have discovered that due to the 265-270cc runners on this head, getting the velocity back in the head from the huge ports will require less overlap and less duration with perfectly designed seat timing events. It is also apparent that a split is not needed as much after reducing the valve size on the intake and fully porting the exhaust for max effort.
based on these two things and wanting to have a nice idle for the street....
I believe my cam is a 23X/23X and will have a dyno today or tommorow :crossesfingers:
#1, I will always use a nitrous converter and wanted to improve low end torque, it has been proven that big cams move power up... not down.
#2, I have discovered that due to the 265-270cc runners on this head, getting the velocity back in the head from the huge ports will require less overlap and less duration with perfectly designed seat timing events. It is also apparent that a split is not needed as much after reducing the valve size on the intake and fully porting the exhaust for max effort.
based on these two things and wanting to have a nice idle for the street....
I believe my cam is a 23X/23X and will have a dyno today or tommorow :crossesfingers:
Geoff, I ordered a smaller sized cam from Synergy.... for 2 reasons:
#1, I will always use a nitrous converter and wanted to improve low end torque, it has been proven that big cams move power up... not down.
#2, I have discovered that due to the 265-270cc runners on this head, getting the velocity back in the head from the huge ports will require less overlap and less duration with perfectly designed seat timing events. It is also apparent that a split is not needed as much after reducing the valve size on the intake and fully porting the exhaust for max effort.
based on these two things and wanting to have a nice idle for the street....
I believe my cam is a 23X/23X and will have a dyno today or tommorow :crossesfingers:
#1, I will always use a nitrous converter and wanted to improve low end torque, it has been proven that big cams move power up... not down.
#2, I have discovered that due to the 265-270cc runners on this head, getting the velocity back in the head from the huge ports will require less overlap and less duration with perfectly designed seat timing events. It is also apparent that a split is not needed as much after reducing the valve size on the intake and fully porting the exhaust for max effort.
based on these two things and wanting to have a nice idle for the street....
I believe my cam is a 23X/23X and will have a dyno today or tommorow :crossesfingers:
My engine builder has ported a set of L92's already, and they BLOW RGKSR's out of the water 20-30cfm across the board. So if we can get a well designed cam, it should make for some good numbers. I'm also considering selling my L76 and buying a carb style. But I want to see what the L76 will do first. Looking forward to your numbers!
Now that being said, if you're putting them on a solid roller 454 with carb intake, then your huge flow numbers may make huge power.
Did you get it dynoed yet? I will also be ordering my cam from Synergy. Rick seems to have the L92's figured out pretty well. My engine builder has ported a set of L92's already, and they BLOW RGKSR's out of the water 20-30cfm across the board. So if we can get a well designed cam, it should make for some good numbers. I'm also considering selling my L76 and buying a carb style. But I want to see what the L76 will do first. Looking forward to your numbers!
Also..... the problem with this head is the port is just to small for NA applications. It is better suited for Nitrous or FI. Now if you put a 454 or a 427 and/or spin some serious RPM's on a 408 it will be the perfect head!
Unfortunately my combo is less than optimal. TH400 trans with a nitrous converter, GMPP intake that kills lowend torque, and me wanting to drive it on motor and the bottle. Mix all that together and the only option is a more streetfriendly cam with little overlap. This is what Rick at Synergy explained to me to sum things up.
