What engine config. will it take to get 1000+ rwhp under 22 PSI out of 62mm twins?
01-15-2009, 01:18 PM
#22
Yup.....if it was me, I would go twin TC76's. Several guys on this board running big cube LS based motors with twin TC76's. Make stupid amount of power and very little boost to do it with. Also spool VERY nicely.
01-15-2009, 01:56 PM
#23
FormerVendor
I guess I'll be in the minority and say that while it would be more efficient it isn't absolutely necessary.
I think something like this-
408, 9.5-1 compression, AFR/ET/Trick Flow heads, somewhere around a 230/230 hyd roller, LS6/LS2 intake and twin 62's could do 1000rwhp with 22psi or less and a locked converter.
With that displacement and an auto you could just do 66's or bigger, then you could also do 6-bolt heads and an LSX/Warhawk/ERL
I think something like this-
408, 9.5-1 compression, AFR/ET/Trick Flow heads, somewhere around a 230/230 hyd roller, LS6/LS2 intake and twin 62's could do 1000rwhp with 22psi or less and a locked converter.
With that displacement and an auto you could just do 66's or bigger, then you could also do 6-bolt heads and an LSX/Warhawk/ERL
01-15-2009, 02:00 PM
#24
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What compression you looking to run? What are you willing to get and take (run race gas) Give a few more specs of what you want it to do and how you will be using it.
my engine now 11.1 with 15 psi for me i love it does every thing i want. its feels like i can snap my driveline part with easy power comes on so hard
New set up will be 10.1 maybe 10.5 1 with 18-20 psi of boost but i only drive it very hard for short trips so i run race gas or a 50/50 mixs
And if i do a long trip im just babying it down the highway to where im going so it gets pump gas with meth
How much money are you willing to spend? there no point to having a 1300hp motor and no way to get it to the ground cause you ran out of money for clutch and other parts
Do want to build it once or dont care about replaced head gaskets every once in a while and have the car down
I second this build a 427 from post above. Yup.....if it was me, I would go twin TC76's. Several guys on this board running big cube LS based motors with twin TC76's. Make stupid amount of power and very little boost to do it with. Also spool VERY nicely.
my engine now 11.1 with 15 psi for me i love it does every thing i want. its feels like i can snap my driveline part with easy power comes on so hard
New set up will be 10.1 maybe 10.5 1 with 18-20 psi of boost but i only drive it very hard for short trips so i run race gas or a 50/50 mixs
And if i do a long trip im just babying it down the highway to where im going so it gets pump gas with meth
How much money are you willing to spend? there no point to having a 1300hp motor and no way to get it to the ground cause you ran out of money for clutch and other parts
Do want to build it once or dont care about replaced head gaskets every once in a while and have the car down
I second this build a 427 from post above. Yup.....if it was me, I would go twin TC76's. Several guys on this board running big cube LS based motors with twin TC76's. Make stupid amount of power and very little boost to do it with. Also spool VERY nicely.
Last edited by BigRich954RR; 01-15-2009 at 02:11 PM.
01-15-2009, 02:08 PM
#25
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern MD
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey thanks for all of the replies everyone!!!!!
Thanks for taking the time to re-type a good summary of what you had said haha. I've done the same thing before after type a long reply to someone. What a way to ruin your mood!
Yeah the 62's that I'm looking at claim 670 hp per unit. After talking with Precision, they say that that's even under-rated. But the reason I'm considering these 62's is because they out-performed their own 67mm units. They tested them on a 350Z, and at something like 30 PSI the HP6262 made 16 more rwhp than the 67mm, and spooled 500 RPM sooner. So does it sound like these particular 62's that I'm looking at should be a good choice everyone???????
Alright. I just wrote a big *** reply and it got deleted by clicking on a bookmark on the top of my page on accident so here goes a short version of what I wrote. haha
The turbo's. A decent 62mm turbo is good for 60lbs per minute which equates to 600 Flywheel hp and with 2 of them you'd obviously be good for 1200hp... The problem is you'll have to pretty much max out those turbos to get them to put down your 1k rwhp goal which will most likely put them out of their efficiency range. Go to a 66mm or 67mm. That'll keep things safe and also give you room to advance later!
The turbo's. A decent 62mm turbo is good for 60lbs per minute which equates to 600 Flywheel hp and with 2 of them you'd obviously be good for 1200hp... The problem is you'll have to pretty much max out those turbos to get them to put down your 1k rwhp goal which will most likely put them out of their efficiency range. Go to a 66mm or 67mm. That'll keep things safe and also give you room to advance later!
Yeah the 62's that I'm looking at claim 670 hp per unit. After talking with Precision, they say that that's even under-rated. But the reason I'm considering these 62's is because they out-performed their own 67mm units. They tested them on a 350Z, and at something like 30 PSI the HP6262 made 16 more rwhp than the 67mm, and spooled 500 RPM sooner. So does it sound like these particular 62's that I'm looking at should be a good choice everyone???????
01-15-2009, 02:20 PM
#26
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern MD
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HE wants over 1000rwhp though a auto and long driveshaft/ most likely needing a heavy 2 part driveshaft for the GTO. Rear end of the power robbing IRS of the GTO before that break and has to switch to a heavy *** 12 bolt or some thing.
Im guessing he needs 1200-1250hp at the motor to get over 1000 rwhp on this car SO this is at the limits of a 4 bolt setup.
Im guessing he needs 1200-1250hp at the motor to get over 1000 rwhp on this car SO this is at the limits of a 4 bolt setup.
01-15-2009, 02:45 PM
#27
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern MD
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but how much "could" a camshaft on a ~112LSA cost you, HP wise, instead of using a turbo friendly cam such as on a 116+ LSA?
I love my lopey idle, especially through a basically open downpipe setup, so it lopes nice and hard and still has the awesome turbo spool-up sound. On a setup like the thread starter is contemplating, how much would a lopey cam cost the setup in horsepower?
I love my lopey idle, especially through a basically open downpipe setup, so it lopes nice and hard and still has the awesome turbo spool-up sound. On a setup like the thread starter is contemplating, how much would a lopey cam cost the setup in horsepower?
When I spoke to Ed Curtis about the cam for my Maggie I told him I needed a bit more top-end out of the car, because with the A4 I was getting raped on the top end of the track by cars that I was putting several car lengths on almost instantly on the launch.
I also told Ed that if possible, I would still like a somewhat aggressive idle so that the car would get some attention at idle. Ed said, "No problem, I just came up with some numbers... give me a shout when you're ready to order it."
Threw his cam in, started up there car, and my jaw dropped. Sounded badass. Took the car to the track, and the results proved it to still do its job handling the boost from the Maggie correctly.
I didn't have an apples-to-apples comparison on stock cam versus Ed's cam, but I was previously running 11.9x ET's prior to the day the cam was installed. The 3200 stall went in, and I went from a 2.8" to a 2.7" blower pulley at the same time as the cam. After those 3 mods I pulled an 11.08 ET. That's pretty close to a full second gain. Probably .4-.5 tenths of that can be contributed to the stall, maybe .1-.2 tenths to the pulley, and .2-.4 tenths to the cam. Those are good results from a blower cam, let alone one with a nice lumpy idle!
so id say that an engine that makes 600 fwhp off boost will get you there, and to do this on an 8:1 engine you need cubes and great cam and heads....
you could run a dual fuel system that changed between two sets of injectors.. on the same tune, one on pump gas, one on 116 octane... just have the change over at say 14 pounds of boost.. that way you could bump compression on the engine and get some "free" Hp
you could run a dual fuel system that changed between two sets of injectors.. on the same tune, one on pump gas, one on 116 octane... just have the change over at say 14 pounds of boost.. that way you could bump compression on the engine and get some "free" Hp
Run two sets of injectors?? How do you do that???? Haha not doubting what you said..... I just never knew that was possible.
I have a 3-gallon reservoir in the trunk for methanol injection. I was considering doubling that as a tank for race fuel to use for track days. I would Tee it in to the main fuel line after an external pump, and use a shut-off valve to control which fuel source I'm using. That idea just popped in my head yesterday, not sure how feasible that is. It would of course require me to have a second tune for the race fuel that would be used in the 3-gallon tank. I guess I'd also need a second valve to control which tank receives the fuel return. Any thoughts on that???
But will a pair of 62's that outperform 67's be a better choice? Or am I missing something here??????
01-15-2009, 03:04 PM
#28
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern MD
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I'll be in the minority and say that while it would be more efficient it isn't absolutely necessary.
I think something like this-
408, 9.5-1 compression, AFR/ET/Trick Flow heads, somewhere around a 230/230 hyd roller, LS6/LS2 intake and twin 62's could do 1000rwhp with 22psi or less and a locked converter.
With that displacement and an auto you could just do 66's or bigger, then you could also do 6-bolt heads and an LSX/Warhawk/ERL
I think something like this-
408, 9.5-1 compression, AFR/ET/Trick Flow heads, somewhere around a 230/230 hyd roller, LS6/LS2 intake and twin 62's could do 1000rwhp with 22psi or less and a locked converter.
With that displacement and an auto you could just do 66's or bigger, then you could also do 6-bolt heads and an LSX/Warhawk/ERL
What compression you looking to run? What are you willing to get and take (run race gas) Give a few more specs of what you want it to do and how you will be using it.
How much money are you willing to spend? there no point to having a 1300hp motor and no way to get it to the ground cause you ran out of money for clutch and other parts
Do want to build it once or dont care about replaced head gaskets every once in a while and have the car down
How much money are you willing to spend? there no point to having a 1300hp motor and no way to get it to the ground cause you ran out of money for clutch and other parts
Do want to build it once or dont care about replaced head gaskets every once in a while and have the car down
Not sure how much money I'm willing to spend. It's a pretty vague question, but I couldn't give a solid answer. Aside from the turbo setup, I'm not trying to spend thousands and thousands more later down the road. I already have a tranny capable of 700 rwhp for now. That's something I know I'll need to upgrade later. I may later down the road do a Cobra IRS setup, or if I have to, I'll have a SRA fabbed into place. The driveshaft is probably my most immediate concern because of how weak it is. But other than the forged motor, heads, transmission, and whatever rear-end upgrades are necessary I don't plan on doing anything until something breaks, or if I know something is on its last leg. The suspension can come when I have money for it later down the road.
Does that answer your question at all? Or is that not really what you were looking to know???
01-15-2009, 03:22 PM
#29
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...ottom-end.html
Take a look at this thread to get an idea of the potential of these turbo'd LS series motors:
786 RWHP
Stock LS6 shortblock (only 346")
AFR heads
FAST intake
231/234 112 cam
67mm turbos
only 12psi and 12* timing
Pump gas, No Meth!
Admittedly, the M6 C5 driveline won't eat as much power as your A4 GTO, but its just a stock 346" shortblock on pump gas. Something is wrong if you aren't able to get over 1000hp with 40 more cubic inches and 10 more pounds of boost.
No 700r4 based tranny (4L6xe or 4L7xe) is going to live very long in that kind of application; get a 4L80e.
And, don't be shy on those turbos. Forget about what some Datsun did at 30psi; yours is an entirely different combination. Several of the most experienced LSx turbo gurus on this forum have recommended a pair of 76's and I concur.
Take a look at this thread to get an idea of the potential of these turbo'd LS series motors:
786 RWHP
Stock LS6 shortblock (only 346")
AFR heads
FAST intake
231/234 112 cam
67mm turbos
only 12psi and 12* timing
Pump gas, No Meth!
Admittedly, the M6 C5 driveline won't eat as much power as your A4 GTO, but its just a stock 346" shortblock on pump gas. Something is wrong if you aren't able to get over 1000hp with 40 more cubic inches and 10 more pounds of boost.
No 700r4 based tranny (4L6xe or 4L7xe) is going to live very long in that kind of application; get a 4L80e.
And, don't be shy on those turbos. Forget about what some Datsun did at 30psi; yours is an entirely different combination. Several of the most experienced LSx turbo gurus on this forum have recommended a pair of 76's and I concur.
01-15-2009, 04:02 PM
#31
Well I'm not sure how similar a turbo cam is to the custom blower cam that I had for my Maggie setup... but the generally idea of a blower cam is to not leak too much of the boost, which should cause the cam to create a more subtle idle.
When I spoke to Ed Curtis about the cam for my Maggie I told him I needed a bit more top-end out of the car, because with the A4 I was getting raped on the top end of the track by cars that I was putting several car lengths on almost instantly on the launch.
I also told Ed that if possible, I would still like a somewhat aggressive idle so that the car would get some attention at idle. Ed said, "No problem, I just came up with some numbers... give me a shout when you're ready to order it."
Threw his cam in, started up there car, and my jaw dropped. Sounded badass. Took the car to the track, and the results proved it to still do its job handling the boost from the Maggie correctly.
I didn't have an apples-to-apples comparison on stock cam versus Ed's cam, but I was previously running 11.9x ET's prior to the day the cam was installed. The 3200 stall went in, and I went from a 2.8" to a 2.7" blower pulley at the same time as the cam. After those 3 mods I pulled an 11.08 ET. That's pretty close to a full second gain. Probably .4-.5 tenths of that can be contributed to the stall, maybe .1-.2 tenths to the pulley, and .2-.4 tenths to the cam. Those are good results from a blower cam, let alone one with a nice lumpy idle!
Hmm I don't see 600 crank horsepower being too far-fetched. Not sure what crank hp you can expect exactly from a 408 c.i. generally.... but with heads, turbo cam, no cats, and maybe the StreetWarrior intake manifold I don't see 600 as not being reachable. What do you think????
Run two sets of injectors?? How do you do that???? Haha not doubting what you said..... I just never knew that was possible.
I have a 3-gallon reservoir in the trunk for methanol injection. I was considering doubling that as a tank for race fuel to use for track days. I would Tee it in to the main fuel line after an external pump, and use a shut-off valve to control which fuel source I'm using. That idea just popped in my head yesterday, not sure how feasible that is. It would of course require me to have a second tune for the race fuel that would be used in the 3-gallon tank. I guess I'd also need a second valve to control which tank receives the fuel return. Any thoughts on that???
But will a pair of 62's that outperform 67's be a better choice? Or am I missing something here??????
When I spoke to Ed Curtis about the cam for my Maggie I told him I needed a bit more top-end out of the car, because with the A4 I was getting raped on the top end of the track by cars that I was putting several car lengths on almost instantly on the launch.
I also told Ed that if possible, I would still like a somewhat aggressive idle so that the car would get some attention at idle. Ed said, "No problem, I just came up with some numbers... give me a shout when you're ready to order it."
Threw his cam in, started up there car, and my jaw dropped. Sounded badass. Took the car to the track, and the results proved it to still do its job handling the boost from the Maggie correctly.
I didn't have an apples-to-apples comparison on stock cam versus Ed's cam, but I was previously running 11.9x ET's prior to the day the cam was installed. The 3200 stall went in, and I went from a 2.8" to a 2.7" blower pulley at the same time as the cam. After those 3 mods I pulled an 11.08 ET. That's pretty close to a full second gain. Probably .4-.5 tenths of that can be contributed to the stall, maybe .1-.2 tenths to the pulley, and .2-.4 tenths to the cam. Those are good results from a blower cam, let alone one with a nice lumpy idle!
Hmm I don't see 600 crank horsepower being too far-fetched. Not sure what crank hp you can expect exactly from a 408 c.i. generally.... but with heads, turbo cam, no cats, and maybe the StreetWarrior intake manifold I don't see 600 as not being reachable. What do you think????
Run two sets of injectors?? How do you do that???? Haha not doubting what you said..... I just never knew that was possible.
I have a 3-gallon reservoir in the trunk for methanol injection. I was considering doubling that as a tank for race fuel to use for track days. I would Tee it in to the main fuel line after an external pump, and use a shut-off valve to control which fuel source I'm using. That idea just popped in my head yesterday, not sure how feasible that is. It would of course require me to have a second tune for the race fuel that would be used in the 3-gallon tank. I guess I'd also need a second valve to control which tank receives the fuel return. Any thoughts on that???
But will a pair of 62's that outperform 67's be a better choice? Or am I missing something here??????
Not sure what 67's they were comparing 62's too, but sounds like those 67's are not working properly. Aerodynamics will only go so far. Shear wheel size does the rest. I would talk to JZ 97 SS on this board if you want to get more into depth...he will explain things to you.
01-15-2009, 04:19 PM
#32
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern MD
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...ottom-end.html
Take a look at this thread to get an idea of the potential of these turbo'd LS series motors:
786 RWHP
Stock LS6 shortblock (only 346")
AFR heads
FAST intake
231/234 112 cam
67mm turbos
only 12psi and 12* timing
Pump gas, No Meth!
Admittedly, the M6 C5 driveline won't eat as much power as your A4 GTO, but its just a stock 346" shortblock on pump gas. Something is wrong if you aren't able to get over 1000hp with 40 more cubic inches and 10 more pounds of boost.
No 700r4 based tranny (4L6xe or 4L7xe) is going to live very long in that kind of application; get a 4L80e.
And, don't be shy on those turbos. Forget about what some Datsun did at 30psi; yours is an entirely different combination. Several of the most experienced LSx turbo gurus on this forum have recommended a pair of 76's and I concur.
Take a look at this thread to get an idea of the potential of these turbo'd LS series motors:
786 RWHP
Stock LS6 shortblock (only 346")
AFR heads
FAST intake
231/234 112 cam
67mm turbos
only 12psi and 12* timing
Pump gas, No Meth!
Admittedly, the M6 C5 driveline won't eat as much power as your A4 GTO, but its just a stock 346" shortblock on pump gas. Something is wrong if you aren't able to get over 1000hp with 40 more cubic inches and 10 more pounds of boost.
No 700r4 based tranny (4L6xe or 4L7xe) is going to live very long in that kind of application; get a 4L80e.
And, don't be shy on those turbos. Forget about what some Datsun did at 30psi; yours is an entirely different combination. Several of the most experienced LSx turbo gurus on this forum have recommended a pair of 76's and I concur.
I'll have to look deeper into which trans I go with when the time comes I guess. The 4L80E is certainly a nice, choice.... but $$$$$$$$$$$
I was looking at sending my 700 rwhp rated Level II 4L60E back to upgrade it to the "Invincible" 4L65E. It would cost me a fraction of the price to upgrade to the Invincible, versus swapping for a built 4L80E. But if the Invincible really isn't going to take that kind of power then that won't even be a choice. Here's a link to the Invincible trans by Performabuilt for those who aren't familiar:
http://www.performabuilt.com/GMCars032008.html
Not sure what 67's they were comparing 62's too, but sounds like those 67's are not working properly. Aerodynamics will only go so far. Shear wheel size does the rest. I would talk to JZ 97 SS on this board if you want to get more into depth...he will explain things to you.
01-15-2009, 04:54 PM
#33
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know one well known tuner is making over 1000hp with a pair of those 6262's on a TT 350z. But, there's a world of difference between a little 6 cylinder at 30# and a big V-8 at 20#. Even though you're looking to make similar power, your turbo choices will be different. Due to the dramatic differences between your engine and that Datsun's, the likelihood is very slim that his ideal turbos would also be ideal for you.
01-15-2009, 05:16 PM
#34
TECH Apprentice
quote:
Precision was comparing their HP6262 to their very own 67mm unit. I assume also an "HP" series 67mm. With Precision's line of turbo's, the price jumps up quite a bit per turbo once you go beyond a 67mm unit. So without getting much pricier, and having bigger twins than I think I really need, I've been assuming that the HP6262 or HP6265 would be a better choice since they perform better than their 67mm. Any deeper thoughts/opinions on this???[/QUOTE]
those 62mm precision turbo's ..... have they got a ett comp wheel in them?
they sound pretty tough units, have you a link ?
ash
Precision was comparing their HP6262 to their very own 67mm unit. I assume also an "HP" series 67mm. With Precision's line of turbo's, the price jumps up quite a bit per turbo once you go beyond a 67mm unit. So without getting much pricier, and having bigger twins than I think I really need, I've been assuming that the HP6262 or HP6265 would be a better choice since they perform better than their 67mm. Any deeper thoughts/opinions on this???[/QUOTE]
those 62mm precision turbo's ..... have they got a ett comp wheel in them?
they sound pretty tough units, have you a link ?
ash
01-15-2009, 05:41 PM
#35
quote:
Precision was comparing their HP6262 to their very own 67mm unit. I assume also an "HP" series 67mm. With Precision's line of turbo's, the price jumps up quite a bit per turbo once you go beyond a 67mm unit. So without getting much pricier, and having bigger twins than I think I really need, I've been assuming that the HP6262 or HP6265 would be a better choice since they perform better than their 67mm. Any deeper thoughts/opinions on this???
Precision was comparing their HP6262 to their very own 67mm unit. I assume also an "HP" series 67mm. With Precision's line of turbo's, the price jumps up quite a bit per turbo once you go beyond a 67mm unit. So without getting much pricier, and having bigger twins than I think I really need, I've been assuming that the HP6262 or HP6265 would be a better choice since they perform better than their 67mm. Any deeper thoughts/opinions on this???
those 62mm precision turbo's ..... have they got a ett comp wheel in them?
they sound pretty tough units, have you a link ?
ash[/QUOTE]
The 62's are billet 62mm...PTE....conventional design, not ETT. That is BW.
01-15-2009, 05:43 PM
#36
That information is encouraging though. As you said, that was on a 346 c.i. at only 12 PSI. Granted it has higher compression than I would have, that does make my goal sound feasible.
I'll have to look deeper into which trans I go with when the time comes I guess. The 4L80E is certainly a nice, choice.... but $$$$$$$$$$$
I was looking at sending my 700 rwhp rated Level II 4L60E back to upgrade it to the "Invincible" 4L65E. It would cost me a fraction of the price to upgrade to the Invincible, versus swapping for a built 4L80E. But if the Invincible really isn't going to take that kind of power then that won't even be a choice. Here's a link to the Invincible trans by Performabuilt for those who aren't familiar:
http://www.performabuilt.com/GMCars032008.html
Precision was comparing their HP6262 to their very own 67mm unit. I assume also an "HP" series 67mm. With Precision's line of turbo's, the price jumps up quite a bit per turbo once you go beyond a 67mm unit. So without getting much pricier, and having bigger twins than I think I really need, I've been assuming that the HP6262 or HP6265 would be a better choice since they perform better than their 67mm. Any deeper thoughts/opinions on this???
I'll have to look deeper into which trans I go with when the time comes I guess. The 4L80E is certainly a nice, choice.... but $$$$$$$$$$$
I was looking at sending my 700 rwhp rated Level II 4L60E back to upgrade it to the "Invincible" 4L65E. It would cost me a fraction of the price to upgrade to the Invincible, versus swapping for a built 4L80E. But if the Invincible really isn't going to take that kind of power then that won't even be a choice. Here's a link to the Invincible trans by Performabuilt for those who aren't familiar:
http://www.performabuilt.com/GMCars032008.html
Precision was comparing their HP6262 to their very own 67mm unit. I assume also an "HP" series 67mm. With Precision's line of turbo's, the price jumps up quite a bit per turbo once you go beyond a 67mm unit. So without getting much pricier, and having bigger twins than I think I really need, I've been assuming that the HP6262 or HP6265 would be a better choice since they perform better than their 67mm. Any deeper thoughts/opinions on this???
Was this comparison done on a high pressure small displacement setup?? If so that could explain the HP difference. The 67 is not a high pressure wheel assuming its the standard Garrett 67mm comp wheel. Take the same turbos on a low pressure setup (like a V8) and the 67 will shine.
01-15-2009, 05:54 PM
#37
TECH Apprentice
yep,
just trying to work out why the 62's where keeping up with the 67's....
ok,
they got billet wheels...cool
01-15-2009, 06:00 PM
#38
Good thread! Like the other guys are saying: you need to pick compressors that will reach your horsepower goals within the peak efficiency island, past that its finding a longblock that will swallow that air with the least amount of resistance(boost). What this equates to is an uber strong big inch long block with a killer set of heads on top of it. You giant intake runners the entire length with some monster intake valves at the end of them and a very efficient intake manifold and hot side. I couldn't agree more with the guys that say to go with the six bolt (LSX, LS7, or C5R) block. Its going to save you some headache.
01-15-2009, 06:01 PM
#39
It always depends on application its used. Case in point....Borg Warner has a billet 71mm compressor wheel that was used againist the old 70mm garrett wheel in TSM class for the GN's. Well the BW wheel is not a high PR wheel, unlike the the Garrett 70mm which will take high PR's. All your top boys are now running the garrett 70mm. Smaller wheel, but properly sized and used in a proper application.
01-15-2009, 06:20 PM
#40
I said the vig is out not because they can't make a converter for that power, but your 9" (probably) vig spec'ed for a much lower powered car is not going to be suitable for your 1300 hp car.
If you're looking for 1000 + rwhp car and are worried about the cost of changing transmissions you are in way over your head.
I suggested ditching the IRS because you're going to break the IRS repeatedly. IRS do not survive on 7-8 second cars very well.