Questions about 6.0L heads....
Re: Questions about 6.0L heads.... </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> FWIW, I have a car sitting here that has unported 6.0L heads on top of a stock rotating assembly (including cam) with twin turbos at 10psi. It makes over 510rwhp and 540rwtq on my Mustang Dyno and 93 octane pump gas. You really shouldn't have too much trouble with 6.0L heads and 6 psi unless the tune is WAY off. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">turbolx,
Those are good numbers, but I would contend that the stock LS1 heads would have yielded the same result. When I still had the stock long-block (prior to heads/cam...I am still on the stock short) my car made 500rwhp and 530rwtq on a Dynojet at 7.5psi. That dyno was through a Moser 9" with a spool, heavy DS, and 35 spline axles, with the McLeod twin-disc steel clutch.
At 10psi, which might have been pushing it with the stock CC/head gaskets I might have been in a little trouble...all that I was using for tuning then was the MAFT. <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" />
Scott
Those are good numbers, but I would contend that the stock LS1 heads would have yielded the same result. When I still had the stock long-block (prior to heads/cam...I am still on the stock short) my car made 500rwhp and 530rwtq on a Dynojet at 7.5psi. That dyno was through a Moser 9" with a spool, heavy DS, and 35 spline axles, with the McLeod twin-disc steel clutch.
At 10psi, which might have been pushing it with the stock CC/head gaskets I might have been in a little trouble...all that I was using for tuning then was the MAFT. <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" />
Scott
Thread Starter
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 11,603
Likes: 0
From: Chi-Town, IL
Re: Questions about 6.0L heads.... I did order the 5.7's they should be on the car next week sometime, they have the 73cc chamber, that will give me 9.5:1 comrpession....I'm running an 8psi pully right now, and when my car dynoed with 10.5:1 compression it made 470rwhp and 540rwtq at 6psi, had some head gasket problems with it..
Anyone know how much boost I will lose?
3% power loss...hmmmm....
I'm ditching the PCV system and getting breather valves, and I'm also doing cometic gaskets...
Also whats the next size pully down, I'm running the 3.60 8psi pully now, if I put a 10psi pully on would I hit like 7-8lbs of boost?
Anyone know how much boost I will lose?
3% power loss...hmmmm....
I'm ditching the PCV system and getting breather valves, and I'm also doing cometic gaskets...
Also whats the next size pully down, I'm running the 3.60 8psi pully now, if I put a 10psi pully on would I hit like 7-8lbs of boost?
Launching!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 299
Likes: 41
From: Detroit, Murder City
Re: Questions about 6.0L heads.... </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Scott 98Z M6:
<strong>Those are good numbers, but I would contend that the stock LS1 heads would have yielded the same result. When I still had the stock long-block (prior to heads/cam...I am still on the stock short) my car made 500rwhp and 530rwtq on a Dynojet at 7.5psi. That dyno was through a Moser 9" with a spool, heavy DS, and 35 spline axles, with the McLeod twin-disc steel clutch.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without getting into the Dynojet vs. MD tuning debate (we've been there plenty of times before), I'd just like to point out the difference between the two is 1) safety margin and 2) required octane to do it safely. We will gladly line up one of our 495rwhp MD cars against a 500rwhp Dynojet car at the BG shootout and see where the MPH. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> We've had several stock lonck block'd cars in the mid 500's, it's just not what I recommend for a daily driven street car on pump gas.
<small>[ January 31, 2003, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: turbolx ]</small>
<strong>Those are good numbers, but I would contend that the stock LS1 heads would have yielded the same result. When I still had the stock long-block (prior to heads/cam...I am still on the stock short) my car made 500rwhp and 530rwtq on a Dynojet at 7.5psi. That dyno was through a Moser 9" with a spool, heavy DS, and 35 spline axles, with the McLeod twin-disc steel clutch.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without getting into the Dynojet vs. MD tuning debate (we've been there plenty of times before), I'd just like to point out the difference between the two is 1) safety margin and 2) required octane to do it safely. We will gladly line up one of our 495rwhp MD cars against a 500rwhp Dynojet car at the BG shootout and see where the MPH. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> We've had several stock lonck block'd cars in the mid 500's, it's just not what I recommend for a daily driven street car on pump gas.
<small>[ January 31, 2003, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: turbolx ]</small>
