Game changer - LT1 heads on LS block
!["MAC"'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%237f3b59' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>"</text></svg>)
11-20-2014, 10:04 AM
#45
My contacts at CompCams contacted me, and wanted to make a correction on this post. (Yes, they read LS1Tech!)
Quote:
"the LS retrofit LT heads we're making are PORT injection and the injector bungs are added to the HEAD.
Somehow, the guy posting incorrectly said that these retrofit heads are direct injection, and the conversation went into how it requires ECU and high pressure pumps, etc...not the case."
Quote:
"the LS retrofit LT heads we're making are PORT injection and the injector bungs are added to the HEAD.
Somehow, the guy posting incorrectly said that these retrofit heads are direct injection, and the conversation went into how it requires ECU and high pressure pumps, etc...not the case."
11-20-2014, 10:18 AM
#47
My contacts at CompCams contacted me, and wanted to make a correction on this post. (Yes, they read LS1Tech!)
Quote:
"the LS retrofit LT heads we're making are PORT injection and the injector bungs are added to the HEAD.
Somehow, the guy posting incorrectly said that these retrofit heads are direct injection, and the conversation went into how it requires ECU and high pressure pumps, etc...not the case."
Quote:
"the LS retrofit LT heads we're making are PORT injection and the injector bungs are added to the HEAD.
Somehow, the guy posting incorrectly said that these retrofit heads are direct injection, and the conversation went into how it requires ECU and high pressure pumps, etc...not the case."
11-20-2014, 03:34 PM
#52
11-20-2014, 06:32 PM
#55
What link? I didn't post the graph from your link. You are wrong. That graph is non ported heads.
It doesn't matter. Like a dyno, a Flowbench is a tool best used for ABA testing. Lingenfelter tested both heads on their bench and posted the difference to compare. Of course other benchs are going to read different numbers, that wasn't the point. The point was a comparison between the two heads, which should be repeated on other benchs.
It doesn't matter. Like a dyno, a Flowbench is a tool best used for ABA testing. Lingenfelter tested both heads on their bench and posted the difference to compare. Of course other benchs are going to read different numbers, that wasn't the point. The point was a comparison between the two heads, which should be repeated on other benchs.
11-20-2014, 06:41 PM
#56
Seems kinda pointless to spend all this money on retrofitting a different head on an older block only to block off and not use some of the benefits that come from using this head. At that point, you might as well get a nice aftermarket LS based head and be worlds ahead of the stock LT1 unit.
Now if you were going to keep the DI and run some sort of high compression setup then I guess it makes sense, but if you're going to delete the DI then what's the point?
Not only that, but it doesn't seem like the LT1 head is that impressive to begin with. From the article, it flows a measily 285cfm @ .600 lift (which is less than a ported 243 head on a much smaller bore). It requires taking the intake runner up to a whopping 312cc to get 331cfm @ .600 lift. Seems very inneficient for the trouble it would take to retrofit it. If this was a monster head that flowed 400cfm untouched I guess it would be worth all the trouble, but you're putting in so much work for a head that flows less than ancient 243s with a little work.
Now if you were going to keep the DI and run some sort of high compression setup then I guess it makes sense, but if you're going to delete the DI then what's the point?
Not only that, but it doesn't seem like the LT1 head is that impressive to begin with. From the article, it flows a measily 285cfm @ .600 lift (which is less than a ported 243 head on a much smaller bore). It requires taking the intake runner up to a whopping 312cc to get 331cfm @ .600 lift. Seems very inneficient for the trouble it would take to retrofit it. If this was a monster head that flowed 400cfm untouched I guess it would be worth all the trouble, but you're putting in so much work for a head that flows less than ancient 243s with a little work.
11-20-2014, 06:45 PM
#57
What link? I didn't post the graph from your link. You are wrong. That graph is non ported heads.
It doesn't matter. Like a dyno, a Flowbench is a tool best used for ABA testing. Lingenfelter tested both heads on their bench and posted the difference to compare. Of course other benchs are going to read different numbers, that wasn't the point. The point was a comparison between the two heads, which should be repeated on other benchs.
It doesn't matter. Like a dyno, a Flowbench is a tool best used for ABA testing. Lingenfelter tested both heads on their bench and posted the difference to compare. Of course other benchs are going to read different numbers, that wasn't the point. The point was a comparison between the two heads, which should be repeated on other benchs.
Hey look, you can believe whatever you want I dont care. I will refrain from the Lingenfelter coolaid till i see a few more "stock" flow numbers even remotely close, they were 20+ cfm higher than TSP take that as you may.
Last edited by TT427; 11-22-2014 at 07:15 AM.
11-22-2014, 12:07 PM
#59
my link has the same graph on it, it also tells you the stock flow at .600 is 285, and ported is 335. the articles in the lead up also hinted at the head not flowing as much as the current head, read the link i posted not yours. Benches should not read that differently especially among high profile names, the biggest difference head to head seems to be from model 600 to 1020 flowbench comparatively. It doesnt matter what they flow is right, they are designed for dry flow, add fuel into it and now what do you have? 8% less flow thats what.
Hey look, you can believe whatever you want I dont care. I will refrain from the Lingenfelter coolaid till i see a few more "stock" flow numbers even remotely close, they were 20+ cfm higher than TSP take that as you may.
Hey look, you can believe whatever you want I dont care. I will refrain from the Lingenfelter coolaid till i see a few more "stock" flow numbers even remotely close, they were 20+ cfm higher than TSP take that as you may.
"Step one was, of course, establishing a firm baseline for GM’s new 12.5/12-degree head.
As you can see from the first two graphs (courtesy of Lingenfelter Performance)..."
11-22-2014, 12:12 PM
#60
TECH Fanatic
Give it some time and I'm sure better head designs will appear even from the factory. Hell, just look at the heads that came on the LS1 in 1997 versus what was being offered in five years later on the LS6, and six years after that on the LS3.