P&P 243s or aftermarket heads?
10-10-2009, 10:35 AM
#21
Jedi Master
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: MN
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say no. He suggested the LS6 heads. Constantly mentions that it's the combination of parts that make the performance. He's build several 700+ cars for his customers. He's primarily a road racer, the cars he works on tend to win. He drives his own car and hold the track record at Spring Mountain outside of Vegas. Nobody questions that he knows his stuff.
I looking at the heads from the company in my post above. They are expensive without cores.
So, why should I not be worried about putting heads with big intake ports on my car? The LS6 heads look stock, and flow better than the Edelbrock/lingenfelter heads. But they have much larger intake port volumes. I'm afraid this could lead to low partial throttle response (street driving/cruising), making the engine unspectacular below 3500 rpms. So yes I want high port velocity for low end performance. If I am wrong tell more or direct me. I have an engineering background and do get it.
Thanks for your input!
I looking at the heads from the company in my post above. They are expensive without cores.
So, why should I not be worried about putting heads with big intake ports on my car? The LS6 heads look stock, and flow better than the Edelbrock/lingenfelter heads. But they have much larger intake port volumes. I'm afraid this could lead to low partial throttle response (street driving/cruising), making the engine unspectacular below 3500 rpms. So yes I want high port velocity for low end performance. If I am wrong tell more or direct me. I have an engineering background and do get it.
Thanks for your input!
My 390ft lbs of torque with my 220/228 cam and 250cc intake runners on my 04 LS1 GTO must have been awful
10-10-2009, 11:17 AM
#22
11 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
243 head porters So there has been a lot of discussion about the 243 heads here and Katech (spelling?) is the only company that has been mentioned as having the ability to extract the horsepower from these heads. Are there any others out there? I have heard that Detroit Speed and TEA are both very good. Any real world comparrisons?
10-10-2009, 11:53 AM
#23
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mi
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wont MORE POWER!! But all kidding aside I just want better performance from my LS1. Originally I wanted the same as an C5 Z06. This meant LS6 heads. Since ported LS6 heads aren't much more expensive why not. Then while I'm going to the trouble of taking everything apart might as well put the best in. I am willing to spend the money for premium heads ( for what people spend on vettes another $1000 isn't much). I'm building the fund now. I can afford to get aftermarket heads and a cam, pay for labor and all accessory hardware, and finally a tune. I want an aftermarket head with a CARB EO number. There are several out there (AFR, Edelbrock). Then there is the stock OEM looking 243 ported heads which have a practical price. BTW, I do a lot of spirited country driving/mountain driving with a group that includes a lot of C6 Z06s, and FI LS1/LS6 C5s. I want to do a better job of keeping up. I will stay N/A.
To give you the short answer, yes! It just seems that most aftermarket heads with ports larger than 225cc are for larger CI or FI applications. I don't think that the high velocity logic is a myth either.
However, some recent research has me wondering is the right cam will give me what I want from a bored out set of 243 heads. You see i want to be able to drive around the neighborhood as well has burning up the back roads. I want a beast but I want it obedience trained also. I also do not want to loose engine efficiency. I believe I can get great fuel efficiency with well designed heads, and if i keep my foot out of it.
I am talking to an reputable tuner. He has suggested the CNC'd LS6 heads with his custom cam grind. He says i want notice any loss of partial throttle response. I want to believe him. Is he right?
To give you the short answer, yes! It just seems that most aftermarket heads with ports larger than 225cc are for larger CI or FI applications. I don't think that the high velocity logic is a myth either.
However, some recent research has me wondering is the right cam will give me what I want from a bored out set of 243 heads. You see i want to be able to drive around the neighborhood as well has burning up the back roads. I want a beast but I want it obedience trained also. I also do not want to loose engine efficiency. I believe I can get great fuel efficiency with well designed heads, and if i keep my foot out of it.
I am talking to an reputable tuner. He has suggested the CNC'd LS6 heads with his custom cam grind. He says i want notice any loss of partial throttle response. I want to believe him. Is he right?
10-10-2009, 01:40 PM
#24
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you are a candidate for any of the real head guys, like Richard, or Ed or others who shall remain nameless. They actually know lots more than you do about these things. They may tell you things you don't want to hear. Some already have.
I think Yogi Berra said it very well: "There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em."
Gotta' love Yogi.
Good luck.
Jon
I think Yogi Berra said it very well: "There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em."
Gotta' love Yogi.
Good luck.
Jon
If you mean WCCH doing custom head design for my application, I would have to agree. I'll be going through my tuner for this. If my tuner has a special head design I will probably go with that. Otherwise, I'll probably get one of their typical CNC'd heads (the one's they advertise on their website). However, I would never tell a head designer/machinist as successful as WCCH apparently are, what works with heads. I'd listen! I've already heard some things second hand from WCCH that would probably disappoint a lot of people on this board. This is indirectly why I'm posting this question. If I took everything on the internet as fact, I would have already bought heads.
I think you would be surprised what I would listen to. However, in this thread statements have been made, but nothing has actually been said. Where's the explanation? I realize the answer to my question will take a lot of time and typing effort. Two things I can't ask from you. But I do appreciate your insight. I'll be looking into this further.
Thanks,
Will
Last edited by Mister Will; 10-11-2009 at 07:06 PM.
10-10-2009, 01:48 PM
#25
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What they are trying to tell you will is that it is not the size of the runner that determines low end response, but the velocity those runners have. Meaning it is not necessary to have small runners for good bottom trq and response.
The runners along with short radius, chamber to bowl transition and VJ have to be done correctly, that is all.
The LS3 heads have been derived from LS7 tech and are masterpieces for being in stock form and the price they cost. The only problem, they need at least a 4.00 bore, so in stock castings, 243/799 are still the best bet for a LS1/LS6 bore.
Here are links to give you more insight:
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tec.../velocity.html
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ads/index.html
The runners along with short radius, chamber to bowl transition and VJ have to be done correctly, that is all
.The LS3 heads have been derived from LS7 tech and are masterpieces for being in stock form and the price they cost. The only problem, they need at least a 4.00 bore, so in stock castings, 243/799 are still the best bet for a LS1/LS6 bore.
Here are links to give you more insight:
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tec.../velocity.html
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ads/index.html
10-10-2009, 01:57 PM
#26
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well since you have an "engineering background", can you explain how a bigger intake runner leads to less low end power? I really want to hear this, I could use a chuckle today
My 390ft lbs of torque with my 220/228 cam and 250cc intake runners on my 04 LS1 GTO must have been awful
My 390ft lbs of torque with my 220/228 cam and 250cc intake runners on my 04 LS1 GTO must have been awful
Last edited by Mister Will; 10-10-2009 at 02:19 PM.
10-10-2009, 04:52 PM
#27
TECH Senior Member
I'm not saying it will kill low end power. I'm saying it will affect drivability, and low rpm throttle response. Big ports, TB, and pipes make for great numbers, at high rpms. But when you are rolling out of the driveway and down the street at 2500 rpm and you crack the throttle plate. Do you get pushed back into your seat, or does it take a moment?
Now if those heads are badly ported and just hoged out with poor VJ, then you'll find yourself in a similar situation as you describe.
So it is not given that if you have big ports, you automaticaly have diminished lower rpm output or response.
10-10-2009, 10:03 PM
#28
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I mentionned along with others, it has to due with velocity. If those big port heads have good velocity and good chamber/bowl transition along with VJ, you would actualy gain.
Now if those heads are badly ported and just hoged out with poor VJ, then you'll find yourself in a similar situation as you describe.
So it is not given that if you have big ports, you automaticaly have diminished lower rpm output or response.
Now if those heads are badly ported and just hoged out with poor VJ, then you'll find yourself in a similar situation as you describe.
So it is not given that if you have big ports, you automaticaly have diminished lower rpm output or response.
This is what I'm afraid of by going with a larger intake runner.
10-11-2009, 11:43 AM
#29
TECH Senior Member
The key word is velocity, port design on SBC is vastly inferior to LS1 designs, that is one of the main reasons the LS1 smallblock will outpower older SBC of same cubes and that was the revolution in the evolution of SBC.
The bigger L92/LS3 design has runners cloned from LS7 design and those are yet another step in the evolution over 243 Cathedral ports.
I have seen 230cc 243s pick power everywhere with a relatively mild cam on 346 cubes, and the reason is they were ported properly with the right parameters to produce good velocity.
The bigger L92/LS3 design has runners cloned from LS7 design and those are yet another step in the evolution over 243 Cathedral ports.
I have seen 230cc 243s pick power everywhere with a relatively mild cam on 346 cubes, and the reason is they were ported properly with the right parameters to produce good velocity.
10-11-2009, 01:51 PM
#30
A well designed very efficient smaller runner head (with solid peak numbers) can still make big power, big torque, and will feel like a different engine down low at part throttle (compared to a ported OEM head some 20 cc's larger to achieve similar peak flow)....this isn't a myth. Speak to people that have driven both.
At low RPM and part throttle, engine airflow is minimal moving thru the ports and across the valve....larger runners are lazier and more susceptible to reversion issues as well because the column of air doesn't have as much velocity and inertia and tends to back up easier with a cam that has a fair amount of overlap. A smaller runner actually allows you to cam it up a little more without the negative aspects of a big cam (overlap) effecting it quite as much (or makes the same size cam feel a little tamer).
Tip in (top gear roll on) is improved with a smaller more efficient port design....throttle response....fuel economy, and no penalty in peak power if you design the package properly.
In a street application, look for the smallest runner that legitimately flows the total airflow needed to meet your power goals and it will have a much better overall feel with the bulk of the improvements residing where you drive that car every day 90% of the time.
Patrick G. tried our 225 heads on his H/C 346 a few years ago looking for more peak power over the popular and successful 205 headed combo he had. And our 225's flow as much or more than most of the ported OEM heads on the market if your discussing a $2500 cylinder head. Long story short is he made a little more power but felt he lost some of the punch and immediacy down low. Said if he had to do it all over again (at the time) he would have left the 205's on there because the trade off in peak power wasn't worth what he lost in the area of the curve you use and appreciate every day cruising around town.
Perhaps he can chime in at some point but he is just one example (that quickly comes to mind) of real world data that confirms what I think in some respect is the most logical result of what we are discussing. There is a reason AFR designed a 205 cc runner for a market at the time filled with 346 CID combinations needing a good all around cylinder head, and our target was aimed at optimizing street/strip performance, not the other way around.
Not to mention that one example above (Pat G's) is comparing a clean sheet design aftermarket head against a smaller version of the same. Meaning our 225 is about the same volume (or smaller) than alot of OEM ported heads which flow 300 ish (some even less at that volume), but the AFR 225 flows 320 with really strong low and mid-lift numbers so when discussing that sized port in the example above, we are comparing a very efficient 225 to a very efficient 205. Had Pat switched to a larger head of the same volume that flowed less (very typical of OEM ported castings), he would have really been disappointed in the responsiveness of the lower and middle part of the curve, not to mention it would have made less peak power.
What some of you guys are having a hard time grasping is to make a truly efficient high flowing OEM head, material would have to be ADDED in the right places (via welding or epoxy), not just removed. You have to improve the ports shape, not just make it bigger which is the visegrip and lump hammer approach to cylinder head design. A stock 243/LS6 casting flows 250-255 CFM at finished volume of 210-212 cc's (bone stock...unported). An AFR 205 flows 300 CFM at a finshed volume of 205 cc's.....how do you think that happens?? Sure porting the OEM head improves flow (ultimately making it significantly larger) but it will NEVER be as effective as a properly designed "clean sheet" aftermarket casting. We design the ultimate port at the target volume we decide is appropriate and build a casting around it....NO compromises.
The real question is do YOU want to pay for one....not which is better.
We now bring you back to your regular programming....
-Tony
At low RPM and part throttle, engine airflow is minimal moving thru the ports and across the valve....larger runners are lazier and more susceptible to reversion issues as well because the column of air doesn't have as much velocity and inertia and tends to back up easier with a cam that has a fair amount of overlap. A smaller runner actually allows you to cam it up a little more without the negative aspects of a big cam (overlap) effecting it quite as much (or makes the same size cam feel a little tamer).
Tip in (top gear roll on) is improved with a smaller more efficient port design....throttle response....fuel economy, and no penalty in peak power if you design the package properly.
In a street application, look for the smallest runner that legitimately flows the total airflow needed to meet your power goals and it will have a much better overall feel with the bulk of the improvements residing where you drive that car every day 90% of the time.
Patrick G. tried our 225 heads on his H/C 346 a few years ago looking for more peak power over the popular and successful 205 headed combo he had. And our 225's flow as much or more than most of the ported OEM heads on the market if your discussing a $2500 cylinder head. Long story short is he made a little more power but felt he lost some of the punch and immediacy down low. Said if he had to do it all over again (at the time) he would have left the 205's on there because the trade off in peak power wasn't worth what he lost in the area of the curve you use and appreciate every day cruising around town.
Perhaps he can chime in at some point but he is just one example (that quickly comes to mind) of real world data that confirms what I think in some respect is the most logical result of what we are discussing. There is a reason AFR designed a 205 cc runner for a market at the time filled with 346 CID combinations needing a good all around cylinder head, and our target was aimed at optimizing street/strip performance, not the other way around.
Not to mention that one example above (Pat G's) is comparing a clean sheet design aftermarket head against a smaller version of the same. Meaning our 225 is about the same volume (or smaller) than alot of OEM ported heads which flow 300 ish (some even less at that volume), but the AFR 225 flows 320 with really strong low and mid-lift numbers so when discussing that sized port in the example above, we are comparing a very efficient 225 to a very efficient 205. Had Pat switched to a larger head of the same volume that flowed less (very typical of OEM ported castings), he would have really been disappointed in the responsiveness of the lower and middle part of the curve, not to mention it would have made less peak power.
What some of you guys are having a hard time grasping is to make a truly efficient high flowing OEM head, material would have to be ADDED in the right places (via welding or epoxy), not just removed. You have to improve the ports shape, not just make it bigger which is the visegrip and lump hammer approach to cylinder head design. A stock 243/LS6 casting flows 250-255 CFM at finished volume of 210-212 cc's (bone stock...unported). An AFR 205 flows 300 CFM at a finshed volume of 205 cc's.....how do you think that happens?? Sure porting the OEM head improves flow (ultimately making it significantly larger) but it will NEVER be as effective as a properly designed "clean sheet" aftermarket casting. We design the ultimate port at the target volume we decide is appropriate and build a casting around it....NO compromises.
The real question is do YOU want to pay for one....not which is better.
We now bring you back to your regular programming....
-Tony
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 10-11-2009 at 05:46 PM.
10-11-2009, 05:20 PM
#32
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key word is velocity, port design on SBC is vastly inferior to LS1 designs, that is one of the main reasons the LS1 smallblock will outpower older SBC of same cubes and that was the revolution in the evolution of SBC.
The bigger L92/LS3 design has runners cloned from LS7 design and those are yet another step in the evolution over 243 Cathedral ports.
I have seen 230cc 243s pick power everywhere with a relatively mild cam on 346 cubes, and the reason is they were ported properly with the right parameters to produce good velocity.
The bigger L92/LS3 design has runners cloned from LS7 design and those are yet another step in the evolution over 243 Cathedral ports.
I have seen 230cc 243s pick power everywhere with a relatively mild cam on 346 cubes, and the reason is they were ported properly with the right parameters to produce good velocity.
I appreciate your input to this thread. I hope I didn't appear cynical earlier. I was just looking for some more detailed answers. I'm still new to this forum and don't know everyone's background.
Old SStroker/ Jon if you are still reading this thread, can I send you a PM?
10-11-2009, 05:50 PM
#34
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-13-2009, 09:12 PM
#35
Patrick G. tried our 225 heads on his H/C 346 a few years ago looking for more peak power over the popular and successful 205 headed combo he had. And our 225's flow as much or more than most of the ported OEM heads on the market if your discussing a $2500 cylinder head. Long story short is he made a little more power but felt he lost some of the punch and immediacy down low. Said if he had to do it all over again (at the time) he would have left the 205's on there because the trade off in peak power wasn't worth what he lost in the area of the curve you use and appreciate every day cruising around town.
Perhaps he can chime in at some point but he is just one example (that quickly comes to mind) of real world data that confirms what I think in some respect is the most logical result of what we are discussing. There is a reason AFR designed a 205 cc runner for a market at the time filled with 346 CID combinations needing a good all around cylinder head, and our target was aimed at optimizing street/strip performance, not the other way around.
Not to mention that one example above (Pat G's) is comparing a clean sheet design aftermarket head against a smaller version of the same. Meaning our 225 is about the same volume (or smaller) than alot of OEM ported heads which flow 300 ish (some even less at that volume), but the AFR 225 flows 320 with really strong low and mid-lift numbers so when discussing that sized port in the example above, we are comparing a very efficient 225 to a very efficient 205. Had Pat switched to a larger head of the same volume that flowed less (very typical of OEM ported castings), he would have really been disappointed in the responsiveness of the lower and middle part of the curve, not to mention it would have made less peak power.
Perhaps he can chime in at some point but he is just one example (that quickly comes to mind) of real world data that confirms what I think in some respect is the most logical result of what we are discussing. There is a reason AFR designed a 205 cc runner for a market at the time filled with 346 CID combinations needing a good all around cylinder head, and our target was aimed at optimizing street/strip performance, not the other way around.
Not to mention that one example above (Pat G's) is comparing a clean sheet design aftermarket head against a smaller version of the same. Meaning our 225 is about the same volume (or smaller) than alot of OEM ported heads which flow 300 ish (some even less at that volume), but the AFR 225 flows 320 with really strong low and mid-lift numbers so when discussing that sized port in the example above, we are comparing a very efficient 225 to a very efficient 205. Had Pat switched to a larger head of the same volume that flowed less (very typical of OEM ported castings), he would have really been disappointed in the responsiveness of the lower and middle part of the curve, not to mention it would have made less peak power.
This loss of efficiency was confirmed when I tuned my VE tables. I had to add close to 15% in VE ratio at higher rpm, but only gained about 1% in power. So basically, I had to add 15% more fuel for 1% more power. That kind of efficiency cannot be seen on a chassis dyno sheet, but could on an engine dyno that calculates BSFC.
Sure a big port factory casting can make solid low rpm torque (when cammed correctly), but it will have a hard time matching the crisp throttle response and low fuel consumption of an efficient small port with high air speed.
__________________
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
10-14-2009, 12:48 AM
#37
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can vouch for this. I swapped my box stock AFR 205s for a set of AFR 225s and the results were somewhat disappointing. I did not lose any low rpm torque with the 225s vs the 205s. The 225 heads were equal to or slightly above the 205s at every rpm level, but no more than 5rwhp or torque. What was disappointing about the whole exercise was that I lost a great deal of tip-in throttle crispness with the larger heads and my fuel economy decreased by 1 mpg. Not a good trade-off for two grand plus in expense.
This loss of efficiency was confirmed when I tuned my VE tables. I had to add close to 15% in VE ratio at higher rpm, but only gained about 1% in power. So basically, I had to add 15% more fuel for 1% more power. That kind of efficiency cannot be seen on a chassis dyno sheet, but could on an engine dyno that calculates BSFC.
Sure a big port factory casting can make solid low rpm torque (when cammed correctly), but it will have a hard time matching the crisp throttle response and low fuel consumption of an efficient small port with high air speed.
This loss of efficiency was confirmed when I tuned my VE tables. I had to add close to 15% in VE ratio at higher rpm, but only gained about 1% in power. So basically, I had to add 15% more fuel for 1% more power. That kind of efficiency cannot be seen on a chassis dyno sheet, but could on an engine dyno that calculates BSFC.
Sure a big port factory casting can make solid low rpm torque (when cammed correctly), but it will have a hard time matching the crisp throttle response and low fuel consumption of an efficient small port with high air speed.
10-14-2009, 01:59 AM
#38
But not TOO much air speed. Nature has a limit. At depressions greater than the 28" typically tested on flowbenches (and the engine does see these), speed will increase and air can/will seperate from the short side causing port stall. Even if the bench says you're fine up to .XXX lift.
10-14-2009, 10:58 AM
#39
Yes. It was a 231/235 .640/.600 112LSA cam. Worked well for both sets of heads (no ugly valve events, no valve control issues).
__________________
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
