Tony, Steve and Chris all made valid points. Car is set up to make excellent power and drive anywhere anytime even serve as a monster daily driver. Steve doesnt wish to drag race his car, issue closed. Wasn't built for PEAK POWER, but was intended to make a **** load of power under the curve, just like mine. Essentially our builds are similar just differing on head choice.

Tony provided engine dyno numbers, and Steve was gracious enough to provide chassis dyno numbers with final tuning in place. It is what it is. Steve paid for it, Steve is happy, and that is all that counts. Any other assertions should be left out. As guilty as I am in previous posts, yes I did just type that.

What were the cam specs again, sorry too lazy to go dig them up. Just curious thanks in advance.

You have to call this build and the introduction of the new AFR 215 a total success. Good job to all involved.

Steve any chance we might see some video of the car in action?

9secondsflat dont follow my footsteps down the road to unpopularity.

 

Im curious what exactly did you "look into"....had you simply read the very first post that started this thread your concerns or questioning why STD numbers were reported was clearly explained. In short, Norris sends all his customers out the door that way because his dyno is extremely stingy and STD on his dyno better represents SAE on other dynos.

A quote I took from the second paragragh of the first post....

Regarding why the comparison flywheel dyno numbers I posted above (my 383 vs Steve's 407) are using the STD correction factor versus SAE, the answer simply is that it is industry standard to report numbers in STD when testing on an engine dyno, the same as industry standard on a chassis dyno is usually SAE. Why that is I dont know....I just know that statement is accurate and most pro's that attend regular testing on engine dyno's (flywheel numbers) would have to agree.

Let me boil this entire situation down to some facts and some 3rd grade deductive reasoning so its a little clearer for some folks....

Fact....Steve's engine made more power and alot more torque than my 383 on the very same engine dyno (apples to apples test).

Fact....Engine dyno's are far more consistent and repeatable than chassis dynos because they have far fewer variables to contend with (and usually have more data probes hooked to the engine).

Fact....On three different chassis dyno's in southern (and northern) CA, my 383 laid down between 535 and 545 RWHP....485 - 495 RWTQ.

Fact....With a semi conservative launch (low 1.6 sixty foot), my 383 propelled my Vette to 10.80's at 130 MPH in a mediocre D/A of 800 feet above sea level.

3rd grade deductive reasoning....If prior to removing my 383 from my car I had the chance to have driven in much better air (say minus 1200 D/A), it would have likely went mid tens @ 132+ traps. Maybe 133 if I was lucky enough to drive it perhaps in Englishtown NJ on a cool fall evening (where you can see D/A approaching negative 2000 feet).

More 3rd grade deductive reasoning....Steve's engine in my car would have chassis dyno'ed higher than my 383 and and performed even better (see fact #1 if you question this)

What else is left to discuss?....Having more dragrace experience than Steve, I wish I had the opportunity to fly to Indianapolis and drive his Vette with CCW's and ET Streets or slicks perhaps ready to rock the 1320 on a cool fall evening so we could provide you guys with the track results you crave. Unfortunately its just not in the cards here, but there is more than enough scientific data to draw your own intelligent conclusions concerning the performance potential of this package based on my own combination that I have a ton of data on.

Doug, regarding your popularity comment, I'm all about the facts in any threads I participate in, and encourage anyone and everyone with something worthwhile to say or add to do so. No one needs to worry about not being popular and their input going against the grain....they just need to have what it takes to back it up to better prove their point of view.

-Tony

 

Yep a lot of big talk for the TF heads. I do have some also and they are better than the aftermarket 243s I had. But I still like AFRs the same. Its a shame we not comparing the old SBC heads on theses two. Heck Tony. Why not build a set of heads for the LS with canted valves like the BBC and a different combustion chamber shape and say its stock replacement like the others. Then say its advised to run aftermarket valvetrane. Or maybe these other smart asses on here build their own since they are so damned smart. I will just work and buy stuff put out for what I need depending on driving style of car. I wonder if shops that deal with these guys ever sit back and say-Dude-ENOUGH!!!! But these are fighting words for a few that are all talk on the keyboard. AFR and TEA/TF have brought some great products to the sport. Thanks.

 

Kind of like this comparison in GM High-Tech where a set of HAND FINISHED (as noted by the mag) Trickflow 215's beat out a set of OUT OF THE BOX AFR 205's by a whopping 4.9hp?

I really would like to have seen how a set of Mamo ported AFR 205's - or better yet Mamo ported AFR 215's (to make all things equal) would have done.
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ads/index.html

 

Well Tony if this post doesn't display that I'm trying to leave personal opinion out when I don't have A-B info available then I don't know what else to say.

Still would like to know what the cam specs were again??? Anybody.

 

Also wondering this. I am going to suspect somewhere in the 246/254 range.

 

Single pattern XER cam 242/242 on a 114 plus 3' (111 ICL)

Build details here:

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...r-215-r-d.html

 

Doug,

You of all people should know where to find that info (the first thread where we documented the specs of the actual build).

Guys, the cam is only a 242 single pattern with XER lobes and I installed it 2-3 degrees more forward that I would have for a customer not wanting to place alot of emphasis on the bottom of the curve.

What Im saying is the engine would have made a little less power very low in the curve.....hit the same peak torque figure slightly later in the curve, and actually made even more peak power had I installed the cam in the engine where I might typically do so. I choose to set it up the way I did to aid once again in Steve's goals to build an engine that had alot of bottom end and throttle response since the LS7 headed stroker he left behind was such a turd down low.

-Tony

 

Tony,

You of all people should know that members on this forum are too lazy to actually read anything that is written, much less search for it. They must be constantly force-fed information, which will only later be changed to suit the point that a poster is trying to make (like guessing this cam is bigger than it actually is, seen above).

BTW...any track times yet for this combo? I could have sworn Steve said he dropped this engine in his dedicated drag-strip only ride...

 

it wouldn't let me view the other thread, kept saying invalid thread. So I had to guess, and I was halfway close. Calling me lazy is doing nothing but making yourself look bad to me meentss02. You know what they say about assumptions. And you assume I am "too lazy" to search or click a link. I guessed cam specs based on a build I helped with that had extremey similar results. And as John Lingenfelter once said "a single pattern cam will always have more torque".

 

Considering I found the original thread by performing a search, and pulled the cam pattern out of that thread and put it in here, yes, I am saying you are lazy. Or you don't understand how to perform an effective search on this forum. You say it wasn't the former, so if you need help in the future finding something, just let me know.

But thanks for the lecture. It means a lot to me.

 

Sorry for my laziness. How much lift though, thats what I really wanted to know. Reason I'm asking is there a sweet spot so to speak with the new AFR 215's as in lifts up to but not beyond are suggested? At what point is air flow lopped off? At what lift do we see deminishing returns?

Hey Tony thanks for explaining in such detail AGAIN why you installed the cam the way you did. Makes perfect sense.

 

If I read this correctly:

http://www.compcams.com/Base/pdf/lobesection.pdf

An XE-R Lobe with 242 duration @ 0.050 and a 1.7 ratio rocker has a lift of 0.610".

 

You are a dick, how you became a mod. is the 9th world wonder.

What I am saying, is at about 12:40 (midnight) when I clicked the link (yes, I found the link), it DID NOT work.

Thanks though, anytime I need a thread found, you will have a PM since you have so judgingly labeled me as lazy, speaking of which, you have one now. Let me know when you work 60 hour weeks followed by side jobs of building turbo kits, and we shall talk lazy.

 

Keep posting **** like this in this thread, and you won't be posting to this board again. This is your only warning.

 

steve, as I mentioned before all my posts mysteriously disappeared:
I am glad you built the combo to how YOU wanted it, and that you are liking it. Thats what building a car is about, building it for yourself. You set in with a goal, and you achieved it.

 

Thank you. All credit goes to Tony Mamo. He spec'd it, he built it, he even bought dinner.

 

Dang that was a waste of four pages of reading...I really wish that on all accounts people would check their ego's at the door when they sign on to this site. There are a lot of smart guys on there, and a whole lot to learn, but crap like this totally makes the smart guys who are often willing to share/teach, want to stay away. I'm stupid about most things, and am in need of knowledge, so for the sake of all us idiots out here, follow the advice of the dude earlier in the thread...."If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all", so the rest of us can learn a thing or two. Just MHO.

 

I wish any of the people I have even done work for would buy me dinner, let alone an engine builder buy me dinner! You sir, have it made!

 

Thanks for the link but for some reason I can't open it on the work computer. Will take a look at it when I get home. I'm sure there is a ton of info. Thanks again.