lemons12

iTrader: (71)

LMAO!!!

Well it isn't going to be his 376 build with 241s with a 235/235 cam, that is for sure.

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...ron-block.html

I plan to make 460Rwhp with less money in my bone stock top end than you made a large stalled auto.. And everything I have ever seen points to me making extremely close to those numbers, maybe a few +/- either way.

MPFD

iTrader: (5)

Looks like he caught two fish on the same hook...

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

Me and Fry aren't quite arguing the same point... I'm in a different pond.

I know the pros and cons to each as well as capabilities. money thrown into the equation, not going to happen.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

Go back and read that again...slowly. You missed some very crucial information.

First of all, it sounds like youre saying my Trans Am does has a stalled auto, but it actually has a T56. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

Second, it would be unfair to compare how much I actually have invested in the cylinder heads. The only money I put into those heads were for the new valve seals and having the deck surfaced, a total of less than $60.

Now, going back to what you said:

If you compare my dyno to the LS2 with L92 heads, you should be able to see that my engine makes approximately 430ft-lbs @ 3000RPM, which is about 50ft-lbs more than the L92 heads, and stays there until 5000RPM where the clutch completely lets go.

Now, what do you think will happen when the new clutch is installed, broken in, and makes a full pull past 5252RPM? Do you really think 460whp is "not going to happen?"

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

I skimmed but I got the meat of everything... Nothing I might have missed really matters, I was making a poke by using your own personal build.

Typo... My large stalled auto.

No, you can't really compare that at all.. In a debate as such we would have to go off what it would normally cost to have heads have the same work as you preformed on them. Otherwise, if Tony Mamo would port my heads for free and not yours, I could factor that in.

You couldn't get a set of 241s to preform like a set of l92 heads for the same price (500$).. Even if you could your still lacking MAJORLY as the intake flows equivalent to a FAST 102 for the same price ls2 intakes sell for. That alone put you 600+$ ahead, then factor in injectors... It quickly adds up to show how awesome of a performance/$ l92 top ends are, kind of one sided really.

Now.. Take money out of the equation... I would go with a nice aftermarket casting cathedral setup and a ported 102 any day of the week. It will make more low-mid range power making for better response and more fun around town while still making the same/more power than an l92 top end in the higher RPMs. But I am spending a LOT more money to achieve this, in my eyes it isn't worth it.... I'll just spray more.

A cam only 6.0-6.2 with l92s and an M6 will easily clear the 475Rwhp mark. You aren't going to come close to that with a stock bottom end 6.0-6.2 with a cathedral port setup for the money, PERIOD... If you can PLEASE show me and I will sell my entire top end and go that route.. I will personally send you a link to the FS thread.


I'm arguing that cathedral setups aren't bad ***, they are. I am talking money... Which if you look at the facts, there isn't much of an argument as it is somewhat one sided.. I'm not sure why you have a problem with l92 setups being cheap performers...? If you would have went with an l92 setup you would have had some major gains over your top end, which would have cost you a whopping 800$ (not counting injector) before you sold your current heads and intake... So we're looking at roughly 650$ (not counting the saved money for injectors). You can't beat that with a stick!

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

Hell man, are you just arguing to argue?

And make more power for less money.. I'm not sure why you are acting so against it???

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

I don't think he is arguing that ls3 style heads aren't good. He is arguing that you can make that power for the same running what you have.

If you read his 376 thread, you will notice he used stock 241's with a killer valve job, bowl blend and mill...and ill put money on it that once the clutch is sorted out, it makes the same power you are shooting for.

Now, I'm not fighting either battle as I took the same route you did with the ls3 setup hoping for the same. But I don't have a set of 241's sitting on the shelf either. Another selling point for me was the cheap ls3 intake that flows great, although I will be putting a 102 on it eventuality. I didn't want to fork over the 300 for an ls6 intake that will not satisfy my engine until I can get a 102.

Also keep in mind, KCS's engine made great power thru an ls1 intake...what happens when a 92/92 is strapped to it?

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

Yes, he has worked heads.. Which 98% of people would pay for. I could do the same with my heads and see even higher RWHP, both for free.

He might very well make the same power as I am shooting for... He also has a 6 speed with a tad larger motor. If I had a 6 speed I honestly would be shooting for 500Rw with my setup the way it will be started, I'm saying 460Rw being somewhat conservative so I'm not let down.

When he adds a 92/92 or a 102/102/etc... He adds a large chunk of cash to the setup. He will have wrapped up in his intake setup just as much if not more than what I have in my ENTIRE top end. For that price I could have my heads and intake ported and still make more RWHP than him for less money through my stalled auto VS his 6 speed.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

I think that pretty much covers it.

The facts are that the heads on my car can be duplicated for about what you've paid, and that's freshly machined with new parts and not second hand craiglist parts. Based off the L92 dyno previously posted, my 241's already crushed the L92's at 3000RPM and as you have even admitted, I'll probably be making just as much, if not more power once the new clutch goes in.

Obviously, we're just bench racing here. Nothing is proven until I get back on the dyno and bitch slap the L92's.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

At this point, I probably wouldn't run the L92's on my engine without 10lbs of epoxy in the ports and manifold.

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

With me being conservative for what I will make, you might come close to it.. I do not think you will make the same power, but you might get close.
But you're still making the power as a 4000+ stalled auto through a 6 speed, that is a whole world of difference, if we had the same drive train it wouldn't be a fair comparison as I would be shooting for a nice chunk higher.

You aren't getting it... A stock top end l92 car with a cam and 6 speed will make 500Rwhp all day long, you aren't going to be bitch slapping that with a cathedral setup for the same money.

Even if your heads end up performing close to what the l92 heads will, the intake will never keep up and you need a much larger cam to achieve the same results. You simply can't compete for the money.


I'm not hating man... I really hope your heads end up performing good for you, would make for a killer budget setup. I also wish I was comfortable enough to afford a cathedral setup that will make similar results as my l92 setup, but I can't. One of the top reasons I didn't go cathedral wasn't even so much the heads, it was the intake... I'm not paying close to a grand for a piece of plastic, absolutely unreal. I have a 175$ intake that flows equal to their pride and glory. The heads flowing amazing out of the box was just one more added benefit along with a set of 42# injectors that I was going to be needing.

If you can't agree that the $/performance is better with an l92 setup VS cathedral by now, I'm wasting my time you are just being stubborn and not looking at all the facts. Good luck with your build.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

You're pretty stubborn yourself for someone who hasn't even got their **** running yet. I haven't gotten a full dyno run in yet either, so I'm no better, but I'm not the one saying this or that won't happen.

I can't agree that L92's are better because I am not obsessed with the peak numbers or how well the manifold flows. None of that matters to me. It's the OVERALL power that matters. I'm perfectly content with 450whp if I'm making 50ft-lbs more at the lower RPM. So far, I'm very happy with what I've seen and very optimistic for what is to come.

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

No, my **** isn't together... But I do know what 95% of setups almost identical to mine make (not setup quite a well), and if I make 460, I will be on the very low side.

If I had a 6 speed I would have stayed cathedral without a doubt... However, I have a 4000 converter so I'm not really worried about all that torque at 3000RPMs, my car will never see that RPM.. One more deciding factor that made me go the L92 route.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

This I don't get. After all you guys had said about what cathedral ports can't do, that I don't get it, that I must be on something...you're going to say if you had my car you would've stayed with cathedral port heads too?

Steelo00GT

I was just researching this myself. I found this article. It seems that when it's all said and done, they are pretty equal.

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...d/viewall.html

KCS

iTrader: (20)

Sooooo, not to be a dick but I thought I'd bring this back up now that you've gotten your car running and dyno'd. I read you made 437whp and now you're considering $2200 aftermarket heads to recoup your midrange. I'm curious if you feel any different about the cathedral vs. rectangle port debate now that you have personal experience.

NemeSS

iTrader: (127)

PREDATOR-Z

Ahhh, the ultimate bench racing thread

KCS

iTrader: (20)

That's what dyno numbers are for right? Haha

IllusionalTA

iTrader: (9)

Fwiw I made 477 on milled stock 317's through a th400 and 5k stall.. Cathedral to the front!!