241 & 853 casting flow #'s...
241 & 853 casting flow #'s... Just as the title implies, I'd like to see a side by side comparison on the same flow bench of the two heads in stock trim. I did a search, even went to a few sponsor web sites to see if maybe they had them posted. Didn't find what I was looking for. This thread is the closest I came to it. ->link It has flow #'s for 241 castings, but not for 853's.
I know my lack of tune is a source of some lost power, as is the PO327 code & 3* of KR at WOT. But, I'm trying to see if there is any significant flow different between the 241's and the 853's on my car. I've heard a few people claim my 2000 is down 10-15 HP from heads alone vs. an 01' - 02' car. I find that hard to swallow and want the truth.
Thank you in advance.
I know my lack of tune is a source of some lost power, as is the PO327 code & 3* of KR at WOT. But, I'm trying to see if there is any significant flow different between the 241's and the 853's on my car. I've heard a few people claim my 2000 is down 10-15 HP from heads alone vs. an 01' - 02' car. I find that hard to swallow and want the truth.
Thank you in advance.
-------241--ls6---806--862{5.3l
200 - 134 -135 - 127 - 128
300 - 185 -186 - 179 - 176
400 - 216 -220 - 212 - 204
450 - 222 -233 - 214 - 213
500 - 226 -238 - 220 - 216
550 - 228 -238 - 220 - 210
600 - 228 -236 - 221 - 210
posted by jay a long *** time ago. 853's should fall in the middle. the difference is minimal and will not account for 10-15hp.
your problem is obviously in the lack of tune.
200 - 134 -135 - 127 - 128
300 - 185 -186 - 179 - 176
400 - 216 -220 - 212 - 204
450 - 222 -233 - 214 - 213
500 - 226 -238 - 220 - 216
550 - 228 -238 - 220 - 210
600 - 228 -236 - 221 - 210
posted by jay a long *** time ago. 853's should fall in the middle. the difference is minimal and will not account for 10-15hp.
your problem is obviously in the lack of tune.
I hope it is mostly tune related, the car seems like a slug for all the time/money spent on the latest round of mods.
I happened to stumble accross this in the Sept. issue of GMHT:
.050 - 36.67 - 27.63
.100 - 67.61 - 54.32
.150 - 105.64 - 82.16
.200 - 148.20 - 102.7
.300 - 199.80 - 151.68
.400 - 216.08 - 166.96
.500 - 224.96 - 181.25
.550 - 229.40 - 186.03
.600 - 237.48 - 190.43
They didn't list a part #, but I'll assume these were 853 castings from a 99'+ car since the article was published in mid 00'. It doesn't say what size bore those #'s were achieved on either. Too many unknown variables.
I happened to stumble accross this in the Sept. issue of GMHT:
.050 - 36.67 - 27.63
.100 - 67.61 - 54.32
.150 - 105.64 - 82.16
.200 - 148.20 - 102.7
.300 - 199.80 - 151.68
.400 - 216.08 - 166.96
.500 - 224.96 - 181.25
.550 - 229.40 - 186.03
.600 - 237.48 - 190.43
They didn't list a part #, but I'll assume these were 853 castings from a 99'+ car since the article was published in mid 00'. It doesn't say what size bore those #'s were achieved on either. Too many unknown variables.
