AFR Install
SAE 423.3rwhp and 383rwtq but it would have made 430-440rwhp with some lifter bleed corrected...the peak was flat. Im not sure if the owner is going to swap back the stock rockers or change lifters/preload. There was zero KR on Sunoco 94 and A/F was 12.8. I dont have the dyno graph. Torque was FLAT!
Weather was interesting... .95 correction factor on the dyno..so the actuals were alot higher. We rechecked the dyno using:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm
64F, 30.31, 21F, 160
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/KPTW.html
and it works out.
Hope you guys use this info to help you select the right parts for your combination. This owner is happy and this is what we expected. Camshaft selection is very important with these heads.
Last edited by SAM98WS6; Feb 3, 2005 at 03:27 PM.
This customer has the FLP headers and Y pipe. That Y pipe is a bottle neck at the merge and we've seen 12 rwhp gains from swaps to Kooks.
There is a solid 25 rwhp left in this with some more bolt ons like a FAST 90 and a set of Kooks. I have no doubt. Swap the aftermarket rockers or add the Morels and another 5 or so could be had up top.
The torque curve was awesome. Very round and symetrical. Power was good for what we had. Driveabilty was like stock. Just a slight lope at idle. The customer was very happy with the combo and is exactly what he wanted and thats what matters.
Nothing like seeing a CTS-V trunklid with rags and tools laying on it beside a workbench. The owner said he is completely satisfied...drives just like stock...didnt want his wife to notice he did anything to the car...you know how that goes...
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Last edited by mrr23; Feb 3, 2005 at 09:00 PM.
I'm glad things seemed to work out well and I also look forward to seeing the graghs etc.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think this combination was "optimized" to its full potential in the sense that it could have used more CR, tighter quench, and an exhaust system that wasn't as restrictive to help the high RPM charge where that cam choice would have shined a bit more. I actually question whether THIS exact combination with a slighlty smaller cam would have made more torque everywhere and similar peak numbers because they seem to be hampered by the exhaust anyway. Certainly the larger cam leaves more HP to be tapped into as the owner continues to get bitten by the "speed bug" and start addressing a few of the other areas that might be holding him back currently.
Considering the combination as a whole, I think the gains were impressive, especially if there was more to be tapped into with a different lifter or rocker set up as was previously mentioned.
Thanks,
Tony
I asked him if he was up for trying the stock rockers and 3" flowmaster Y welded in...didnt hear back.

Looking at that gragh it seems pretty obvious there is a slight loss of valve control due to the heavier rocker arms past 6000 RPM's....I bet stock rockers pick this engine up 5-10 without a problem.
I've hit on this in a few other threads but just to reiterate, anytime you run an aftermarket heavier rocker set-up, you must opt for our 8019 spring upgrade. It handles the heavier valve gear much better at RPM due to the additional seat pressure and spring rate. Also, at that point in time an aftermarket lifter (Comp, Crane, Morrel) is not a bad idea either.
Tony M.


