overkill heads on a 346
08-09-2005, 02:27 PM
#21
Originally Posted by JZ'sTA
Hey Tony saying you took a cam like a 230/234 high 500 low 600 lift and ran a 205 and 225 head on a stock cubic inch motor which would make more power?
Using the same compression.
Using the same compression.
08-09-2005, 03:49 PM
#22
I need a air dyno.
That is pretty impressive.
Why then aren't the 225's used more often of stock bottom ends? I imagin it comes down to a compression issue again right?
The 205 makes more compression out of the box which would clearly help in horsepower vs a 72cc head on a stock bore/stroke.
Now with the small chamber 62cc heads maybe that will be the start of a more common 225 head on a stock bottomend setup.
For a 300 dollar difference 10-15 HP is very worth it IMO.
Tony again thanks for answering questions for us on LS1tech.
That is pretty impressive.
Why then aren't the 225's used more often of stock bottom ends? I imagin it comes down to a compression issue again right?
The 205 makes more compression out of the box which would clearly help in horsepower vs a 72cc head on a stock bore/stroke.
Now with the small chamber 62cc heads maybe that will be the start of a more common 225 head on a stock bottomend setup.
For a 300 dollar difference 10-15 HP is very worth it IMO.
Tony again thanks for answering questions for us on LS1tech.
08-09-2005, 06:39 PM
#23
Originally Posted by JZ'sTA
I need a air dyno.
That is pretty impressive.
Why then aren't the 225's used more often of stock bottom ends? I imagin it comes down to a compression issue again right?
The 205 makes more compression out of the box which would clearly help in horsepower vs a 72cc head on a stock bore/stroke.
Now with the small chamber 62cc heads maybe that will be the start of a more common 225 head on a stock bottomend setup.
For a 300 dollar difference 10-15 HP is very worth it IMO.
Tony again thanks for answering questions for us on LS1tech.
That is pretty impressive.
Why then aren't the 225's used more often of stock bottom ends? I imagin it comes down to a compression issue again right?
The 205 makes more compression out of the box which would clearly help in horsepower vs a 72cc head on a stock bore/stroke.
Now with the small chamber 62cc heads maybe that will be the start of a more common 225 head on a stock bottomend setup.
For a 300 dollar difference 10-15 HP is very worth it IMO.
Tony again thanks for answering questions for us on LS1tech.
And yes...It's simply been a CR issue. While we could have let everyone mill the 72's down to the high 50's or low 60's (plenty of deck material to do so), I (we) have advised against it due to the fact we know that much of a mill will have an adverse effect on airflow negating some, or most of the reason our customers are buying the 225's in the first place. The reality is that "honorable" situation has cost us business but in the long run, our reputation and our repeatable continued high marks on the chassis dyno, track etc, is by far more worth it.
Hopefully the small chamber 225's are finished soon and I can finally stop making excuses regarding their delay. Once again, time spent in house to perfect the product ultimately leaves all of our customers happy....no excuses down the road about the the first run of heads being sub-par etc.
Thanks guys,
Tony M.
08-10-2005, 02:24 AM
#24
Damn at least I got something involving compression correct.
LOL.
I will be a damn compression expert soon as I have been non stop reading on the subject.
I am always in the ball part but sometimes I am in Left feild instead of 3rd base.
Anyways, I/we look foward to the small chamber 225's.
LOL.
I will be a damn compression expert soon as I have been non stop reading on the subject.
I am always in the ball part but sometimes I am in Left feild instead of 3rd base.
Anyways, I/we look foward to the small chamber 225's.
