Are Cometics worth it?
Originally Posted by Vortech
JRP did you account for the valve relief? If so then what's the ratio without?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Here's my thoughts..
If u look at most AFR setups most guys seem to run them at 62CC and they run .045 which gives u a desirable quench/cr...Now I'd like to see PP/TEA/PRC's running 62CC and a cometic .045 the LSX/90 TB and all the other goodies back to back against the AFR's...
Most guys dont,they throw on these companies heads alonhg with GM gaskets,a basic PTB,cheaper headers,pulley etc...I wonder,how much better the AFR really is vs the others with the same parts..
No one has done that test,Put a stock LS6 shortblock on a engine dyno with the SAME PARTS and compare all the heads....Then we could see if its worth 5RW/10/20??????
I wonder,I really do.....
If u look at most AFR setups most guys seem to run them at 62CC and they run .045 which gives u a desirable quench/cr...Now I'd like to see PP/TEA/PRC's running 62CC and a cometic .045 the LSX/90 TB and all the other goodies back to back against the AFR's...
Most guys dont,they throw on these companies heads alonhg with GM gaskets,a basic PTB,cheaper headers,pulley etc...I wonder,how much better the AFR really is vs the others with the same parts..
No one has done that test,Put a stock LS6 shortblock on a engine dyno with the SAME PARTS and compare all the heads....Then we could see if its worth 5RW/10/20??????
I wonder,I really do.....
Last edited by JS; Sep 20, 2005 at 09:56 PM.
Originally Posted by JS
Here's my thoughts..
If u look at most AFR setups most guys seem to run them at 62CC and they run .045 which gives u a desirable quench/cr...Now I'd like to see PP/TEA/PRC's running 62CC and a cometic .045 the LSX/90 TB and all the other goodies back to back against the AFR's...
Most guys dont,they throw on these companies heads alonhg with GM gaskets,a basic PTB,cheaper headers,pulley etc...I wonder,how much better can the AFR really is vs the others with the same parts..
No one has done that test,Put a stock LS6 shortblock on a engine dyno with the SAME PARTS and compare all the heads....Then we could see if its worth 5RW/10/20??????
I wonder,I really do.....
If u look at most AFR setups most guys seem to run them at 62CC and they run .045 which gives u a desirable quench/cr...Now I'd like to see PP/TEA/PRC's running 62CC and a cometic .045 the LSX/90 TB and all the other goodies back to back against the AFR's...
Most guys dont,they throw on these companies heads alonhg with GM gaskets,a basic PTB,cheaper headers,pulley etc...I wonder,how much better can the AFR really is vs the others with the same parts..
No one has done that test,Put a stock LS6 shortblock on a engine dyno with the SAME PARTS and compare all the heads....Then we could see if its worth 5RW/10/20??????
I wonder,I really do.....
Yes but it would be good just to see a TEA 5.3 S2 62CC VS a AFR 205 62CC with the same shortblock and other parts to run...Then u could see what there really worth,I'd love to see that test.....Wouldnt u???
In my calculations I don't use negative values. It doesn't make any sense for a distance between the top of the piston and the top of the combustion chamber to be negative.
Actual deck height is measured this way. If it's .006 or .008 then that's how far the distance is, but who knows what those numbers are actually referring to (could be piston out of the hole, or recessed in the hole so I might be wrong in using them).
I could care less about piston out of the hole for my calculations, and I've went over that plenty of times in other threads. Best way is to actually measure the deck height and not piston out of the hole, because honestly, piston out of the hole doesn't help with any calculation I've ever used in determining the clearance volume. If anything, the piston protrudes x, which cuts into the clearance volume; it doesn't make it negative.
Actual deck height is measured this way. If it's .006 or .008 then that's how far the distance is, but who knows what those numbers are actually referring to (could be piston out of the hole, or recessed in the hole so I might be wrong in using them).
I could care less about piston out of the hole for my calculations, and I've went over that plenty of times in other threads. Best way is to actually measure the deck height and not piston out of the hole, because honestly, piston out of the hole doesn't help with any calculation I've ever used in determining the clearance volume. If anything, the piston protrudes x, which cuts into the clearance volume; it doesn't make it negative.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Topdon ONE vs. Artidiag 800 BT2: Which is the Diagnostic Tablet For You?
Pouria Savadkouei
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Originally Posted by JS
Yes but it would be good just to see a TEA 5.3 S2 62CC VS a AFR 205 62CC with the same shortblock and other parts to run...Then u could see what there really worth,I'd love to see that test.....Wouldnt u???
i'd rather see an engine masters type **** where packages could be put together showing the potential of said heads.
Originally Posted by JakeFusion
In my calculations I don't use negative values. It doesn't make any sense for a distance between the top of the piston and the top of the combustion chamber to be negative.
Actual deck height is measured this way. If it's .006 or .008 then that's how far the distance is, but who knows what those numbers are actually referring to (could be piston out of the hole, or recessed in the hole so I might be wrong in using them).
I could care less about piston out of the hole for my calculations, and I've went over that plenty of times in other threads. Best way is to actually measure the deck height and not piston out of the hole, because honestly, piston out of the hole doesn't help with any calculation I've ever used in determining the clearance volume. If anything, the piston protrudes x, which cuts into the clearance volume; it doesn't make it negative.
Actual deck height is measured this way. If it's .006 or .008 then that's how far the distance is, but who knows what those numbers are actually referring to (could be piston out of the hole, or recessed in the hole so I might be wrong in using them).
I could care less about piston out of the hole for my calculations, and I've went over that plenty of times in other threads. Best way is to actually measure the deck height and not piston out of the hole, because honestly, piston out of the hole doesn't help with any calculation I've ever used in determining the clearance volume. If anything, the piston protrudes x, which cuts into the clearance volume; it doesn't make it negative.
Dude your not getting it-if the piston is out of the hole you get - deck height, which means the piston is closer to the head which means your compression will rise. You have to account for the piston and all stock LS1's LS6's pistons stick out of the hole.
Originally Posted by Vortech
Dude your not getting it-if the piston is out of the hole you get - deck height, which means the piston is closer to the head which means your compression will rise. You have to account for the piston and all stock LS1's LS6's pistons stick out of the hole.
Clearance volume = 0.7853982 x 3.898^2 x -0.008 = -0.09546926
You know, the more I look at this, the more I think this formula is inaccurate for finding the deck height on the LS1. It was designed for the SBC, and I've been looking over things and I don't see where the SBC ever had a piston come out of the hole. So, the formula or constant in the formula may need to be modified to account for this.
Either way with 93 octane and a tune and the G5X3-114 and AFR 205 59cc with either .040 or .045 cometics will run without incident and are worth it, and that's what this thread is about.
Last edited by JakeFusion; Sep 20, 2005 at 11:05 PM.
Originally Posted by JakeFusion
I know the piston sticks out of the hole. What you say is true. If the piston is closer to the head, the compression will increase. But, the formula I use then ends up being negative if I put a negative value in. Maybe it doesn't matter, but how can a clearance volume be negative in the real world? Looks great on paper, but how can the piston be taking up negative space in the area between it and the head? As the piston comes out of the hole, it will shrink that volume, but there has to be room between the piston and the head, correct? The formula *seems* to find the volume in inches.
Clearance volume = 0.7853982 x 3.898^2 x -0.008 = -0.09546926
You know, the more I look at this, the more I think this formula is inaccurate for finding the deck height on the LS1. It was designed for the SBC, and I've been looking over things and I don't see where the SBC ever had a piston come out of the hole. So, the formula or constant in the formula may need to be modified to account for this.
Either way with 93 octane and a tune and the G5X3-114 and AFR 205 59cc with either .040 or .045 cometics will run without incident and are worth it, and that's what this thread is about.
Clearance volume = 0.7853982 x 3.898^2 x -0.008 = -0.09546926
You know, the more I look at this, the more I think this formula is inaccurate for finding the deck height on the LS1. It was designed for the SBC, and I've been looking over things and I don't see where the SBC ever had a piston come out of the hole. So, the formula or constant in the formula may need to be modified to account for this.
Either way with 93 octane and a tune and the G5X3-114 and AFR 205 59cc with either .040 or .045 cometics will run without incident and are worth it, and that's what this thread is about.
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/compstaticcalc.html 
Hey, I'll tell you what I decided. I'm going with stock metal gaskets.
Why?
- WAY cheaper, and H/C has stressed the budget for sure.
- While it seems debatable here they seem to be a lesser risk of leaking.
- So lets say you decide later on you want to bump the compression even more, you can add the cometic and do it. Going stock now allows you some easy mod potential.
Why?
- WAY cheaper, and H/C has stressed the budget for sure.
- While it seems debatable here they seem to be a lesser risk of leaking.
- So lets say you decide later on you want to bump the compression even more, you can add the cometic and do it. Going stock now allows you some easy mod potential.
Launching!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
From: nowhere in particular
Sounds like a sound strategy to me! 
Originally Posted by Brody
Hey, I'll tell you what I decided. I'm going with stock metal gaskets.
Why?
- WAY cheaper, and H/C has stressed the budget for sure.
- While it seems debatable here they seem to be a lesser risk of leaking.
- So lets say you decide later on you want to bump the compression even more, you can add the cometic and do it. Going stock now allows you some easy mod potential.
Why?
- WAY cheaper, and H/C has stressed the budget for sure.
- While it seems debatable here they seem to be a lesser risk of leaking.
- So lets say you decide later on you want to bump the compression even more, you can add the cometic and do it. Going stock now allows you some easy mod potential.
On The Tree
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by JakeFusion
Either way with 93 octane and a tune and the G5X3-114 and AFR 205 59cc with either .040 or .045 cometics will run without incident and are worth it, and that's what this thread is about.
I'll second that!
