How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads??
03-25-2002, 08:28 PM
#1
TECH Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chi-Town, IL
Posts: 11,603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? Right now I'm at 353rwhp and 375rwtq through a TH400 w/12 bolt 3.73's, etc, etc, etc Headers, lid, all the simple stuff...now a heads and cam guy said he made 365rwhp through his th400 and 410rwhp when he had the 6-speed...hes running 11.5's on motor, which is pretty good....now if I put heads on is there a chance I could hit the 380rwhp through the 400 or is that hoping for too much...I'm seriosly thinking about taking the easy way out and spraying it... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
03-25-2002, 08:40 PM
#2
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: IL
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? Easy way out?
You'd have to pull that HUGE converter out!
Something like a 4000 Extreme would be nice for spray and NA though.
You'd have to pull that HUGE converter out!
Something like a 4000 Extreme would be nice for spray and NA though.
03-25-2002, 10:19 PM
#5
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: IL
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? It has a cam in it by the way.
I believe the specs are along the lines of:
222/222 .561/.561//112
Maybe a little off on the lift #'s, but if I remember correctly thats it.
I believe the specs are along the lines of:
222/222 .561/.561//112
Maybe a little off on the lift #'s, but if I remember correctly thats it.
03-26-2002, 07:52 AM
#7
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: HOU - yeah, you know the rest.
Posts: 2,959
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? That cam sounds like the C1 I run, Holes. I think the cam BOS is running is called the C1+.002". <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
Trending Topics
03-26-2002, 08:39 AM
#8
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? You guys must realize that a rear wheel dyno does not measure acceleration. Just because you pick up power at the wheels, it DOES NOT mean you will go faster at the track or on the street. Imagine you have a BBC and a SBC. In this example they both make around the same tq, but identical RWHP. Which one is the quickest? The SBC is because it has about 30lbs less rotating mass than the BBC does. Plus, I guaruntee that I can design a camshaft that picks up RWHP, but at the track slows you down. You guys buying single pattern cams are messing up! Also, a dyno is only as good as the operator. Through my years I have seen some real enlightning stuff! Lastly, a dyno uses "Correction Factor". That means sea level altitude, 60 degrees (usually), a low, low, low level of humidity, and a barometer of 29.92 uncorrected. On my weather station here in the midwest, a typical day AT THE TRACK is around 80-85 degrees, 70% humidity, a observed barometer of 28.75 at 880 feet of elevation. Throw all of that together and you are racing at 2500-3000 feet. Now, does it make more power in these conditions? The point I am driving home is a dyno is a good tool. That is it. Just because you make power or loose power, or gain no power, it means nothing. The track is the absolute. For $8.00 buy a Moroso Power Speed Calculator, Part # 89650. Go to the track, run the car, weigh the car, line up the numbers, that is your OBSERVED HP accelerated AT THE TRACK. You may find similarities in the numbers (RWHP to PS Calculator)but never a concise relationship. The only number I'd worry about is how fast can I turn on the ET light at the other end. Thanks.....Jay Allen
www.jayallenmotorsports.com
www.jayallenmotorsports.com
03-26-2002, 09:22 AM
#9
On The Tree
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Round Rock, TX USA
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? Well put dude! I guess some people just set their goal for dyno numbers. I'd rather turn better numbers at the track, but you know me... <img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />
03-26-2002, 09:33 AM
#10
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sauk Village, Ill
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Holes02:
<strong>Easy way out?
You'd have to pull that HUGE converter out!
Something like a 4000 Extreme would be nice for spray and NA though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">His car is a 6 speed, not a auto.
<strong>Easy way out?
You'd have to pull that HUGE converter out!
Something like a 4000 Extreme would be nice for spray and NA though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">His car is a 6 speed, not a auto.
03-26-2002, 09:35 AM
#11
TECH Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chi-Town, IL
Posts: 11,603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? I want the best of both worlds....Reckless ran a 12.48 with a setup similar to mine, I want 11's with my current setup... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<small>[ March 26, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: BIGBOS ]</small>
<small>[ March 26, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: BIGBOS ]</small>
03-26-2002, 10:01 AM
#12
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,260
Likes: 0
Received 1,695 Likes
on
1,214 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JAMCAM:
<strong>You guys buying single pattern cams are messing up! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I strongly disagree. Most LS1s that are running the big numbers (at the track) are using single pattern cams. I don’t see a lot of split patterns tearing it up in an LS1. Not to say that there aren’t some good running split pattern cars, but as a rule the singles are really running the numbers. You have to remember that LS1 heads flow much, much better than older SBC heads, and once you’re not running cats (like many of us) the exhaust restrictions (from the heads on back) are not really great enough to warrant a split pattern, IMO. Now, maybe if you were running an amazing intake or something, but I don't feel that an LS1 or LS6 intake will flow well enough to "out flow" the exhaust side enough for it to need the extra duration.
I’m no cam expert <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I just do what’s working good for others, as long as I can live with how the car drives. And the hot ticket for LS1s is a single pattern, from what I’ve seen.
<strong>You guys buying single pattern cams are messing up! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I strongly disagree. Most LS1s that are running the big numbers (at the track) are using single pattern cams. I don’t see a lot of split patterns tearing it up in an LS1. Not to say that there aren’t some good running split pattern cars, but as a rule the singles are really running the numbers. You have to remember that LS1 heads flow much, much better than older SBC heads, and once you’re not running cats (like many of us) the exhaust restrictions (from the heads on back) are not really great enough to warrant a split pattern, IMO. Now, maybe if you were running an amazing intake or something, but I don't feel that an LS1 or LS6 intake will flow well enough to "out flow" the exhaust side enough for it to need the extra duration.
I’m no cam expert <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I just do what’s working good for others, as long as I can live with how the car drives. And the hot ticket for LS1s is a single pattern, from what I’ve seen.
03-26-2002, 10:57 AM
#13
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? JamCam
Some of your points have merit but a lot of the shops here (ARE, SAM, MTI, TR, GTP, JPR etc) have been doing YEARS of research and development on LS1's from head porting, cam selection, resleeving blocks, properitary head clamping procedures etc. Thousands of dyno hours with hundreds of different cams.
Cam selection is especially interesting on the LS1 given the fantastic head flow numbers possible combined with the restriction of the intake.
Personally I like split pattern cams, the longer the exhaust side duration past a certain point the smaller the required primary tube needs to be. This helps offset low end torque loss from increased duration across the board and extends and broadens the power curve in the area we spend 99% of our time racing (4000-7000rpm). Also I think that greater intake duration is helpful considering the restriction through our intakes. I am surprised to see fewer people with increased intake duration given the restriction in our manifolds. I personally feel anything under 226 intake duration is leaving power on the table IMO (XE-R lobes not included).
Also consider that many of the purchasers of HC packages are looking to pass emissions as well. Running a split pattern cam affects idle somewhat and definitely affects emissions. Just some things to think about
Cheers,
Chris
Some of your points have merit but a lot of the shops here (ARE, SAM, MTI, TR, GTP, JPR etc) have been doing YEARS of research and development on LS1's from head porting, cam selection, resleeving blocks, properitary head clamping procedures etc. Thousands of dyno hours with hundreds of different cams.
Cam selection is especially interesting on the LS1 given the fantastic head flow numbers possible combined with the restriction of the intake.
Personally I like split pattern cams, the longer the exhaust side duration past a certain point the smaller the required primary tube needs to be. This helps offset low end torque loss from increased duration across the board and extends and broadens the power curve in the area we spend 99% of our time racing (4000-7000rpm). Also I think that greater intake duration is helpful considering the restriction through our intakes. I am surprised to see fewer people with increased intake duration given the restriction in our manifolds. I personally feel anything under 226 intake duration is leaving power on the table IMO (XE-R lobes not included).
Also consider that many of the purchasers of HC packages are looking to pass emissions as well. Running a split pattern cam affects idle somewhat and definitely affects emissions. Just some things to think about
Cheers,
Chris
03-26-2002, 11:30 AM
#14
TECH Addict
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: College Station, Tx
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>You guys must realize that a rear wheel dyno does not measure acceleration.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></strong>
Actually it measures position of the drum and time, but the second derivitive would be acceleration, so in a sense - yes, it does measure acceleration (the dynojet anyway).
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Just because you pick up power at the wheels, it DOES NOT mean you will go faster at the track or on the street.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
If you picked up area under the hp curve in the rpm range you see at the track then yes, you should go faster (given like weather conditions,e tc.) If the dyno's are accurate, and weather conditions, track conditions, etc. (all those other "little factors") are the same then yes, you will go faster. It's basic physics.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Imagine you have a BBC and a SBC. In this example they both make around the same tq, but identical RWHP. Which one is the quickest? The SBC is because it has about 30lbs less rotating mass than the BBC does.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
If they both make the same torque and rwhp, but the BBC has 30lbs more rotating mass then the BBC is making more power - but it is also loosing more due to inertial losses from the rotating assembly. It doesn't matter how heavy your assembly is - we are looking at the final product on a rear wheel chassis dyno. The BBC would be slower, but that's because the block, heads, etc. (non rotating mass) add weight. If the weight of the cars was equal the BBC would probably be slightly faster as it allows for more momentum to be stored for the launch. But the fact is with the numbers on a chassis dyno inertial losses, etc. have already been taken out.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Plus, I guaruntee that I can design a camshaft that picks up RWHP, but at the track slows you down. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
How about one that picks up area under the RWHP curve in the rpm range seen down the track, but still causes me to slow down? Can you do that? If so I will be more than happy to take you up on the challenge.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> You guys buying single pattern cams are messing up!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Would you care to elaborate?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Also, a dyno is only as good as the operator. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Agreed - if the operator wants to there are ways he can make the dyno hedge the values in one way or another. That just means you need to find an honest person you trust - this is no different than anything else in life though.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Lastly, a dyno uses "Correction Factor". That means sea level altitude, 60 degrees (usually), a low, low, low level of humidity, and a barometer of 29.92 uncorrected. On my weather station here in the midwest, a typical day AT THE TRACK is around 80-85 degrees, 70% humidity, a observed barometer of 28.75 at 880 feet of elevation. Throw all of that together and you are racing at 2500-3000 feet. Now, does it make more power in these conditions?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
You need to tune on the dyno for similar weather conditions you see at the track in your area, etc. Tuning at sea level (actual) for a 5500ft track is stupid. But just because the dyno corrects to sea level, etc. is irrelevant. As long as the actual weather conditions are similar you are fine. It corrects to standard conditions to try and make results a little more comparable. With honest operators it is actually fairly accurate.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The point I am driving home is a dyno is a good tool. That is it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Agreed.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just because you make power or loose power, or gain no power, it means nothing.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Disagreed. If gains or losses mean nothing then it is not a tool, but a toy. Using the same dyno, etc. I have 99% of the time seen a correspondence between dyno and track times. If you are not then there is something wrong in your methodology.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The track is the absolute. For $8.00 buy a Moroso Power Speed Calculator, Part # 89650. Go to the track, run the car, weigh the car, line up the numbers, that is your OBSERVED HP accelerated AT THE TRACK. You may find similarities in the numbers (RWHP to PS Calculator)but never a concise relationship.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The number you are getting with that calculator is the average hp seen across the entire 1/4 mile trap. The dynojet gives you instantaneous values at each rpm point. Of course the comparison is not the same. That's like saying I took a 100 mile car trip - my average speed was 60mph. My peak speed was 82 mph. HEY LOOK, THEY DON'T MATCH - SOMETHING IS WRONG!!!
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only number I'd worry about is how fast can I turn on the ET light at the other end.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Agreed again. But the dyno is a great tool to help you get there quicker, as well as to shorten the tuning process. It also takes the driver out of the equation (as well as chassis setup, etc.) so helps you make slightly more objective assesments as to how well an engine package is working.
Actually it measures position of the drum and time, but the second derivitive would be acceleration, so in a sense - yes, it does measure acceleration (the dynojet anyway).
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Just because you pick up power at the wheels, it DOES NOT mean you will go faster at the track or on the street.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
If you picked up area under the hp curve in the rpm range you see at the track then yes, you should go faster (given like weather conditions,e tc.) If the dyno's are accurate, and weather conditions, track conditions, etc. (all those other "little factors") are the same then yes, you will go faster. It's basic physics.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Imagine you have a BBC and a SBC. In this example they both make around the same tq, but identical RWHP. Which one is the quickest? The SBC is because it has about 30lbs less rotating mass than the BBC does.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
If they both make the same torque and rwhp, but the BBC has 30lbs more rotating mass then the BBC is making more power - but it is also loosing more due to inertial losses from the rotating assembly. It doesn't matter how heavy your assembly is - we are looking at the final product on a rear wheel chassis dyno. The BBC would be slower, but that's because the block, heads, etc. (non rotating mass) add weight. If the weight of the cars was equal the BBC would probably be slightly faster as it allows for more momentum to be stored for the launch. But the fact is with the numbers on a chassis dyno inertial losses, etc. have already been taken out.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Plus, I guaruntee that I can design a camshaft that picks up RWHP, but at the track slows you down. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
How about one that picks up area under the RWHP curve in the rpm range seen down the track, but still causes me to slow down? Can you do that? If so I will be more than happy to take you up on the challenge.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> You guys buying single pattern cams are messing up!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Would you care to elaborate?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Also, a dyno is only as good as the operator. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Agreed - if the operator wants to there are ways he can make the dyno hedge the values in one way or another. That just means you need to find an honest person you trust - this is no different than anything else in life though.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Lastly, a dyno uses "Correction Factor". That means sea level altitude, 60 degrees (usually), a low, low, low level of humidity, and a barometer of 29.92 uncorrected. On my weather station here in the midwest, a typical day AT THE TRACK is around 80-85 degrees, 70% humidity, a observed barometer of 28.75 at 880 feet of elevation. Throw all of that together and you are racing at 2500-3000 feet. Now, does it make more power in these conditions?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
You need to tune on the dyno for similar weather conditions you see at the track in your area, etc. Tuning at sea level (actual) for a 5500ft track is stupid. But just because the dyno corrects to sea level, etc. is irrelevant. As long as the actual weather conditions are similar you are fine. It corrects to standard conditions to try and make results a little more comparable. With honest operators it is actually fairly accurate.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The point I am driving home is a dyno is a good tool. That is it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Agreed.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just because you make power or loose power, or gain no power, it means nothing.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Disagreed. If gains or losses mean nothing then it is not a tool, but a toy. Using the same dyno, etc. I have 99% of the time seen a correspondence between dyno and track times. If you are not then there is something wrong in your methodology.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The track is the absolute. For $8.00 buy a Moroso Power Speed Calculator, Part # 89650. Go to the track, run the car, weigh the car, line up the numbers, that is your OBSERVED HP accelerated AT THE TRACK. You may find similarities in the numbers (RWHP to PS Calculator)but never a concise relationship.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The number you are getting with that calculator is the average hp seen across the entire 1/4 mile trap. The dynojet gives you instantaneous values at each rpm point. Of course the comparison is not the same. That's like saying I took a 100 mile car trip - my average speed was 60mph. My peak speed was 82 mph. HEY LOOK, THEY DON'T MATCH - SOMETHING IS WRONG!!!
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only number I'd worry about is how fast can I turn on the ET light at the other end.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Agreed again. But the dyno is a great tool to help you get there quicker, as well as to shorten the tuning process. It also takes the driver out of the equation (as well as chassis setup, etc.) so helps you make slightly more objective assesments as to how well an engine package is working.
03-26-2002, 02:44 PM
#15
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JAMCAM:
<strong>The only number I'd worry about is how fast can I turn on the ET light at the other end. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You gotta realize some people like me couldn't give half of a rats *** how long it takes to go 1320 feet. That number means absolutly nothing to me. 17.3, 13.6, 11.2, what the hell do I care.
What I want to know is how much power goes to the tires, how the car is gonna drive (ie, the torque curve) on the street, and how much fun it'll be when I get on it on my way to work. ET tells me nothing but how much traction and weight savings I can do on tires I'd never drive on the street. Big whoop. I dont drive a race car, I drive a car that gets me to work.
My point is, I've done countless mods on multiple cars now, and before/after dynos on each mod, and the numbers damn sure seem to be coresponding to how much fun the car is on my daily drive.
I guess it all depends on your priorities.
<strong>The only number I'd worry about is how fast can I turn on the ET light at the other end. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You gotta realize some people like me couldn't give half of a rats *** how long it takes to go 1320 feet. That number means absolutly nothing to me. 17.3, 13.6, 11.2, what the hell do I care.
What I want to know is how much power goes to the tires, how the car is gonna drive (ie, the torque curve) on the street, and how much fun it'll be when I get on it on my way to work. ET tells me nothing but how much traction and weight savings I can do on tires I'd never drive on the street. Big whoop. I dont drive a race car, I drive a car that gets me to work.
My point is, I've done countless mods on multiple cars now, and before/after dynos on each mod, and the numbers damn sure seem to be coresponding to how much fun the car is on my daily drive.
I guess it all depends on your priorities.
03-26-2002, 03:17 PM
#16
On The Tree
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Round Rock, TX USA
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? Wow! Everyone came out of the woodwork on this!! I guess we'll find out in about a month or two, huh Jay... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
As for the sigle pattern cam issue, I totally agree that this has mostly been done to keep emissions low and idle quality high, but just b/c MTI,ARE,etc,etc,etc are all doing it doesn't mean everyone else has to do it.
I think the hidden factor is that most of the products (i.e. cams, etc...) that these places are offering are influenced by their ability to sell it. No one is going to make something they can't sell. Hence the single pattern cam. Granted there are several split pattern cams out now, but they are relatively mild IMHO.
Later...
<small>[ March 26, 2002, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: LS1 Kyle ]</small>
As for the sigle pattern cam issue, I totally agree that this has mostly been done to keep emissions low and idle quality high, but just b/c MTI,ARE,etc,etc,etc are all doing it doesn't mean everyone else has to do it.
I think the hidden factor is that most of the products (i.e. cams, etc...) that these places are offering are influenced by their ability to sell it. No one is going to make something they can't sell. Hence the single pattern cam. Granted there are several split pattern cams out now, but they are relatively mild IMHO.
Later...
<small>[ March 26, 2002, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: LS1 Kyle ]</small>
03-26-2002, 03:44 PM
#17
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: IL
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Cool AirZ28:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Holes02:
<strong>Easy way out?
You'd have to pull that HUGE converter out!
Something like a 4000 Extreme would be nice for spray and NA though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">His car is a 6 speed, not a auto.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BIGBOS:
<strong>Right now I'm at 353rwhp and 375rwtq through a TH400 w/12 bolt 3.73's, etc, etc, etc Headers, lid, all the simple stuff...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">His car's what now? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Holes02:
<strong>Easy way out?
You'd have to pull that HUGE converter out!
Something like a 4000 Extreme would be nice for spray and NA though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">His car is a 6 speed, not a auto.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BIGBOS:
<strong>Right now I'm at 353rwhp and 375rwtq through a TH400 w/12 bolt 3.73's, etc, etc, etc Headers, lid, all the simple stuff...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">His car's what now? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
03-26-2002, 05:55 PM
#19
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BIGBOS:
<strong>I'm seriosly thinking about taking the easy way out and spraying it... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spray it!
<strong>I'm seriosly thinking about taking the easy way out and spraying it... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spray it!
03-26-2002, 07:37 PM
#20
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: IL
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: How much more rwhp would I get by adding heads?? Yeah Bos, if you wouldn't have to swap converters, I'd tell you to do the same thing.
Afterall, it's been proven (by another Village member) that Firehawks can handle over 200 extra HP in nitrous alone! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" /> LOL!
No, but I bet a 125-150 shot would work wonders for you... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<small>[ March 26, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Holes02 ]</small>
Afterall, it's been proven (by another Village member) that Firehawks can handle over 200 extra HP in nitrous alone! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" /> LOL!
No, but I bet a 125-150 shot would work wonders for you... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<small>[ March 26, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Holes02 ]</small>