Raughammer

To make those "hogged" out heads work you will need to up the RPM band that they operate in.
While this is not the best course of action for short block longevity, the extra RPM's "should" get your velocity up and allow you take some advantage of those heads.

Go with all the rear gear you can stand, turn the RPM's up around 6900 to 7200 and you should see more gains...

Agian this is just a band aid fix for the poor heads but should help...

Good luck.

Campbell

SOON2BTA

And to think that ARE was going to be my choice for a head/cam package.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" />

Now I don't know!!!

SSteveL

Look at Ragtop 99's post on page 1:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ARE S2 2.08/1.60
XE-R 224/224 114 cam
Bolt-ons, 12 bolt w/3.73s, YTP 4200

Dyno:
locked: 378HP @ 6100, 362TQ @ 4800
Unlocked: 365HP @ ~6300, 485 TQ @ 3100.

ARE 346 motor & Yank YTP 4200
11.58 @ 117.0 1.63 3800 lbs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Doesn't seem like anything is wrong with those heads at all. It also shows that dyno results and track results don't always reflect each other.

The ARE cars here don't seem to be faring too badly at the track. Still, I'd like to see more track times from more cars.

ARE LS1 wrote:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My heads arrived at a shop yesterday and the installer did not have good things to say about the heads. They have 2.08/1.60 valves. He said they would work well for a stroker but are "hogged out" too much. He said velocity is the key and where you port, not how much you port is very important. The person who make this comment is very respected in the LS1 community and is a sponsor of this site.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No disrespect intended, but you are taking the word of one person (the installer) against another (Nick), but you don't have hard evidence one way or the other, unless you include your dyno figures: 383 rwhp/365 rwtq and 387rwhp/369rwtq. Guys have run mid to low 11s on numbers like these.

Ryan wrote:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ARE's work VERY poorly with other peoples cam's because they grind their cams in a way that make comparably HP by band-aid'ing their poor heads.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't make out what you're saying here. Do you mean ARE uses cams that work well with their heads? What's wrong with that? Please explain.

ezss wrote:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Barely making 11's with 117 traps on an M6 supports my opinion on design flaws in ARE's heads. Those are the numbers I have been seeing, even if you look at ARE's website under their customer's with the same setup.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your diagnosis, but I don't see how this indicates design flaws. Lack of torque down low? By the way, info about customer cars on ARE's Web site is several years out of date.

Ryan wrote:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">2.055 are the absolute biggest i would ever go. and the only reason id get those is because thats what MTI uses. Nick uses the 2.08's to boost flow numbers.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How do ARE and MTI strokers compare? I'm asking seriously; not trying to imply anything.

You mention cammers with stock heads dyno'ing large, but (1) are dyno results the best way to make these comparisons? (2) do you think ARE heads perform worse than stock?

RyanJ

Nick said a LONG time ago that he doesnt think that other shops use big enough cams. 95% of the time, the bigger the cam, the higher the numbers. Kinda like boosting flow numbers with those big valves. I'm just saying that MTI's track and dyno results have surpassed ARE's with smaller valves AND smaller cams. So, in conclusion, I believe that ARE's heads are inconsistent and very badly ported for them to be such a big expensive shop. To make up for this, Nick puts in larger cams (which IS the smart thing to do since Ive seen shitty results with other cams and his heads) to make up for his heads. Perhaps he shoud shop at SAM for his employees.

It's hard to say how MTI's and ARE's strokers compare...truth is...they don't compare. Pound for pound...period.

Alot of people will say..."you need this and that." Other shop's customers dont need EVERY single little mod or free mod to get 420rw on a H/C car or 490+ out of a stroker. If you guys are happy with what you've got...then more power to you. Do what YOU want to do...I just wouldnt do it with ARE heads.

Examples...I think just about (im saying 'just about' because i dont want to go back through this big thread to read all the results) every ARE-headed/single duration cam'd car has low dyno numbers and/or track results. He won't admit it, but jmX is another example, same with Visceral. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" /> Anyway, another is a guy on another board a while back that used an LS6 cam and ARE stage one heads. He wasnt happy with his results. I think myself and Chris ARE 360 had some words about that one. Although, Chris has had good results from his ARE motor. With stage one heads (2.02/1.57 valve and probably more like stage 2 porting) and a B1 he made good power even at 9.7:1. with compression and an ARE cam, he made good power again. Its hit and miss with them and usually (sadly enough) miss. Id just stay away.

BTW, those high 11 117 results ARE very old but i dont think Eric went any faster. Chris E. and Mikey went faster...but it took some work. Again, hit and miss.

Ryan

JimMueller

iTrader: (9)

H/C make/stage: CNC Inc. Stage II
Head Specs: 2.02/1.57/72cc
Cam Specs:Comp Cams 218/226 527/535 112, 4* advance ground-in
Dyno Numbers (and location): 402/378 @ Norris Motorsports, through the cut-out
Best track time (street/radials/nittos) & location: 12.33@115 with 16" Nittos, alternate driver, and pre-LS6 intake @ Orlando Speedworld 12/2000
Best track time (slicks) & location: Never used slicks
Major Mods (non std): Lid/MAFT/Grots/tuning/SPEC clutch/LS6 intake/stock cat-back/cutout
Comments: Combo is reliable if the valvesprings aren't breaking. Just switched from Rev's to 916's hoping for more than 20K miles from a set. Wanted 400rwhp before the intake, thus I still want more area under the curve. Contemplating cam change.

Linear Velocity

iTrader: (1)

Heads: Andy's Auto Performance Stage II 5.3L heads. 2.02/1.57, 11.6:1 CR.
Cam: AAP Custom Cam 227/227 .591/.591 113 LSA
Dyno: 420 rwhp and 400 rwtq with no custom tuning

Other Mods: Grot 1 7/8 headers, LS6 intake, 4.10 gears, bolts ons.

Comments: These heads are the most bang for your buck IMO. Awesome power and awesome drivability even with no custom tuning, I'm hoping that once I get custom tuning I can add more fuel/timing and get around 430-440 out of the setup, looking to run mid 11's @ 120+ in almost full weight car

<small>[ July 09, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: SpeedDemonZ28 ]</small>

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

Speed bring the setup out to Irwindale Thursday. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

MDL-01C5

Let's revive this topic... <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />