MTI LS6 vs MMS 6.0L
Re: MTI LS6 vs MMS 6.0L </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Are the valve sizes the same between the 2 heads? If not, Its like comparing a 346 to a 370. You really cant.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's none of your buisness what valve sizes each porter uses. All that matters is how much power the complete head package makes (or in this case how they flow).
Are the valve sizes the same between the 2 heads? If not, Its like comparing a 346 to a 370. You really cant.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's none of your buisness what valve sizes each porter uses. All that matters is how much power the complete head package makes (or in this case how they flow).
Re: MTI LS6 vs MMS 6.0L That was kind of rude. Why are valve sizes so top-secret Terry?
David Coates has 2.055 / 1.60 on his Stage 2s
I have 2.080 / 1.60 on my Stage 3s
-Tony
David Coates has 2.055 / 1.60 on his Stage 2s
I have 2.080 / 1.60 on my Stage 3s
-Tony
Re: MTI LS6 vs MMS 6.0L It's not a secret just a moot point. Every porter uses whatever valve size they feel is best. One doesn't don't need to have the same size valve to compare his heads to another set. That's as stupid as saying you can only compare heads that were done by the same head porter. What's the point then? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Re: MTI LS6 vs MMS 6.0L Here is my graph overlayed (via photoshop) on top of the one that was posted above.
MMS Stage 3 6.0L
MTI Stage 3 LS6
MTI Stage 2 LS6
Look how badass my exhaust ports are <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<img src="http://users.ev1.net/~ynot_dv8/Stg2vsStg3.gif" alt=" - " />
-Tony
MMS Stage 3 6.0L
MTI Stage 3 LS6
MTI Stage 2 LS6
Look how badass my exhaust ports are <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<img src="http://users.ev1.net/~ynot_dv8/Stg2vsStg3.gif" alt=" - " />
-Tony
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
From: Murrieta
Re: MTI LS6 vs MMS 6.0L Mark from Andy's auto was there flowing my 6.0's when those MMS heads were tested. Numbers are true, of course my heads flowed better. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
Re: MTI LS6 vs MMS 6.0L </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry Burger:
It's none of your buisness what valve sizes each porter uses. All that matters is how much power the complete head package makes (or in this case how they flow).[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Guess what? I could put a 2.180 valve in, and flow 8 million CFM. Does that matter? Not really. I was simply asking because It helps ME compare the 2.
It's none of your buisness what valve sizes each porter uses. All that matters is how much power the complete head package makes (or in this case how they flow).[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Guess what? I could put a 2.180 valve in, and flow 8 million CFM. Does that matter? Not really. I was simply asking because It helps ME compare the 2.
