LS1derfull

What about posting flow numbers on those heads you ported? TIA

Tin Indian

TA2SLOW346 ....

What part of Belleville are you from?

Don't know any of the Muelchi brothers do you?

Ron,

TA2SLOW346

iTrader: (3)

Ron, I've talked to you before at Gateway back when it was running the other way. I know your son too since i went to school with him back at East. Yeah I know the brothers.

ls1derfull yeah here you go.
intake
.200 134
.300 194
.400 231
.450 247
.500 262
.550 273
.600 281

exhaust
.200 103
.300 142
.400 174
.450 185
.500 195
.550 206
.600 212

This was with the intake ports clayed and without a exhaust pipe. Also the flowbench room was really hot inside and didnt have AC in there. Not flowcom corrected. Was flowed on a 4.0 bore, SF600@28in The person that was helping me with ls1 heads use to be the main head ported at GTP awhile back.

Stock 2002 valves also

LS1derfull

Thank you for posting flow, it will be interesting to hear drivability and track times with swirl ramp removed.Now for comparison reasons i want you to know my heads flow around 20 cfm more in .400 lift on up range, with swirl ramp still in my ports.The work you did looks very smooth. I believe low swirl (assuming yours is low) would require much different timing and a/f tuning. Keep us posted.

Paul J.

I am doing a set of LS6 heads right now and they show zero swirl until about .500" - .550" lift, which I think is due to the flow separating at the short side radius. Not shure how much the ramp really affects swirl. The LS6 engine runs pretty well with this condition.

In my opinion, swirl is more dependent on combustion chamber shape in the lower ranges and port shape in the higher lifts. Cleaning the short side radius in the LS6 heads pretty much eliminates swirl up to .550" - .600" lift with the ramp in place.

Removing the ramp will add 10-15 CFM in the high lift range but has very little effect down low.

Stock Ls1 heads show swirl RPM values from 500 to 800 up to .400" lift where short side separation pushes it to 1200 - 1300 RPM.

Too much swirl can cause mixture and droplet separation and be counter productive. In the LS1 application, it depends on cam lift, RPM range, and intended use of the engine on how the heads are ported. To remove the swirl ramp will continue to be a topic of debate.

Paul J.

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Well I think his #'s are fine.. Check my sig..

02 'Hawk

I know a guyin Beleville...

Had/has an 86 IROC. Military

Air Force.

"Lil Buddy"

Find out..he was in Turkey with me. We used to hit the gym hard.

Dan, that's his name. Calling his *** right now.

Daniel Olympiadis, LOL

H82BBad

I just dont see it happening. I would guess the dyno is off,you flow numbers are about 30 cfm shy of most stage 2 heads I have seen and you only have a 212 durration cam on the intake.
Track times will show what you really have. I dont doubt you have the dyno numbers I just doubt that they are accurate.

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Flow #'s are not the tell all though. My old heads flowed 297cfm I think at .600 lift.. Dyno'd 411rwhp.. My current heads flow less...

TA2SLOW346

iTrader: (3)

Well we are having some problems with the car. Last weekend at the track it was running 11.40@117mph. The right o2 senser was reading .400mvs the whole pass.

BTW the car weighs 3370lb raceweight and was running 95mph in the 1/8mile. I'm pretty sure the car has some 11.1s@121 or so in it.

Shawn

TA2SLOW346

iTrader: (3)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will admit on a dynojet I would also make 380 to 390 unlocked maybe more locked </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Stop being a ****** and think about what you are saying. For one dyno numbers dont mean crap to me. Also he ran 95mph in the 1/8 with a bad o2 so get over it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="gr_images/icons/mad.gif" />

H82BBad

alright send me the dyno numbers and the time slips ,cause the flow numbers dont support the power he is making with a 212 durration cam,not on an a-4.
I am not being a ******? I just didnt fall of the turnip truck.
BTW with only 16 post why are you the one telling all about it? this isnt a friend of a friend post is it.IE My friend made 900 hp with a lid etc.

<small>[ October 27, 2002, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: H82BBad ]</small>

JIM01Z

3370 raceweight? That's definitely not a stock weight. How much does the driver weigh and what all did you strip from the car???? Also judging by the ET and MPH I would say the car left pretty hard and I wouldn't contribute most of the ET to the heads, mainly the launch and weight.. I have seen many cam only cars at that weight pull 11.5x at 117mph all day long with 1.5x 60 foot times in our hot southern weather. Also the 02 sensor didn't hurt you as much as you think.

If you are calling people ******* for scrutinizing dyno numbers then why even bother taking your car to the dyno or even posting those numbers.

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

You guys are running some fast 1/8th miles.. Damn.. I am way behind. Plus I am heavier..

<small>[ October 27, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: VINCE ]</small>

7000RPM

Great numbers! <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

H82BBad

Vince I understand that but you are also a 6 speed. My current combo on a consevative dyno mustang dyno made 348 hp and runs 97 in the 1/8 with a race weight of around 3500 lbs.The numbers dont add up to me.
So he is makeing 52 more rwhp then me running 200 lbs less weight and I pull better mph and et? dont make sense. And I race at an acctual altitude of 900 to 1600.
I will admit on a dynojet I would also make 380 to 390 unlocked maybe more locked

<small>[ October 27, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: H82BBad ]</small>

badass 2002 z28

iTrader: (5)

Let me set a few things straight here..

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">alright send me the dyno numbers and the time slips</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why bother? I posted what it did, if i took the time and scanned the graph you'd probably say it was photoshoped or that some other crap.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">this isnt a friend of a friend post is it.IE My friend made 900 hp with a lid etc.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> hmm let's see..first off, I was the one that started the post about what MY CAR put down so maybe you should pay more attention. Second, TA2Slow personally/physically helped me work on the car, so his words are as good as mine. Third, I didn't even know this post was still going until Shawn showed me.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 3370 raceweight? That's definitely not a stock weight. How much does the driver weigh and what all did you strip from the car????</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one ever said the car was fully weighted. As for how much i weigh? i'm about 175lbs.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">judging by the ET and MPH I would say the car left pretty hard and I wouldn't contribute most of the ET to the heads, mainly the launch and weight...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The car left like crap with a 1.55 60ft. Second is post wasn't about track times it was about the dyno numbers.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have seen many cam only cars at that weight pull 11.5x at 117mph all day long with 1.5x 60 foot times in our hot southern weather</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hmmm tell me why cam only cars down here are only running 11.70's-11.80's at 113-115mph and only going 91mph in the 1/8

Finally,I really could care less if people believe this post or not. I only posted it to show what was possible with a set of homeported heads and a small cam VS big company heads and bigger cams. Those that supported me thanks, the rest of you can go back to spending $3000+ for a head and cam package. I'll stick to what works. I'm done with this post <img border="0" alt="[guns]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_guns.gif" />

<small>[ October 28, 2002, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: badass 2002 z28 ]</small>

CHRISPY

Those numbers are decent for home ported heads <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Keep it civil please <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Cheers,
Chris

<small>[ October 28, 2002, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Chris ARE 360 ]</small>

Stu'sWS6

iTrader: (3)

Congrats again on the awesome dyno numbers Badass,
the track times will come around, 95mph in the eighth is definitely gettin' after it.
Looks like we have a flow bench racer on our hands,

Well now lets see, my heads flow 300+ on the intake, and my intake duration on my camshaft is 234, multiply that by the hundreds of other variables that go into making a car run and I'm figuring about 500 at the wheels <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

H82BBad

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stu'sWS6:
<strong>Congrats again on the awesome dyno numbers Badass,
the track times will come around, 95mph in the eighth is definitely gettin' after it.
Looks like we have a flow bench racer on our hands,

Well now lets see, my heads flow 300+ on the intake, and my intake duration on my camshaft is 234, multiply that by the hundreds of other variables that go into making a car run and I'm figuring about 500 at the wheels <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">HAHa I am at the track every weekend. No need to race the bench. I run 97 in the 1/8 with a 1.6 60 ft and faster time,I just doubt the hp numbers given not the time.BTW I am about 200 lbs heavier than the other car also.I attribute his time to light weight and a good 60 ft (I wish I had a 1.55 60 ft)He has good MPH but considering his race weight and hp he should pull more. But then again I think he has a vig right? they may steal a few mph.
In an auto with 400 rwhp I would think 120 would be no problem at that weight.If you are 3 mph low I would say it is because you are making 30 rwhp less than you think JMO.
It really doesnt matter to me I was just pointing out holes in the formula <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> If you want to believ you made 400 rwhp with a 212 cam in an auto with a set of heads that flow 280 be my guest.Heck with those kinds of real world gains be sponser and get rich cause I dont think they can make that power with a 212 cam in an auto!

<small>[ October 29, 2002, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: H82BBad ]</small>