Would Stage III heads be good on a ...
#2
TECH Addict
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Worth,TX
Posts: 2,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Slammed Vette:
<strong>382 stroker?????Or should I go with stage II with 2.055 and 1.60's??</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would stick with the 2.05 valves.BUt thats just me though.Unless I was going all out(race motor)then I wouldnt go that big as I believe it could hurt more than help.But I could be wrong though.
<strong>382 stroker?????Or should I go with stage II with 2.055 and 1.60's??</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would stick with the 2.05 valves.BUt thats just me though.Unless I was going all out(race motor)then I wouldnt go that big as I believe it could hurt more than help.But I could be wrong though.
#3
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lake Jackson,TX
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Just a note. My car is at MTI right now getting MTI S2 heads/ X1 cam and a whole lot of stuff. Josh is doing it. My heads flowed 290 which is really good. You can overflow your heads if your bottom-end is not built for it.Josh sayed build your heads to match your bottom. Don`t try to get flow numbers for bragging rights. Mine are perfect for a stock bottom. You could go with a stroker and they will work. I believe it`s another 25rwhp with S3 heads, maybe alittle more. It`s up to you. For the money get S2 and spray it, I am hehe! Good luck!
#4
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alonzo:
<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 Slammed Vette:
<strong>382 stroker?????Or should I go with stage II with 2.055 and 1.60's??</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would stick with the 2.05 valves.BUt thats just me though.Unless I was going all out(race motor)then I wouldnt go that big as I believe it could hurt more than help.But I could be wrong though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It should be noted my stock bottom ended (346) with LQ9 heads 2.08" and 1.60" did 436rwhp today untuned with a stock screened MAF, a stock TB on 17x11's with 315 Nitto DR's. I'm hoping for 450 with my MAF and TB back on and some tuning.
The heads flowed 342/237 @ .600
<small>[ October 17, 2002, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: MicahJam ]</small>
<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 Slammed Vette:
<strong>382 stroker?????Or should I go with stage II with 2.055 and 1.60's??</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would stick with the 2.05 valves.BUt thats just me though.Unless I was going all out(race motor)then I wouldnt go that big as I believe it could hurt more than help.But I could be wrong though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It should be noted my stock bottom ended (346) with LQ9 heads 2.08" and 1.60" did 436rwhp today untuned with a stock screened MAF, a stock TB on 17x11's with 315 Nitto DR's. I'm hoping for 450 with my MAF and TB back on and some tuning.
The heads flowed 342/237 @ .600
<small>[ October 17, 2002, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: MicahJam ]</small>
#5
TECH Addict
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Worth,TX
Posts: 2,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MicahJam:
<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 Alonzo:
<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 Slammed Vette:
<strong>382 stroker?????Or should I go with stage II with 2.055 and 1.60's??</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would stick with the 2.05 valves.BUt thats just me though.Unless I was going all out(race motor)then I wouldnt go that big as I believe it could hurt more than help.But I could be wrong though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It should be noted my stock bottom ended (346) with LQ9 heads 2.08" and 1.60" did 436rwhp today untuned with a stock screened MAF, a stock TB on 17x11's with 315 Nitto DR's. I'm hoping for 450 with my MAF and TB back on and some tuning.
The heads flowed 342/237 @ .600</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats very good but what would be a better comparison would be to use 2.02's and 1.57's and see what you get.I said it hurts some times not all the time.What is your compression ratio,cam specs etc...that all plays parts in it.For me though thats to big for stock displacement and I will say I believe you would make more with smaller valves but we wont know because with those numbers its not worth the hassle to find out. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.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 Alonzo:
<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 Slammed Vette:
<strong>382 stroker?????Or should I go with stage II with 2.055 and 1.60's??</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would stick with the 2.05 valves.BUt thats just me though.Unless I was going all out(race motor)then I wouldnt go that big as I believe it could hurt more than help.But I could be wrong though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It should be noted my stock bottom ended (346) with LQ9 heads 2.08" and 1.60" did 436rwhp today untuned with a stock screened MAF, a stock TB on 17x11's with 315 Nitto DR's. I'm hoping for 450 with my MAF and TB back on and some tuning.
The heads flowed 342/237 @ .600</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats very good but what would be a better comparison would be to use 2.02's and 1.57's and see what you get.I said it hurts some times not all the time.What is your compression ratio,cam specs etc...that all plays parts in it.For me though thats to big for stock displacement and I will say I believe you would make more with smaller valves but we wont know because with those numbers its not worth the hassle to find out. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />