Would Stage III heads be good on a ...
<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><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 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" />

