DenzSS

I can't help but wonder how everyone has suddenly came up with a great technological breakthrough at roughly the same time. It seems to me like we're having a big old marketing battle right now in the LS1 market.

I would like to see anyone back up the recent claims on their own. If it is really a heads/cam package, then anyone who knows what they are doing should be able to replicate their results within 10HP or so.

I'm still calling BS on the whole "it is a package" excuse. If the "package" includes running a 50cc combustion chamber, flycutting the pistons, running an ultralight flywheel, and pulling every dyno trick in the book..well, I guess I need to change my definition of a package.

Will these "packages" run on pump gas, or are they sitting on a 12:1CR?

I'm just curious, and I think this needs to be discussed. I have no problem supporting our sponsors, most do a wonderful job. However, I hate BS.

Denz

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Did you read my NAYSAYER thread?

I challenged folks to post up their dyno numbers and we analyzed them.

A lot of 430-455rwhp folks did not have LS6 heads. Off the bat you can make the point that a 440rwhp dynoing beast with two year old stuff could make more power with the latest heads/cam offerings AND would make more power with just swapping to LS6 heads with the exact same porting... I have seen data for like +10rwhp between LS1 and LS6 heads.

We'll see how some of these 460rwhp combos do at the track as well.

gator's 99TA

iTrader: (2)

i believe Lou of LGM said he was coming down to the Breathless Performance (you vette guys know) Shootout in Bradenton Motorpark (FL - my old backyard). there will be an independent outside dyno. no one seemed to notice he said he was going to pull there. i will have some of my peoples there to check out the car as well as a few south florida people too. it should be interesting there.

as for the rest of the tuners......i dont know. i know TR just put out 460+ RWHP with a balanced solid roller motor, yet others are making more with stock internal head and cam "packages." and IMO flycutting pistons is not stock internals 346 anymore. as for the right combo of bolt-ons...give me a break. most of us all have the same all out boltons. <img border="0" alt="[bullshit]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" />

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

How many times do we have to go through this?? First of all, matching the cam profile to the flow characteristics of the heads is a proven way to increase efficiency (read: build power). Ask the folks at Hendrick Motorsports, Rousch Racing, etc... By "matching", I do not mean looking at a flow sheet for the heads and thinking, "Well, gee; our heads flow really well at X lift, so let's use the most aggressive lobe we can in order to get the valve to that lift, then hold it there for as long as we can for the RPM range that we're trying to hit." I mean looking at not only the port flow, but also the port velocity (see the torque numbers on the latest big # packages??), then arraging the timing of the valve events to take advantage of the heads. Additionally, timing the valve events such that cylinder pressure hits a certain target is SERIOUSLY important.

As for the "right combination of bolt-ons", let's look at it... say, one lid gives ~2 RWHP more than another. Then, let's say that a particular set of headers/exhaust configuration makes ~8-10 RWHP more than others. Add it top-notch tuning along with the optimization of the H/C combo, and you see what we're seeing.

Members of this board not associated with either of the two shops have verified that there were no dyno tricks used. I was here at the Texas shop and can tell you that the tranny on the latest 'Vette was never dropped, so that kind of eliminates the possibility of the aluminum flywheel. I also saw the tire pressure on the rear checked: 35 psi, each side. The car was running a little low on fuel, and I watched the mechanic drive the car up the street to the Exxon station to put a few bucks worth of 93 octane fuel in it. He was back in @5 minutes, and there is certainly no place to find race fuel close enough to get there and back in that kind of time. The environmental sensors for SAE correction are on the driver's side of the car mounted to the wall, between the driver and the front wheel (perhaps 5-6 feet from the side of the car). The exhaust points out an open bay door with the assistance of a fan. Other board members at the NJ shop have also verified similar circumstances on that test car.

The message?? No dyno tricks. Good engineering, good tuning, good power.

FYI- while I would MUCH rather have a balanced motor than one that was not balanced (you know what I mean), balancing does little for power. It is more of a reliability issue than a performance one.

BYBYC5

im with DENZSS.but let see what they do at a track, better yet, "donate" a "package" to an independant tester and see what we get, bet it wont be the same results. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

EuG

I think the only way to verify the “legitimacy” of these H/C packages would be to have a few sets of these of heads/cam/intake/headers/”whatever else is needed” packages shipped out to totally independent customers (in different parts of the country preferably), have ‘em installed and see the results. <img border="0" alt="[judgement]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_judge.gif" />

I’m not 100% sure, but even if tuning abilities of some other install place is not as good as one of the shops that came out with these packages, it should still be within 10 maybe 15HP from “original” tops! I think….

If a package is supposed to put down 465rwHP and different people are getting ~450-460 rwHP with it consistently in different places – it’s very believable. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />

If nobody can make more than say 420-430 with something that puts down 460 “at home” - something IS NOT right…. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[bullshit]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" />

IMO, until that happens, regardless of what kind of proof (track, dyno, whatever) is posted here, there will still be doubters. <img border="0" alt="[punch]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_punch.gif" />

Fenris Ulf

I agree with EuG but unfortunately LG will never allow that else their precious cam specs will get out just like the super badass G5 of yore <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

PSJ: Do you have any examples of cars that have picked up over 10 rwhp just by switching from a stage x LS1 head to a stage x ls6 head?

EuG

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with EuG but unfortunately LG will never allow that else their precious cam specs will get out just like the super badass G5 of yore
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That’s his loss. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
Whatever package will be verified in the way I described will be selling like hot cakes. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />
You can only install this many packages, but there’s practically no limit how many heads/cam packages you can ship out. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />

Just think about it!

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong>Burnout: The cam specs posted by Cartek are very close to what many board members have been running for years, so they did not just recently come out with some super-secret intake opening point that makes mucho power or anything like that. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fenris- That's between you and Cartek. It is possible (note that I did not say likely; this is pure speculation on my part) that the specs that Cartek published aren't the actual specs. Whereas LG has chosen to remain mum about their cam specs, perhaps the folks at Cartek have simply thrown us a bone, so to speak. As I said- I have no information to support this; it is pure speculation on my part. Seeing as how Cartek has been somewhat secretive about their specs in the past (not that I blame them; they have done the necessary research to put together some stout packages, and deserve to reap the rewards), I see this as at least a possibility.

Similarly, if LGM had told us that their latest cam was 228/230 600/600 108 (as opposed to not releasing their specs), who would have rang the bullshit bell on them?? I have no clue how far off those specs are (from the actual cam); I just pulled them out of my ***. The point is that they aren't the actual specs- are there other cams out there close to the "specs" that I just made up?? Probably. Do those cams produce results similar to the G5X-2?? Hell if I know.

You see what I am trying to get at here, or am I rambling pointlessly?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Gary Z

I will be very surprised if it turns out that an established shop has published claims they can not support. There are at least two reasons to not doubt their claims. The main reason is that their claims are easy to test and will be tested. The other obvious reason is that they are commercial enterprises and their reputation is valuable to them. I fail to see how they can profit from inflated claims. This business rewards performance, not hype.

JS

iTrader: (4)

Fernis,Did it ever occur to u that Carteks "cam timing" might be different than your buddies with the same dur/lift numbers or how much adv./retard they grind into their cams could vary from thier cams?

I can assure u,your buddies dont have the same 224-228 580-580 that Cartek is using.FWIW my older S2 setup runs a 224-224 573-573 113LSA

JS

LG Motorsports

GaryZ hit the nail right on the head.

We have 3 LS1 headed cars coming out soon. And 1 LS6 head car. One of the LS1 cars has Diamond pistons in it otherwise it is stock. It will have the G5X-2 cam. It will be the first LS1 head car with this cam, so who knows.

We have another Fbody getting the LS6 heads. He stepped up to the plate and paid $1100+ to get the Z06 heads from Scoggins.


When we did the second packge and ended up with almost the same numbers, we were very happy. there are NO aluminum flywheels in the bunch, and just as we stated before the cars had good headers, ported TB, and underdrive pulley.

Don't underestimate the value of good heads, and headers. Both cars had Merge collectors and 3 " pipes. But other than that, there were no tricks.

Our heads are very high quality, and all heads are NOT created equal.

So all I can tell you is stand by.

Thanks,

Lou Gigliotti LG Motorsports

Nasty N8

iTrader: (33)

You tell `em Lou! It was only a matter of time before it has reached this point. I personally believe the #`s and don`t see why not. Heads are where the power is at. I just want to see some BIG #`s out of the big inch motors now. Thats what we are workin on at the moment. More testing please.

Nate Bonham
NastyPerformance.com
Nate@NastyPerformance.com
847-458-4858

NoGo

iTrader: (2)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gator's 99TA:
<strong> as for the right combo of bolt-ons...give me a break. most of us all have the same all out boltons. <img border="0" alt="[bullshit]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Combining the boltons correctly with your cam or head is key to getting the most power out of your setup. I think ignoring the diameter of your exhaust, the diameter of your intake, the length of your primaries, the length of your intake tract, collector diameter, Y-pipe configuration, blah blah blah, and writing it off as "the same all out boltons" leads to expensive under-powered setups.

Fly By

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by NoGo:
<strong> I think ignoring the diameter of your exhaust, the diameter of your intake, the length of your primaries, the length of your intake tract, collector diameter, Y-pipe configuration, blah blah blah, and writing it off as "the same all out boltons" leads to expensive under-powered setups. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">DING DING DING!!! we have a winner! Not all boltons are created Equal!! <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

If LG is coming to my area... I will be there for the big dyno.. I live 45 minutes from Bradenton Motorsports.. I will be a eye witness.. Cars in our area dyno low. So we will see what happens.. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

98_1LE

iTrader: (17)

If I am not mistaken, Louis drove the car to Purdue a day or two after it dyno'd those numbers. That has to qualify as streetable.

ABNRNGR (Aka Dean)

iTrader: (1)

don't forget that the best dyno numbers usually come out during the winter because of the good conditions. The dynos do adjust for all conditions but the engine performance always shows up a little better during the cold.

Smoke_ur_5.0

iTrader: (2)

Honestly, how much compression are we running here Lou? I think you are bumping the compression way up and making some decent power. That's why your keeping the cams specs secret..to throw everyone off thinking it's a cam gain. JMO though.

Of course the reason for my skepticism on the dyno numbers is the infamous G5 cam that made 420rwhp a year or more ago. Why do we not see the G5 out there as a highy recommended cam anymore? Probably because it ended up making 380rwhp on everyones dyno on a good day so if the cam is falling 40hp short on dynoes how short is this package going to fall?

Now I know LG and Cartek don't get along the greatest and find it unusual the Cartek all of a sudden is getting 20rwhp more than they ever have a week right after LG posts their claims. hmmm?

431rhwp with a cam? The best ever on our local dyno is 385rwhp. I can't imagine a flywheel and a different cam spec picking up 46rwhp over that on our dyno.

Another reason for skepticism? The infamous Diablo results...30RWHP 30RWTQ! People get the tuners and average about a 8rwhp increase? Hmmm?

Yes these are established shops but that does not prevent any of the big names from making big power claims. Another example..Hypertech...they show dyno graphs of a 17rwhp gain on a stock LS1..how many of you out there have seen even half of that from a hypertech? Hmmmm?

It is best for some of you not to simply beleive what you read and are told...cause is that were the case the world would still be flat! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Let's get more data here and see what is what. If it does as they claim, then this is good news! <img border="0" alt="[burn out]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_burnout.gif" />

pony killer

hey pat mussi the infamous drag racer has a good article in the hot rod engines winter 2002 mag where he layed down 445 hp at 5,600 rpm and 488 tq at 4,400 rpm on a 382 with ported heads and a mild 218/227 degree at .050 on a 113 lsa so i dont see 460 hp out of a 346 impossible. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />