Generation IV Internal Engine 2005-2014 LS2 | LS3 | LS7 | L92 | LS9

L92 Head?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-20-2009 | 07:17 PM
  #21  
flatchat's Avatar
Staging Lane
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by 1CAMWNDR
I assume you mean the price reflects the flow and power potential. Yes it does. It is meant to be a race piece to bridge the gap between the mass produced intakes from GMPP and Edelbrock and a custom sheet metal intake. Think @$1200 complete with CNC work. Check with Cary for specifics.
Try $2200 . Im just waiting for mine to be finished which will be matched to some MAST med -bore LS3 heads which will be going onto a solid roller 408
Old 10-20-2009 | 07:20 PM
  #22  
Rock_Daddy's Avatar
8 Second Club

iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 410
Likes: 2
From: Michigan
Default

Yep not cheap but you know what. I'd buy it again.
Old 10-21-2009 | 09:32 AM
  #23  
1CAMWNDR's Avatar
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (21)
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by flatchat
Try $2200 . Im just waiting for mine to be finished which will be matched to some MAST med -bore LS3 heads which will be going onto a solid roller 408
Woops. Still, if you need it, it beats the **** out of $3500+ for a sheetmetal intake.
Old 10-21-2009 | 10:51 PM
  #24  
NBM99SS's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 391
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis
Default

Originally Posted by Rock_Daddy
Im running stock L92's (aftermarket springs) going through the traps at about 7200rpm 9.48@141.05
61 runs so far and no issues.
Good to know. I think I will be ok then
Old 10-23-2009 | 08:45 AM
  #25  
Jim85IROC's Avatar
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
From: Readsboro, VT
Default

Here's a similar question. I'm assuming that with the LS3 hollow valves you can run less spring than you need with the L92 valves. Is there any drawback to the added spring pressure? If the car has upgraded pushrods and has the harland sharp mods to the rockers, there's really no issue is there?
Old 10-23-2009 | 11:10 AM
  #26  
ss.slp.ls1's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (36)
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,184
Likes: 26
From: Orange County, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Jim85IROC
Here's a similar question. I'm assuming that with the LS3 hollow valves you can run less spring than you need with the L92 valves. Is there any drawback to the added spring pressure? If the car has upgraded pushrods and has the harland sharp mods to the rockers, there's really no issue is there?
I had a buddy put thousands of miles on his engine with PRC .660" dual springs. Both with a MS3 cam and then back to a stock cam and keep the springs. No issues.
Old 10-23-2009 | 05:28 PM
  #27  
rsz288's Avatar
TECH Resident
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 794
Likes: 4
From: Right here, right now!
Default

Originally Posted by Jim85IROC
Here's a similar question. I'm assuming that with the LS3 hollow valves you can run less spring than you need with the L92 valves. Is there any drawback to the added spring pressure? If the car has upgraded pushrods and has the harland sharp mods to the rockers, there's really no issue is there?
GM uses the lightest springs they can to minimise friction, that can that satisfy valvetrain control & durability requirements.



Quick Reply: L92 Head?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 AM.