New products from Trick Flow
10-15-2010, 10:38 PM
#21
I think if TFS made a LS3/L92 head for a 6.2 liter engine, it would be less than 260cc (stock LS3/L92 port volume), have smaller than a 2.16" (stock valve diameter) valve and maybe have way more P to V than a stock LS3/L92 head
Now if TFS was making a LS3/L92 head for a 427/454 it might be a little larger
But then again, I made 705 hp with a head that is only 241cc, so who needs a 260cc head?Is it your opinion that GM LS3/L92 heads are the correct size for a 6.2 liter engine?
Last edited by Brian Tooley Racing; 10-15-2010 at 10:51 PM.
10-16-2010, 02:41 AM
#22
Near as I can tell, the L92 faithful believe it's the cylinder head of choice for a 6.0 liter, much less a 6.2 liter. If they'd physically work on a 5.7 liter I'm sure we'd see 243s replaced with L92s.
10-16-2010, 05:34 AM
#23
I will say an overly large head for the given cubic inch is harder to cam, which is all I've ever said.
I think if TFS made a LS3/L92 head for a 6.2 liter engine, it would be less than 260cc (stock LS3/L92 port volume), have smaller than a 2.16" (stock valve diameter) valve and maybe have way more P to V than a stock LS3/L92 head
Now if TFS was making a LS3/L92 head for a 427/454 it might be a little larger But then again, I made 705 hp with a head that is only 241cc, so who needs a 260cc head?
Is it your opinion that GM LS3/L92 heads are the correct size for a 6.2 liter engine?
I think if TFS made a LS3/L92 head for a 6.2 liter engine, it would be less than 260cc (stock LS3/L92 port volume), have smaller than a 2.16" (stock valve diameter) valve and maybe have way more P to V than a stock LS3/L92 head
Now if TFS was making a LS3/L92 head for a 427/454 it might be a little larger
But then again, I made 705 hp with a head that is only 241cc, so who needs a 260cc head?Is it your opinion that GM LS3/L92 heads are the correct size for a 6.2 liter engine?
I fully understand that every L92 headed build is potentially lost revenue for the aftermarket head companies and that explains many of the aspersions that have been cast along the way. Your's is a very nice build and I give you much credit.
We made 656 with a cam probably 20 degrees smaller on both sides than you're running - on my very mild build. Your 427 build made 640. I have no doubt that built and cammed for a single plane or sheet metal intake we could make comparable HP to your 454 with 427 CI. The L92/LS3 heads have been disserviced mostly by people camming them improperly. Low/Mid power and incredible tip-in has been the hallmark of every iteration of my builds. So much for the soggy bottom theory.
Are they the end all/be all - NO. Are they a very good option - YES.
As to your question, I can't comment. Unlike most here I will only comment on builds I have personally been involved with. I will let others do the work on 6.2 liter engines.
Hopefully enough is now known about the rectangular port heads that the new TFS heads will be a strong success. I think if you correct some of the weaknesses of the GM casting for some applications like deck thickness and a few other items they will be a huge success.
Good luck!
Kevin
Sorry for the hijack but as they say "turn about is fair play".
Last edited by WKMCD; 10-16-2010 at 06:02 AM.
10-16-2010, 08:11 AM
#24
On The Tree
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: akron ohio
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oddly enought I just checked the fastest STOCK CUBE heads/cam gto fast list over on ls1gto.com and none of them are running l92 heads. In fact some of them are 243 heads that have been done. I have seen trick flow 225's make 520+ on quite a few ls2's, with a mild 236/236 115lsa to boot. L92 guys seem to be stuck at 470 at best, sure there are few l92 guys that hit the 500 mark but they had to flycut to do it. Who wants to do that.
10-16-2010, 11:26 AM
#25
You had good results with ported L92 heads on a 427 cu in engine. This is the cubic inch range where these heads really start to shine. But when it comes to a 6.2 liter engine, a head that is smaller than stock LS3/L92, yet flows more air than a ported LS3/L92 head, will make more power everywhere and be easier to cam all at the same time.
You are right that they are a very good alternative to an aftermarket head, provided you're not going to spend a ton of money on them. If you send them to a professional porting shop, buy a spring kit, and maybe upgrade to hollow stem LS3 intake valves then you have as much in them as an aftermarket head.
I've had many conversations about port sizing. I was once in the "over head it and under cam it" crowd. It works, there are many ways to "skin a cat". I'm currently of the opinion that you want to "put the correct size head on it and the correct size cam".
What we want a head to do is respond like it's supposed to, meaning as we increase cam duration it makes more power and runs faster. The problem with heads that are overly large is that as you increase duration they go the other direction.
The proof is in the pudding, the fastest N/A hyd roller cammed engines with Fast intakes in the country have TFS heads (Coleman Roddy 9.20's and James Day 9.30's). This is because as cam duration is increased the heads respond and the engine accelerates faster. Greg Good and I had this same argument several years ago. By this year he agreed with what I was saying. The reason he agreed is because he has personally seen the larger heads not accelerate as well as the smaller heads.
You had me laughing here, you're a gentleman and I will never make that mistake again.
10-16-2010, 12:34 PM
#27
10-17-2010, 11:23 AM
#29
just my 2 cents here,but
i constantly see all these people talking about these big hp numbers coming form l92/ls3 ported casting engines (at the flywheel or the rear tires),but.............
they dont ssem to be able to fall off a cliff et wise
all these 500+ rwhp l92
combos dont run or et 
???????????
imo chassis dyno numbers are tools, and in my opinion have no bearing in the real world, when it comes to on track performance in most cases
ok im done ranting
lol
i constantly see all these people talking about these big hp numbers coming form l92/ls3 ported casting engines (at the flywheel or the rear tires),but.............
they dont ssem to be able to fall off a cliff et wise
all these 500+ rwhp l92
combos dont run or et ???????????imo chassis dyno numbers are tools, and in my opinion have no bearing in the real world, when it comes to on track performance in most cases
ok im done ranting
lol 
10-18-2010, 05:30 PM
#32
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll put a guess out there - a rectangle port head with smaller intake valve, lower volume runner (than L92), but compatible with either the LS7 or LS3 intakes.
Will give the benefit of higher intake velocity, lower air-frictional losses than a cathedral port design can provide. Could also be cammed up pretty heavily, for those who want to shoot for max HP, without reversion issues associated with L92/LS7.
Will give the benefit of higher intake velocity, lower air-frictional losses than a cathedral port design can provide. Could also be cammed up pretty heavily, for those who want to shoot for max HP, without reversion issues associated with L92/LS7.
10-19-2010, 10:46 AM
#34
But trust is earned not given and a lot of misinformation gets posted on these boards in efforts to sell products people may not need.
Especially these days this site has changed a LOT since the previous set up. Its all about the $$$$ here now which probably makes me unpopular as its my goals to go as fast as possible for as low $$$ as possible. Thats what got all these types of forums going in the first place. Long before there even were sponsors.
Rant over
10-19-2010, 11:48 AM
#35
[QUOTE][True but theres been LOTS of such posts by usernames with only a handful of posts who seem to know exactly whats going on and as it turns out they are often a sponsor or another member who posts under a pseudonym strictly to push the info in the direction they want. Is that who you are? Dont know, and dont care.
But trust is earned not given and a lot of misinformation gets posted on these boards in efforts to sell products people may not need.
Especially these days this site has changed a LOT since the previous set up. Its all about the $$$$ here now which probably makes me unpopular as its my goals to go as fast as possible for as low $$$ as possible. Thats what got all these types of forums going in the first place. Long before there even were sponsors.
Rant over /QUOTE]
i have been a member for some time now,i just never had an inkling to post much
i figure you learn more by looking and watching ,not talking lol
i completly agree with you on some points ,regarding angles and false info
i have no hidden agendas of any kind
i just dont see how post counts equal iq count,but i also understand how false info leads others down the wrong path causing loses of both time and money
as for info i offered none ,just pointed out my opinon that on the net ,everyone seems to make big hp numbers, yet many times there is no evidence/on track performance to back it up is all
but hey its all cool
im just here to pick up ideas along the way
you never quit learning no matter who you may be
i apprectiate you input and cander
have a nice day
nick
But trust is earned not given and a lot of misinformation gets posted on these boards in efforts to sell products people may not need.
Especially these days this site has changed a LOT since the previous set up. Its all about the $$$$ here now which probably makes me unpopular as its my goals to go as fast as possible for as low $$$ as possible. Thats what got all these types of forums going in the first place. Long before there even were sponsors.
Rant over /QUOTE]
i have been a member for some time now,i just never had an inkling to post much
i figure you learn more by looking and watching ,not talking lol
i completly agree with you on some points ,regarding angles and false info
i have no hidden agendas of any kind
i just dont see how post counts equal iq count,but i also understand how false info leads others down the wrong path causing loses of both time and money
as for info i offered none ,just pointed out my opinon that on the net ,everyone seems to make big hp numbers, yet many times there is no evidence/on track performance to back it up is all
but hey its all cool
im just here to pick up ideas along the way
you never quit learning no matter who you may be
i apprectiate you input and cander
have a nice day
nick
10-19-2010, 03:12 PM
#38
TECH Regular
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Keller, Tx
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You had a hand ported Fast 102 intake and I had a crappy Weiand aluminum intake, so those results are like comparing apples to oranges.
You had good results with ported L92 heads on a 427 cu in engine. This is the cubic inch range where these heads really start to shine. But when it comes to a 6.2 liter engine, a head that is smaller than stock LS3/L92, yet flows more air than a ported LS3/L92 head, will make more power everywhere and be easier to cam all at the same time.
You are right that they are a very good alternative to an aftermarket head, provided you're not going to spend a ton of money on them. If you send them to a professional porting shop, buy a spring kit, and maybe upgrade to hollow stem LS3 intake valves then you have as much in them as an aftermarket head.
I've had many conversations about port sizing. I was once in the "over head it and under cam it" crowd. It works, there are many ways to "skin a cat". I'm currently of the opinion that you want to "put the correct size head on it and the correct size cam".
What we want a head to do is respond like it's supposed to, meaning as we increase cam duration it makes more power and runs faster. The problem with heads that are overly large is that as you increase duration they go the other direction.
The proof is in the pudding, the fastest N/A hyd roller cammed engines with Fast intakes in the country have TFS heads (Coleman Roddy 9.20's and James Day 9.30's). This is because as cam duration is increased the heads respond and the engine accelerates faster. Greg Good and I had this same argument several years ago. By this year he agreed with what I was saying. The reason he agreed is because he has personally seen the larger heads not accelerate as well as the smaller heads.
You had me laughing here, you're a gentleman and I will never make that mistake again.
You had good results with ported L92 heads on a 427 cu in engine. This is the cubic inch range where these heads really start to shine. But when it comes to a 6.2 liter engine, a head that is smaller than stock LS3/L92, yet flows more air than a ported LS3/L92 head, will make more power everywhere and be easier to cam all at the same time.
You are right that they are a very good alternative to an aftermarket head, provided you're not going to spend a ton of money on them. If you send them to a professional porting shop, buy a spring kit, and maybe upgrade to hollow stem LS3 intake valves then you have as much in them as an aftermarket head.
I've had many conversations about port sizing. I was once in the "over head it and under cam it" crowd. It works, there are many ways to "skin a cat". I'm currently of the opinion that you want to "put the correct size head on it and the correct size cam".
What we want a head to do is respond like it's supposed to, meaning as we increase cam duration it makes more power and runs faster. The problem with heads that are overly large is that as you increase duration they go the other direction.
The proof is in the pudding, the fastest N/A hyd roller cammed engines with Fast intakes in the country have TFS heads (Coleman Roddy 9.20's and James Day 9.30's). This is because as cam duration is increased the heads respond and the engine accelerates faster. Greg Good and I had this same argument several years ago. By this year he agreed with what I was saying. The reason he agreed is because he has personally seen the larger heads not accelerate as well as the smaller heads.
You had me laughing here, you're a gentleman and I will never make that mistake again.
235s on a 427.
10-19-2010, 03:21 PM
#39
This thread has turned way off path. The intention of the thread was to inform you that we have new product coming available for the LS engines and we will be introducing them at SEMA. At that time I will be on this tread releasing them and the information on the products.
__________________
http://www.trickflow.com/emain.asp
Click Above for Product Information
Click Above for Product Information
...