Hope fully the actually start making these things. And like I've said before, I can't believe no one has 3d printed runners for the FAST uet.

I'd be interested in trying a set

 

I would like to see a set tested myself. Friend of mine cut his runners shorter and lost 10 hp. Obviously not the nice rounded mouth the stock runners would have when cutting them off. He usually runs around 600 to the wheel w/a 427. I'm starting to think that maybe they can't design the intake any better than it is or can they...

 

Won't know until we can get a good before/after test result.

The shorter runners are supposed to build additional HP while moving power curve to the right. I wonder if the power moves right (peaks or hold power closer to 7K RPMS) or if the power still peaks right around 6500 RPMs....talking about natural aspirated setups, here......

KW

 

When he cut the runner shorter, he changed the taper angle of the intake manifold runner. The plenum opening of the runner now has less effective cross sectional area by doing what he did. There should be a radius entry as well to help with airflow staying attached and not becoming turbulent as it enters the runner.

 

Any updates on getting this combo sorted out?

 

its being looked over right now...

 

I parked it for the winter and holidays. Now its time to get it ready for spring. '

Update: After much discussion and several shops looking at the car, no one could figure out the problem, so we are going to try the following:

1. replace the cam. primary reason is the cam lift is too close to coil bind and I don't know for sure if its a problem.

2. If test 1 fails, engine removal to inspect both the heads and reluctor wheel.

What a pain in the A.

 

.050-.060 from coil bind once the engine is warm and hot lash is attained is generally recognized by almost all engine builders as optimal, especially for higher lift higher RPM applications.

I have run them as close as .045" with no issues on some really high RPM high power engines.

IIRC your set-up is in the .050-.060 range which is perfectly fine and honestly is not going to cause the issues that you're having.

 

Iskendarian 9385 Spring.

According to their chart, and interesting is that they state no more than 0.720" lift and coil bind at 1.18". I'm installed at 2.0". Thats 0.820" to coil bind. At 0.045" clearance to coil bind, that allows a max lift of 0.775". In theory should be good since cam is 0.748", with a theoretical 0.070" from bind.

I wonder why they recommend these springs at a max lift of 0.720".

In any case, I can not pull the engine until I've tested the valvetrain components, ie cam timing chain position, pull the cam and inspect for damage, etc. Also, not sure about the fact that the PR are 0.001 to 0.002" from the back of the rocker at high lift and demons exist there while running.

I do appreciate your help over the duration dealing w/this and like I said, I thought the specs you chose were spot on.

 

I'd be more than happy to send you a new cam with less lift to test on my dime if you want to go that route, but I truly believe it's not the cause of the issue.

I have seen springs in the past that are rated at a lift that is much lower than what the actual coil bind height and installed height will allow. I don't know why they do that, but I've always felt comfortable in doing a little math to determine what can actually be utilized and not just go by the max lift rating.

That said, it's always a good idea to check the actual coil bind of your springs if possible, or having your engine builder check them himself.

I'll help you in any way that I possibly can Paul. I appreciate your kind words as always.

 

a little something we have on hand to be tested also... (and yes thats a turbo charged sand rail w/LS1 in background)

http://s410.photobucket.com/user/boo...pvqer.jpg.html

 

Is the turbo ran off the belt? I see no turbo attached to that header

 

Yeah, I see that. Next time I'm there I'll have to get some photos of the monster sand rails this guy builds.

 

Update: coolant in the oil

Reason: Unknown, but believed that engine builder reused head gasket during an on-and-off of the head after a few hours of running.

Engine to be disassembled, magnafluxed for cracks, cleaned, replace all bearings, hopefully the custom Wiseco pistons survived.

Before it goes back in the car, next few weeks hopefully, we have three cams that are going to get tested on the same day on the same engine dyno. This is not about Dyno Racing, just a relative comparison of cams.

We are going to compare and YOU will get to see dyno graphs of:

Comp Cams SR:
261/270-112+4, 0.734/0.737
268/280-114+0, 0.711, 0.711 *NEW CAM NOT TESTED*

Cam Motion LLSR:
259/270-114+4, 0.748, 0.748

Results should be interesting.

 

Damn.....sorry to hear this. Pistons should be OK. Keepin' fingers crossed!

Cool.....lookin' forward !

KW

 

...and now a moment of silence. My LS3 block is going to LS Heaven, crank and rods are ok as well as reluctor wheel. That was its last rebuild.

Expected/Current Diagnosis: Engine guy could not spot any specific problems. We are still going to magnaflux the engine block, but he suspected the head gaskets were used twice. He was suspect when he found head gasket glue on them. Rant: A guy builds an engine worth thousands of dollars and tells you to use the proper gasket. WTF would someone do this. F LS engine builders.

Camshaft: Cam Motions Cam is exactly what he said it was 259@0.050 and degreed in as 114 LSA at 110 LC.

TFS245 Heads: Interesting, the guy analyzing the engine did not think the heads were the right heads for an LS3 bore. So, expect these heads to be for sale along w/Crower Shaft mounts and 3/8" pushrods.

I have new engine plans underway to include 416 LS3 and looking at
MAST 265cc and LS9 LS3 GM 276cc CNC heads. The cam test is still happening.

 

Sorry to hear, was looking forward to seeing this performing as expected. Its hard to believe someone would try and reuse gaskets on a build like this knowing the comperssion and intended use.

 

Yeah, I spend thousands of dollars on an engine, with the best pistons and heads, and some cheap SOB decides to reuse gaskets.

My *new engine builder was the guy that was going to test the cams and we are still going to do that. He thinks something like the COPO cam would be a lot better. Unlike most know it alls, this guy is willing to put his money in place of mouth. He said if his cam does not beat all three of mine, I don't pay for his.

We are moving fast on this project!! No worries.

 

Finding a builder is tough. I just had my short block built and was going to call one of the trusted shops on here but decided against it in favor of a local shop well known for BBC/SBC. Going this route the answer to any problems I have are only 1 hour away. Hopefully your new guy gets it sorted out for you and down the track.

About the heads though ( same ones I spent my money on for this motor) not sure I'd get rid of them yet. Something wasnt right with this build from the start. I can see how you would want to start over with a fresh start but thats a lot of money to be out.

 

Those MAST 305s and a 427 sure do sound good together.