There is. This indoctrination of society is disgusting.
Let's get back on track:
Get me a 245cc trickflow head.
I want to pull 9's

I wonder what is the highest rpm you can rev an LS3 head to

 

That shrouded valve made it go slow.

 

Spanks I just read what was said. And know hp to et ratio. That's all.

 

No bitch in me so lets set that straight. Those that have met me in person will tell you first hand.

And yes 640 hp at the crank.

 

Spanks, thats a impressive build but then again weight does matter. Hell, Im sure my 79 LUV truck was less than 2700lbs. I hurted alot of feelings with a 355ci motor. Most of the cars had more power hut my weight was so light that the 355ci was scary.

 

Haha.

I was only playing.

I'm sure you are a great person.

my engine already has close to 640 HP now.
you need to account for the 30% driveline loss.

 

As said... Shrouded valves and internet BS is a no go for me .. I use the who's the fastest method with results. And what was said is get a big one for the incoming and we can figure out the exit.

 

You're revving an LS3 head to 8500. Didn't I say you need RPM for those heads? And they would do wonders?

Also, the standard FAST 102 for the LS3 is garbage. Get the short or medium runner and extend the RPM range a good 800-1200RPM. Then talk to me about how good the LS3 intake is.

The medium runner is good for about 15HP over the stock FAST... and the short runner is about 25HP better. But that's at the same peak point. When you can extend the RPM range another 800-1200 RPM without falling off, you are faster.

For example, let's assume you run the FAST Long vs Med runner. First car makes a peak of 630HP @ 6400 and shifts at 6800 where it is making 610HP. On the shift, it falls back to say 5600. Where it is making 550HP.

The other car peaks at 6900 @ 650HP and shifts at 7500 where it is still making 640HP. It falls back to 6200 where it is making 610HP.

They have the same cam/heads and gearing. If anything, you can run more aggressive gearing on the higher revving car to help more.

You tell me what car is going to run harder.

 

Well I Had to do a ground up because of rust. But anything and everything not needed was removed... Dash(fiberglass replacement) gas tank, entire ac system, power steering, etc. Weight loss. Plan is to get a et and get banned and enjoy the motor. Anything over a 6.0 ET 8th mile is unacceptable.

 

Jake the long runner fast is not garbage.
Even though It's not much better than a stock LS3 intake.
Depends on goals.
If you are revving to 7000rpm it's perfect for the street.
You will make more torque everywhere.
The mid runner fast loses a lot of torque off idle to 5500rpm and evens out at 6000rpm and then it takes over.
I had private conversation with another member on here about this and he ended up going back to the long runners due to the loss of torque. And this was on a 427 with a solid roller.
If it's a track car the mid length is a no brainer.
Of course the mid length runners would be faster at wot especially at the track.
But if loses out on average power big time.
As I have stated previously I would like to see how that new fast intake does.

 

It is garbage. Why would you spend $900 to get nothing?

And I think the loss of torque is overplayed. Of course you will lose torque. But does a 427 need 600ft-lbs of torque at 4000 RPM? Because, that's a street RPM. And my 315 drag radials will just blow off the car with that kind of torque.

Racing... it's different. Different tires. Different track prep. But you're at 4000 RPM when exactly at the track?

Even with a road racer... you're not really below 4500 RPM except in really tight hairpins. But you make it up by being over 5500 usually more.

 

It does make a little more power than the ls3 intake but not enough for it to be worth the cost.
The main reason I got is is because it looks a hell of a lot better than the stock LS3 intake.

 

My preferred rev range is from 2000rpm+
I don't like revving it high during normal driving.
I like the feel of an effortless drive.
With a mid length runners it will be a turd off the line and I would need a higher stall converter

 

This is why intended purpose is what matters most when selecting heads.

I prefer the smallest possible heads/cam to get the job done. Enough bore to unshroud the valves, and enough stroke to put some pull on the heads.

Smaller heads usually stall at more reasonable lifts, and make for more reasonable cams. Obviously the intake has to flow everything the heads will flow, but this is still much more easily accomplished with the smaller heads.

Efficient and ease to tune/drive. If you desire more later on (as people always do), add a turbo... the small heads and cam will love it.

 

You don't want heads that keep gaining flow up to .900" lift if you're only going to run .650" lift.

I also don't like seeing when heads have a sharp falloff at the last flow number. I would rather see them taper off.

When something has a sharp drop I worry about what's going to happen on an actual engine with much higher velocity and pressures.

 

Damn that math it works every time you use it.

 

Lot of talk on here about small bores with LS3 heads and while a small bore stroker isn't an ideal situation for LS3 heads, they are still a good option for someone on a budget and make good power. I think I did pretty good with my S10 last year: LQ4 iron block, 4.030 x 4.125 stroke (421), Cnc 821 heads, 11 to 1 compression,Cam Motion Hydraulic roller, Fast mid-runner intake, turbo 350, 4500 stall, 4.30 gears. Truck ran 10.50's in the heat and a best of 10.33 in November air. Full weight with wipers,heater,stereo,carpet still intact, and on Walmart pump gas.

 

That's another good way of building but when it comes to forced induction, larger ports make more power.

 

That's a good time.
Depends how it's all set up.

 

What kind of car you building?