@Launch

Was not making fun of Bort for no traction. More of a warning. And a play on words. I like to say *made more power* and *made less traction* interchangeably.

I can attest to a few things F body related. In a 346, making 441 lbs of torque I could hook second on the street. When I first put the 428 in the car, untuned, third was a lost cause, much less when I dialed it in. It had more to do with the motor gaining 70+ lbs of torque, gear multiplied out to an additional 400+ lbs at the tires.

The points you made regarding weight are valid. Your example with a 550 fwhp made sense. But in this case, it is likely jumping to approx 700 fwhp. It is going to be very different. Even compared to what he is used to from the 408.

 

Agreed. Not ever comment is a shot at someone. I've been in cars that could haze the tires at triple digit speeds. It's more of a concern that such a small tire with such a large motor could be dangerous. Hate to see someone spend so time and money on a build just to wreck the car.

 

Guys Launch has got it wrong on this one.
I Know I'm not being made fun of.
I know what you were getting at with the tyre size and engine power.
All good.
If it doesn't spin something is wrong.

 

I know a guy through an anvil in the boot to get traction.

 

I wish my car had the rear end of the VF GTS.

 

I didn't get it wrong. They just took my "laughing at" comment the wrong way. I know they weren't mocking you. It was just my own way of saying it, that they thought a 245 street tire will be totally undriveable, and then I remembered my old heads/cam R8 on 235/40/18s. Thinking back I'm surprised now it was as good as it was. I had the battery in the trunk also.

Again, (because I haven't already said it enough times) there is no way in hell my Camaro if it had 235/40/18s and a 540hp heads/cam 5.7 that it could ever hook like my old HSV did. Not without adding at least 120lbs on the back bumper or getting the front end to lift more. Both things that I had never done on the HSV.

You will have an iron block up front so it could be much worse for traction, but I haven't done it so I don't know. I was comparing similar aluminum engines in the two different cars.

 

The iron block is 55kg heavier.
Not a huge deal.
Minus 22kg due to battery in boot and lighter engine mounts equals 33kg extra on front axle.

 

Im really digging that GTS-R W1. I dunno how many were made, or what they go for in US currency, but gdman that's a cool effn car!
https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...5n09iJUxOe89sg

 

It's definitely a cool car and you can still get them brand new from private sellers but they are way overpriced.
You are much better off getting the non w1 version for less than half the price.
Only difference is the engine and suspension and tyres.
Everything else is the same.

 

Not 3 or 4 years. Most here stay behind permanently on N/A engine builds. That you surprised the summernats dyno operator is enough said.

 

The USA is the home country of the LS.
I'm not surprised the best parts are from there.
But you are right, it would be good if the tuners experimented a little and tried different products.
You have got the internet with information all over the place.
I guess people are just creatures of habit.

 

 

What's so funny?

 

I think he must be laughing at the rev the hell out of it comment. 305cc are a huge port.

Have I ever seen a strong running car with mast heads? I can't think of one off hand. It seems they are good at marketing.

My nascar ls7 heads are only 235cc little baby runners. LOL. I think they should be perfect for a 6.0 litre. If i ever get it done, there's always some other distraction happening. I should give it all to an engine builder and get them to finish it but i don't know anyone i trust. I've always done my own. If you have good luck with your engine guy on this build i might think about giving my engine to him to finish it.

 

Big hammers 388 uses mast medium bore heads and performs quite well. Made well north of 600 rwhp and ran 10.0 at 136. Unsure exactly of trap. He outran my 428 I know that much.

But I do think many heads out there have way too large runners for what they flow. Airspeed > flow

 

Bigger runners is hot in the scene right now period. Promblem is guys THINK bigger the head the faster the car go be intake flow numbers is all thats looked at now.

They OVERLOOK the valve angle of the heads, the intake/exhaust ratio, valves shrouding, etc....

 

One of the most over looked is velocity differential between inner and outer radius

 

The time has come for me to post the final camshaft specifications.
After much consideration for my goals and RPM range this is it:

256/262 .707 .698 114LSA +4 custom solid roller from Comp cams.

We feel this is at or close to the limit of acceptable street manners with 24 degrees of overlap warm.
This will give us a strong powerband to 7000rpm or so with brutal mid range grunt.
The high lift will take full advantage of the head's peak flow and velocity also.
I asked a lot of questions about why this particular spec was chosen and as usual Tony broke every little detail down.
I think it's a great specification and it will really suit what this combination is all about.

We were going to go for a 256/264 114LSA +3 but after all the details were worked out this would want to rev outside our powerband which was not desired.
I found the details very interesting.

 

Tony is the best at explaining the whys. No details get left out. I know enough engine builders to fill a church service, and none of them, not one, will go into the details willingly like Dr. Mamo will.
I must say that the cam specs are much larger than I expected. Are you sure you stayed out of the discussion here Bortous?

 

Remember subtract 8* from each duration to account for MLSR to ~HR equivalent.