Stock L92 Head Flow Data
04-12-2006, 03:00 PM
#41
i was under the impression that everybody that was interested in thes heads is becuz they looking for big power on bigger cube engines
i would think that these heads were gonna be used on the lowest cube
as 364 ci
i dont think i would even use these heads on 4 in bore
i am going to a 4.06 bore just for peace of mind
or a 375 ci
or use the 4.06 bore with a 4 in stroke to build 414 ci
streetnstrip:
plz pst p/n for valves and related valvetrain parts
like rocker stands,spring seats,valve seals
for these heads
thanx
i would think that these heads were gonna be used on the lowest cube
as 364 ci
i dont think i would even use these heads on 4 in bore
i am going to a 4.06 bore just for peace of mind
or a 375 ci
or use the 4.06 bore with a 4 in stroke to build 414 ci
streetnstrip:
plz pst p/n for valves and related valvetrain parts
like rocker stands,spring seats,valve seals
for these heads
thanx
04-12-2006, 04:01 PM
#42
10 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrDude_1
like alot of things the answer is some marketing, some truth..
think about this:
for decades guys have been hogging out intake runners... with a large cam, large displacement, you make large peak numbers.. great for racing.
but on the street, you end up with the usual drives shitty drag car. the "area under the curve" drops waaay down when you're not using that big port.
so AFR and other cyl head guys work their best to make a large flowing head, that also has enough velocity to work on lesser flowing motors... like everything, its a compromise.. and for 90% of the market, it works better..
CC is a ok way to compare ports in the same way that PSI is a OK way to compare boost.... in other words, its somewhat related, but really doesnt mean squat. lol.
think about the millions in R&D work GM put into the LS7 head program.. they're using what they learned there on their massed produced cars.. the less intake restriction, the better. and with this new cyl deactivation routine, these engines will be seeing double the airflow in each cyl. GM figured out a way to make these heads flow alot and work well thru alot of R&D.
companies like ETP and AFR are somewhat limited in that they have to remain close to "stock ports".. otherwise, headers, intakes, ect would come into play, and you'd end up spending waaay too much for those heads to work for you. so even if they know widening the port, doing xyz makes the head flow better, they cant do it. GM did not have this limitation.
really, these heads probably arnt going to be best for everyone.. but for the engine im trying to build, i believe it will work great. im also not expecting an ideal street car. lol.
think about this:
for decades guys have been hogging out intake runners... with a large cam, large displacement, you make large peak numbers.. great for racing.
but on the street, you end up with the usual drives shitty drag car. the "area under the curve" drops waaay down when you're not using that big port.
so AFR and other cyl head guys work their best to make a large flowing head, that also has enough velocity to work on lesser flowing motors... like everything, its a compromise.. and for 90% of the market, it works better..
CC is a ok way to compare ports in the same way that PSI is a OK way to compare boost.... in other words, its somewhat related, but really doesnt mean squat. lol.
think about the millions in R&D work GM put into the LS7 head program.. they're using what they learned there on their massed produced cars.. the less intake restriction, the better. and with this new cyl deactivation routine, these engines will be seeing double the airflow in each cyl. GM figured out a way to make these heads flow alot and work well thru alot of R&D.
companies like ETP and AFR are somewhat limited in that they have to remain close to "stock ports".. otherwise, headers, intakes, ect would come into play, and you'd end up spending waaay too much for those heads to work for you. so even if they know widening the port, doing xyz makes the head flow better, they cant do it. GM did not have this limitation.
really, these heads probably arnt going to be best for everyone.. but for the engine im trying to build, i believe it will work great. im also not expecting an ideal street car. lol.
these new heads are just confusing the hell out of me. 
05-05-2006, 07:49 PM
#45
Can somebody tell me if the new L-92 block is going to be aluminum or cast iron? And this is the new 6.2 liter engine correct that is going in the 07 escalade?
Also i seen ome of these heads on ebay, and wanted to find out if you can run regular LS1 type headers on them, or do you have to have L92/LS7 specific manifolds/headers.
These really do seem to good to be true.
Also, does anybody have the part number for the holden intake manifold, i think the truck one will be way to tall to fit in am f-body or corvette or the GTO. Thanks
Also i seen ome of these heads on ebay, and wanted to find out if you can run regular LS1 type headers on them, or do you have to have L92/LS7 specific manifolds/headers.
These really do seem to good to be true.
Also, does anybody have the part number for the holden intake manifold, i think the truck one will be way to tall to fit in am f-body or corvette or the GTO. Thanks
05-10-2006, 07:11 AM
#49
TECH Addict
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: hurst tx
Posts: 2,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mildly ported heads can flow 340, and someone that knows what they are doing will get 350+ out of them I bet
cant wait to get mine, thanks again street n strip for all the info
ed
cant wait to get mine, thanks again street n strip for all the info
ed
05-28-2006, 01:06 AM
#54
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of Seattle
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
Why would you use these heads instead of LS7 heads on a street/strip or hot rod motor?
P.S.
Are these 12° heads like the LS7?
P.S.
Are these 12° heads like the LS7?
These are essentially a unported LS7 head on a 15 degree valve angle.
Nate
05-28-2006, 10:13 AM
#55
Teching In
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys a caution on the exhaust. Dont be to fast to modify. Remember modern Pro Stock Engines loose performance anytime they go over 60%. I suspect the design of the exhaust port is part of the secret to how GM gets those big intake ports to work in a 6000 lb vehicle. Dont be suprised if less than well thought out mods to this exhaust kill mid-range torque.
Not trying to discourage experimentation. Just a little caution for us amateurs.
I remember when we thought 200cc Intake Ports were to much for a street small block.
PS A little Birdy told me that a better high rpm intake for the L92 heads will appear on the 2008 Vette (425 bhp 6.2L).
Gene
Not trying to discourage experimentation. Just a little caution for us amateurs.
I remember when we thought 200cc Intake Ports were to much for a street small block.
PS A little Birdy told me that a better high rpm intake for the L92 heads will appear on the 2008 Vette (425 bhp 6.2L).
Gene
06-11-2006, 04:53 PM
#56
12 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville FL.
Posts: 6,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think everyone is forgetting that the l92 has the vvt so they can change cam timming for diffrent rpms so this may be another reason the heads are made the way they are. just a thought.
06-11-2006, 10:17 PM
#57
TECH Addict
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nevada, TX
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 4.8T
i think everyone is forgetting that the l92 has the vvt so they can change cam timming for diffrent rpms so this may be another reason the heads are made the way they are. just a thought.
Brandon
06-11-2006, 11:46 PM
#58
I thought these engines were designed for VVT as well?
The LS1 and LS6 heads had pretty large volume intake runners. GM seems to be keeping with tradition on making large volume intake runners for the Gen 3 and Gen 4 engines. Looks like the intake ports will develop nice airflow gains with minimal port work. This head will be a very impressive street car head.
Richard
The LS1 and LS6 heads had pretty large volume intake runners. GM seems to be keeping with tradition on making large volume intake runners for the Gen 3 and Gen 4 engines. Looks like the intake ports will develop nice airflow gains with minimal port work. This head will be a very impressive street car head.
Richard
06-12-2006, 12:44 PM
#59
Originally Posted by xfactor_pitbulls
Nope, the head profile is tradional gm style. Nothing that directly caters to a VVT setup. Just a nicer casting and better machine work.
Brandon
Brandon
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...t=l92+variable
It uses a variable cam sprocket of some sort (Advance/ retard cam timing).
06-13-2006, 04:46 AM
#60
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of Seattle
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bettonracing
Miscommunication/ misinformation....
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...t=l92+variable
It uses a variable cam sprocket of some sort (Advance/ retard cam timing).
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...t=l92+variable
It uses a variable cam sprocket of some sort (Advance/ retard cam timing).
Nate