ETP 4" Bore LS7 results and more testing at LGM
11-30-2006, 12:42 PM
#22
David and Goliath....LOL Louis...
Kudos to you guys for doing all the testing.....I know how much work (and time) is involved to accomplish all that parts swapping on an engine dyno and its that much more difficult working over the front fenders.
This test shows clearly shows the reasoning behind our design parameters of the AFR 205 which was more a focus in efficiency than anything else....and proves once again that flow numbers dont always tell the whole story. I'm quite sure the LS7 heads cross section and layout will show more of its stuff on a larger displacement more aggressive application, but obviously that wasn't the market we were aiming for in the design of the 205 (would be interesting to see how our 225 faired in that comparison). This test, however, is certainly alot closer to the target audience we were aiming for and not hitting the "bulls eye" as close for the much larger, deeper breathing LS7 piece.
Also, while everyone has been clamoring over the L92 stuff, I have had my reservations about them in leui of the big flow numbers attached to a few independent results we have seen. I was concerned that they are too big for anything under 400 CID, and potentially may not be the hot ticket even for that displacement. It should be interesting to see some independent results of those heads over the following few months, but Im not expecting record setting numbers on anything 402 CID and smaller....IMO they will be in the ball park of the better cathedral headed results with a softer TQ curve down low and much less part throttle snap as well.
Why GM decided to put that head on a truck is beyond me....but my guess is so they didnt waste millions of dollars in the development of what was probably destined for the 427 Z06 engine. Take that same rasied runner architecture and shrink it 30+ cc's and now were talking....
Properly matched component selection, cross section, and subsequently the effectiveness of the resulting airspeed and inertia (momentum) of the intake and exhaust charge ultimately determines an engines ability to "pack" the cylinder and is much more important than alot of people give credit for.
This test, IMO, is a glaring testimonial to the above statement...
And btw, while I agree a longer duration exhaust lobe might help the LS7 headed engine to perform a bit better upstairs, both combo's in question would probably lose a little low end TQ (from the additional overlap) and both combo's would probably see a gain in high RPM power, with the LS7 headed engine probably responding a little stronger, but I dont think any camswap would even the score in the above test if you were focusing on average power and torque production....not just the peak numbers. And its the higher average power that will propel your car faster at the dragstrip or road race course especially.
BTW....no disrespect here to the ETP LS7 heads....they are awesome....very well executed with an impressive CNC finish (they look like a million bucks)...this just wasn't the proper "venue" for them to shine. A large displacment stroker with a solid roller would be a completely different story
Still looking foward to the L92 results....should be interesting to say the least.
Louis....good job once again.
Regards,
Tony
Kudos to you guys for doing all the testing.....I know how much work (and time) is involved to accomplish all that parts swapping on an engine dyno and its that much more difficult working over the front fenders.
This test shows clearly shows the reasoning behind our design parameters of the AFR 205 which was more a focus in efficiency than anything else....and proves once again that flow numbers dont always tell the whole story. I'm quite sure the LS7 heads cross section and layout will show more of its stuff on a larger displacement more aggressive application, but obviously that wasn't the market we were aiming for in the design of the 205 (would be interesting to see how our 225 faired in that comparison). This test, however, is certainly alot closer to the target audience we were aiming for and not hitting the "bulls eye" as close for the much larger, deeper breathing LS7 piece.
Also, while everyone has been clamoring over the L92 stuff, I have had my reservations about them in leui of the big flow numbers attached to a few independent results we have seen. I was concerned that they are too big for anything under 400 CID, and potentially may not be the hot ticket even for that displacement. It should be interesting to see some independent results of those heads over the following few months, but Im not expecting record setting numbers on anything 402 CID and smaller....IMO they will be in the ball park of the better cathedral headed results with a softer TQ curve down low and much less part throttle snap as well.
Why GM decided to put that head on a truck is beyond me....but my guess is so they didnt waste millions of dollars in the development of what was probably destined for the 427 Z06 engine. Take that same rasied runner architecture and shrink it 30+ cc's and now were talking....
Properly matched component selection, cross section, and subsequently the effectiveness of the resulting airspeed and inertia (momentum) of the intake and exhaust charge ultimately determines an engines ability to "pack" the cylinder and is much more important than alot of people give credit for.
This test, IMO, is a glaring testimonial to the above statement...
And btw, while I agree a longer duration exhaust lobe might help the LS7 headed engine to perform a bit better upstairs, both combo's in question would probably lose a little low end TQ (from the additional overlap) and both combo's would probably see a gain in high RPM power, with the LS7 headed engine probably responding a little stronger, but I dont think any camswap would even the score in the above test if you were focusing on average power and torque production....not just the peak numbers. And its the higher average power that will propel your car faster at the dragstrip or road race course especially.
BTW....no disrespect here to the ETP LS7 heads....they are awesome....very well executed with an impressive CNC finish (they look like a million bucks)...this just wasn't the proper "venue" for them to shine. A large displacment stroker with a solid roller would be a completely different story
Still looking foward to the L92 results....should be interesting to say the least.
Louis....good job once again.
Regards,
Tony
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 11-30-2006 at 01:48 PM.
11-30-2006, 12:54 PM
#23
12 Second Club
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belleville, MI
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Inspector12
On another note how does the car look currently? Still in the race suit?
Jeff
Jeff
11-30-2006, 01:42 PM
#24
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well Louis, I must say that I am impressed. The industry keeps evolving and you are keeping up very well. Thanks for the $$$$ investment to bring the forum these results. I love how in the etp vs afr scenarios that you lost 6 or less hp but gained 26-33 tq at the wheels. I'll take 26-33 tq all day long for giving up 6 or less hp. Thanks again for shining the spotlight of success on the AFR 205 heads.
BTW love the slogan and new shirt. "We race, you win"
Everyone asks where can they get one when I wear it. Thanks Bobby
BTW love the slogan and new shirt. "We race, you win"
Everyone asks where can they get one when I wear it. Thanks Bobby
11-30-2006, 02:52 PM
#25
It is refreshing to see the scientific method practiced in the automotive aftermarket.
There would be much easier, cheaper, and quicker ways to test these products, but it’s obvious that you want the best data to yield the greatest information for your customers to make the best purchase.
Thanks again, and keep us posted.
There would be much easier, cheaper, and quicker ways to test these products, but it’s obvious that you want the best data to yield the greatest information for your customers to make the best purchase.
Thanks again, and keep us posted.
11-30-2006, 03:48 PM
#26
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
Louis...
Kudos to you guys for doing all the testing.....I know how much work (and time) is involved to accomplish all that parts swapping on an engine dyno and its that much more difficult working over the front fenders.
This test shows clearly shows the reasoning behind our design parameters of the AFR 205 which was more a focus in efficiency than anything else....and proves once again that flow numbers dont always tell the whole story. I'm quite sure the LS7 heads cross section and layout will show more of its stuff on a larger displacement more aggressive application, but obviously that wasn't the market we were aiming for in the design of the 205 (would be interesting to see how our 225 faired in that comparison). This test, however, is certainly alot closer to the target audience we were aiming for and not hitting the "bulls eye" as close for the much larger, deeper breathing LS7 piece.
Also, while everyone has been clamoring over the L92 stuff, I have had my reservations about them in leui of the big flow numbers attached to a few independent results we have seen. I was concerned that they are too big for anything under 400 CID, and potentially may not be the hot ticket even for that displacement. It should be interesting to see some independent results of those heads over the following few months, but Im not expecting record setting numbers on anything 402 CID and smaller....IMO they will be in the ball park of the better cathedral headed results with a softer TQ curve down low and much less part throttle snap as well.
Why GM decided to put that head on a truck is beyond me....but my guess is so they didnt waste millions of dollars in the development of what was probably destined for the 427 Z06 engine. Take that same rasied runner architecture and shrink it 30+ cc's and now were talking....
Properly matched component selection, cross section, and subsequently the effectiveness of the resulting airspeed and inertia (momentum) of the intake and exhaust charge ultimately determines an engines ability to "pack" the cylinder and is much more important than alot of people give credit for.
This test, IMO, is a glaring testimonial to the above statement...
And btw, while I agree a longer duration exhaust lobe might help the LS7 headed engine to perform a bit better upstairs, both combo's in question would probably lose a little low end TQ (from the additional overlap) and both combo's would probably see a gain in high RPM power, with the LS7 headed engine probably responding a little stronger, but I dont think any camswap would even the score in the above test if you were focusing on average power and torque production....not just the peak numbers. And its the higher average power that will propel your car faster at the dragstrip or road race course especially.
BTW....no disrespect here to the ETP LS7 heads....they are awesome....very well executed with an impressive CNC finish (they look like a million bucks)...this just wasn't the proper "venue" for them to shine. A large displacment stroker with a solid roller would be a completely different story
Still looking foward to the L92 results....should be interesting to say the least.
Louis....good job once again.
Regards,
Tony
Kudos to you guys for doing all the testing.....I know how much work (and time) is involved to accomplish all that parts swapping on an engine dyno and its that much more difficult working over the front fenders.
This test shows clearly shows the reasoning behind our design parameters of the AFR 205 which was more a focus in efficiency than anything else....and proves once again that flow numbers dont always tell the whole story. I'm quite sure the LS7 heads cross section and layout will show more of its stuff on a larger displacement more aggressive application, but obviously that wasn't the market we were aiming for in the design of the 205 (would be interesting to see how our 225 faired in that comparison). This test, however, is certainly alot closer to the target audience we were aiming for and not hitting the "bulls eye" as close for the much larger, deeper breathing LS7 piece.
Also, while everyone has been clamoring over the L92 stuff, I have had my reservations about them in leui of the big flow numbers attached to a few independent results we have seen. I was concerned that they are too big for anything under 400 CID, and potentially may not be the hot ticket even for that displacement. It should be interesting to see some independent results of those heads over the following few months, but Im not expecting record setting numbers on anything 402 CID and smaller....IMO they will be in the ball park of the better cathedral headed results with a softer TQ curve down low and much less part throttle snap as well.
Why GM decided to put that head on a truck is beyond me....but my guess is so they didnt waste millions of dollars in the development of what was probably destined for the 427 Z06 engine. Take that same rasied runner architecture and shrink it 30+ cc's and now were talking....
Properly matched component selection, cross section, and subsequently the effectiveness of the resulting airspeed and inertia (momentum) of the intake and exhaust charge ultimately determines an engines ability to "pack" the cylinder and is much more important than alot of people give credit for.
This test, IMO, is a glaring testimonial to the above statement...
And btw, while I agree a longer duration exhaust lobe might help the LS7 headed engine to perform a bit better upstairs, both combo's in question would probably lose a little low end TQ (from the additional overlap) and both combo's would probably see a gain in high RPM power, with the LS7 headed engine probably responding a little stronger, but I dont think any camswap would even the score in the above test if you were focusing on average power and torque production....not just the peak numbers. And its the higher average power that will propel your car faster at the dragstrip or road race course especially.
BTW....no disrespect here to the ETP LS7 heads....they are awesome....very well executed with an impressive CNC finish (they look like a million bucks)...this just wasn't the proper "venue" for them to shine. A large displacment stroker with a solid roller would be a completely different story
Still looking foward to the L92 results....should be interesting to say the least.
Louis....good job once again.
Regards,
Tony
Tony, at what point do you feel the ls7 heads, or even the larger heads out there, et 240s, your 225's, etc. etc. are beneficial? Is there a certain CI that you feel that they become an advantage, certain compression level, etc.etc? I'm seen alot of people doign the small route and having good luck at the track and on the street.. and then tehre's the guys runnign really big runner stuff on under 400 ci setups that are also running very well....
It's all too late for me at this point, I have what I have, just curious as to where/when are the larger runners a good idea? Would a 402 with 12.8 to 1 compression be enough motor to use the larger heads... what about when a 150 to 250 hit of nitrous is added?
11-30-2006, 04:50 PM
#27
Originally Posted by Patrick G
Very interesting results. The ETP LS7 heads have been on my radar for use on a future large CID build. I'm shocked that they did not perform well with the 6.0L. I don't agree about the cam not being optimized skewing the results this much...a more optimized cam for the ET heads would have shown more gains above 6000. The torque losses in the mid-range are shocking. I guess the AFR 205s are sized right for the smaller 5.7-6.0L motors, whereas the LS7 heads will not excel until displacement exceeds 400 cubic inches.
Thanks for the back to back testing Louis!
Thanks for the back to back testing Louis!
Wrong Pat.... there is too much cam in there and those heads will most likely make that HP with much less duration. Too much cam and too much port will do this. You either A) reduce port size as seen with the AFR 205's or b) reduce the cam duration.
Bret
11-30-2006, 04:54 PM
#28
These results don't surprise me at all. The small bore 4" LS7's were designed for 400+ cubes and the AFR 205's were designed for stock cubes. This just shows that a big head isn't always needed, and now there is substantial proof. Thanks for the testing. Next test, put in a solid roller and spin the LS7's to 8k. I'm shure the numbers will come up then.
11-30-2006, 04:58 PM
#30
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
Wrong Pat.... there is too much cam in there and those heads will most likely make that HP with much less duration. Too much cam and too much port will do this. You either A) reduce port size as seen with the AFR 205's or b) reduce the cam duration.
Bret
Bret
AFR 205 with 234/242 cam
ET LS7 with 224/244 cam
or would you tighten up the LS7 exhaust as well?
Something like 224/238? Just curious.
__________________
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
11-30-2006, 05:08 PM
#32
Originally Posted by Patrick G
Just so I'm clear as to what you're saying Bret, is this more like what you feel would make better average power for the LS7 heads?
11-30-2006, 07:23 PM
#36
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
Louis...
Kudos to you guys for doing all the testing.....I know how much work (and time) is involved to accomplish all that parts swapping on an engine dyno and its that much more difficult working over the front fenders.
This test shows clearly shows the reasoning behind our design parameters of the AFR 205 which was more a focus in efficiency than anything else....and proves once again that flow numbers dont always tell the whole story. I'm quite sure the LS7 heads cross section and layout will show more of its stuff on a larger displacement more aggressive application, but obviously that wasn't the market we were aiming for in the design of the 205 (would be interesting to see how our 225 faired in that comparison). This test, however, is certainly alot closer to the target audience we were aiming for and not hitting the "bulls eye" as close for the much larger, deeper breathing LS7 piece.
Also, while everyone has been clamoring over the L92 stuff, I have had my reservations about them in leui of the big flow numbers attached to a few independent results we have seen. I was concerned that they are too big for anything under 400 CID, and potentially may not be the hot ticket even for that displacement. It should be interesting to see some independent results of those heads over the following few months, but Im not expecting record setting numbers on anything 402 CID and smaller....IMO they will be in the ball park of the better cathedral headed results with a softer TQ curve down low and much less part throttle snap as well.
Why GM decided to put that head on a truck is beyond me....but my guess is so they didnt waste millions of dollars in the development of what was probably destined for the 427 Z06 engine. Take that same rasied runner architecture and shrink it 30+ cc's and now were talking....
Properly matched component selection, cross section, and subsequently the effectiveness of the resulting airspeed and inertia (momentum) of the intake and exhaust charge ultimately determines an engines ability to "pack" the cylinder and is much more important than alot of people give credit for.
This test, IMO, is a glaring testimonial to the above statement...
And btw, while I agree a longer duration exhaust lobe might help the LS7 headed engine to perform a bit better upstairs, both combo's in question would probably lose a little low end TQ (from the additional overlap) and both combo's would probably see a gain in high RPM power, with the LS7 headed engine probably responding a little stronger, but I dont think any camswap would even the score in the above test if you were focusing on average power and torque production....not just the peak numbers. And its the higher average power that will propel your car faster at the dragstrip or road race course especially.
BTW....no disrespect here to the ETP LS7 heads....they are awesome....very well executed with an impressive CNC finish (they look like a million bucks)...this just wasn't the proper "venue" for them to shine. A large displacment stroker with a solid roller would be a completely different story
Still looking foward to the L92 results....should be interesting to say the least.
Louis....good job once again.
Regards,
Tony
Kudos to you guys for doing all the testing.....I know how much work (and time) is involved to accomplish all that parts swapping on an engine dyno and its that much more difficult working over the front fenders.
This test shows clearly shows the reasoning behind our design parameters of the AFR 205 which was more a focus in efficiency than anything else....and proves once again that flow numbers dont always tell the whole story. I'm quite sure the LS7 heads cross section and layout will show more of its stuff on a larger displacement more aggressive application, but obviously that wasn't the market we were aiming for in the design of the 205 (would be interesting to see how our 225 faired in that comparison). This test, however, is certainly alot closer to the target audience we were aiming for and not hitting the "bulls eye" as close for the much larger, deeper breathing LS7 piece.
Also, while everyone has been clamoring over the L92 stuff, I have had my reservations about them in leui of the big flow numbers attached to a few independent results we have seen. I was concerned that they are too big for anything under 400 CID, and potentially may not be the hot ticket even for that displacement. It should be interesting to see some independent results of those heads over the following few months, but Im not expecting record setting numbers on anything 402 CID and smaller....IMO they will be in the ball park of the better cathedral headed results with a softer TQ curve down low and much less part throttle snap as well.
Why GM decided to put that head on a truck is beyond me....but my guess is so they didnt waste millions of dollars in the development of what was probably destined for the 427 Z06 engine. Take that same rasied runner architecture and shrink it 30+ cc's and now were talking....
Properly matched component selection, cross section, and subsequently the effectiveness of the resulting airspeed and inertia (momentum) of the intake and exhaust charge ultimately determines an engines ability to "pack" the cylinder and is much more important than alot of people give credit for.
This test, IMO, is a glaring testimonial to the above statement...
And btw, while I agree a longer duration exhaust lobe might help the LS7 headed engine to perform a bit better upstairs, both combo's in question would probably lose a little low end TQ (from the additional overlap) and both combo's would probably see a gain in high RPM power, with the LS7 headed engine probably responding a little stronger, but I dont think any camswap would even the score in the above test if you were focusing on average power and torque production....not just the peak numbers. And its the higher average power that will propel your car faster at the dragstrip or road race course especially.
BTW....no disrespect here to the ETP LS7 heads....they are awesome....very well executed with an impressive CNC finish (they look like a million bucks)...this just wasn't the proper "venue" for them to shine. A large displacment stroker with a solid roller would be a completely different story
Still looking foward to the L92 results....should be interesting to say the least.
Louis....good job once again.
Regards,
Tony
11-30-2006, 07:30 PM
#37
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by ChucksZ06
Hey Tony, check out the L92 dyno at Livernoise. In their dyno the L92s with their "low velocity" ports passed the cnc'd ls2 heads at 2900 rpms in both hp and torque. They also gained 45 hp at peak. Low end torque and high end hp.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..................
