Ryne @ CMS

iTrader: (10)

**** you dude?, aww.... did hurt your feelings.. you can insult me all you want but you talk like you know all this crap, but in reality you are really limited on your know how.. well dude if you it takes you a year to build a motor,then you are in the wrong hobby my friend, at least dont post the motor in your sig , a motor is not a bunch of pieces laying around in the garage, a motor is a put together item. 2c5's dyno numbers are very impressive considering the car was hot, and the cam is very small for the combo. and these are out of the box bone stock castings as well as the intake.

superchargedbandit

Chad, Does Virgil Hicks Still Work There? I Had My Car Built There And Had A Question. I Had A Race Trim Blower Put On A 383 From You. Can You Put A Smaller Pulley To Get More Than 13lbs Of Boost? My Supercharger Is A Vortech.

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

Hurt my feelings? Nah. You came out of no were with the belittleing, not me. It's up to you if you want to try and make someone look stupid and end up looking like the dick. Limited on my know how? I guess that depends. I don't calim to be David Vizard, but I'm no DA when it comes to these motors. As far as my build goes, it can take as long as I want. If I want to drop $25k in my car, I can't do it overnight. Overall, it's hard to do in a year. As for posting it in my sig.? Whatever. It's here, it's mine, so it's in the sig. Countless people have PM'd looking for info on the stuff I have, and to my knowledge, all of them have been helped in a informative way. It'll take a day or 2 to put it together and a day or 2 to install it neatly, but all of these are time permitting. I don't have a 8 hour job like most people. My minimum is 10 a day and sometimes up to 16, then I have a family to provide for and a house to take care of. I'm not sure who you thought you were talking to, but rest assured, it's not some punk kid sitting behind his momma's computer. I've seen you be an *** in other peoples threads as well, so I don't really feel so singled out. If you wanted to get in on this thread, why didn't you start by arguing my thoughts in a technical manner? Belittleing someone for their opinion is mearly pointless, and holds absolutly no water. You've added nothing but BS to the thread, and my opinion still hasn't changed. I never once said anything bad about the heads in question, nor anyones dyno numbers. I just merley stated that I would choose X head over it. Hardly worth getting ruffled feathers over, but whatever.

cws T/A

iTrader: (3)

Any dyno numbers over the stock ones

Ryne @ CMS

iTrader: (10)

yes i am sitting behind my grandmas computer right now , yeah you are right i do pick on people sometimes, but you will notice its people that are know it all's, that cant back up there suggestions with anything concrete. are you scared that some $1800 dollar head/intake combo might make similar or more power then your $6000 combo? but sorry for hurting your feelings , hope your make believe motor, makes good internet horsepower

2c5s

iTrader: (11)

$1,100 head and intake combo.......... but hey, who cares about money.

Chad@LivernoisMotors

I PM'd you. Thanks.

superchargedbandit

THANKS, LET ME KNOW AS I AM ALWAYS TRYING FOR A LITTLE EXTRA.

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

I'm not sure what kind of concrete evidence your wanting. As far as I can see, your only speculating yourself. For the third or fourth time, I don't claim to be a know it all. I've been proven wrong before, and probablly will again, but in the process, I learned something new.
No were in this thread did I tell anyone not to buy one or the other. If I would rather have X head, what do you care? The only thing I said was that one head has still made more power than the other and that's fact. I could care less if you could get a $2 heads intake combo to out power mine. I'll give props to anyone, no matter the combo. And for the record, it was a $8500 head/intake combo. You buy 3 cars, I put top of the line components in my one. What's the diffrence? You can be run of the mill all your life, that's your buisness. I'm doing something no one else has. It's my peragotive. Seems that you just need to get used to opinions cause it's gunna take alot more than your slack jaw to make me change mine. If you can't handle it, maybe the message forums aren't for you. Just remember the next time you try to call someone else out, that actually breaking someone down with factual knowledge will look alot more respectable than just telling someone to STFU witout knowing anything yourself. For the time being, my "make believe" motor and I are gunna go watch some TV. Of course that'll be after I finish feeding my unicorn.

BTW: Don't think for a minute that your hurting my feelings. I actually look foward to coming home from work to see what kind of you've come up with. The only thing I regret was stooping to your level in my first reply back, and taking away from Livernois' thread.

WizeAss

iTrader: (5)

thank you two for cluttering up this thread with crap!

Ryne @ CMS

iTrader: (10)

well your the one that came into this thread, and basically more or less , put down the product of a vendor.

p.s. what feed do you give your unicorn

VortechC5

iTrader: (6)

It looks like I am going to be buying a 427 (maybe a 418) shortblock. If I buy the Livernois L92 heads will they work ok with the SPDC LS7 based 427 shortblock with the standard pistons?

I am playing catchup reading everything that I can find about L92s and 418/427 shortblocks so if the question has already been asked I missed the answer.

seatonii

iTrader: (1)

Maybe someone else has already posted this and if so I am sorry. GM High tech has does a test on the stock L92 heads and produced some really good numbers with them. The following link is part III of the cylinder head test that shows the L92 heads.

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ine_l92_heads/

During Part II of GM high techs dyno test they ran the following heads AFR, Dart, Edelbrock, trickflow and a ported stock head (Livernois stage III LS2 head) heads and the same dyno and same engine set up. The following link provides more information.

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ylinder_heads/

If you look at both of these tests I think they show the stock L92 heads will make as good if not better power than most all of the heads during these test. Now if porting these heads makes more power then I think they will be hard to beat. I hope this information is useful.


Dwight

WaterThunder

I noticed everybody keeps talking about the L92 ports they are killer but I think the chamber is the biggest improvemnt. It sure looks like the old Winston Cup heart shaped quench chambers Those chambers are awsome compaired to the early LS1, LS2 and LS6 stuff! Just remebr you can't use L92's on a 4.00 bore!

mike45

To the best of my knowledge you can use the heads on a 4.00" bore.

Chicago Crew UnderBoss

iTrader: (1)

That's correct, the minimum bore that L92 heads can be used with is in fact a 4.00 bore!!

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

I've seen worse go longer. It happens from time to time. I apologized already.

"Basically, more or less", meaning, "kinda, but not really". I argued the stock L92 casting against a 225, not the Livernois head. Never mentioned anything about them.

It eats deer corn and carrots.


FWIW, I'd still like to talk about my original argument, however, I'll state it somewhat diffrently. 2 heads being equal in flow, but one being L92 design, the other cathedral, which will be more productive, if either? I know the intake will be the draw down, but assuming that wasn't a problem..........

WaterThunder

The will bolt on but what you gain in intake port will be lost by the valve being soo cloose to the cylinder wall.

NemeSS

iTrader: (127)

GM will release, oem vehicles with a 6.0 engine using these heads, which are a 4.00 bore, also in the GMHTP mag., they dynoed the L92 heads, on a 4.00 bore LS2

DanZ28

iTrader: (5)

Will they have the same size valves?

I think he has a valid point though. They may work but may not be optimal on a 4.0" bore with the valve so close to the cylinder wall.