Big-DEN

Not trying to provide boost for Tooley.

I would have to say...

The L92's are still leaving me dissapointed, with the big flows and not putting down the numbers.

IE: a fast90/tfs225 situation under the same 417 motor wouldve likely did 550rwhp/520rwtq.

The L92's we know will put out big power numbers once things are figured out, but a 520rwhp/488rwtq situation out of 417 cubic inches. Something isnt right.

I'm not going to say like Tooley has, and my credibility here will be 1% of his or less - but completely technical basis I wouldnt say that the 2.16 or 2.20 intake valve is too much for a really hot 417 or 427 or 438 or 441.

But yeah, since he has more financial interest in pushing his TFS225 heads, I believe the wording could be improved...

I personally do not think that the L92 and LS7 heads are a backward step, lower technology than the TFS225 head.

I think we haven't figured out how to make them work "right" consistently.

On a cost basis, people have pointed out that these things come out alot cheaper.

White_Hawk

iTrader: (3)

I am trying to figure out how people are disappointed. $800 heads with a $200 intake are making 500 to the wheels. Did you set up false expectations for yourself? These heads are performing eben better than I expected.

I can't wait to get my own setup on the road. Of course, my first set of LS1 heads were $1800 and my car made 380 (ARE), so maybe I have different standards than you. This will be my second aftermarket head on my fourth ls1 (OK, one LS2 in there). These heads are the biggest LS1 performance breakthrough I have seen since my first Z28 in 1999. If you don't see that, then head back to Egypt so you can get back to DENIAL.

-Geoff

Big-DEN

I said on a "cost" basis these are working.

Right now the "technology" of the L92 and LS7 heads are the best thing ever for a pushrod massproduced head.

The rear wheel HP numbers are less than the flow numbers would show.

To be honest I thought with the L92 and LS7 heads that 600rwhp/530rwtq would be more normal out of a 427 cubic inch motor.

It will happen on the LS7.

On the L92 not sure.

I know both of these heads with porting and sheet metal intakes will support upward of 800HP n/a.

The flow numbers are huge...

C_Williams

No, not in your wildest dreams. You do know this 417 in question is cammed with a 232 / 234 cam on a 114 +2 that has - 5° overlap @.050



Again, with this cam it is a big deal and the torque curve is an even bigger deal.

[QUOTE=Big-DEN]I'm not going to say like Tooley has, and my credibility here will be 1% of his or less - but completely technical basis I wouldnt say that the 2.16 or 2.20 intake valve is too much for a really hot 417 or 427 or 438 or 441.

Or maybe some data to support his claims as opposed to his hypothesis and bad science

speak for yourself as I've managed to produce more than few +600 RWHP n/a 441's using this "unknown" product

Ryne @ CMS

iTrader: (10)

quite trolling for BT.... if your not interested in the heads, or not liking the power numbers they are producing that is fine, but shut up and dont look at the thread anymore, because i am interested in these heads/intake setup, and i dont need to looking through your kiss ***(BT)/knocking (l92's) posts cluttering this thread.

WKMCD keep up the good work and informative info....

macky

WKMCD:

Thank you for everything you have done for us and I am sorry for all the BS certain people seem to be heaving on your work. I am putting an L92 headed 6.0 litre iron block into my 4200 pound 95 Impala SS. My biggest concerns in order of importance are 1) Cost 2) Great torque curve and street manners 3)Horsepower. You have nailed all three for me in your testing.


It is dissapointing that everybody seems to be jumping on you for doing something that works remarkably well for the results you were aiming for. Keep it up and thanks again to you and 2C5S for providing information that is incredibly useful for most of the people out here that do not want to spend $2000 for a head that does at best slightly better than what you are accomplishing.

Thanks again ,
Macky

Orange Juice

iTrader: (3)

Very interesting post, I am completely unbiased having no relation with BT or WCCH. I congradulate the owner and the builder for coming forward with a well documented history of the build. BT who is usually welcome in any thread that is discussing cylander heads has overstepped a bit here but always interesting to have a educated dissenting opion and what makes this site the BEST of lx sites period.
Congradulations to the owner, I think more people are coming to realize that what you have acheived in your build is really what a street car should be instead of dragging the clutch as you inch your way over speed bumps.

Brian Tooley Racing

iTrader: (13)

Sorry to offend, I was trying to educate.

I told Kevin in my previous post that I thought what he was doing was "VERY COOL", I also said I thought the L92 heads were "killer bang for the buck". I also said that I was going to quit hijacking his thread, if someone addressed me I thought I had the right to reply. I will appologize to any one that I have offended, It was not my intention to down the L92's, but to educate everyone to what I had learned so that they may further understand these heads.

I do not get enough castings a month to fill all the orders that I have to fill. So no, the TFS head sales are just fine, and getting better all the time.

ThirdGenLS1

iTrader: (11)

i have no problems with you posting an argument, as long as people arn't taking personal attacks there is no issue with stating your opinion as long as its an educated one.

Ryne @ CMS

iTrader: (10)

why do you keep posting, and defending yourself??? you arent going to change people opinions of you on this thread. you have already made yourself look like a A$$ , so be a bigger person here and just stop posting in this thread.
you have a educated opinion about these heads , thats great but who really cares at this point. it wasnt like WKMCD was posting these results and knocking your heads, by saying i would like to see TFS headed 402 make that power with a mild cam. no he was jut posting his results and educating the community a little bit. all you have done here is put down the cylinder heads, and in turn put down WKMCD IMO

WKMCD

iTrader: (2)

Ryne,

I recieved a PM form BT this morning apologizing for his posts on this thread. I accepted his apology and hope that everyone can move on.

edcmat-l1

iTrader: (10)

BT is an asset to this forum. Anyone who doesnt think he is needs to re-evaluate. I for one didnt take his posts quite the same as alot of people did. I was a little POed just because he seemed to want to take some stream out of what we did.
Cant blame him at all for touting his heads. He gets paid to do that.
Cant argue much with his theories, other than the fact that sometimes certain parts perform differently than the data would indicate. Which is what resulted in our "experiment". Rarely does a DECREASE in compression and camshaft result in a power INCREASE.


This is what Kevin was after MOST of all. We wanted a #, but the overall driveability was first and foremost.
And really, what good is 500 RWHP if its miserable to drive? His car will likely never see a track.

edcmat-l1

iTrader: (10)

By your own figures, the difference is about 6 percent. And considering you're comparing essentially OEM parts to specialty aftermarket parts, I dont understand how you can be dissapointed.
The flow numbers indicate that the real potential of these heads are yet to be discovered. After Richards (WCCH) flow tests of the manifold, it looks like it may be able to make mad power. It may turn out the limiting factor isnt the manifold but the tried and true hydraulic roller.

White_Hawk

iTrader: (3)

I totaly agree. Plus, almost all the setups to date have been in street cars focusing on a flat torque curve not peak horsepower. When someone bolts a set of these on to a 408, puts a single plane intake with an elbow, and spins past 7000, I think we are going to see what these heads can do right out of the box.

-Geoff

Big-DEN

L92 and LS7 heads on paper look like they can be as good or better than Edebrock Victor heads for the ford.

You have the raised intake port, you have the widened intake port and rocker arm to accomidate, you have the revised valve angle.
You have the chamber design
You have the big flows and enough for more.

The numbers arent showing out.

The TFS are pretty much a reincarnation and refining of the older LS1 technology

The LS7 and L92 are pretty much design for inline pushrod that is pretty much no holds barred especially for a production head.

The LS7 should make it to over 400CFM on intake port with porting. Some in the 390's already.

L92's already in the 360's with porting.

Richard@WCCH

iTrader: (3)

I'm not sure the comparison to the Victor Ford is apples to apples. We've seen 390+cfm from a Victor Glidden Ford head in all out racing applications with the same 3.2-3.3sq/in cross sectional average. The Windsor heads have a reversed intake/exhaust valve position relative to the cylinder bore and that makes them favorable over the Gen 3 heads.
In a short time 370+cfm will be readily achieved with proper valve sizes and port geometry from the L92 heads. Higher flow rates wil depend on application. We don't want to carve a hole in the low/mid lift area for street engines. Also, some valve motion is compromised by the offset intake rocker and the resulting pushrod angle so camshaft profiles will still need to be developed. Intake manifolds will also hold the key to upper rpm power gains. Don't forget the exhaust systems too. The L92 heads are indeed showing promise considering their relatively recent release.

I find it most interesting that GM chose to first use these heads on a truck of all things..........

Thanks for your perspective.

Richard

99Fbody99

The funniest thing I take out of this is the parody of the past and the LT1 Motors. I remember when everyone trashed LS1 based port designs and such, just as today with L92. Look what history has taught us, or has not with some people. This will especially come true when they become mainstream in passenger car appplications and interest really rises.

Dave

FRDnemesis

iTrader: (19)

Yeah, I'm still not understanding why they do the things they do when it comes to cylinder head releases, especially when they are introduced in SUV's/trucks. But hey, it makes them cheaper for us in the long run........ i.e. 6.0 iron blocks, LQ9 heads, L92 heads, VORTEC heads, L92 blocks all parts that were installed and sold in our larger brethren, but will work perfectly in our sports cars. Hey, if they wanna call it a truck head, but it flows dam near what a 70k corvettes cylinder head flows, and the design is basically the same, hey more power to em'!

turbo'd stang

What kind of deck do the l92's have? In something making 1000hp, will they hold it?

edcmat-l1

iTrader: (10)

Its posted on here somewhere that Richard from WCCH cut one and it was .500 deck or something like that.
Hey, I just wanted to be the 300th poster!!
But seriously, in one of the threads on here, maybe this one, its posted.