L92 DynoJet Numbers Plus Plan B, C, D, E and F...
01-19-2008, 09:20 AM
#381
Knocking the intake valve size down .04 should make a bit of difference on both shrouding and reversion at intake close.... right?
I also learned that a short runner single plane style intake eats up overlap and kills reversion. Atleast that is what I have found with my 20 degrees of overlap with the 244/248 113+2 cam.
After reading your results... searching... and speaking with those that know... I have a feeling someone is going to recommend a smaller cam with more agressive numbers at .200 vs crazy duration numbers at .050.....
what I found really interesting is that comp suggesting keeping the same cam with the XER lobes and just moving it around to a 111 intake centerline....
my ported head pics:
I also learned that a short runner single plane style intake eats up overlap and kills reversion. Atleast that is what I have found with my 20 degrees of overlap with the 244/248 113+2 cam.
After reading your results... searching... and speaking with those that know... I have a feeling someone is going to recommend a smaller cam with more agressive numbers at .200 vs crazy duration numbers at .050.....
what I found really interesting is that comp suggesting keeping the same cam with the XER lobes and just moving it around to a 111 intake centerline....
my ported head pics:
Theres also been some improvements in the exhaust port CNC work by WCCH, and Richard has informed me that they're seeing great results from just that.
In the beginning of Feb, we will be trying a variety of camshafts in an L92 headed 6.0. I hope to have some good info for everyone around that same time. Possibly verifying or dispelling some myths.
The saga continues.......................
BTW, no results on WKMCDs this weekend. Its miserable here in the mid Atlantic region.
01-19-2008, 10:17 AM
#382
10 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its funny, months after writing what you quoted me on, I learned at least on leading cyl head shop was doing just that, reducing intake valve size, and picking up power. I dont think they are increasing the exhaust valve size though.
Theres also been some improvements in the exhaust port CNC work by WCCH, and Richard has informed me that they're seeing great results from just that.
In the beginning of Feb, we will be trying a variety of camshafts in an L92 headed 6.0. I hope to have some good info for everyone around that same time. Possibly verifying or dispelling some myths.
The saga continues.......................
BTW, no results on WKMCDs this weekend. Its miserable here in the mid Atlantic region.
Theres also been some improvements in the exhaust port CNC work by WCCH, and Richard has informed me that they're seeing great results from just that.
In the beginning of Feb, we will be trying a variety of camshafts in an L92 headed 6.0. I hope to have some good info for everyone around that same time. Possibly verifying or dispelling some myths.
The saga continues.......................
BTW, no results on WKMCDs this weekend. Its miserable here in the mid Atlantic region.
whoops..... Comp said a 109 centerline... not 111.... it is already on a 111.....
I assume that would bring it down and make it less peaky, right?
01-19-2008, 01:34 PM
#383
I have been waiting for a response from HKE on a cam spec for my car. Apparantly he hasnt had a moment to put one together. After speaking with others I have changed direction...... I am going to keep the carb intake and put some lowend back in the car. It sees the street more than the track and with the SP intake I am not worried about carrying a cam to 6500rpm or more. What do you think? going smaller on a racecar setup sounds nuts IMO.... but I know guys like Louis, Rick at Synergy, and yall have made things happen with smaller cams on 40X/L92 setups.......
whoops..... Comp said a 109 centerline... not 111.... it is already on a 111.....
I assume that would bring it down and make it less peaky, right?
whoops..... Comp said a 109 centerline... not 111.... it is already on a 111.....
I assume that would bring it down and make it less peaky, right?
01-20-2008, 05:40 PM
#384
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jamison, Pa
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about me!! Ed,
Any ideas on a new cam for me!!!!
You have my car is running great but I'm open for improvements.
I'm falling further behind Kevin and that's not fair.
Bob K.
Any ideas on a new cam for me!!!!
You have my car is running great but I'm open for improvements.I'm falling further behind Kevin and that's not fair.
Bob K.
01-28-2008, 07:46 PM
#387
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its funny, months after writing what you quoted me on, I learned at least on leading cyl head shop was doing just that, reducing intake valve size, and picking up power. I dont think they are increasing the exhaust valve size though.
Theres also been some improvements in the exhaust port CNC work by WCCH, and Richard has informed me that they're seeing great results from just that.
In the beginning of Feb, we will be trying a variety of camshafts in an L92 headed 6.0. I hope to have some good info for everyone around that same time. Possibly verifying or dispelling some myths.
The saga continues.......................
BTW, no results on WKMCDs this weekend. Its miserable here in the mid Atlantic region.
Theres also been some improvements in the exhaust port CNC work by WCCH, and Richard has informed me that they're seeing great results from just that.
In the beginning of Feb, we will be trying a variety of camshafts in an L92 headed 6.0. I hope to have some good info for everyone around that same time. Possibly verifying or dispelling some myths.
The saga continues.......................
BTW, no results on WKMCDs this weekend. Its miserable here in the mid Atlantic region.
01-28-2008, 08:17 PM
#388
Back down to Ed's last weekend to install the YT Ultralights and try a ported L76 intake. I went with the YT's really as an option to having Harland Sharp redo the trunions on the stock rockers. The YT's netted no additional RWHP and the ported L76 didn't do much either. I'll be trying one of the aftermarket manifolds when they are available.
We were hoping for more but we ended up at 510/470 through 3.90's, belts and stock water pump. That's an increase of 10/3. Torque curve is still table top flat and tip in is nuts.
The science experiment continues.
We were hoping for more but we ended up at 510/470 through 3.90's, belts and stock water pump. That's an increase of 10/3. Torque curve is still table top flat and tip in is nuts.
The science experiment continues.
01-29-2008, 11:46 AM
#391
01-29-2008, 01:47 PM
#394
Just think that is weird-that one car Ed worked on picked up like 16 just from the intake. Did your old intake have any work done on it?
And you didn't pick up anything from the YT's vs the stock rockers? Guess I will spend my $400.00 on something else.
01-29-2008, 02:12 PM
#396
Were the conditions the same?
Just think that is weird-that one car Ed worked on picked up like 16 just from the intake. Did your old intake have any work done on it?
And you didn't pick up anything from the YT's vs the stock rockers? Guess I will spend my $400.00 on something else.
Just think that is weird-that one car Ed worked on picked up like 16 just from the intake. Did your old intake have any work done on it?
And you didn't pick up anything from the YT's vs the stock rockers? Guess I will spend my $400.00 on something else.
The numbers are what the numbers are.
01-29-2008, 03:15 PM
#398
Were the conditions the same?
Just think that is weird-that one car Ed worked on picked up like 16 just from the intake. Did your old intake have any work done on it?
And you didn't pick up anything from the YT's vs the stock rockers? Guess I will spend my $400.00 on something else.
Just think that is weird-that one car Ed worked on picked up like 16 just from the intake. Did your old intake have any work done on it?
And you didn't pick up anything from the YT's vs the stock rockers? Guess I will spend my $400.00 on something else.
I dont know that a 403 will respond the same as a 6.0. Hard to say without testing a few more.
The 2 different engines have different power curves. Kevins peaks much sooner, and falls off before the 6.0 even peaks. I would attribute that to airflow. Although it didnt really build any vacuum.
01-29-2008, 03:19 PM
#399
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Goshen,In.
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
still damn good numbers..you hit on an excellent combo..i'm sure a lot of guys learned from your work..when everybody else was being tight lipped about L92 stuff,you were more than willing to share info..
01-29-2008, 03:26 PM
#400
Its been quite a while since the last time I saw Kevin. Lotsa cars since then. Its amazing just how mild the cam in that thing is.
BTW, I'm building an almost identical combo thats going in a F-body over in Germany. We'll see what kinda numbers that thing makes in late March.
Stay tuned for that one!!