L92 DynoJet Numbers Plus Plan B, C, D, E and F...
02-21-2007, 02:37 PM
#42
Nice flow numbers, especially at mid-lifts. Do you think Richard could flow the heads on the same bore fixture as your cylinder? It would be nice to see how well they flow on a 4.00" bore (since that's what really counts in your case).
__________________
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
2018 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 Pat G tuned.
LS1,LS2,LS3,LS7,LT1 Custom Camshaft Specialist For custom camshaft help press here.
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
2018 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 Pat G tuned.
LS1,LS2,LS3,LS7,LT1 Custom Camshaft Specialist For custom camshaft help press here.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
02-21-2007, 04:03 PM
#43
Originally Posted by Patrick G
Nice flow numbers, especially at mid-lifts. Do you think Richard could flow the heads on the same bore fixture as your cylinder? It would be nice to see how well they flow on a 4.00" bore (since that's what really counts in your case).
Not sure how much .025 will make but I imagine it would be minimal.
02-21-2007, 04:12 PM
#44
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the deal with the exhaust flow on these dying out between .400 and .500 and then picking up again at .550 on the 4.03 numbers?
.350 - 196.5
.400 - 206.0 (difference of 9.5 over the previous #)
.450 - 210.9 (difference of 4.9 over the previous #)
.500 - 212.5 (difference of 1.6 over the previous #)
.550 - 231.6 (difference of 19.1 over the previous #)
What's the deal?
.350 - 196.5
.400 - 206.0 (difference of 9.5 over the previous #)
.450 - 210.9 (difference of 4.9 over the previous #)
.500 - 212.5 (difference of 1.6 over the previous #)
.550 - 231.6 (difference of 19.1 over the previous #)
What's the deal?
02-21-2007, 04:35 PM
#45
Originally Posted by Patrick G
Nice flow numbers, especially at mid-lifts. Do you think Richard could flow the heads on the same bore fixture as your cylinder? It would be nice to see how well they flow on a 4.00" bore (since that's what really counts in your case).
4.155-345.2@.600 IN
4.030-237.5@.600 EX
4.155-244.2@.600 EX
Comparing the dif of .125 in bore size, I dont think the #s would drop drastically. Esp the intake. Of course, for the sake of accuracy, I can see why you would want to know.....
02-21-2007, 05:02 PM
#46
Nice pics Kevin. Glad to see they got there ok. They were a mere speeding ticket away for not making it there today. My driver was driving to UPS like a madman last night to get there before they closed and he got pulled over for speeding and failing to use his turn signal. 
The cop let him go so he could get to the customer counter before they closed. Close one........
Unfortunately we have to deal with a cylinder bore in the way. In my testing with the L92's I see a lot of sensitivity to bore size. I do not have a 4.00" test bore and so won't be able to generate data on that bore size. Sorry for this omission.
GM has moved both of the valves toward the cylinder wall and increased valve shrouding. Coupled with our chamber design (4.125" span) the valve sits up against the top edge of the bore at around the .450" lift area (196cfm at .350" is pretty decent). Once the valve clears the bore edge the flow continues upward in nice strides. Notice the effect is lessened on the larger test bore. I chose to run with the current port design as it produced the highest average flow across the useable lift curve (.200"-.600"). I have some port designs that have really nice low lift flow but fall flat at .500" and up. Likewise I have some designs that flow larger numbers at .650" and .700" but are pretty poor in the lower lift region. I don't feel those ports are good for street use.
Richard
The cop let him go so he could get to the customer counter before they closed. Close one........
Originally Posted by Phate
What's the deal with the exhaust flow on these dying out between .400 and .500 and then picking up again at .550 on the 4.03 numbers?
.350 - 196.5
.400 - 206.0 (difference of 9.5 over the previous #)
.450 - 210.9 (difference of 4.9 over the previous #)
.500 - 212.5 (difference of 1.6 over the previous #)
.550 - 231.6 (difference of 19.1 over the previous #)
What's the deal?
.350 - 196.5
.400 - 206.0 (difference of 9.5 over the previous #)
.450 - 210.9 (difference of 4.9 over the previous #)
.500 - 212.5 (difference of 1.6 over the previous #)
.550 - 231.6 (difference of 19.1 over the previous #)
What's the deal?
GM has moved both of the valves toward the cylinder wall and increased valve shrouding. Coupled with our chamber design (4.125" span) the valve sits up against the top edge of the bore at around the .450" lift area (196cfm at .350" is pretty decent). Once the valve clears the bore edge the flow continues upward in nice strides. Notice the effect is lessened on the larger test bore. I chose to run with the current port design as it produced the highest average flow across the useable lift curve (.200"-.600"). I have some port designs that have really nice low lift flow but fall flat at .500" and up. Likewise I have some designs that flow larger numbers at .650" and .700" but are pretty poor in the lower lift region. I don't feel those ports are good for street use.
Richard
02-21-2007, 05:07 PM
#47
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
Unfortunately we have to deal with a cylinder bore in the way. In my testing with the L92's I see a lot of sensitivity to bore size. I do not have a 4.00" test bore and so won't be able to generate data on that bore size. Sorry for this omission.
GM has moved both of the valves toward the cylinder wall and increased valve shrouding. Coupled with our chamber design (4.125" span) the valve sits up against the top edge of the bore at around the .450" lift area (196cfm at .350" is pretty decent). Once the valve clears the bore edge the flow continues upward in nice strides. Notice the effect is lessened on the larger test bore. I chose to run with the current port design as it produced the highest average flow across the useable lift curve (.200"-.600"). I have some port designs that have really nice low lift flow but fall flat at .500" and up. Likewise I have some designs that flow larger numbers at .650" and .700" but are pretty poor in the lower lift region. I don't feel those ports are good for street use.
Richard
GM has moved both of the valves toward the cylinder wall and increased valve shrouding. Coupled with our chamber design (4.125" span) the valve sits up against the top edge of the bore at around the .450" lift area (196cfm at .350" is pretty decent). Once the valve clears the bore edge the flow continues upward in nice strides. Notice the effect is lessened on the larger test bore. I chose to run with the current port design as it produced the highest average flow across the useable lift curve (.200"-.600"). I have some port designs that have really nice low lift flow but fall flat at .500" and up. Likewise I have some designs that flow larger numbers at .650" and .700" but are pretty poor in the lower lift region. I don't feel those ports are good for street use.
Richard
02-21-2007, 05:58 PM
#49
Originally Posted by edcmat-l1
Nice work, Richard. I took the pictures. Not bad for a lil cheap digital camera, huh? I took a picture of the logo in the corner of the head. One of my guys said "thats the nicest part of the head!" I'll try to get it up tonite.
Thanks for taking the pics Ed. I've been way to jammed with the CNC to get pics taken and posted. I guess I'll be extra busy next week............
Any and all feedback is appreciated Ed.
Richard
It's going to be unruly with your L92's. We should heave them ready to go by next week.
02-21-2007, 06:36 PM
#51
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
Sometimes it's the little things.............
Thanks for taking the pics Ed. I've been way to jammed with the CNC to get pics taken and posted. I guess I'll be extra busy next week............
Any and all feedback is appreciated Ed.
Richard
Thanks for taking the pics Ed. I've been way to jammed with the CNC to get pics taken and posted. I guess I'll be extra busy next week............
Any and all feedback is appreciated Ed.
Richard
I will say this. I've got more "driveway" R&D than most guys will have in their entire lifetime. 20 plus years exp building, well, you name it.
Additionally, my partner, and friend since childhood, spent 25 years in his fathers machine shop. (I worked there in 1984, as a wee little spry.) Job shop, short run production, etc. He is an experienced CNC programmer, as well as a manual machinist. Needless to say hes very impressed with the heads. He was the one that said the logo was the most impressive part of the head!! Of course, he was somewhat joking. But all in all a very nice product. To the novice, and a very well trained eye!!
02-22-2007, 07:55 AM
#53
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
How about a pic of that logo
Took several pix. Doesnt want to come out real clear. I think the camera wants to focus on the crinkle finish.
It just a little detail touch, but its on a radius, not a flat surface. Thats what makes it cool!
02-22-2007, 12:23 PM
#55
Originally Posted by Dragaholic
What kind of camera is it? Usually decent cameras have a setting for close ups. Usually less than 28 inches. If it does, then you'll be able to snap some clear pics.
02-22-2007, 08:32 PM
#60
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 2,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by edcmat-l1
Its a Fujifilm. Nothing special. Its about 3 years old. 3.2 mega pixels. I tried to find a close up setting, but it just has auto and manual. It didnt turn out any better on either setting. It does take nice photos for the most part. I do need to get a newer/better one. This one has serve us well.