L92 DynoJet Numbers Plus Plan B, C, D, E and F...
02-23-2007, 06:39 AM
#62
TECH Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: alexandria, La
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
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........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
02-23-2007, 08:37 AM
#64
Originally Posted by texada
How much are you selling these heads for and do you currently have any available?
At the moment I'm waiting for a shipment of intake valves to arrive. I'm told that should happen within two weeks.
Richard
02-23-2007, 09:31 AM
#66
10 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta Ca.
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WKMCD
488/460 so far and still tuning. Much better than I thought this cam would do with stock L92's. Full results and graph shortly.
Better! Same dyno? Mine only wanted 25.5' of timing. We tried it up to 30' and it made no difference.
02-23-2007, 09:41 AM
#67
This is cam swap only. The engine was getting pretty hot on the 490 pull. Ed's going to let it cool and do one more run.
It's really interesting. These are VERY different cams and the results are very close across the board. Next will be the head only swap numbers. Now those should be interesting.
Run 7 is the original cam and run 13 is the 234-240 112 +0 cam.
It's really interesting. These are VERY different cams and the results are very close across the board. Next will be the head only swap numbers. Now those should be interesting.
Run 7 is the original cam and run 13 is the 234-240 112 +0 cam.
02-23-2007, 09:46 AM
#69
Originally Posted by 2c5s
Better! Same dyno? Mine only wanted 25.5' of timing. We tried it up to 30' and it made no difference.
Last edited by WKMCD; 02-23-2007 at 12:03 PM.
02-23-2007, 09:53 AM
#71
10 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta Ca.
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WKMCD
Yes, same dyno and Ed is setup to get the most conservative numbers he cam so we don't get into the rock throwing we've seen lately. We were getting KR at anything over 25 before. Ed said he was able to put in a little more with this cam. Can't wait to get the CNC'd heads on there with this cam. I'm going the same way you did for a very drivable car even if I give up some on top.
I saw the heads, you'll like them!!! Mine are coming off shortly to have Richard run his program through them. While they are off, I have a set of AFR 225's and a FAST 90 left over. They will get bolted on while the L92's are being ported. No other changes, C.R. will be the same. A nice little comparo.
02-23-2007, 09:58 AM
#72
Originally Posted by 2c5s
I saw the heads, you'll like them!!! Mine are coming off shortly to have Richard run his program through them. While they are off, I have a set of AFR 225's and a FAST 90 left over. They will get bolted on while the L92's are being ported. No other changes, C.R. will be the same. A nice little comparo.
02-23-2007, 09:58 AM
#73
Originally Posted by Phil99vette
Oh, can you have Ed do one pull with:
No belt
Loose Straps
Inflate the tires to 50psi
3.42 rear
Lightweight rims
Swap the clutch out for lightweight unit
Move weather station to heated office or put it in a warm spot and report back.
No belt
Loose Straps
Inflate the tires to 50psi
3.42 rear
Lightweight rims
Swap the clutch out for lightweight unit
Move weather station to heated office or put it in a warm spot and report back.
Dontcha know, thats what we just did.....we put on the saver spares, took off the belt, and ran her in 5th gear. 
02-23-2007, 02:22 PM
#74
Originally Posted by WKMCD
This is cam swap only. The engine was getting pretty hot on the 490 pull. Ed's going to let it cool and do one more run.
It's really interesting. These are VERY different cams and the results are very close across the board. Next will be the head only swap numbers. Now those should be interesting.
Run 7 is the original cam and run 13 is the 234-240 112 +0 cam.
It's really interesting. These are VERY different cams and the results are very close across the board. Next will be the head only swap numbers. Now those should be interesting.
Run 7 is the original cam and run 13 is the 234-240 112 +0 cam.
02-23-2007, 02:48 PM
#75
Originally Posted by RyneZ06
i thought bret bauers cams were the almighty camshafts ( well thats what he says), but i guess not....
Changing the cam, lowered the DCR, which allowed more timing, which picked up the power. This was one of the first cams in the country designed for L92 heads, so it was a pretty good effort in my book.
If you will look around, NO-ONE hit it out of the park with these heads the first time around.
But then again he made 380 tq at 2200 rpm, I consider that pretty good.
02-23-2007, 03:38 PM
#76
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
I guess you hit a homerun first rattle out of the box everytime huh??
Changing the cam, lowered the DCR, which allowed more timing, which picked up the power. This was one of the first cams in the country designed for L92 heads, so it was a pretty good effort in my book.
If you will look around, NO-ONE hit it out of the park with these heads the first time around.
But then again he made 380 tq at 2200 rpm, I consider that pretty
good.
Changing the cam, lowered the DCR, which allowed more timing, which picked up the power. This was one of the first cams in the country designed for L92 heads, so it was a pretty good effort in my book.
If you will look around, NO-ONE hit it out of the park with these heads the first time around.
But then again he made 380 tq at 2200 rpm, I consider that pretty
good.
02-23-2007, 04:13 PM
#77
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
Changing the cam, lowered the DCR, which allowed more timing, which picked up the power.
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
But then again he made 380 tq at 2200 rpm, I consider that pretty good.
Also consider, this cam is a little short on the lift. I would like to have seen another .030 on the lift. We may try another, if permitted.
