joelster

Those Trickflow 21 degree heads are the hot ticket. Rock them as-is on your stock shortblock car and when the time comes to go to a 383+, send them out for a little cnc'ing at AI.

I don't think the comparison is a true apples to apples comparison though. When was the last time Lingenfelter developed an LT1 program? 2004 or so? The cam split is weird. It looks like a nitrous grind. The comparison does show how much the LT1 aftermarket has evolved though. Those are some very stout numbers!

Where did it peak at? It's hard to tell from the graph. It could be 6400 or up to 6700.

transbird95

iTrader: (4)

Good job guys! LT1s are making some great power lately.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

As always, would love to see track results. In doing so it may be enough for me to change course.
Guaranteed it would've made more power.
They never really had any sort of LT1 program. They stopped doing anything LT1 after 1997 and even then the CNC program for their heads had been around for far longer.

Advanced Induction

iTrader: (2)

My CNC'd 21deg head is typically going to be ~20 #'s up over the 200cc CNC'd GM head.

The cam previously run was 236/248 .555" / .600"

383/396's with these setups typically drive well if the tuning/calibration is correct. Info I have is 3" duals w/ flow master mufflers.

Thanks, but if I am not mistaken, this is one of the most developed and obsessed over LT cars in history. It has been through more than one capable shop. If the previous cam wasn't proper for the application, then the current cam isn't either.

The difference in power potential between the cams should be ~10-15hp in all probability.

It isn't really intended to be a comparison of the old build vs. the new revision as much as it is intended to simply be a result of having us simply supply an entire bolt-on top-end for a specific short block and application. I can see how some might interpret it that way since I linked the page about the car, but the intent there was to share the history of this particular car.

The original cam & new cam duration split is nothing out of the ordinary for small blocks. Peak power is anywhere in the range you mention - it varies w/ the other variables of the setup as much or more than it does w/ minute cam differences. There is no such thing as "this cam peaks at 6650" in real life - it always has to be a range, which can be quite wide.

I like the TFS head, but if you buy TFS' as cast 21deg head then I cannot cut it because my version based on their casting is entirely different w/ vastly superior parts etc. I had considered a budget porting option for guys who had bought the as cast TFS version, but in the end the better value was to just stick with the 200cc CNC'd GM head in those cases.


I'm glad you guys like it - I think it is a good top-end option for 355-396 guys looking for a 450-500rwhp HR setup. Beyond that, and it isn't my intention to insult you guys, but it seems the cam spec obsession online has been driven to new heights in recent years. If you have a couple cams that are relatively similar, then they are going to typically exhibit similar power potential provided the actual characteristics of one isn't entirely out of the ballpark. The cam in the previous setup, were it retained and run with our TFS head & ported manifold, should have been within 20, and more likely 10-15hp if we raced both on the dyno. The power potential, assuming a decent short block, has always primarily been in the head and manifold. Focusing on the things that are marketed the most, but matter the least (flow #'s and claimed cam specs), is what keeps so many from building competitive setups.

I'll answer whatever other Q's I can on the setup. Thanks for the kind words.

Wicked94Z

iTrader: (26)

As rarely as it happens, I agree with SSRRR that the LPE heads would have done better without a nitrous grind in there. 236/248 on a 110 is going to be lazy on 396 cubes with an LTx manifold. Yes the H/C package made impressive gains, but I'm sure that stock casting LPE head could have made 450+ with a properly packaged camshaft. To say a 236/248 XE grind is as close to optimal as your camshaft doesn't inspire much confidence

Did your heads do great? YES! But lets not disguise the previous combination as "thoroughly developed" and imply your heads will bolt on 40-45 rwhp with no changes. As for a question... what's the Min CSA on the 21* head?

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

If I can make as much or maybe even more power and turn less rpm I am all for it. Depending on track results I may just end up with this cam and keep my heads. The torque curve looks snazzy.

fergymoto

iTrader: (129)

LOL @ the internet cylinder head and camshaft experts.


Nice job as usual Phil. I am going to be needing some stuff for a motor that I am building for a friend in a few weeks or so. I'll get a hold of you when he is ready

pillarpod

are you kidding me

05HD

Why did you edit this part out?

Clearly, what Phil and Ron are saying is, despite the attention this car has had lavished upon it previously, it was easily outpaced by AI since they took a system matched approach to it. AI is the "staples easy button" of n/a LT1s is what I read.

I'm sure this is all common sense to someone like yourself that the old cam was junk but, 99.9% of the people trying to put together an LT1 will not be able to do as well as AI (or LE for that matter) does when you just go ahead and get a matching set of heads, cam and intake from them.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

It's still there, silly.

05HD

When he quoted the post, tire king.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

No need to get defensive. With this new combo you may learn that gears are for more than just acceleration and climbing mountains as well as learning how an engine decelerates.
Point being, Wicked is unhappy and thinks AI is overselling their product. You are defending said product with a dyno sheet, so the question is are you going to continue using only a dyno sheet or wait for track results?

05HD

I love me some dyno sheets. Now, don't **** up this thread.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

Right back atcha.
Hopefully track results will be a vast improvement, but it is utterly ridiculous to argue about one setup to another when there is not enough evidence to make a steadfast conclusion. Whatever the case may be, it would be fantastic to see this combo do well because I'm looking for a HR combo that rivals my current setup.

Puck

iTrader: (17)

It's clearly not an apples-to-apples comparison, but the numbers are impressive nonetheless. Its not a lot of cam, an HR, and on the stock intake. Can't say how much was due to a cam swap, but their is no denying that the combo as a whole, as provided by AI, definitely works.

Wicked is working on a nasty HR setup, I'm sure if you ask nicely he might give you some pointers .

fergymoto

iTrader: (129)

There's no such thing as a nasty hydraulic roller

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

No thanks.

IronOutlaw

iTrader: (4)

I wonder what is different between the version you guys have and the one AI gets. I was planning on buying the cast version but now that I read this I may either just wait until I can afford the ported ones or just stick with factory castings.

Puck

iTrader: (17)

In all seriousness, why don't you just go to a more aggressive SR? With todays technology you can be just as reliable, and still have a long life with only minor maintenance...

...and we all know you don't exactly put a lot of miles on your garage ornament anyway.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

You still trying to be funny? I have been running a mild SR cam for the last 5 years trouble free. Same springs too. I thank God I have a garage to put my ornament in... you are really going to say I have a garage ornament?