Lloyd Elliot or Advanced Inductions
06-26-2008, 08:49 PM
#41
I don't have dyno numbers for my car. Here is a slip though.
Though full exhaust, 1 5/8" midlength headers, 2.5" exhaust and muffers, mechanical waterpump, street tires in front, 150 miles from home. 15-16K miles on the package, means RELIABLE too.
I posted about Alek's because there are dyno charts showing substantial torque from a "high rpm" 355 which by conventional wisdom would not make good lowend. You are right that he is reving beyond what the stock pcm can accomodate and even so it makes good torque.
Though full exhaust, 1 5/8" midlength headers, 2.5" exhaust and muffers, mechanical waterpump, street tires in front, 150 miles from home. 15-16K miles on the package, means RELIABLE too.
I posted about Alek's because there are dyno charts showing substantial torque from a "high rpm" 355 which by conventional wisdom would not make good lowend. You are right that he is reving beyond what the stock pcm can accomodate and even so it makes good torque.
06-27-2008, 02:27 AM
#42
1. this should be locked before it erupts into another flamewar
2. this has been argued/discussed countless times.
3. Both can do great work and have had proven results
4. Ideal choice depends on your setup/goals/budget/priorities
5. Neither one is "better", each has their supporters and detractors
2. this has been argued/discussed countless times.
3. Both can do great work and have had proven results
4. Ideal choice depends on your setup/goals/budget/priorities
5. Neither one is "better", each has their supporters and detractors
I don't have dyno numbers for my car. Here is a slip though.
Though full exhaust, 1 5/8" midlength headers, 2.5" exhaust and muffers, mechanical waterpump, street tires in front, 150 miles from home. 15-16K miles on the package, means RELIABLE too.
I posted about Alek's because there are dyno charts showing substantial torque from a "high rpm" 355 which by conventional wisdom would not make good lowend. You are right that he is reving beyond what the stock pcm can accomodate and even so it makes good torque.
Though full exhaust, 1 5/8" midlength headers, 2.5" exhaust and muffers, mechanical waterpump, street tires in front, 150 miles from home. 15-16K miles on the package, means RELIABLE too.
I posted about Alek's because there are dyno charts showing substantial torque from a "high rpm" 355 which by conventional wisdom would not make good lowend. You are right that he is reving beyond what the stock pcm can accomodate and even so it makes good torque.
06-27-2008, 04:07 AM
#43
TECH Regular
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL BRO!!!! My claim to back this up is a phone call to comp... and a bit of common sense! DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE YOU PICK A FIGHT!
06-27-2008, 04:51 AM
#46
TECH Regular
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at Alek's results on Advanced Induction's "results" page. Tell me that 355 is lacking torque. From memory 385 at 3400rpms and peaks at 418 somewhere up around 5100, peak HP is up about 6800-7000 and at the track he revs it to 7500rpms. That is a big wide useable powerband, making more torque than a lot of strokers, making good torque low and still having a high rpm capable motor.
A lot of the "this is the way it will be" comments like the lack of torque and such are based on information gathered from the average poor combo.
A lot of the "this is the way it will be" comments like the lack of torque and such are based on information gathered from the average poor combo.
06-27-2008, 06:02 AM
#48
On The Tree
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My setup was designed for the factory ECU, and makes peak power at 7,000 rpm.
06-27-2008, 06:08 AM
#49
Village Troll 
iTrader: (2)
I need to back up here and clarify my position. We may be on the wrong page:
If the above is what you're getting at, where you'd loose torque over a stock head then you are as wrong as the day is long. However if you are comparing a 190 to 200 with torque then yes I can see how there would be a slight loss, but honestly I highly doubt it is even worth mentioning. And you can't be serious about putting in a call to "comp?" I've dealt w/ enough of those clownshoes to know their only requirement is that they've watched romper room a few times in their life. You call them, get someone they'll tell you their opinion on the matter. You call back, get another clown and what you just heard from previous clown will be completely different and contradictory from present clown. It's just not a smart thing to reference anything from phone clown jockeys at "comp."
More timeslip than dyno, but I agree.
Last edited by SS RRR; 06-27-2008 at 06:16 AM.
06-27-2008, 06:14 AM
#50
Village Troll
iTrader: (2)
I bitched out.
06-27-2008, 12:34 PM
#53
LS1TECH Sponsor
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best advice is to give both a call and see what they can do for you after going over your budget and goals. I am sure they are swamped with work as well but give a day or so to respond and see what each company says.
You'll be happy either way and as long as you have the complimenting parts both suggest and do not shoot youself in the foot with dirty MAF, leaking elbow between TB and MAF, rockers too tight, exhaust leaks, not degreeing cam, not checking PR length, poor computer tune, etc, etc then you will have a car that makes real good power.
If you shoot yourself in the foot and waste HP with the things mentioned and/or do not have all the complimenting parts suggested, you can have a set of Larry Meaux heads and big solid roller but not make any power. It is all in the combination from air filter to tail pipe as well as everything in between.
As long as you have a car that can 60 ft real well and a descent race weight, you will have good track times as well.
Lloyd Elliott
972-617-5671
Elliottsportworks.com
You'll be happy either way and as long as you have the complimenting parts both suggest and do not shoot youself in the foot with dirty MAF, leaking elbow between TB and MAF, rockers too tight, exhaust leaks, not degreeing cam, not checking PR length, poor computer tune, etc, etc then you will have a car that makes real good power.
If you shoot yourself in the foot and waste HP with the things mentioned and/or do not have all the complimenting parts suggested, you can have a set of Larry Meaux heads and big solid roller but not make any power. It is all in the combination from air filter to tail pipe as well as everything in between.
As long as you have a car that can 60 ft real well and a descent race weight, you will have good track times as well.
Lloyd Elliott
972-617-5671
Elliottsportworks.com
06-27-2008, 12:41 PM
#54
lloyd nailed it...so many local guys are running mid 9's in the 1.8 with their lt1 with mods done to them...they keep asking me why...i see ripped elbows...full exhaust systems and stock intakes...huge injectors and stock tuning, cooling fans that dont worrk and cars overheating....and they wonder why their cars are slow...
your car will be a ton faster with all the supporting mods and no big mods(heads.bottom end) than a car with a fully built motor/stock tranny rear and exhaust
all my cars start with racetronix kit, full good flowing cold air and full exhaust with all poly motor and tranny mounts and ewp before anything else
your car will be a ton faster with all the supporting mods and no big mods(heads.bottom end) than a car with a fully built motor/stock tranny rear and exhaust
all my cars start with racetronix kit, full good flowing cold air and full exhaust with all poly motor and tranny mounts and ewp before anything else
06-28-2008, 01:08 PM
#55
Wrong.... THERE IS NO 23° head that can outflow the downstroke of the piston in a 350 cube motor. There are real cylinder heads that do... and that's why in those more airflow does not equal more power reguardless of what the internet gurus tell you.
I think you misunderstand pumping losses and engine physics.
Jes
I think you misunderstand pumping losses and engine physics.
Jes
Really? This chassis dyno sheet is a 383 LT1, heads have a 250CC port and are 23*. Numbers are through a 9 inch rear end with a detroit locker, 4.10 gear and a 4L60E on pumpgas and 2 wounded pistons. WIth 325/50 drag radials out back.
This combo with a six speed, 3.42 geared 12 bolt would make 500+ rwhp and who knows what for torque.
So you are telling me with a smaller head I will make more power and torque?
My 250CC intake port peaks at 6300 rpm with a solid roller cam...how did that happen?
So you are saying a 350 is gonna make "X" amount of power no matter what head is on it?
If this is the case why does SSALEKS make so much more power than a GM 350 crate engine?
Or did I completely miss the boat here?
Last edited by FASTFATBOY; 06-28-2008 at 01:16 PM.
06-28-2008, 07:43 PM
#57
TECH Fanatic
I suggest that there may be more difference in torque production from the shape of the ports than from the size. That being said, on a 350 a well-done port that is larger than even the 200 you mentioned will outproduce a 180. That is based on observed results, not a gut feeling. The key isn't the port volume but it's efficiency at doing its job.
If you had difficulty understanding what the "gurl" said, you may have been distracted by the avatar. My take was that "real heads" for a SBC are not 23° valve angle style. If you consider SB2.2 heads and their ability to move wind, that might help you understand. Or not.
06-28-2008, 08:11 PM
#58
TECH Regular
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. This isn't a fight. No need to get all emotional and bent.
I need to back up here and clarify my position. We may be on the wrong page:
What I took from that is you meaning you would loose torque going from stock heads to ported heads "IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL BRO!!!"
If the above is what you're getting at, where you'd loose torque over a stock head then you are as wrong as the day is long. However if you are comparing a 190 to 200 with torque then yes I can see how there would be a slight loss, but honestly I highly doubt it is even worth mentioning. And you can't be serious about putting in a call to "comp?" I've dealt w/ enough of those clownshoes to know their only requirement is that they've watched romper room a few times in their life. You call them, get someone they'll tell you their opinion on the matter. You call back, get another clown and what you just heard from previous clown will be completely different and contradictory from present clown. It's just not a smart thing to reference anything from phone clown jockeys at "comp."
More timeslip than dyno, but I agree.
I need to back up here and clarify my position. We may be on the wrong page:
What I took from that is you meaning you would loose torque going from stock heads to ported heads "IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL BRO!!!"
If the above is what you're getting at, where you'd loose torque over a stock head then you are as wrong as the day is long. However if you are comparing a 190 to 200 with torque then yes I can see how there would be a slight loss, but honestly I highly doubt it is even worth mentioning. And you can't be serious about putting in a call to "comp?" I've dealt w/ enough of those clownshoes to know their only requirement is that they've watched romper room a few times in their life. You call them, get someone they'll tell you their opinion on the matter. You call back, get another clown and what you just heard from previous clown will be completely different and contradictory from present clown. It's just not a smart thing to reference anything from phone clown jockeys at "comp."
More timeslip than dyno, but I agree.
OK, I understand where you misunderstood what I said. I agree completely that just about any aftermarket head at 200cc will outflow the factory heads. What I meant was that a smaller head has the potential to make a little more low end grunt than a larger head that was designed to flow larger cilynders at higher r's. The guy who built my buddies blower ls1 engine kept the heads on the smaller side so the torque curve was nice and flat. The bottom line for the O.P. is that he needs to call the companies he is considering, and figure out who offers the best package for his goals.....Sorry if I went off a little.
06-29-2008, 12:12 AM
#60
Village Troll
iTrader: (2)
I suggest that there may be more difference in torque production from the shape of the ports than from the size. That being said, on a 350 a well-done port that is larger than even the 200 you mentioned will outproduce a 180. That is based on observed results, not a gut feeling. The key isn't the port volume but it's efficiency at doing its job.
That being said, on a 350 a well-done port that is larger than even the 200 you mentioned will outproduce a 180.
Okay... Now that's profound. Why is this significant? I'd like to know what you mean by "outproduce"?
As for the rest of it, perhaps what you are describing could start touching on the subject of volumetric efficiency... Wikipedia it if you're having trouble understanding. Not to disagree with your reasoning, but where are these "observed results" you type of. Oh. I forgot. Who am I kidding?
If you had difficulty understanding what the "gurl" said, you may have been distracted by the avatar. My take was that "real heads" for a SBC are not 23° valve angle style. If you consider SB2.2 heads and their ability to move wind, that might help you understand. Or not.
Seriously I'm really baffled by any of the above because what you've stated really has no significance? I guess you can try being more specific?
Last edited by SS RRR; 06-29-2008 at 12:41 PM.