Dynamometer Results & Comparisons - AFR 205's + 228/228 113* = 500 RWHP!!

Guys,


I spoke with Tony Mamo several times about where I wanted to be with a H/C combination for this motor, conservative yet stout with an ability to see 7000 rpm & not nose over.

His recommendations included a set of milled AFR 205's that he would invest some additional time porting/optimizing by hand (think you guys refer to this as "Mamofied 205's" in other builds I have seen), of course one of his ported FAST 90/ported LS2 TB combos, and Tony also recommended a custom grind single pattern cam due to the flow characteristics of the ported heads and the fact I wanted to also make as much low speed TQ as possible while not hurting the big HP numbers upstairs (yes...like most I wanted the have your cake and eat it to scenario!). I of course also included some of the other popular supporting bolt ons, LG Pros including 3" mufflers, Cadillac Racing Lifters, YT 1.7 roller rockers, EWP & UD pulley.

I installed the components a year ago, run it up on a Mustang dyno with good results.

I also spent the bulk of this summer learning how to tune via a multitude of emails, reading, watching DVD's, collaborating with a friend who has very in depth understanding of the tuning software. Very key component to bringing the entire package together! This made the dyno session very quick, the numbers were hit within a few runs.

As this tuning process went on all the classic clutch problems began to develop, and ultimately I had to replace that. In my quest for power I decided I should have 4:10 rear installed at the same time, an LS7 clutch, LS2 Flywheel, new Slave & remote bleeder. My thinking was the 4:10's would hopefully ease the life of the clutch.

In the same building I had the parts installed was a Dyno Dynamics eddy current dyno, and after finding out about an previous dyno day I decided to review some runs & met with some of the participants. They had a good turn out and certainly not a generous dyno with a bonestock C6Z06 making a best run of 441 RWHP which seems to be in line (or lower honestly) than most of the online results I have read about. Realistically, I was hoping for 475+ and was obviously pretty thrilled when we rolled a couple of runs in the high 490's and one run that just eeked out 500 RWHP!! I was also quite pleased with the low RPM torque output....most of the higher powered (typically big cam) stock displacement builds don't make those kinds of numbers under 4000 RPM's, at least from what I have observed pouring over the various results. And the torque (440 RWTQ) feels very good in the car btw....you can really feel it push you in the seat above 4K.


Needless to say there were several very impressed onlooker's as the runs took place, my Black 3X Vert had done proud!



Looks like Tony may have prescribed just the recipe I needed to try and maintain the best of both worlds. It wasn't a budget build by any stretch but I'm really happy about the results and wanted to share.


Here is copy of all the runs I made....I was also impressed how consistent they were (Tony....thanks for helping out with the dyno graph!)


Cheers,
Dale

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn283/Flowizard/Dales347dynoruns.jpg

Wow, great results. Do you know the advance or retard of the cam or was it straight up?

How about a video?

Wow, great results. Do you know the advance or retard of the cam or was it straight up?

You made me go get the cam card as I could not remember.

HR113+1 installed @ 112 ICL
Using the Crane Timing gear set, all the little set screws it was degreed as recommended!

Holy awesome numbers man CONGRATS.

Tony is da man....

Excellent results. Is this with the factory 346 motor?

Simply beautiful :nod:

Excellent results. Is this with the factory 346 motor?

H/C only, the motor is as stock as it can be.

One of my criteria for the cam was no fly cutting.

How about a video?

Sorry, I'm a bit technology challenged that way.

Awesome numbers, very nice!!

500rwhp through a heavier LS7 clutch, 19" rims, Corvette drivetrain, on a 346 w/ a 228 cam?

Not trying to be a hater, as I like AFR just as much as the next guy but that sounds absolutely nowhere near realistic.

500rwhp through a heavier LS7 clutch, 19" rims, Corvette drivetrain, on a 346 w/ a 228 cam?

Not trying to be a hater, as I like AFR just as much as the next guy but that sounds absolutely nowhere near realistic.
I disagree....

I made 480 with out of the box stock 205's and a smaller cam. The bump in the camshaft and my additional head work is worth about 25 RWHP or so. What I do agree with is he would have made even more with a lighter clutch/flywheel assembly making the results all the more impressive.

Lastly, look at the dyno curve....there is nothing remotely unbelievable about any of the data except that due to a very optimized well configured package it hangs the torque curve out there (slowly and smoothly dropping past peak torque) which ultimately is what brings the big power to the table you feel is unrealistic.

Its low speed torque is solid but not over the top (375 RWTQ or so in the 3K range.....slightly under 400 in the 4K range). Its peak torque is exactly what you would expect a package of this caliber to make (I told Dale I was hoping for 435 to 440 RWTQ)....it simply doesn't roll over a quickly as most of the typical heads/cam packages.

Its just a really good working combination and I need to add that Dale with the help of some good friends also spent the better part of a year dialing in the tune. Do you think that is worth something?.....I know I do. Very few people/shops can invest that type of time in the tune and that can easily make a really good package look even better.

I wont lie....I was hoping this combo would land in the 490 range (knowing the tune, the install, and other small details could add or subtract ten from that number quickly). I never even let the word five hundred leave my lips when we were discussing this package and quite frankly Dale wasn't looking for 500 either. He was realistic about what he was hoping to achieve. But when you examine the dyno curve, none of the numbers that matter (and give clues to BS results) are out of line. I question when I see 346 CID pump gas engines making more than 440 RWTQ....I question when I see 346 pump gas engines with BIG cams make close to 400 RWTQ at 3000 RPM, etc. etc,....some things can happen and some things aren't realistic.

This is just a package that went together smoothly and provided the best results that anyone knowledgeable in this field could have realistically hoped for....but alot of time, attention to detail (and money!) when into the final results and its a good day when it all pays off!

:chug:

Cheers,
Tony

Nice results man...Congrats on the new found power...
Is it just me, or does it seem that vets with similiar combos to that of an F-body, always seem to dyno higher?..I have seen this combo go anywhere from 450RWHP all the way up to these numbers...The same goes for the torque as well...

Kev

nice numbers, congrats!

Nice results man...Congrats on the new found power...
Is it just me, or does it seem that vets with similiar combos to that of an F-body, always seem to dyno higher?..I have seen this combo go anywhere from 450RWHP all the way up to these numbers...The same goes for the torque as well...

Kev
Vette's usually do dyno higher....at least from what I have seen.

I think alot of that has to do with the incredibly perfect chassis layout for a large X-Pipe close to the header where it does the most good as well as plenty of room for dual 3" pipes attached to that "X".....

The F-Body isn't near as optimal in the exhaust department.

I think the rear is also not as "parasitic" on a Vette....especially when compared to the larger 12 bolt and Ford 9" options sometimes installed.

Also, the fact that a stock 427 CID C6Z06 rolled in the low 440's on the same day and the same dyno speaks volumes about the authenticity of the OP's results. I forget to mention that in my post above.

-Tony

on my dyno dynamics dyno i had a c6 z06 with a k&n air intake put down 449 rwhp on a stock, after the tune it made 480rwhp

Vette's usually do dyno higher....at least from what I have seen.

I think alot of that has to do with the incredibly perfect chassis layout for a large X-Pipe close to the header where it does the most good as well as plenty of room for dual 3" pipes attached to that "X".....

The F-Body isn't near as optimal in the exhaust department.

I think the rear is also not as "parasitic" on a Vette....especially when compared to the larger 12 bolt and Ford 9" options sometimes installed.

Also, the fact that a stock 427 CID C6Z06 rolled in the low 440's on the same day and the same dyno speaks volumes about the authenticity of the OP's results. I forget to mention that in my post above.

-Tony

Thats a very good observation Tony...Thanks for your input...
This setup has proven good results for along time now...

Kev

Tx's for your input Tony as always.

The basis of my combination was to insure your baseline from the original combination was easily achieved.

That meant ported & milled heads, yes results were slightly better than anticipated.

My tuner friend always states "The Devil is in the Details"

those are some killer numbers from a H/C car

WOW! Killer setup, and props to you for sticking it out with the self-tune, much deserving of kick ass numbers with your perseverance.:thumb:

Guys,


I spoke with Tony Mamo several times about where I wanted to be with a H/C combination for this motor, conservative yet stout with an ability to see 7000 rpm & not nose over.

His recommendations included a set of milled AFR 205's that he would invest some additional time porting/optimizing by hand (think you guys refer to this as "Mamofied 205's" in other builds I have seen), of course one of his ported FAST 90/ported LS2 TB combos, and Tony also recommended a custom grind single pattern cam due to the flow characteristics of the ported heads and the fact I wanted to also make as much low speed TQ as possible while not hurting the big HP numbers upstairs (yes...like most I wanted the have your cake and eat it to scenario!). I of course also included some of the other popular supporting bolt ons, LG Pros including 3" mufflers, Cadillac Racing Lifters, YT 1.7 roller rockers, EWP & UD pulley.

I installed the components a year ago, run it up on a Mustang dyno with good results.

I also spent the bulk of this summer learning how to tune via a multitude of emails, reading, watching DVD's, collaborating with a friend who has very in depth understanding of the tuning software. Very key component to bringing the entire package together! This made the dyno session very quick, the numbers were hit within a few runs.

As this tuning process went on all the classic clutch problems began to develop, and ultimately I had to replace that. In my quest for power I decided I should have 4:10 rear installed at the same time, an LS7 clutch, LS2 Flywheel, new Slave & remote bleeder. My thinking was the 4:10's would hopefully ease the life of the clutch.

In the same building I had the parts installed was a Dyno Dynamics eddy current dyno, and after finding out about an previous dyno day I decided to review some runs & met with some of the participants. They had a good turn out and certainly not a generous dyno with a bonestock C6Z06 making a best run of 441 RWHP which seems to be in line (or lower honestly) than most of the online results I have read about. Realistically, I was hoping for 475+ and was obviously pretty thrilled when we rolled a couple of runs in the high 490's and one run that just eeked out 500 RWHP!! I was also quite pleased with the low RPM torque output....most of the higher powered (typically big cam) stock displacement builds don't make those kinds of numbers under 4000 RPM's, at least from what I have observed pouring over the various results. And the torque (440 RWTQ) feels very good in the car btw....you can really feel it push you in the seat above 4K.


Needless to say there were several very impressed onlooker's as the runs took place, my Black 3X Vert had done proud!



Looks like Tony may have prescribed just the recipe I needed to try and maintain the best of both worlds. It wasn't a budget build by any stretch but I'm really happy about the results and wanted to share.


Here is copy of all the runs I made....I was also impressed how consistent they were (Tony....thanks for helping out with the dyno graph!)


Cheers,
Dale

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn283/Flowizard/Dales347dynoruns.jpg


How much $$$ was it for the extra work on the heads???

How much $$$ was it for the extra work on the heads???

It's was a package, best to discuss that directly with Tony.

The value for me was keeping the characteristics of the smaller cam & being able to produce the number's!

this is some bullshit! i cant get those numbers out of my 402!

congrats to the op though!

VERY impressive work. i have no doubt that extra time in the tune did wonders. now have fun stomping some Cobras :)

As I said on CF what is the correction factor number used? I'm willing to bet its something in the 1.14-1.15 ball park to get that Dyno Dynamics to read like a dyno jet. Dyno dynamics read extremely low on the HP side but the tq is pretty close when comparing the two dynos UNLESS that dial is turned boosting the numbers up.

Not doubting its a stout combo but its just not realistic being on that brand of dyno unless its fudged to read higher IE extremely high CF.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/performance-results/2244424-dyno-dynamic-pulls-video.html

Here is a good thread showing what DD dynos will read if they aren't fudged. The torque numbers they put out are close to what SAE dynojets read but the HP is quite a bit lower 13-14%. Once you correct it to "read" like a dynojet it boosts the HP and really pumps the tq up.

A local shop to me did this and the CF was 1.15 or something crazy high.

For those that don't watch the video the car made 494rwhp and 455rwtq on a dynojet SAE and only made 435rwhp on the DD using DD SAE.

As I said on CF what is the correction factor number used? I'm willing to bet its something in the 1.14-1.15 ball park to get that Dyno Dynamics to read like a dyno jet. Dyno dynamics read extremely low on the HP side but the tq is pretty close when comparing the two dynos UNLESS that dial is turned boosting the numbers up.

Not doubting its a stout combo but its just not realistic being on that brand of dyno unless its fudged to read higher IE extremely high CF.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/performance-results/2244424-dyno-dynamic-pulls-video.html

Here is a good thread showing what DD dynos will read if they aren't fudged. The torque numbers they put out are close to what SAE dynojets read but the HP is quite a bit lower 13-14%. Once you correct it to "read" like a dynojet it boosts the HP and really pumps the tq up.

A local shop to me did this and the CF was 1.15 or something crazy high.

For those that don't watch the video the car made 494rwhp and 455rwtq on a dynojet SAE and only made 435rwhp on the DD using DD SAE.
The problem with your pumped up theory is the engine made exactly the type of torque you would expect a highly optimized 346 CID build to make....and produced the exact curve you would expect to see.

In fact it could prbably have been tuned a bit better under 4K smoothing out and increasing it somewhat so the ramp up to peak wouldn't have looked so fast and dramatic, but the lead in torque numbers and peak torque numbers are exactly what this type of package should produce....the dyno isnt going to read correctly for half the curve and then inflate on the back half. The torque numbers would have been skewed the entire run.

You want to call BS.....call BS on a 500 RWHP 346 with a BIG cam in the low 240's that makes close to 400 RWTQ at 3K. A motor that small with that big a cam will simply not be efficient at that RPM (too much cam overlap). Its basically an impossible target to hit unless you managed to somehow run variable valve timing. You would need at least a 6.0 liter to get close to that type of low RPM torque with that large a stick installed (and probably a 383 is more realistic).

I will say it again....what this combo does better than most is H-A-N-G the torque curve out past peak (its very effective at processing air and has excellent valve control as well which is also critical).....and that is exactly what's required to make big power folks.

In short, there is nothing suspect with these dyno results....Dale spent a bunch of money hitting all the details and it shows. Take from it what you will

-Tony

Seems reasonable to me. His Hp/TQ numbers look very similar to my dyno graph..up to 5250 Rpm's...

It is from 5250 Rpm's that by virtue of the Hp Formula: Hp=TQ X RPM/5252 that the '500' HP number is blowing people away. Any time you can hang on to a torque curve past 5250..the HP difference becomes exponential.

Somehow they got this thing to hang on, which is pretty impressive.

Based on Tony's logic and the fact that many of us have similar HP/TQ dyno numbers up to 5250 Rpm's..I do not see any reason to doubt it. I mean he has duplicated higher Rpm airflow before. That is what he does.

Congrats to the OP..

..WeathermanShawn..

Excellent results!

I do not find it hard to believe, especially when my previous combo with no where near the quality of parts was able to lay down 446/411 with hardly no time at all spent on the tune.

My setup was a similar cam with out of the box 205s milled to 62ccs. I had cheap headers and an LS6 intake with my own ported stock throttle body.

The OP has the additional work on the heads from Tony, the worked over Fast setup, ewp, good headers, and lots of time spent as mentioned to dial the tune in.

I say congrats to a well put together combo that included "attention to detail", which is what often makes a combo perform, or disappoint.

I am anxious to see what this car can trap. Mine, de-tuned a bit(-16rwhp/10 rwtq) and then through a M9 and 3.5" drive shaft afterwards without knowing how much more power that would rob, was able to trap 122+ consistently.

The problem with your pumped up theory is the engine made exactly the type of torque you would expect a highly optimized 346 CID build to make....and produced the exact curve you would expect to see.

In fact it could prbably have been tuned a bit better under 4K smoothing out and increasing it somewhat so the ramp up to peak wouldn't have looked so fast and dramatic, but the lead in torque numbers and peak torque numbers are exactly what this type of package should produce....the dyno isnt going to read correctly for half the curve and then inflate on the back half. The torque numbers would have been skewed the entire run.

You want to call BS.....call BS on a 500 RWHP 346 with a BIG cam in the low 240's that makes close to 400 RWTQ at 3K. A motor that small with that big a cam will simply not be efficient at that RPM (too much cam overlap). Its basically an impossible target to hit unless you managed to somehow run variable valve timing. You would need at least a 6.0 liter to get close to that type of low RPM torque with that large a stick installed (and probably a 383 is more realistic).

I will say it again....what this combo does better than most is H-A-N-G the torque curve out past peak (its very effective at processing air and has excellent valve control as well which is also critical).....and that is exactly what's required to make big power folks.

In short, there is nothing suspect with these dyno results....Dale spent a bunch of money hitting all the details and it shows. Take from it what you will

-Tony

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you since I respect your work and you are a sponsor here but did you happen to watch the video I posted? If you believe this combo made 500rwhp on a dyno dynamics dyno without the numbers being inflated to "read like a dynojet" then you are out of your mind.
Ask any dyno dynamics owner what correction factor number they use. I guarantee the shops posting numbers in the ball park with SAE dyno jets are using something in the 1.14 ballpark at sea level and higher depending on the elevation. If that is legit in your book then pump these results away. I know this combo is stout, but I also know these numbers here are inflated for comparison purposes.

Hey Blu:

Nice video! Maybe I am missing the obvious here or I need glasses. Did that dyno pull you posted on your vid just go out to 5600 Rpm's?

Maybe I am just having a hard time reading that dyno graph, but I see the HP/TQ cross at 5250 Rpms then it ends? If you could post both the Dynojet and Dyno Dynamics graphs up that would help make your point.

Thanks..P.S. car sounds good!

..WeathermanShawn..

Hey Blu:

Nice video! Maybe I am missing the obvious here or I need glasses. Did that dyno pull you posted on your vid just go out to 5600 Rpm's?

Maybe I am just having a hard time reading that dyno graph, but I see the HP/TQ cross at 5250 Rpms then it ends? If you could post both the Dynojet and Dyno Dynamics graphs up that would help make your point.

Thanks..P.S. car sounds good!

..WeathermanShawn..

YOu are seeing it right, the said car is Sigfortys. Here is a direct comparision with graphs instead of videos.
http://members.cox.net/mbrowning4/Larry383-cutout.JPG

http://members.cox.net/mbrowning4/Z06Mark.jpg

Compare the tq on both and then compare the HP on both rpm based. This is a non fudged dyno dynamics dyno. The said car is healthy on both runs and made 503rwhp a few months later on a dynojet. So you tell me what happens to the numbers if they dial it up to the 1.13 to 1.14 CF to get the numbers more in line with a dynojet?

http://members.cox.net/mbrowning4/mark_500_dyno.jpg

Blu, I am probably just as not well educated on the Dyno Dynamics system.

What I am confused about is why the one run is only to ~5700 Rpm's? Are you saying the Dyno Dynamics overestimates HP, or that the correction factor makes comparison useless?

I always like to know if I am comparing the same data. If one run only goes out to 5700 Rpm's and the others past 6600..well what is fair about that comparison?

I am a little confused. Anybody else? It is important otherwise what is the point of dynoing on anything but a Dynojet and utilizing SAE correction factors?

I'm lost as well?

Blu, I am probably just as not well educated on the Dyno Dynamics system.

What I am confused about is why the one run is only to ~5700 Rpm's? Are you saying the Dyno Dynamics overestimates HP, or that the correction factor makes comparison useless?

I always like to know if I am comparing the same data. If one run only goes out to 5700 Rpm's and the others past 6600..well what is fair about that comparison?

I am a little confused. Anybody else? It is important otherwise what is the point of dynoing on anything but a Dynojet and utilizing SAE correction factors?

Sheesh all you have to do is compare the numbers at 5700 rpms on both dynos lol. @5700 on the DJ its making 480rwhp and @5700 on the DD its making 435rwhp. The run was just pulled short on the DD it has nothing to do with the dyno.

Dyno Dynamics SAE read a lot lower HP than dynojets unless they are corrected higher (fudge factor) to read closer to what a dynojet would put out. From what I have seen in the past its either 1.13 to 1.14 in the settings which I think DD already has a calculation built in for it. Alvin on here had a great post on this topic. http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/858824-dyno-dynamics.html

The only reason I get involved in things like this is dynos now are used as marketing tools to pump products instead of strictly a tuning tool which is the reasoning for their existence.

O.K., now I get it. Sometimes it is the obvious things you miss.

..WeathermanShawn..

Blu,

Im going to quote myself again assuming you blew over it convinced Dale's numbers are inflated.


You want to call BS.....call BS on a 500 RWHP 346 with a BIG cam in the low 240's that makes close to 400 RWTQ at 3K. A motor that small with that big a cam will simply not be efficient at that RPM (too much cam overlap). Its basically an impossible target to hit unless you managed to somehow run variable valve timing. You would need at least a 6.0 liter to get close to that type of low RPM torque with that large a stick installed (and probably a 383 is more realistic).

I will say it again....what this combo does better than most is H-A-N-G the torque curve out past peak (its very effective at processing air and has excellent valve control as well which is also critical).....and that is exactly what's required to make big power folks.

In short, there is nothing suspect with these dyno results....Dale spent a bunch of money hitting all the details and it shows. Take from it what you will

Now your "inflated" dyno example above is obviously flawed IMO just looking at the peak torque above 450 RWTQ and especially looking at the torque output at 4K. It looks jacked up....someone knowledgeable like myself and others with alot of hands on dyno experience (especially concerning this type of Gen III package) would be able to pick up on that just like the examples I used above. This is physics to a point guys and some things are possible and some things aren't when you have an engine of "X" size with "X" compression ratio

Now you may have also wanted to raise the BS flag on my original 224/228 package that made 435-440 RWTQ and 475-481 RWHP (depending on the day and the dyno), especially four-five years ago when aggressive packages were having a hard time achieving that. Yet those results were confirmed on a half a dozen different dynos in two different States. Dale's curve looks VERY similar to mine but hangs the torque curve further out a little better as you would expect and I hoped for with a slightly larger cam and the deeper breathing heads. Its exactly what I would have drawn on a napkin if Dale and I were at a bar discussing what the most optimistic result of the work we were discussing could produce. We already had a proven recipe (my former package).....Dale just financed the newer slightly more aggressive version of it.

:usa:

-Tony

PS....Also note the peak RWTQ is the same as my combination which isn't a coincidence. It should be similar with the same displacement, induction, exhaust, and most importantly the same compression. In fact the bulk of peak torque output is displacement and compression based (assuming similar flowing heads, induction, exhaust). Power is a completely different animal however and doesn't even require monster torque output to show well. In fact big cammed cars usually make less peak torque (unless they have alot of static compression), but much like Dale's curve hang it out there longer (bringing horsepower along with it as a mathematical function of RPM) due to simply holding the valves open longer. But as most of you already know, that's not a free lunch because of low speed power/torque penalties. We accomplished the same thing with a more refined approach where Dale invested more money than most with a professionally prepped set of cylinder heads (and intake manifold) which is the key to engine breathing 101 and shouldn't be discounted....and he invested time and money in the smaller details as well....all of which add to the bottom line come dyno day.

Nice numbers

Excellent result......Congrats on the new found power...

Two questions on the setup. Are you running cats? Is the 3" cat back the LG setup?

Thanks

Nice numbers by the way :nod:

Two questions on the setup. Are you running cats? Is the 3" cat back the LG setup?

Thanks

Nice numbers by the way :nod:

Yes to the Cats & yes to a full 3" LG exhaust.

I try to be enviro friendly & don't feel the small gains for being cat less is worth while.

The 3" muffler's are pleasing sound quality wise, quiet & no drone! According to LG's website with back to back dyno runs these have good gains. Not an enjoyable experience to install, I don't think the tips will every line up properly.

Blu,

Im going to quote myself again assuming you blew over it convinced Dale's numbers are inflated.



Now your "inflated" dyno example above is obviously flawed IMO just looking at the peak torque above 450 RWTQ and especially looking at the torque output at 4K. It looks jacked up....someone knowledgeable like myself and others with alot of hands on dyno experience (especially concerning this type of Gen III package) would be able to pick up on that just like the examples I used above. This is physics to a point guys and some things are possible and some things aren't when you have an engine of "X" size with "X" compression ratio

Now you may have also wanted to raise the BS flag on my original 224/228 package that made 435-440 RWTQ and 475-481 RWHP (depending on the day and the dyno), especially four-five years ago when aggressive packages were having a hard time achieving that. Yet those results were confirmed on a half a dozen different dynos in two different States. Dale's curve looks VERY similar to mine but hangs the torque curve further out a little better as you would expect and I hoped for with a slightly larger cam and the deeper breathing heads. Its exactly what I would have drawn on a napkin if Dale and I were at a bar discussing what the most optimistic result of the work we were discussing could produce. We already had a proven recipe (my former package).....Dale just financed the newer slightly more aggressive version of it.

:usa:

-Tony

PS....Also note the peak RWTQ is the same as my combination which isn't a coincidence. It should be similar with the same displacement, induction, exhaust, and most importantly the same compression. In fact the bulk of peak torque output is displacement and compression based (assuming similar flowing heads, induction, exhaust). Power is a completely different animal however and doesn't even require monster torque output to show well. In fact big cammed cars usually make less peak torque (unless they have alot of static compression), but much like Dale's curve hang it out there longer (bringing horsepower along with it as a mathematical function of RPM) due to simply holding the valves open longer. But as most of you already know, that's not a free lunch because of low speed power/torque penalties. We accomplished the same thing with a more refined approach where Dale invested more money than most with a professionally prepped set of cylinder heads (and intake manifold) which is the key to engine breathing 101 and shouldn't be discounted....and he invested time and money in the smaller details as well....all of which add to the bottom line come dyno day.

I'm not doubting this combo could "possibly" make 500rwhp or close to it on a dynojet SAE if the conditions were perfect. Could it happen? Yes, with 4.10's, heavy LS7 clutch, 19" wheels with cats just seems a little over the top to me, Remember I'm not the one calling BS here.

I have a lot of experience with a dyno dynamics dyno and obviously you don't if you think this combo would make 500rwhp on a dyno dynamics dyno without the correction factor being dialed up to try and read like another brand dyno.
That is the only problem I see in which I am stating the whole "inflated" numbers theory. If you are ok with a correction factor being 1.13-1.14 on the DD dyno at sea level when the SAE dynojet correction would probably be .98 in Canada in the air we are having now then thats all on you. I however don't find this sort of thing accurate nor can it be compared with similar combos on different dyno brands in which most will do and you are doing now.

Im with you on this one BLU. The correction factor has to be adjusted to read like a dyno jet to acheive this number. Nice Combo though. Should run great at the track with good traction.

Blu you obviously are making some good points, but to us average readers maybe this is the way to ask.

What would though OP have to do to convince you his numbers are solid, and is that fair for him to do?

Bottom line..Is it the dyno methodology or you are just not convinced his combination can do it? It is hard to 'prove' an unknown and in all reality we have to take a members word until it is proven otherwise. As an average reader on this board it appears that even Dynojet readings reduced to an SAE correction are doubted many times on this and other Tech boards.

I generally believe the 'Rules of the Road' are unless you can prove otherwise, just best to move on. Eventually the truth comes out and no one wants their shop or products to be discredited.

Again, I see your point..but how about just saying 'good job' to the OP and if he enjoys it and races eventually the Trap Speed will give a good ballpark of his success.

Thanks..

..WeathermanShawn..

The best thing to do is get the car on another DYNO JET to compare #s, and back them up as legit.

I'm not AFR hater by ANY means, I like Tony and his work. But this pill is hard to swallow with a Corvette IRS drivetrain, 19" wheels, LS7 clutch which is notorious for robbing 10-15 "dyno" hp, and a 228 cam.

Lets see the car on a dyno jet.

grats very nice set-up.

Guys, stop doubting the numbers, its only a dyno.

With this power, good driving and good air this car should go 130+mph. Lets stop making accusations until we see what the car does on the track.

If this car comes out and run 130 or so mph then clearly the numbers are legit. If this car traps 124 then we know something is a foot. Until then, lets congratulate the owner and Tony and wish them luck at the track.

No doubting the numbers are here those numbers will be good for a dyno jet and the car should trap very well. Those numbers just are not accurate for a dyno dynamics dyno. We all agree that this combo is great and makes great power. To make 500hp on a dyno dynamics with no correction factor would equal over 600hp on a dyno jet. I think this is what blu was trying to get at. Unless I'm missing something here?. Good job on the setup!

I think Blu is pointing out that the 'Dyno Dynamics' Correction Factor in his experience is arbitrary and not applied in the same manner as a properly calibrated DynoJet using accurate weather data (SAE).

It sounds like from previous threads the debate rages on. There does not appear to always be any realistic standard in dyno testing that everyone agrees on. Dyno's can be manipulated, track times can be determined by weight, air density, driving skill, etc.

If we take a dyno as a tuning tool, then I so not see the problem. Heck, at times I just use my tuning software, GPS, and G-Tech and live with the concept of 'net horsepower'..in the end that is what a Trap Speed is estimating.

For purposes of this thread, since many AFR Heads have produced 440HP+, it does not seem unreasonable that the OP made at least +30HP or more from everything else he added. I think Blu rasies some good points, but I also think it is likely the OP made at least 475HP+ and I accept his results until 'proven' otherwise.

Ultimately it matters more to the person claiming it, their reputation is always on the line. I think we agree a Trap Speed gives a good estimate. It is up to the owner.

To the OP, congrats on your build. Enjoy.

..WeathermanShawn..

I'm wanting to know what the expected life of this engine is turning 7000 plus on a stock assembly. I can foresee rod bolt elongation becoming an issue.

No argument or justification on my part regarding dyno's. I fully agree this issue is beyond most & especially me to even begin to understand it.

What I have been able to do is break it down into what matters to me & my wallet.

I prefer the load bearing steady dyno, tuning & how the car runs under the curve is my goal. Also this DD dyno was able to repeat back to back runs within 1.5 rwhp, so when I made a MAF change or timing change & see a 3 or 4 rwhp change I'm satisfied that really happened. The losses & gains that's important.

When I compare similar C5 & C6 manuals, in this case a C6 Z06 & it is running 441 rwhp 3 runs in a row, all within the 1.5 rwhp. I can see it is comparable to other C6 Z06's on DJ's, that seems reasonable. More importantly to me I want to see consistency in the frictional loss of that dyno with similar drive lines to mine, again in this case 14.5% loss. So now it is easy to calculate back to approx crankshaft net hp. When I have that information I can make reasonable assumptions regarding power & feel comfortable whether or not I'm on the stingy Mustang or in this case a DD.

The purpose of this build was to better Tony's original build without sacrifice to driveabilty & low speed torque, I have no reason to despite the results.

My wounded wallet will probably heal over time, what I get to drive makes it worth while!

No argument or justification on my part regarding dyno's. I fully agree this issue is beyond most & especially me to even begin to understand it.

What I have been able to do is break it down into what matters to me & my wallet.

I prefer the load bearing steady dyno, tuning & how the car runs under the curve is my goal. Also this DD dyno was able to repeat back to back runs within 1.5 rwhp, so when I made a MAF change or timing changed & seen a 3 or 4 rwhp changed I'm satisfied that really happened. The losses & gains that's important.

When I compare similar C5 & C6 manuals, in this case a C6 Z06 & it is running 441 rwhp 3 runs in a row, all within the 1.5 rwhp. I can see that is comparable to other C6 Z06's on DJ's that seems reasonable. More importantly to me I want to see consistency in the frictional loss of that dyno with similar drive lines to mine, again in this case 14.5% loss. So now it is easy to calculate back to approx crankshaft net hp. When I have that information I can make reasonable assumptions regarding power & feel comfortable whether or not I'm on the stingy Mustang or in this case a DD.

The purpose of this build was to better Tony's original build without sacrifice to driveabilty & low speed torque, I have no reason to despite the results.

My wounded wallet will probably heal over time, what I get to drive makes it worth while!

Dont worry about this whole thing man, you only know what you did with your car if its legit like you say, congradulations on a 500rwhp car. If the $$ matches up to everything you did job well done, now take it to the track.

Any plans of visiting the 1/4?

Congrats! Let us know how it does at the track.

forgive me if i missed it, but what was the compression ratio?

I'd love to see the results on a dynojet 248 etc for comparison purposes. Congrats on the new setup.

This setup would only make 465-480 rwhp max on a dynojet. Guaranteed.

I would guess the 465-475 range (which is still great #'s) is more realistic to "dynojet type" #'s.
Nothing is guaranteed Jim....

Im sure you would have predicted (guaranteed) my former package with the 224/228 cam wouldn't have cracked 460....and perhaps thats a generous guesstimate you may have offered.

At 460 RWHP, ultimately you would have missed by 15-20 RWHP depending on the day and which run you wanted to analyze.

Besides the heavier clutch assembly which I agree robs some horsepower, had I went to the dyno (in my previous set-up) with the bigger cam and the optimized (ported) heads I would have easily laid up 25 more ponies to the backwheel placing me solidly in the 505 range.

Once again....all of Dale's numbers across the lower and middle part of the curve are right in line with the best 346 packages most of us have looked over....right down to the shape of the curve which actually could have been a tad better in some areas. Dale's package just hangs on alot better than most (not by accident), and the fact the same day a stock C6Z plunked down 440's certainly adds to the credibility of Dale's results.

Sure....it would be nice to see some trap speeds to back the number and I hope at some point Dale has the opportunity to provide us with that, but even that isn't very scientific because someone with more driving experience could potentially shift faster resulting in higher MPH. I have no idea how much track time and speed shifting experience Dale has....nor am I making any excuses in advance, just stating that looking at track results is also a mixed bag unless D/A and the quality of the run is taken into consideration.

If anyone else wants to build a really fast car that still drives nice, I have the recipe if your willing to finance the project.....I bet the end results look very similar to Dale's and no charge for all the Internet drama and entertainment that ensues afterward.


:chug:

-Tony

Seems reasonable to me. His Hp/TQ numbers look very similar to my dyno graph..up to 5250 Rpm's...

It is from 5250 Rpm's that by virtue of the Hp Formula: Hp=TQ X RPM/5252 that the '500' HP number is blowing people away. Any time you can hang on to a torque curve past 5250..the HP difference becomes exponential.

Somehow they got this thing to hang on, which is pretty impressive.

Based on Tony's logic and the fact that many of us have similar HP/TQ dyno numbers up to 5250 Rpm's..I do not see any reason to doubt it. I mean he has duplicated higher Rpm airflow before. That is what he does.

Congrats to the OP..

..WeathermanShawn..

I guess a lot on this site never passed algrebra in high school if this blows them away so much....:bang::bang::bang::chug:

Wow great #'s......

Mamo really knows his stuff. I would trust him with my builds any day.

Sure....it would be nice to see some trap speeds to back the number and I hope at some point Dale has the opportunity to provide us with that, but even that isn't very scientific because someone with more driving experience could potentially shift faster resulting in higher MPH. I have no idea how much track time and speed shifting experience Dale has....nor am I making any excuses in advance, just stating that looking at track results is also a mixed bag unless D/A and the quality of the run is taken into consideration.


Many reasons including the the one Tony pointed above why this car will probably not see a 1/4 mile.

My rural location is 5 hours to the the closest track as was the 8.5 hr trip to the last dyno session. The dyno session was only about 1 hour as the installers of the clutch & gears caused problems that required a full day of trouble shooting rather than a full day of dyno work.:mad:

It was never a plan or my intention to 1/4 mile this car, if it was the setup would reflect that as well as "driver" training.

The mountain highways were I'm located as well the rural location allows me to enjoy the car in the way it was designed originally then modified to improve. The motor was last, suspension first, then brakes & wheels & tires. CCW's & PS'2 are not heavy as some posters have claimed.

I'm not an abusive driver (I don't like breaking things). I road tuned this car this summer & they way I tune the upper MAF & PE is by a third gear roll on. Steady @ 1500rpm in third, I have slight hill I do this on then smoothly push the throttle to WOT & run to just below fuel cut off. No Hi rpm launches, no smoke shows, no power shifting, no rowing gears blah blah blah sounds boring right? Well many decades ago I was the Western Canadian Corvette Council Auto X Champion...........so if you would like to come for a ride I promise you won't find my ride "boring":D

The point I wish to make here is the clutch did not survive the 5 tanks of fuel I used to tune this car. In its current configuration any 1/4 mile time with tires that would work, many more parts would fail!

A bit of a wind bag I am.:nod:

Anyways no excuses or justification on my part just this is what it is & it is very good.

:chug:

PS. Does a load bearing dyno show a power loss or a power gain with lower gears?

CTD or Dale you do not have to apologize to anyone. There are many enthusiasts like you. I am more like you than the hardcore racers. Like you, the thought or breaking parts after having invested so much money, is not appealing. People with the ability to do their own work have a great advantage.

Yours is an interesting story. May I ask where your 'rural area' is? Likewise, I do a lot of pleasure driving up in the 'hills' west of Denver, but obviously there is a big city nearby..though many miles from a LS1Tech Sponsor shop.

Have fun. You don't need to blast down a 1/4 mile to enjoy your mods.

Best of luck.

..WeathermanShawn..

nice numbers...i bet those heads, intake, and roller rockers where a bunch of $$$ so you deserve it...

CTD or Dale you do not have to apologize to anyone. There are many enthusiasts like you. I am more like you than the hardcore racers. Like you, the thought or breaking parts after having invested so much money, is not appealing. People with the ability to do their own work have a great advantage.

Yours is an interesting story. May I ask where your 'rural area' is? Likewise, I do a lot of pleasure driving up in the 'hills' west of Denver, but obviously there is a big city nearby..though many miles from a LS1Tech Sponsor shop.

Have fun. You don't need to blast down a 1/4 mile to enjoy your mods.

Best of luck.

..WeathermanShawn..

Some members here have only one way to quantify there rides....so be it!

What is best for them is not an automatic that is best for me, I've tried to make that point. :nod:

My little town is 3100 people, maybe less these days, as you travel to the next town maybe the same population or less or slightly larger.

I'm sure you are familiar with Vancouver & Calgary, draw a line between the two. Place a dot in the middle & that's me, mid point approx. 5 hour driving each way. Unlike many hi population area's not much in between other than small communities...awesome.

Check out Postal Code V0E 2V1.

Vette's usually do dyno higher....at least from what I have seen.

I think alot of that has to do with the incredibly perfect chassis layout for a large X-Pipe close to the header where it does the most good as well as plenty of room for dual 3" pipes attached to that "X".....

The F-Body isn't near as optimal in the exhaust department.

I think the rear is also not as "parasitic" on a Vette....especially when compared to the larger 12 bolt and Ford 9" options sometimes installed.

Also, the fact that a stock 427 CID C6Z06 rolled in the low 440's on the same day and the same dyno speaks volumes about the authenticity of the OP's results. I forget to mention that in my post above.

-Tony

My 2000 ws6 made 486rwhp, 436rwt with the only difference being my cam was a 228-230 on a 114! Thanks again Tony for the great work on the heads and intake!

My 2000 ws6 made 486rwhp, 436rwt with the only difference being my cam was a 228-230 on a 114! Thanks again Tony for the great work on the heads and intake!
That's right Nick....its been awhile.

Your a great example of an F-Body with a similar combination. Some ported 205's and FAST intake I helped you with....very similar cam....I cant remember about an U/D pulley and EWP but my guess is you had the pulley.

As I think it relates a good bit to this thread (and somewhat to the credibility of Dales numbers).....could you share some of the other details of the build?

What, if any, of the finer details may you have over looked? The only thing Dale could have improved upon was his choice of clutch (at least from the dyno number aspect of this situation).

Also, I would immediately add 10 RWHP to whatever numbers you produced plucking the same package out of your F-Body and installing it in a Y-body....they simply look better on the dyno given the same parameters of the build.

Thanks for chiming in....

-Tony

Very nice results.

Did the OP say he had previously run the combo on a Mustang dyno? What were the results on that dyno?

Also, I'm not sure if I'm following the argument correctly or not, but I don't think blu is saying that is won't make 500 rwhp on a dynojet. I think he's saying that if they were using the normal correction factor that is used on a DD dyno, then this combo would be making alot more than 500 on a dynojet, and that's where he's having trouble with it.

Man I need to get on that dyno for sure. My LS2 with Stage 2.5 PRC and 244/248 114LSA cam, every bolt on and cutouts open only put down 519/490. My curve was alot higher than that but still.

Man I need to get on that dyno for sure. My LS2 with Stage 2.5 PRC and 244/248 114LSA cam, every bolt on and cutouts open only put down 519/490. My curve was alot higher than that but still.

Post it please. Tx's

Man I need to get on that dyno for sure. My LS2 with Stage 2.5 PRC and 244/248 114LSA cam, every bolt on and cutouts open only put down 519/490. My curve was alot higher than that but still.

So your making 490 rwtq on a stock bottom LS2 and you think he is the one on a happy dyno?

Nick1ta or Tony, do either of you have trapspeeds from your setups?

Nice #'s OP, I would love to have a tq curve like that!

So your making 490 rwtq on a stock bottom LS2 and you think he is the one on a happy dyno?

Nick1ta or Tony, do either of you have trapspeeds from your setups?

Nice #'s OP, I would love to have a tq curve like that!

Nice retort Stover.....LOL

Not to mention trying to draw a comparison from a setup with a budget ported OEM head and a heavily optimized AFR 205 head (by the guy that designed it) doesn't seem very logical.

And in a way your picking up on the fact his torque is a bit out of line for a 364 CID engine reinforces what I have been saying all along.....nothing is "wrong" or suspect about the OP's numbers below 5500 RPM.....this engine produces the right curve and torque output you would expect a 346 with killer heads and all the complimenting details to produce....the difference once again, for the people who keep glancing over things only reading whats convenient for them, is this package carries the torque curve and the miracle of horsepower is born thru the beauty of mathematics.

What does it take for an engine that can only produce "X" amount of torque (essentially displacement and compression limited) to make big power.....the ability for it to maintain close to its peak torque a good distance after it does peak. More cam can help and more airflow can help....in Dale's case the key is the latter of the two.

Regarding traps, I have no idea about Nick's set-up but my former 346 with the 224 cam trapped 124 MPH at 1600 D/A.....pretty respectable at that altitude. Not to mention made 550 HP and 475 TQ on the engine dyno sometime in the middle of all my testing and parts swapping (STD corrected #'s tested on a SuperFlow 902). Thats about what you would need to trap that MPH in a 3450 lb ride.

-Tony

Just doing the Math: HP = TQ * RPM/5250

Same 400 FT/LBS of TQ at various RPM's and resulting HP

RPM: 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800
TQ: 400 400 400 400 400
HP: 457 472 487 502 518

I would suggest that for any reader who challenges what the dyno numbers are for anyone who post on this or any other forum..is just to ask the following question:

Does the TQ curve below 5250 RPM's look legitimate? If the answer is YES then how could the TQ curve above 5250 Rpm's be false? You would have to question the entire TQ curve from start to finish to say it was not a legitimate and valid dyno reading.

Just hanging out 400 FT-LBS of TQ for an additional 300 RPMS (6400-6700 Rpm's) is a mathematical gain of 23 HP units. People are asserting the numbers are false, but no one has really made a case that the TQ curve is not a legitimate curve for a 346 cubic inch engine.

Like Tony said, sometimes one just reads or sees what one wants to. HP is 'just math'..the ability to carry TQ out to higher RPM's. There is no mystery in that number. Just always ask..is that a reasonable TQ curve and at 5250 Rpm's does it look legitimate.

Dale, sounds like a great car and a nice place to drive it. I think the beauty of your setup is you have substantial TQ low, middle, and high. That would be my goal, so again congrats on your setup.

Best of luck.

..WeathermanShawn..

Dale,

You mention you spent the summer tuning the on road drivability. Curious as to how you went about learning the software, etc. Unfortunately in my area a 3rd gear roll-on to fuel cutoff would likely net me some jail time :(

Dale,

You mention you spent the summer tuning the on road drivability. Curious as to how you went about learning the software, etc. Unfortunately in my area a 3rd gear roll-on to fuel cutoff would likely net me some jail time :(

Awesome, finally a question for me. :secret2:

I started with the software 2 years ago when I was mostly stock, hopping I would be ready for the H/C project. I was overwhelmed & hoped that being able to upload/download the tunes I would use other's for tuning. That did not go well, unless I was willing to accept serious drivabilty issue's.

Thru the power of the Internet I found a mentor & another individual learning like me not like me he is extremely computer literate. We are sharing in the tuning material that is available, some is very good, some is like dyno's. At one point I even contacted Tony for some direction for tuning as I was not winning the battle.

The learning of this software is never ending & I would consider myself a grasshopper with very limited knowledge, however I'm somewhat of a perfectionist. I've made sure to learn the correct way to tune, like dyno's you have to be able sort the "Fluff"

My rural location combined with hills makes for some ideal simulated dyno tuning. Road tuning like dyno tuning is not all about WOT, WOT is the easiest part. Under the curve dirvability is like choosing your engine components, thats is what separates tuners & engine packages.

As an example I came home from dyno session with a graph that verified what Tony was paid to provide.....I was not happy with a few things. One being the dyno report from 3200 - 4200 rpm.

Some discussion with my mentor & computer wizard friend & I now have a PID in my scanner called "Torque Delivered". Very serious improvements are now made in that weak rpm area, flattened & higher, I would sure like to verify those gains on the dyno "Under the Curve again"

Yes I used my third gear roll on....only to 4500rpm.....you won't go to jail for that!

i would like to see it on another dyno! I have seen that set of heads and cam on a few cars and tthey only made anywhere from 440-460whp.

i would like to see it on another dyno! I have seen that set of heads and cam on a few cars and tthey only made anywhere from 440-460whp.

They are not exactly the same heads, both the heads and intake were ported by Tony. The cam itself is a little different as well.

So your making 490 rwtq on a stock bottom LS2 and you think he is the one on a happy dyno?
Nick1ta or Tony, do either of you have trapspeeds from your setups?

Nice #'s OP, I would love to have a tq curve like that!

Actually I have a forged bottom end genius, but that is not the point. I guess I have just never seen anything even close to this. My old combo was AFR 205 with 228/232 114 cam and ALL bolt ons. Car made 445/425.

I know Tony is VERY good at what he does I just dont see 55hp from more porting and a smaller cam but then again I am not an expert, I just pay attention and take note of numbers. Maybe we should all quit building large cube motors and just stick with 346 and AFR heads.

I say happy dyno! milling and ported 205's more will not give you 55whp maybe 10-15. all it said in 1st post is milled AFR 205's, Take it to the track if it dosnt run high 10s you will know. You need some bad ass TFS heads and a bad ass cam, ported 92/92 and full boltons to make 500whp on a 346ci

Actually I have a forged bottom end genius, but that is not the point. I guess I have just never seen anything even close to this. My old combo was AFR 205 with 228/232 114 cam and ALL bolt ons. Car made 445/425.

I know Tony is VERY good at what he does I just dont see 55hp from more porting and a smaller cam but then again I am not an expert, I just pay attention and take note of numbers. Maybe we should all quit building large cube motors and just stick with 346 and AFR heads.

You didn't say that in your previous post so how was I to know?

I think the fact that your car made 425tq just reinforces the credibility of these #'s. The OP's #'s are only 16 higher than yours. Some nice head and intake porting, by the head's designer especially, is definitely worth 16 rwtq in my book. To add to that, the cam was also spec'd, by that same guy, to carry the tq high into the rpm range.

It isn't often that the head's designer is financed to design and help build a set up around his heads. Have you ever seen a combo like this (with extensive porting of an aftermarket intake and the already cnc'd heads) from the designer of the TFS heads? The "out of the box" H/C/I does not compare...

Actually I have a forged bottom end genius, but that is not the point. I guess I have just never seen anything even close to this. My old combo was AFR 205 with 228/232 114 cam and ALL bolt ons. Car made 445/425.

I know Tony is VERY good at what he does I just dont see 55hp from more porting and a smaller cam but then again I am not an expert, I just pay attention and take note of numbers. Maybe we should all quit building large cube motors and just stick with 346 and AFR heads.

And I'll bet your old combo wasn't maximized like this particular car's, huh? Not only is this car's tune optimized but so is the entire package/combo. You can have all the bolt ons you want with all the "best of the best" parts and that doesn't automatically equal "the best of the best" numbers. So, to answer your ridiculous question, No. Keep building the large cube motors but leave the head,cam,valve train selection/setup to people who know what they're doing as opposed to going through a parts catalog and asking for cam advice on the internet.


I say happy dyno! milling and ported 205's more will not give you 55whp maybe 10-15. all it said in 1st post is milled AFR 205's, Take it to the track if it dosnt run high 10s you will know.

I say that this is the most ridiculous post I've seen in a while here in the Dyno section, and that says a lot!

What it says in the 1st post is that this is an ENTIRELY optimized combo I.E H/C (I'm assuming hand finishing, re-done VJ and a cam that is actually suited for the combo), valve train, induction and tune. No secrets, no "magic", no fucking pixie dust. Him going to the track and running a number isn't going to prove whether or not this car makes the power that's claimed. That has already been brought up and is constantly beat to death on this forum as most peoples cars aren't setup for track duty, they most likely aren't the best of drivers/shift slow, etc etc etc.


You need some bad ass TFS heads and a bad ass cam, ported 92/92 and full boltons to make 500whp on a 346ci

And this gem... Please, go and tell that to all of the sponsors that have done it with ported OEM castings. Hell, I've witnessed a pair of TEA's (TFS pimpster, no offense Tooley!) stg 2.5 LS6 heads with additional "hand finishing" via TEA, put down 492rwhp in 110 +/- degree weather on a H/C 90/90 346. Hell, If I remember right, Patrick G's optimized combo put down 500+ with AFR's as well.

Sorry but it doesn't take "some bad ass TFS heads and a bad ass cam, ported 92/92 and full boltons" to come close to or even eclipse 500rwhp. It takes a well thought out combination that is thoroughly optimized in all the right areas.

OP, Tony,

Great job fellas! :thumb:

And I'll bet your old combo wasn't maximized like this particular car's, huh? Not only is this car's tune optimized but so is the entire package/combo. You can have all the bolt ons you want with all the "best of the best" parts and that doesn't automatically equal "the best of the best" numbers. So, to answer your ridiculous question, No. Keep building the large cube motors but leave the head,cam,valve train selection/setup to people who know what they're doing as opposed to going through a parts catalog and asking for cam advice on the internet.




I say that this is the most ridiculous post I've seen in a while here in the Dyno section, and that says a lot!

What it says in the 1st post is that this is an ENTIRELY optimized combo I.E H/C (I'm assuming hand finishing, re-done VJ and a cam that is actually suited for the combo), valve train, induction and tune. No secrets, no "magic", no fucking pixie dust. Him going to the track and running a number isn't going to prove whether or not this car makes the power that's claimed. That has already been brought up and is constantly beat to death on this forum as most peoples cars aren't setup for track duty, they most likely aren't the best of drivers/shift slow, etc etc etc.



And this gem... Please, go and tell that to all of the sponsors that have done it with ported OEM castings. Hell, I've witnessed a pair of TEA's (TFS pimpster, no offense Tooley!) stg 2.5 LS6 heads with additional "hand finishing" via TEA, put down 492rwhp in 110 +/- degree weather on a H/C 90/90 346. Hell, If I remember right, Patrick G's optimized combo put down 500+ with AFR's as well.

Sorry but it doesn't take "some bad ass TFS heads and a bad ass cam, ported 92/92 and full boltons" to come close to or even eclipse 500rwhp. It takes a well thought out combination that is thoroughly optimized in all the right areas.

OP, Tony,

Great job fellas! :thumb:

Man you are really full of yourself arent you. FYI the guy who put together both of my motors has built MANY LSX motors including the most powerful NA 418 in the US so "I" really didnt put shit together. I listened to experts and they put my combos together and then had them tuned by one of the leading tuners in this area. I am glad you think you know everything there is to know about these cars but maybe, just maybe there are other smart people out there that have great results. In short, the fact that you frequent this area doesnt mean you are smarter than everyone else.

No secrets, no "magic", no fucking pixie dust. :rock:

I love the humor OMG I have not laughed like that since my Tuning Mentor was talking about PFM calculations in the ECU.

Well being the naive & curious individual that I am, caught up in tuning learning nightmare. Not finding any humor in anything as I was completely rattled!

I finally asked were or what is this PFM table ........he advised "Pure Fucking Magic"


Awesome & Thank you :drive:

I think that Tony put in his super secret ballbearing kit in this motor.

I got my eye on you Mamo. I been on to you for years.

just out of curiosity, how lean was it on the top end?

Man you are really full of yourself arent you. FYI the guy who put together both of my motors has built MANY LSX motors including the most powerful NA 418 in the US so "I" really didnt put shit together. I listened to experts and they put my combos together and then had them tuned by one of the leading tuners in this area. I am glad you think you know everything there is to know about these cars but maybe, just maybe there are other smart people out there that have great results. In short, the fact that you frequent this area doesnt mean you are smarter than everyone else.


Link to this "most powerful NA 418 in the US"

just out of curiosity, how lean was it on the top end?

First three back to back runs in my street tune configuration, using my WB logging HPT AFR was very flat up to 6200rpm 12.4 to 12.6.

Then as the rpm increased my AFR went to 11.73 to 12.19

These runs were 491.3, 491.6 & 493 rwhp.

I corrected the 6200 rpm plus AFR to 12.4 & 12.6, added some timing...then three runs of 499.1, 500.2 & 499.6 rwhp.

I sure am glad this build had afr heads and not some crappy gm/patriot heads.