[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-27-2014).]

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-27-2014).]

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: I claim you're a troll. This isn't a thread about iron heads vs aluminum heads. The trollish threads you started didn't catch on so you came to this one. It's jerks like you that everytime someone says they are gonna do a 3.4 swap, you chime in and say "don't waste your time". Well, I'm sorry you wasted your time on a 3500 when you could have just gone 3800SC to eventually a turbo 3800. No one cares. I'm actually in shock you haven't been speed-banned with all the hate and propaganda you spread. Atleast carbon and sleevePAPA have provides some tuning advice. You've done nothing but troll.

lou, just because you don't believe what I say doesn't make it "propaganda". I back my claims up with real test data, and real comparisons, I don't instantly say someone is wrong if I can't back that claim up, and that has been made apparent in many threads. many of the threads I post in, I try to emphasize the 3x00 engines as an option, because many people don't realize what the engines are capable of. My aluminum head thread showed data, both flow data, and dynographs comparing each engines cylinder heads, with data from multiple sources. I'll quote you now from your aluminum head thread:

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: There's been much iron-head vs. aluminum-head debate lately. I have argued that the main attraction of the 3X00 engines is the roller cam adaptation of the blocks. I have argued that in our 6/60 motors that the heads are not the limitation of the engine's power. We have GM documentation showing 100HP/L out of a 2.8 and a 3.0 respectively with 12.5:1 compression using Falconer ported heads and ITB-designed Falconer intake. Back then the 3.1 and 3.4 weren't around yet so who knows what they could have achieved.

I see no dynograph showing a real torque curve, no specifications of the engine other then 12.5:1 compression ratio itb intake, and ported heads. how big was the cam? hydraulic or mechanical? roller? lightened crank? stock crank? how many cuts on the valves? wet sump? dry sump? power at the wheels? crankshaft? with accessories? the list could go on for days.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Well, the "aluminum head enthusiasts" are trying to say that a race-prepped 3500 would destroy the old #'s of GM's smaller diplacement engines...due to the 'advances' of the heads... So I looked for a race-prepped 3500 build. I found this user on another forum named 'SuperDave'. http://www.jboi.org/registry/Superdave Seems pretty 'race-prepped' to me. Even uses a higher lift cam than what is possible on iron heads. Iron heads are limited to .510" lift.

stock bottom end with a cam, ported heads and intake. hardly race prepped, and the cam, LSx guys run more lift then that on street too, does that mean every cammed LSx is a race engine?

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCdRKvMlmck 274.6 hp, 248.9 tq He was using higher compression but got poor results and when back down to stock 9.8:1 compression. He then decided to build a 1/4 mile car out of an '89 Camaro... You can see the build here: http://www.thirdgen.org/tec...633-my-3-5-swap.html He decided to at an ITM intake. Yep...INDIVIDUAL THROTTLE-BODY intake MANIFOLD. Funny thing is this car using a 700R transmission dynoed at lower HP but more TQ. 263/263 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxewiTeUMlk Is it possible that running open exhaust on his 3500Z car got him more HP and less TQ? Is it possible that running an exhaust on his 3500RS car got him more TQ and less HP? I would answer yes to both questions.

ITB intake, many European and Japanese cars run ITB's factory, does that mean all of these are race setups too?

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Regardless he still didn't surpass GM's older tech. Yes, GM has to spin the motors higher with more comprssion, but that is easily made up for by the extra displacement and higher lift cam. IF the iron heads were restrictive, spinning the motors faster wouldn't have had any benefit. The main point here is that iron heads can flow 300 HP naturally aspirated. They would have probably flowed even more behind a 3.4 or 3.5 L motor. Heck, Falconer's port-job on the intake side wasn't even as good as Oreif's porting when he dyno'ed 2 iron head engines at ~200rwhp. HP is related to air flow. A 3.4 flows/requires as much air at 4941 RPM as a 2.8 does at 6000 RPM. Engines are just air pumps. Flow = flow. HP=HP. I have yet to see the heads being the factor in limiting horse power on v6/60 engines.

again, you have no quantifying information here, there is nothing listed about these 280-300 IH engines, just ported heads and ITB's. so there is no basis for comparison, then myself and several others show dynographs with build threads that have quite a but of information on the mods to an engine and car, and you claim there's no basis for comparison.

the only reason I've consistently posted in this thread is because you make claims, then don't back them up. you just basically say "you're wrong because I said.", either that, or you just don't have the capacity to interpret charts and graphs(which I do not believe is the case). This, to me, is the definition of trolling. call me a troll all you want, I back my claims, with real data. I don't post something if I can't back it up. and the few times I have mis-spoke, I have responded with an apology, and edited my post.

you claim your engine setup is so great, but you have yet to break 200 hp, with any intake setup. and a stock 3500 does, what's the difference? stock cam, stock intake, stock tb, stock exhaust manifolds, oh wait, it's got a custom crush bent y pipe, so, almost stock.

[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 01-27-2014).]

[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-28-2014).]