I think 3X00 bottom ends are great and that's why I used one. I think Fiero V6's have many inate performance restrictions that just takes a little effort to overcome. I accept that GEN3 heads outflow GEN1 heads on a flowbench, I am just saying, short of spinning these motors >8000 rpm, all that extra volume actually decreases the VE of the system in the typical street build.
FYI, without piston reliefs and spring seat work, GEN1 heads are limited in valve lift to .510", iirc...though I suppose with a thicker gasket, that is not the case but you'd still need to work on springs...switch to V8 ones I suppose...but again I don't recall a gain going from .5" to .6" on the flowbench, so basically un-necessary.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]
"personally believe SuperDave/DeathStarr oversized his exhaust and that's why he didn't make more torque with the larger displacement and similar compression ratio... The effective exhaust port diameter of the valve is closer to 1.3" when you take into account the stem and the fact that a 1.42" valve makes contact with the head for about a mm or two on the outer radius. Hence his 1 5/8" primaries are too big if you as me. I'm at 1 3/16"."
Going off of the standard formulas for peak power between 6500 and 7K RPM my ideal primary size was between 1.52" - 1.58" and 36"- 33" long. I went 1.62" OD (about 1.5" ID) and 32" long + 4" long true merge collectors.
Nitpicking my build isn't going to go very far, lol. I'm not some young kid you can try to impress with your opinions.
Money seems to be coming up so here you go, I paid $650 for my complete engine with 678 miles on it.. about $350 into the cam/valvetrain, $400 into the headers, maybe $150 in gaskets and bolts and probably another $100-200 in misc stuff.
$1750 isn't bad at all for what i've gotten out of it.
The only thing i had a shop do for me was install the cam bearings and ceramic coat the headers, I can't stand to let other people work on my stuff.
[This message has been edited by DeathStarr (edited 02-22-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:42 PM
LZeppelin513 Member
Posts: 761 From: Lake Stevens, Washington Registered: Aug 2003
lou_dias, what is the compression ratio of your engine?
One thing that seems interesting to me is that lou_dias' 3.4 with iron heads is making so much tq. Why do we not see this kind of tq with a full 3400 or even 3500? I'm curious to see your next dyno.
Do you have to add octane booster to drive, or do you just do it to be safe when you are racing. What octane do you run?
[This message has been edited by LZeppelin513 (edited 02-21-2013).]
IP: Logged
01:04 PM
LZeppelin513 Member
Posts: 761 From: Lake Stevens, Washington Registered: Aug 2003
Money seems to be coming up so here you go, I paid $650 for my complete engine with 678 miles on it.. about $350 into the cam/valvetrain, $400 into the headers, maybe $150 in gaskets and bolts and probably another $100-200 in misc stuff.
I think 3X00 bottom ends are great and that's why I used one. I think Fiero V6's have many inate performance restrictions that just takes a little effort to overcome. I accept that GEN3 heads outflow GEN1 heads on a flowbench, I am just saying, short of spinning these motors >8000 rpm, all that extra volume actually decreases the VE of the system in the typical street build.
FYI, without piston reliefs and spring seat work, GEN1 heads are limited in valve lift to .510", iirc...though I suppose with a thicker gasket, that is not the case but you'd still need to work on springs...switch to V8 ones I suppose...but again I don't recall a gain going from .5" to .6" on the flowbench, so basically un-necessary.
I look foward to seeing what you where capable of extracting through the iron heads. But, I whole heartedly disagree with you about the lowering VE. Why does the LS1 produce 50hp more than the LT1 it replaces, with 4ci less displacement, .2 less compression, 7 deg less intake duration, and .05 more lift? (HINT: the heads flow 40cfm more at peak lift, have larger valves 15 degree intake valves vs 23.)
Originally posted by FieroWannaBe: I look foward to seeing what you where capable of extracting through the iron heads. But, I whole heartedly disagree with you about the lowering VE. Why does the LS1 produce 50hp more than the LT1 it replaces, with 4ci less displacement, .2 less compression, 7 deg less intake duration, and .05 more lift? (HINT: the heads flow 40cfm more at peak lift, have larger valves 15 degree intake valves vs 23.)
But that could simply mean that the LT1 flow was undersized...
On thing I do know is that an LT1 at my track event destroys all the LSx cars. He's in the finals every time unless he runs up against this 3000GT before the finals.
So, again, proper head work can fix factory short-comings...
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]
IP: Logged
03:47 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
lou_dias, what is the compression ratio of your engine?
One thing that seems interesting to me is that lou_dias' 3.4 with iron heads is making so much tq. Why do we not see this kind of tq with a full 3400 or even 3500? I'm curious to see your next dyno.
Do you have to add octane booster to drive, or do you just do it to be safe when you are racing. What octane do you run?
I think the ratio I calculated is 9.86:1 if I used the correct gasket thinkness... I use pump super-unleaded. I just bought generic octane booster and my detonation problems went away. I'll look to fix that with longer rods and shorter pistons despite what Will thinks. Stock for a 3500 is 9.8:1
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]
On thing I do know is that an LT1 at my track event destroys all the LSx cars. He's in the finals every time unless he runs up against this 3000GT before the finals.
Circle trap laps make a poor basis for performance comparsions, in my opinion. There are too many factors that can affect lap time, and the moajority of them fall under driver skill.
IP: Logged
03:56 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
"personally believe SuperDave/DeathStarr oversized his exhaust and that's why he didn't make more torque with the larger displacement and similar compression ratio... The effective exhaust port diameter of the valve is closer to 1.3" when you take into account the stem and the fact that a 1.42" valve makes contact with the head for about a mm or two on the outer radius. Hence his 1 5/8" primaries are too big if you as me. I'm at 1 3/16"."
Going off of the standard formulas for peak power between 6500 and 7K RPM my ideal primary size was between 1.52" - 1.58" and 36"- 33" long. I went 1.62" and 32" long + 4" long true merge collectors.
Nitpicking my build isn't going to go very far, lol. I'm not some young kid you can try to impress with your opinions.
Money seems to be coming up so here you go, I paid $650 for my complete engine with 678 miles on it.. about $350 into the cam/valvetrain, $400 into the headers, maybe $150 in gaskets and bolts and probably another $100-200 in misc stuff.
$1750 isn't bad at all for what i've gotten out of it.
The only thing i had a shop do for me was install the cam bearings and ceramic coat the headers, I can't stand to let other people work on my stuff.
You can take it as nitpicking...or advice. Your call. Everything says you should have out-torqued me. I'm pointing the finger at the exhaust. You should have gone with smaller primaries and then into a 2.5" collector instead of 2.25"...that's advice, you can take it or leave it. I just don't see the point of running tubes bigger than your valve in a non-boosted application.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]
IP: Logged
03:57 PM
PFF
System Bot
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Circle trap laps make a poor basis for performance comparsions, in my opinion. There are too many factors that can affect lap time, and the moajority of them fall under driver skill.
The car is 1 full second faster than the best LSx car. You are making general statements but the level of mods these guys employ puts their handling in the same ballpark especially when you are comparing a 1997 Camaro to 1998-2002 Camaros... Mind you I'm as fast as the best LSx car on this track.
The car is 1 full second faster than the best LSx car. You are making general statements but the level of mods these guys employ puts their handling in the same ballpark especially when you are comparing a 1997 Camaro to 1998-2002 Camaros... Mind you I'm as fast as the best LSx car on this track.
What is "the best LSx car" on that track? Any Miatas with LSx swaps? Any ZR-1s? Are there any Vettes at all? Or do only Camaros and pickup trucks run on that track?
IP: Logged
04:28 PM
LZeppelin513 Member
Posts: 761 From: Lake Stevens, Washington Registered: Aug 2003
You can take it as nitpicking...or advice. Your call. Everything says you should have out-torqued me. I'm pointing the finger at the exhaust. You should have gone with smaller primaries and then into a 2.5" collector instead of 2.25"...that's advice, you can take it or leave it. I just don't see the point of running tubes bigger than your valve in a non-boosted application.
Your assuming he would like more torque, maybe his goal was all out top end power? When All out accelerating power wins over low end torque, less wheel spin more power through the gear shifts.
IP: Logged
04:40 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
What is "the best LSx car" on that track? Any Miatas with LSx swaps? Any ZR-1s? Are there any Vettes at all? Or do only Camaros and pickup trucks run on that track?
Well, it's mostly the same guys with occassional new guys joining and other long-timers giving up.
There is a LSx GTO but he's not as good as two particular LS1 Camaro/Firebirds and none of them are as good as that '97 LT1. The white LS1 Camaro used to win a couple of years ago until the 3000GT came on and then the LT1 guy kept improving. FYI Mustangs are junk on this track.
You can watch this to get a feel for what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLidp-lIQpM In there at 13:35 you'll see my accident. The white Camaro that raced before me is a former 1st place finisher and I'm as fast as him now.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-21-2013).]
Originally posted by lou_dias: Well, it's mostly the same guys with occassional new guys joining and other long-timers giving up.
There is a LSx GTO but he's not as good as two particular LS1 Camaro/Firebirds and none of them are as good as that '97 LT1. The white LS1 Camaro used to win a couple of years ago until the 3000GT came on and then the LT1 guy kept improving. FYI Mustangs are junk on this track.
You can watch this to get a feel for what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLidp-lIQpM In there at 13:35 you'll see my accident. The white Camaro that raced before me is a former 1st place finisher and I'm as fast as him now.
OK. It's no surprise your faster than those LSx cars with your Fiero then. You've got the weight, and weight distribution advantages, plus the advantage of having the engine sitting on top of the drive wheels. If it were a straight drag strip though, it'd be a different story though.
If there were an LS1 Miata, or a C6 Vette there though, they'd be blowing your doors off.
Originally posted by lou_dias: short of spinning these motors >8000 rpm, all that extra volume actually decreases the VE of the system in the typical street build.
Why don't you go over the math that "proves" that again? Your argument is based on your idea that the heads have way more flow than the engine can use.
So the idea that the heads have more flow than the engine can use is CENTRAL to your contention that your engine will be able to carry that torque high enough in the RPM range to make comparable power to what the aluminum head engines do.
Which is why you don't want to actually engage me on that, because you're afraid your preconceptions will end up shattered.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias: I just bought generic octane booster and my detonation problems went away. I'll look to fix that with longer rods and shorter pistons despite what Will thinks.
Let us know how that goes...
I said what I do to try to bring your expectations in line with reality. If you have detonation problems with 5.7" rods, you will most likely have detonation problems with 6" rods.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-21-2013).]
IP: Logged
07:03 PM
joshua riedl Member
Posts: 1426 From: watertown wi USA Registered: Jan 2004
Originally posted by FieroWannaBe: Unverified, just like Josh's 3400 at 190whp.
I had sold the car to my brother in law and when we went to pick up my 3900 swap from the dyno he and fieromadman both put their cars on the dyno. I remember specifically because he made 2 less hp than me and I was pissed. I'll try and see if the sheet is still available.
IP: Logged
08:25 PM
ericjon262 Member
Posts: 3082 From: everywhere. Registered: Jan 2010
But that could simply mean that the LT1 flow was undersized...
On thing I do know is that an LT1 at my track event destroys all the LSx cars. He's in the finals every time unless he runs up against this 3000GT before the finals.
So, again, proper head work can fix factory short-comings...
LTx based heads have been proven performers for years, in fact, they've been that way since the beginning, they are hands down, no questions asked the best castings GM produced for a V8 with a 23*valve angle, and now you're bringing up LT1's, which has no basis for comparison on the subject as they had roller cams and aluminum heads from their onset.
When I asked about the roller cam V flat tappet L03, you refuse to answer, which confuses me, because you make the claim that the roller cam is where all of the improvement is on the GEN 3 motor, but yet these two otherwise identical motors don't have different outputs, and the only difference is the roller cam.
I'll also ask another question that you've tried to dodge. what gear were you in on the dyno? mechanical advantage makes a difference, 1st or 2nd gear would show a wildly different torque rating then 4th.
nevermind...
------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
Originally posted by ericjon262: you refuse to answer, which confuses me,
Not confusing at all... when he's confronted with information that contradicts his world-view, he can't deal with the cognitive dissonance and ignores the information.
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262:
I'll also ask another question that you've tried to dodge. what gear were you in on the dyno? mechanical advantage makes a difference, 1st or 2nd gear would show a wildly different torque rating then 4th.
Actually, not so... The dyno knows how fast the rollers are turning and how fast the engine is turning. It backs out the gear ratio.
IP: Logged
09:11 PM
ericjon262 Member
Posts: 3082 From: everywhere. Registered: Jan 2010
that is a fair comparison right? I'm not off in lala land down here in Florida am I?
My point with the LT1 was TO reinforce the difference a more modernized head layout can make for performance. The LS1 is almost lesser in every aspect except headflow and layout. Yes both had AL heads, but I will still contest that it makes no difference in performance. Truck 6.0L motors made the same power regardless of the casting material. I agree on the roller cam comparison, unless the profile has been optimised to the lifter configuration power difference due to the friction surface of the lifter is inconsequential.
[This message has been edited by FieroWannaBe (edited 02-22-2013).]
IP: Logged
07:24 AM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
OK. It's no surprise your faster than those LSx cars with your Fiero then. You've got the weight, and weight distribution advantages, plus the advantage of having the engine sitting on top of the drive wheels. If it were a straight drag strip though, it'd be a different story though.
If there were an LS1 Miata, or a C6 Vette there though, they'd be blowing your doors off.
There's been 1997-2004 Vette's here before and they all get smoked. You may not realize it but all these cars are far from stock. The white Camaro that used to win dynoes at over 400 rwhp. The AWD turbo eagle Summit has a 12.451 1/4 mile pass on youtbe from Oct 2011 - I beat him when he had a bad launch, he beat me when I had a bad launch on this track. You are making generalizations about me vs. "stock" cars. There are no stock cars and the ones that are, like 'Vettes get smoked. This is supposed to be an even for "street-legal" cars, but none are stock and how they got their inspection sticker is questionable.
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Actually, not so... The dyno knows how fast the rollers are turning and how fast the engine is turning. It backs out the gear ratio.
Or I don't give a flying frak about a truck motor. It's a fact that the same motor in different applications makes the different power. It's not a question worth answering. It's you guys who need to explain how I made 249 ft*lbs out of iron heads since you are the people in disbelief. I know what torque is and the v6 setup felt as strong as my 4.9 and the dynoes of the two motors proved it. You benchracers can piss and moan but the dynos only verified my seat-o-pants meter. My current v6 setup destroys my 4.9. My track results prove it. Dropping 2 seconds on that lap time isn't a handling difference. When I dynoed at 158/195 with a bad tune, the handly helped me EQUAL my 4.9 car's 175/265 time on that track. My handling hasn't changed...you do the math. May now resume your pissing and moaning.
IP: Logged
01:59 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Originally posted by sleevePAPA: its funny how the general concensus over there is vastly different from here LOL
What's even more amusing is reading that and watching trolls put words in my mouth. It's RFT all over again.
The best is when resident troll #1 ericjon (who already owns land in Florida) keeps asking me for a current dyno from a car in a collision shop with no front end on it. Apparently, me posting a video of me colliding with a ~5000LB Ford Lightning isn't enough to justfiy front end damage. Well, trolls will be trolls... What's even funnier is when they realize just how fast that truck is (again not stock power or suspension) and I beat it too.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 02-22-2013).]
IP: Logged
02:13 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Originally posted by ericjon262: I'll also ask another question that you've tried to dodge. what gear were you in on the dyno? mechanical advantage makes a difference, 1st or 2nd gear would show a wildly different torque rating then 4th. nevermind...
There's been 1997-2004 Vette's here before and they all get smoked. You may not realize it but all these cars are far from stock. The white Camaro that used to win dynoes at over 400 rwhp. The AWD turbo eagle Summit has a 12.451 1/4 mile pass on youtbe from Oct 2011 - I beat him when he had a bad launch, he beat me when I had a bad launch on this track. You are making generalizations about me vs. "stock" cars. There are no stock cars and the ones that are, like 'Vettes get smoked. This is supposed to be an even for "street-legal" cars, but none are stock and how they got their inspection sticker is questionable.
No, I'm not making generalizations. Stock or not isn't relevant. Making 400whp on a dyno and having a 12 second 1/4 mile pass are useless on an oval track. If the car isn't set up to handle the turns well, or the driver isn't great at making them, then they'll lose. And I said C6 Vettes for a reason. The C5 (97-04) aren't as great. The C6 cars are better, especially the Z06 and ZR1. But even with twice as much power as you're putting down, and a car with much better suspension than you have, they'll not make it around the curves well if the driver just doesn't have the experience doing it. Engine mods and turbos don't count for crap if they're riding on stock suspension on those cars. That's why your comment about Mustangs on that track holds true. All the money in the engine, very little in suspension. They're good for straight line acceleration, but the heavier cars with poor weight balance on stock suspension setups aren't going to make it around an oval very fast.
Originally posted by lou_dias: What's even more amusing is reading that and watching trolls put words in my mouth. It's RFT all over again.
The best is when resident troll #1 ericjon (who already owns land in Florida) keeps asking me for a current dyno from a car in a collision shop with no front end on it. Apparently, me posting a video of me colliding with a ~5000LB Ford Lightning isn't enough to justfiy front end damage. Well, trolls will be trolls... What's even funnier is when they realize just how fast that truck is (again not stock power or suspension) and I beat it too.
I don't know what your problem with Florida is, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with how much power an iron or aluminum head v6 makes.
And wow, so you beat a truck that weighs twice as much as your Fiero, and apparently isn't stock, but obviously he doesn't race it in the NASCAR Truck series. And I don't see what your getting hit by it when he started to lose it on the track has to do with getting a dyno chart. If you aren't going to put the car on a dyno then say so, instead of making excuses. You can either get it fixed and put it on a dyno, put it on a dyno in its current state (unless you've managed to convert it to AWD of course), or just say you aren't going to dyno it. Don't piss and moan about Florida or your car getting some damage to avoid the questions.
And nobody is saying your car doesn't make power. So quite whining like they are. ericjon is asking to see a broad torque curve between 2000-6000 RPM with your engine in its current state. Sure, your iron heads make plenty of power, but the aluminum heads that flow more are also likely to make more power, and give a better curve across the range.
You can run iron or aluminum heads on your engine. Nobody really cares. The ones that say you'd get more power, with a better curvature across the RPM range are probably right. But just because you don't want to change the heads, or because you made X power with the iron heads, doesn't make you right in saying that iron heads are better, or that people are trolling you. Rather, you seem to just be taking the requests for information, and the suggestions from others, a bit too personal.
[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 02-22-2013).]
IP: Logged
02:48 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
Originally posted by dobey: No, I'm not making generalizations. Stock or not isn't relevant. Making 400whp on a dyno and having a 12 second 1/4 mile pass are useless on an oval track. If the car isn't set up to handle the turns well, or the driver isn't great at making them, then they'll lose. And I said C6 Vettes for a reason. The C5 (97-04) aren't as great. The C6 cars are better, especially the Z06 and ZR1. But even with twice as much power as you're putting down, and a car with much better suspension than you have, they'll not make it around the curves well if the driver just doesn't have the experience doing it. Engine mods and turbos don't count for crap if they're riding on stock suspension on those cars. That's why your comment about Mustangs on that track holds true. All the money in the engine, very little in suspension. They're good for straight line acceleration, but the heavier cars with poor weight balance on stock suspension setups aren't going to make it around an oval very fast.
Yes, but all my comments are/were geared to the actual cars I'm running against. If you watched that event (2 or 3 of my races that day were omitted but you can find them from another poster so I can only assume other races were omitted as well) and others from the past, you can get a feeling for who the best cars - in general - are. It comes down to more ease of modification. The particular white LS1 Camaro I'm referring to is dial-ed in for that track as is the 97 LT1. The 3000GT is just a beast all around. There's an AWD turbo Eclipse that's a hair faster than me but I hope to match him soon enough. I'm somewhere in the top 8 overall on any give day but alot of times you just end up racing one of the top 3 cars in an early round and get knocked out.
For the first round, the event organizers try to match up cars similar in power to keep the opening rounds exciting and competetive. After that though, it's a crapshoot. Lately they've been matching me up with turbo and turbo AWD cars because I destroy the RWD cars off the launch...when I don't bog down. In 2011 I was so-so because of my detonation issues. This past year I made it to the final 6 on Labor Day...with no handling changes other than larger wheels/tires with less offset since the 1999 Camaro wheels I was using were rubbing the spring during a hard body roll and that's what caused me to hit the WRX in Aug of 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtpnQbRzMS0). Hence I was able to push the curves harder on Labor Day 2012 without spinning out. If you watch that video, you'll see that the WRX had nothing on me in power from 50-80mph on the back straightaway. He's a 13.2 car.
We have NED (New England Dragway) in New Hampshire only 2 hours away, so alot of these guys are tuners. They do both types of events. That's why I can quote you their 1/4 mile times. Some of them even do autocrossing.
I don't know what your problem with Florida is, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with how much power an iron or aluminum head v6 makes.
And wow, so you beat a truck that weighs twice as much as your Fiero, and apparently isn't stock, but obviously he doesn't race it in the NASCAR Truck series. And I don't see what your getting hit by it when he started to lose it on the track has to do with getting a dyno chart. If you aren't going to put the car on a dyno then say so, instead of making excuses. You can either get it fixed and put it on a dyno, put it on a dyno in its current state (unless you've managed to convert it to AWD of course), or just say you aren't going to dyno it. Don't piss and moan about Florida or your car getting some damage to avoid the questions.
And nobody is saying your car doesn't make power. So quite whining like they are. ericjon is asking to see a broad torque curve between 2000-6000 RPM with your engine in its current state. Sure, your iron heads make plenty of power, but the aluminum heads that flow more are also likely to make more power, and give a better curve across the range.
You can run iron or aluminum heads on your engine. Nobody really cares. The ones that say you'd get more power, with a better curvature across the RPM range are probably right. But just because you don't want to change the heads, or because you made X power with the iron heads, doesn't make you right in saying that iron heads are better, or that people are trolling you. Rather, you seem to just be taking the requests for information, and the suggestions from others, a bit too personal.
I see you are being blinded by his trolling. If you had followed his trolling and actually read my responses it boilds down to this:
1) troll asks for dyno 2) I say car is at collision shop thru April so you'll get a dyno in May 3) troll asks for dyno 4) troll goes to another site to start a trolling thread about this thread 4) go to step 3
I see you are being blinded by his trolling. If you had followed his trolling and actually read my responses it boilds down to this:
1) troll asks for dyno 2) I say car is at collision shop thru April so you'll get a dyno in May 3) troll asks for dyno 4) troll goes to another site to start a trolling thread about this thread 4) go to step 3
No. But I'm not going to follow you two around to whatever other threads you're moaning at each other at, and on whatever forum you're doing it on either. I just searched all three pages of this thread, and this is the first time "April" appeared. If you said that, then fine. Stop moaning about it, and if it comes up again make it clear you said that.
IP: Logged
03:22 PM
lou_dias Member
Posts: 5262 From: Warwick, RI Registered: Jun 2000
No. But I'm not going to follow you two around to whatever other threads you're moaning at each other at, and on whatever forum you're doing it on either. I just searched all three pages of this thread, and this is the first time "April" appeared. If you said that, then fine. Stop moaning about it, and if it comes up again make it clear you said that.
Said troll follows me to other threads and continues to ask for a dyno knowing I don't have the car in my possession. It's part of the trolling act. It was one of the other threads where I said it and in this thread I've said several times the car is at a collision shop and pointed to the video where I got my front end bent to the right by hitting a truck twice my weight.
Said troll follows me to other threads and continues to ask for a dyno knowing I don't have the car in my possession. It's part of the trolling act. It was one of the other threads where I said it and in this thread I've said several times the car is at a collision shop and pointed to the video where I got my front end bent to the right by hitting a truck twice my weight.
I didn't claim to not knowing about you arguing like 8 year olds in countless threads. I said you didn't mention April until just now. But just because you two run amok in various threads doesn't mean we're all going to follow you around. I really don't care. You said you created this thread so you didn't have to do that, and then continue to do it anyway.
I don't even care about the dyno. You're making a facile argument about iron vs. aluminum heads, because you've got a personal stake in having iron heads on your engine, and are tired of seeing others tell you aluminum would be better. You can disagree with the aluminum head option being better in this case all you want, but it doesn't make you right. If you want so much to be right, then forget about the dyno. Pull the heads off, grab a set of aluminum 60 degree heads, put them all on a flow bench, and get per-cylinder mappings of air flow and swirl in the combustion chambers. Between that data, and valve sizes, angles, spring ratings, and where the tip of the plug sits in the chamber, will tell you absolutely which one is better.
Talking about your oval track lap times, quarter mile times, and pretty much anything else is basically irrelevant, if what you want to talk about is which head is objectively better. My money is on the aluminum heads, which have a few design enhancements over the older iron head designs on the 60 degree V6es.
IP: Logged
04:35 PM
Will Member
Posts: 14226 From: Where you least expect me Registered: Jun 2000
Or I don't give a flying frak about a truck motor. It's a fact that the same motor in different applications makes the different power. It's not a question worth answering. It's you guys who need to explain how I made 249 ft*lbs out of iron heads since you are the people in disbelief. I know what torque is and the v6 setup felt as strong as my 4.9 and the dynoes of the two motors proved it. You benchracers can piss and moan but the dynos only verified my seat-o-pants meter. My current v6 setup destroys my 4.9. My track results prove it. Dropping 2 seconds on that lap time isn't a handling difference. When I dynoed at 158/195 with a bad tune, the handly helped me EQUAL my 4.9 car's 175/265 time on that track. My handling hasn't changed...you do the math. May now resume your pissing and moaning.
Not sure why you quoted my post for this...
I don't doubt your engine made 249 ftlbs on the dyno. So what if it did? That's never been what the dicussion is about.
You've continually conjectured that your iron head engine will make aluminum head power... I don't think it will, because the heads will always be the last restriction. In comparably built engines, the aluminum heads will be the last restriction at a higher output than the iron heads. This WILL happen below 7000 RPM, making such an engine "streetable", although almost certainly not as docile as a stocker, unless it's fitted with a throttle per cylinder intake.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: Pull the heads off, grab a set of aluminum 60 degree heads, put them all on a flow bench, and get per-cylinder mappings of air flow and swirl in the combustion chambers. Between that data, and valve sizes, angles, spring ratings, and where the tip of the plug sits in the chamber, will tell you absolutely which one is better.
Talking about your oval track lap times, quarter mile times, and pretty much anything else is basically irrelevant, if what you want to talk about is which head is objectively better. My money is on the aluminum heads, which have a few design enhancements over the older iron head designs on the 60 degree V6es.
The head that's "objectively better" is the head that lets you build a combo that wins more races than the other head. Consideration of any other characteristic is a proxy. Dyno results are a close second to the stop watch, but there are port turbulence characteristics that affect how well a wet flow engine (and to some extent, even port EFI engines are wet flow) "picks back up" after a shift on track. These characteristics don't show up on the dyno. However, they also don't show up on much of anything short of a Pro-Stock engine either... Nothing else is in a high enough state of tune to be optimized enough to be able to pick out those changes.
I think the aluminum heads can be used to build an engine that will significantly outperform a comparably built engine with iron heads.
The head that's "objectively better" is the head that lets you build a combo that wins more races than the other head. Consideration of any other characteristic is a proxy. Dyno results are a close second to the stop watch, but there are port turbulence characteristics that affect how well a wet flow engine (and to some extent, even port EFI engines are wet flow) "picks back up" after a shift on track. These characteristics don't show up on the dyno. However, they also don't show up on much of anything short of a Pro-Stock engine either... Nothing else is in a high enough state of tune to be optimized enough to be able to pick out those changes.
I think the aluminum heads can be used to build an engine that will significantly outperform a comparably built engine with iron heads.
That is true, and in this case, the set of heads that gives the greatest area under the curve, with the power extending to the higher RPM, will almost certainly be the winner; assuming of course the cam, lifters, valve springs, etc… aren't putting other mechanical limits on what the usable RPM range will be. Of course, if the aluminum heads produce a flatter curve at roughly the same peak torque as the iron heads, and roughly throughout the usable RPM range, then it will still be better, even if the full range the heads could give, isn't used. No?
IP: Logged
05:52 PM
ericjon262 Member
Posts: 3082 From: everywhere. Registered: Jan 2010
I see you are being blinded by his trolling. If you had followed his trolling and actually read my responses it boilds down to this:
1) troll asks for dyno 2) I say car is at collision shop thru April so you'll get a dyno in May 3) troll asks for dyno 4) troll goes to another site to start a trolling thread about this thread 4) go to step 3
1)I missed where you said your car was in the body shop. 2) I guess you can only count to 4? 3) please, the thread has been linked to on here, and it was started long before this thread was. 4) if you think I follow you around, you have serious ego issues, I see threads pertaining to the 60*V6 and performance, and I give factual information that I can back up with test data. 5) I haven't denied that your car performed on the low end, I never went over your build thread with a fine tooth comb. I have questioned how the results came to be. 6) At one point, I was very interested in your build, and enjoying seeing what you had done with the iron heads. then you made a flat out wrong comment and I called you out. you asked me to leave your build thread, and I did. I would expect someone to do the same if I made a wrong comment. 7) your heads don't flow like the 3x00 heads do, they make more power down low, couple that to a 3400 cam which favors the low end, and higher compression, and you will get a bigger low end, that's no secret. 8) I have provided information to back up my claims, and I have provided apples to apples comparisions that support my claims, you keep bringing up oval tracks and other cars which is as apples to oranges as you can get.
------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
I told you at least 4 times I don't have the car. In my own build thread. In the 3500 block iron heads thread. In this thread, probably at least twice and posted a video in my own thread and this one. ...and probably in the "serious discussion..." about making a 3.4 make 300 hp thread.
It's quite clear you either have a reading comprehension problem or just like to troll.
