PerformanceTrucks.net Forums

Dynamometer Results & Comparisons Dyno Graphs | Power Comparisons | Dyno Truck List

CalSpeed built LQ9 6.0 SCSB goes 475 rwhp today on mustang dyno

   
Old Dec 18, 2009 | 07:41 PM
  #21  
dlt76028's Avatar
dlt76028
12 Second Truck Club
15 Year Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,883
Likes: 2
From: Crowley, TX
Default
thats some damn good numbers! i just out those heads on my lq4, but my cams not nearly that big.
Reply
0
Old Dec 19, 2009 | 12:43 AM
  #22  
CalSpeedPerformance's Avatar
CalSpeedPerformance
Thread Starter
FormerVendor
iTrader: (64)
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA
Default
I'd mill them to 59cc if it was going onto a LQ4 to get the compression up.
Reply
0
Old Dec 19, 2009 | 12:52 AM
  #23  
Wheatley's Avatar
Wheatley
Truck Sponsor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,286
Likes: 2
From: Sealy/Katy TX
Default
are those 5.3 heads a 59CC?
Damn good numbers!!
Originally Posted by CalSpeedPerformance
I'd mill them to 59cc if it was going onto a LQ4 to get the compression up.
Reply
0
Old Dec 19, 2009 | 02:24 AM
  #24  
Parke10's Avatar
Parke10
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 1
From: Bakersfield,Ca
Default
Originally Posted by Wheatley
are those 5.3 heads a 59CC?
Damn good numbers!!
64cc im pretty sure, i think he was saying if someone wanted to use em on an lq4 instead of lq9 to mill em to 59cc
Reply
0
Old Dec 19, 2009 | 02:54 AM
  #25  
Wheatley's Avatar
Wheatley
Truck Sponsor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,286
Likes: 2
From: Sealy/Katy TX
Default
Oh ok got cha.
Originally Posted by Parke10
64cc im pretty sure, i think he was saying if someone wanted to use em on an lq4 instead of lq9 to mill em to 59cc
Reply
0
Old Dec 19, 2009 | 03:56 PM
  #26  
dlt76028's Avatar
dlt76028
12 Second Truck Club
15 Year Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,883
Likes: 2
From: Crowley, TX
Default
hmm, i thought they were like 62cc...
Reply
0
Old Dec 20, 2009 | 01:36 AM
  #27  
CalSpeedPerformance's Avatar
CalSpeedPerformance
Thread Starter
FormerVendor
iTrader: (64)
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA
Default
Originally Posted by Wheatley
are those 5.3 heads a 59CC?
Damn good numbers!!
No we normally run 64cc on a LQ9 for 91 octane.
Last edited by 1slow01Z71; Dec 20, 2009 at 10:28 PM.
Reply
0
Old Dec 23, 2009 | 04:18 AM
  #28  
454SuperSport's Avatar
454SuperSport
TECH Fanatic
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
From: Millen, GA
Default
thats a **** load of compression and timing on 91 oct fuel. never would have figured that head was enough for that kinda power either, kudos to you
Reply
0
Old Dec 23, 2009 | 12:18 PM
  #29  
CalSpeedPerformance's Avatar
CalSpeedPerformance
Thread Starter
FormerVendor
iTrader: (64)
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA
Default
Originally Posted by 454SuperSport
thats a **** load of compression and timing on 91 oct fuel. never would have figured that head was enough for that kinda power either, kudos to you
Not really.. 10.9:1 compression with the 5-layer GM MLS gaskets. (Think LS2 11:1 compression in TBSS's)..also with plenty of camshaft to bleed cylinder pressure, good exhaust etc its easy to get away with more compression.
Last edited by 1slow01Z71; Dec 23, 2009 at 07:16 PM.
Reply
0
Old Dec 23, 2009 | 12:54 PM
  #30  
black00chev's Avatar
black00chev
Slowest turbo build ever!
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 1
From: Warrenton, VA
Default


I know that this is another way to setup but, what would be pro/con of running big cam/CR, low boost vs. standard cam/CR, higher boost?
Reply
0

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Advanced Search

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.