L92 heads vs. ported LS6/317s
Feb 25, 2009 | 05:21 AM
#21
Thread Starter
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (27)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 19
From: Dallas
^^^^^^ ran a sweet *** time with L92 stuff. I hope to run that good.
more air in = more power.
You will still have abunch of stuff to change to run the LS6 intake...less to run a l92 intake and you get the bigger TB...when the more air going in starts.
But those 317's will be nice.
more air in = more power.
You will still have abunch of stuff to change to run the LS6 intake...less to run a l92 intake and you get the bigger TB...when the more air going in starts.
But those 317's will be nice.
Feb 25, 2009 | 06:16 AM
#22
well I sold the heads that I had from Skeet, bought a complete L92 intake and FAST 90mm . . . . so the hunt is on for the heads/intake rockers/rocker stands. I'll hang out on tech for a while until someone parts something out.
anyone got a contact for some stock L92s?
anyone got a contact for some stock L92s?
Feb 25, 2009 | 06:18 AM
#23
Thread Starter
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (27)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 19
From: Dallas
Why do you have both intakes? Are you debating yourself on the cathedral vs. square port heads? If you're after the most power, go with the L92s. If you're lazy like me and just want something to bolt on and still make a lot of power, go with the ported cathedrals...
Feb 25, 2009 | 11:32 AM
#24
i put down 410hp with some ported ls6 heads and a 226R cam with the junky *** ls6 intake manifold.
i expect more with the new cam and even more with the ported fast 92mm manifold. stay with the truck manifold if you can IMO. for ever person that you see get gains from the ls6 manifold you see 2 that lose time.
truck manifold>ls6 manifold>ls1 manifold in a truck application.
i expect more with the new cam and even more with the ported fast 92mm manifold. stay with the truck manifold if you can IMO. for ever person that you see get gains from the ls6 manifold you see 2 that lose time.
truck manifold>ls6 manifold>ls1 manifold in a truck application.
Feb 25, 2009 | 12:15 PM
#25
The L92s are bad ***. This months GMHTP they put a set of WCCH worked heads on an 09 Vette and it went from 480 whp with cam, headers, and a tune to 518 whp with just the heads. That was with the stock intake as well which on that car with that cam and those heads is forcing it to breathe through a straw.
Feb 25, 2009 | 12:42 PM
#26
Thread Starter
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (27)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,275
Likes: 19
From: Dallas
i put down 410hp with some ported ls6 heads and a 226R cam with the junky *** ls6 intake manifold.
i expect more with the new cam and even more with the ported fast 92mm manifold. stay with the truck manifold if you can IMO. for ever person that you see get gains from the ls6 manifold you see 2 that lose time.
truck manifold>ls6 manifold>ls1 manifold in a truck application.
i expect more with the new cam and even more with the ported fast 92mm manifold. stay with the truck manifold if you can IMO. for ever person that you see get gains from the ls6 manifold you see 2 that lose time.
truck manifold>ls6 manifold>ls1 manifold in a truck application.
Also, thinking more about the cam I'm going to run, I was looking over TSP's engine dyno testing thread on LS1tech, and their conclusion was that cams with more aggressive lobes than the XER - i.e. XFI, LSL, LSK, etc - made basically no more and in some cases less power than the XER. So I really see no need to go with a cam that's going to put more strain on my valvetrain and decrease longevity of it's components. So I'm going to try and see if I can get someone knowledgeable with valve events and whatnot to spec me out a custom 228R cam....I'm thinking on a 110 lsa.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bbowerman
GM Engine & Exhaust Performance
10
Jul 26, 2015 10:57 PM
