Notices
GM Engine & Exhaust Performance EFI | GEN I/GEN II/GEN III/GEN IV Engines |Small Block | Big Block |
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Thinking of L92 heads for my lq4. Thoughts??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-11-2013, 02:59 PM
  #41  
Moderator
iTrader: (19)
 
TXsilverado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Humble Texas
Posts: 18,315
Received 220 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

I've never used ls3/l92 heads and probably never will. I think my current build has the potential to compete with these trucks, but I no longer have a full size to play with.
Old 08-11-2013, 05:57 PM
  #42  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
 
zero2sixT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Deer park, TX
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Cathedral for the street, rectangle for track/wot performance. Stock casting vs. stock casting. If you have to swap, then the cost has to be considered in what you're spending on performance. If you do that, then IMO a ported 243 should be looked at before going l92s. A nice set of used 243s with good springs goes for $1k or less. Brand new set, if you have cores is $1200.

What does it cost to go to l92s?

I will say, I own both styles. I'm not converting either. If I ever get my afrs on my truck, I'd really like to line up a race vs a rectangle port 6.0 truck.
Old 08-11-2013, 06:07 PM
  #43  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
oakley6575's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,235
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by zero2sixT
I will say, I own both styles. I'm not converting either. If I ever get my afrs on my truck, I'd really like to line up a race vs a rectangle port 6.0 truck.
So your comparing high dollar aftermarket heads with stock casting 700$ heads? I think it would be a little more fair to compare TFS 255 LS3 heads with your AFR heads.
Old 08-11-2013, 06:50 PM
  #44  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
 
zero2sixT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Deer park, TX
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by oakley6575
So your comparing high dollar aftermarket heads with stock casting 700$ heads? I think it would be a little more fair to compare TFS 255 LS3 heads with your AFR heads.
Afr 225s milled 66cc. Peak dyno numbers wise, it's not the unfair of a comparison. But it's not the main idea of what I posted.
Old 08-11-2013, 07:54 PM
  #45  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (45)
 
dirt track racer 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hennessey, Oklahoma
Posts: 9,439
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by oakley6575
I like this . Most people who hate on the rectangle port heads have never had any experience with them. Its like the grandpa that still thinks the gen 1 small block chevy is the best engine on the planet.
Absofuckinglutely man.. Anytime somebody asks a question whoever is to reply says you should this because I do and it has their butt Dyno pegged..
I posted in this thread because Ive had ported ls1 heads, milled 243 heads, and milled l92 heads, snd these l92s have the most power and great power all over the power band.. My truck has done proven itself, it still pulles a 24' deck boat damn good up hills down hills passing people in overdrive. Even out pulled a duramax that was rollin coal that was pulling a smaller boat. That's with a donkey dick cam and Vic jr intake which everyone that sits inside their littlle box say it cannot make any torque.
Old 08-11-2013, 08:03 PM
  #46  
Formerly ScreamingL
 
George C....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: From the 412
Posts: 3,456
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TXsilverado
all theories aside, dirttrack has the best 2wd 60' that I've seen, and has the fastest n20 ecsb that I know of. he's doing it instead of talking about how to do it. skeet had a beast of a n/a 6.0. both trucks with L92 heads. time for one of us cathedral fans to build something to out perform instead of talking about it. i don't have a full size anymore so i'm out
some food for thought on subject, take some time and read this thru all the pages

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=585684
Old 08-11-2013, 08:11 PM
  #47  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
oakley6575's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,235
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ScreamingL
some food for thought on subject, take some time and read this thru all the pages

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=585684
This is Tyler's truck . Cathedral ports take kindly to overcamming and rec ports do not. Thats why it made the same on the dyno.
Old 08-11-2013, 08:25 PM
  #48  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (45)
 
dirt track racer 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hennessey, Oklahoma
Posts: 9,439
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Truck weighed over 300lbs more than when it ran 10.64.. Cam was designed for a **** load more nitrous what we were running then.. Since then I've gone from 2x .060 jets to 2x .073 jets.. I have a bone stock transmission and stock driveshaft with stock ujoints.. I'm jot going to spray anymore to it..
Old 08-11-2013, 08:27 PM
  #49  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (45)
 
dirt track racer 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hennessey, Oklahoma
Posts: 9,439
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

It actually did make more, it made 455 vs 428.. That was just said to get other opinions on the cam..
Old 08-11-2013, 08:36 PM
  #50  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
oakley6575's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,235
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Yea that IVC point is crazy for a heavy truck with a vic jr. I bet it would love a 400 shot


Quick Reply: Thinking of L92 heads for my lq4. Thoughts??



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 PM.