TXGS507

He won't share because he is FOS!!!

95rtturbo

Yep. He has one of the most well thought out setups on this forum, and also happens to be one of my favorite cars on the forum. He is the original owner, too.

envyz06

bikeriderga

427 motor swap?

robz

I can give you some tips but after reading what you wrote here you are much better served by someone like Tony Mamo. He can and has done exaclty what you are looking with older technology. As some of us mentioned, who have been there before, it's all in the details.
Be prepared to spend some extra coin but I believe it's worth it.

robz

That theory has been test and proven wrong.

robz

Here a few question for you three.

1) Approximately how much rwhp does a car equipped with 4.10 gears vs 3.42 gears lose on a chassis dyno?

2) What mph would you expect to see from a 2850lb c5z make approximately 500rwhp?

Thanks

808EB03Z06

Before I put in my new clutch I was putting down 470-475 with my build. Granted it is with a bigger cam and 102/102 setup. I need new heads to optimize everything realistically.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Before we get into the hand finishing, you will want (and need) to lighten the intake valve some by opting for a hollow stem....Jack has hollows in the build I featured previously (as well as "DarthV8r" in the other link I provided) and its an important option for accurate valve control which improves reliability and power over 6K (also aids in extending spring life due to them having to control less mass).

The hollow upgrade is $275.....you will want to cc and mill the heads for more compression naturally.....that cost is $125. But the good news is that $2650 for the heads get you the entire finished assemblies including the better HR spring upgrade and the lighter weight Ti retainers. Just add the upgrades I previously mentioned and that's the turn key fully assembled price.

The CNC+ option.....aka "Mamofied"/hand finished adds $550. Its very time consuming but if your budget allows and your into "cylinder head art" its certainly an upgrade worthy of consideration (assuming the budget allows) and it will help you squeeze those extra ponies from the combo. Here are a few close up of the chamber, bowl, and seat work.









Regarding peak TQ etc., expect to see 420 - 440 RWTQ depending on build options and which dyno you happen to roll on, and your curve would look very similar to the one I previously posted. With my new MMS 220 heads it would be potentially higher if we check off all the options so to speak but keep in mind that includes options such as the lightweight clutch and an EWP to free up parasitic losses as well. This is the part that requires you to be financially committed and represents the "nickel and dime" HP costs that add up when your "ALL IN" ). Also, much like the previous curve, you will see it carry peak TQ from 4500 - 5500 very flat with a very slooow rollover which is how the big HP numbers are always made.

Andrew (or anyone else for that matter)....it's probably a good idea to discuss more details via email, or better yet on the phone at this point, but I provided enough info here to allow everyone reading a glimpse at some of the various options/cost involved. Like I mentioned numerous times.....shooting for that big number costs and power costs more money to produce the higher and better the baseline we are starting from. You could take a 400 RWHP combo and get to 450 at half the cost it would take a 450 RWHP combo to reach 500.....its the nature of the hobby and things in general regarding extracting more power from any combination regardless of brand or design.

-Tony

LSOHOLIC

1) on average a 500 rwhp car will chew up 15hp with a 4.10 on the dyno. So add 15 back (roughly) to get it back to 3.42 estimations.

2) mph is very dependant on several factors...especially in a manual car. But in the 2800 - 3000lb range a C5 should trap 130+ to indicate roughly 500rwhp.

LSOHOLIC

I see you guys giving Robz a hard time....although he and I haven't seen eye to eye at times. He does know how to make a C5 very efficient...thus very quick for the given parts on the car.

He's been a part of some great race camps and builds. So when he says something regarding a C5 build, you can pretty much guarantee he's either tried it himself or someone in his group of race friends has. In other words....he's been around the block a time or two.

About the 500rwhp....it's doable. I did it as well, wasn't cheap...lol. But the challenge is what interested me and the efficiency game is addicting. But most of all...its that elusive single digit stock bottom 346" time slip. That's the real deal !!

An ex - N/A race makes the best power adder racer. Because of his years of attention to detail. We don't believe in "just turn up the boost"...lol

Good luck to all who decide to shoot for this goal......LET THE BMEP GUIDE THE WAY !!!


.

radar502

Ls-1 to LS-6 GM rod bolts @500 RWHP your on the edge of snapping one well its also the RPM that will contribute . Sustained high RPM with stock rod bolts @ 500 RWHP can't hang APR rod bolts good insurance .. Rod bolts weak point in the older LS motors ..

GARY2004Z06

To the doubters:
http://www.importvsdomestic.com/resu...014-11-09.html
You guys may wish to look at the trap speeds.
And just because you cannot do something, does not mean that it cannot be done.

Millenium Z06

I believe that comment was directed towards Toques car as a joke, not yours.

Millenium Z06

No ones saying it cant be done, they just said street driveabilty would likely suffer to which I agree.

LSOHOLIC

...*edit*....

Thought I sounded a little brash.

So, in hindsight....anytime you increase hp without increasing cubes it will ultimately effect drivablity...speaking of n/a specifically.

But...the big picture it is doable and very drivable.


Thanks....

.


.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

There is that line you crossover....and its almost always associated with the choice of camshaft. The valve events and overlap of the cam really dictate the "personality" of the engine and how user friendly it is.

The key is to blurr that line with a smaller cam and make the power by optimizing all the airflow the engine can process with an optimized set of heads, intake, exhaust, CAI....anything in the flow path....and by reducing parasitic losses. You can have "the cake and eat it to scenario" if you have the budget required to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s and select the correct optimized components for the build.

I'm determined to help someone post a 500 RWHP accomplishment with an intake lobe in the 220's which offers excellent drivability and a completely usable wide power band.....not just a big peak number. It's really just a matter of who and when because I know it can be done. The combo I featured earlier that made 487 RWHP would have been in the low/mid 490's with a larger 1.875 header helping to carry the TQ better past 6K. With the better heads I have available now (and maybe a couple of degrees more on the cam for an insurance policy), I'm there.....LOL

If and when I do I will revisit this thread with a link to all the info!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone



Regards,
Tony

LSOHOLIC

Hello Tony....I've always enjoyed your tech discussions.

The debate is....lobe area vs event.

Your 220 lobe will still have a IVC somewhere in the 44 - 47 range. And the issue is...a 235 lobe with a similar IVC could possibly prove to supply more cylinder pressure over a greater amout of time. (Depending on several factors)

If you watch some of the EMC guys...it gets interesting how they promote tq through a large induction system and relatively small cam shaft.

But all in all....I agree with the large header and parasitic statements.


.

.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Sure....but the larger the lobes the more overlap you end up contending with so its all a give and take. Most of my head designs allows for minimal overlap which helps out drivability and overall street manners. In fact too much overlap with an exhaust port that has strong low lift flow is really not good as you get into an over scavenge type scenario and end up siphoning some of the oxygen and fuel you could have used to make more power right into your exhaust system (not good for the cats either!)

Its always all about "the combination" but I would put a combo like Jack's previously featured against anything that makes comparatively the same power and would be confident that it would drive notably better and be much easier to live with day to day. My 346 build in 2004 that made 475-480 RWHP....anyone that drove in that car was blown away with the performance because it was so unassuming. A few always accused me of secretly stuffing a 383 in there....LOL It was extremely mild as you would expect of a 224 stick on a 114 LSA, but when you hammed it it pulled like a freight train to 7K or so....something a larger motor might do with good heads and a small cam to keep the idle quality nice.

While a lobe in the mid 230's would undoubtedly make it easier to achieve the 500 mark, I think it just wouldn't be as stealthy and truly forgiving as an engine that made the same power with less camshaft.

I'm half considering resurrecting my C5 just to accomplish this goal but the problem is I just dont have the time....It's easier for me to provide someone motivated with the "recipe" and its better received when the results are independent anyway in most respects.

Oh....regarding the EMC contestants, they have to make significant TQ figures at RPM's that even I don't concern myself with (under 3000 RPM) to get a good score in the contest. And those engines are far from "real" street engines...extremely high dollar builds with a ton of parts swapping for any of the engines in the top of the heap, but the approach taken there isn't much different than I'm offering up....optimize the heads and all the airflow paths and you can make big power and big torque with excellent street manners cause your not forced to run a big cam to get the numbers.....the better the heads and rest of the combination is, the less valve timing you need to make the same power and that helps boost the bottom end of the curve as well for a win-win scenario!

Good stuff!

-Tony

GARY2004Z06

Actually, there were a few posters that did not believe that a cam only setup could approach 500 rwhp. Rob had two different examples. One was a streetable 500 rwhp setup and a race "cam only" setup which was not a streetable setup. If we consider a third build of his, I can personally attest to his 388 CI motor which made 633 HP on a Mustang dyno as being streetable and relatively easy to drive.