[Z06] Promising dyno results of my new LS7 heads
03-18-2016, 03:03 AM
#1
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Promising dyno results of my new LS7 heads
Guys,
Most of you already know I have been investing alot of my recent time in R&D wrapped up in the LS7 engine platform.
Just wanted to share one of the first dyno results from my new MMS LS7 heads (utilizing the TFS castings). Unfortunately it's an LS7 engine that is installed in a 5th Gen Camaro that has been heavily modded for the strip (stronger rear, 6L80 conversion, beefed up driveshaft, etc) so the numbers are lower than we are accustomed to seeing (and perhaps the dyno is a little stingy.....not sure there), but its a good A/B comparison regardless with the only changes being heads and a small bump in cam timing.
What makes the gains more significant is the fact the baseline engine already had 285 cc ported OEM castings on the car milled for more compression (I matched that chamber volume on the heads I sent them) so we aren't looking at a stock to ported head comparison which makes it alot easier to see significant gains (and most of those comparisons include milled heads versus stock so some gains are coming from the increase in static compression).
The baseline cam was a 232/249 if I recall (I know it was low 230's) and the cam the shop installed was something more along the lines I recommended for this particular combo (239/252) so it was a little larger which would hurt the bottom (a little) and help the top a little. I think most who have spent enough time dyno'ing different combinations would agree a cam bump this modest would be worth 8-12 ponies or so.
Here is what the comparison of the before and after curves looked like....I attribute the gain down low to the higher airspeed and efficiency these new MMS LS7 head have.....Im getting more air thru a 265 cc port than most stuff I have seen up to 35 cc's larger.
If the baseline heads were stock it would be considered a pretty stout gain in my book, but the fact they were already ported (and milled for higher compression), makes the results that much more impressive....Im pretty stoked with the results.
I probably have a half dozen of these already in the works for C6Z applications which will of course be alot more directly relevant to those reading, but none the less, a good back to back comparison is always hard to come by, and while this did have a small bump in cam timing to muddle it a bit, anyone with a clue would understand the bulk of the gains seen would be attributed to the cylinder heads. As I mentioned a bigger cam always hurt low speed performance and the new combo is up big at the very beginning of the pull (there is a point the two draw closer before the new combo gets up on the cam a little but as soon as it does there are huge gains from there till the pull is eventually terminated).
I will post more results on other combo's whenever I get the chance....some will of course be posted independently by my customers that already post here
Looking forward to seeing what they do behind a C6Z's much more efficient driveline!
Cheers,
Tony
Most of you already know I have been investing alot of my recent time in R&D wrapped up in the LS7 engine platform.
Just wanted to share one of the first dyno results from my new MMS LS7 heads (utilizing the TFS castings). Unfortunately it's an LS7 engine that is installed in a 5th Gen Camaro that has been heavily modded for the strip (stronger rear, 6L80 conversion, beefed up driveshaft, etc) so the numbers are lower than we are accustomed to seeing (and perhaps the dyno is a little stingy.....not sure there), but its a good A/B comparison regardless with the only changes being heads and a small bump in cam timing.
What makes the gains more significant is the fact the baseline engine already had 285 cc ported OEM castings on the car milled for more compression (I matched that chamber volume on the heads I sent them) so we aren't looking at a stock to ported head comparison which makes it alot easier to see significant gains (and most of those comparisons include milled heads versus stock so some gains are coming from the increase in static compression).
The baseline cam was a 232/249 if I recall (I know it was low 230's) and the cam the shop installed was something more along the lines I recommended for this particular combo (239/252) so it was a little larger which would hurt the bottom (a little) and help the top a little. I think most who have spent enough time dyno'ing different combinations would agree a cam bump this modest would be worth 8-12 ponies or so.
Here is what the comparison of the before and after curves looked like....I attribute the gain down low to the higher airspeed and efficiency these new MMS LS7 head have.....Im getting more air thru a 265 cc port than most stuff I have seen up to 35 cc's larger.
If the baseline heads were stock it would be considered a pretty stout gain in my book, but the fact they were already ported (and milled for higher compression), makes the results that much more impressive....Im pretty stoked with the results.
I probably have a half dozen of these already in the works for C6Z applications which will of course be alot more directly relevant to those reading, but none the less, a good back to back comparison is always hard to come by, and while this did have a small bump in cam timing to muddle it a bit, anyone with a clue would understand the bulk of the gains seen would be attributed to the cylinder heads. As I mentioned a bigger cam always hurt low speed performance and the new combo is up big at the very beginning of the pull (there is a point the two draw closer before the new combo gets up on the cam a little but as soon as it does there are huge gains from there till the pull is eventually terminated).
I will post more results on other combo's whenever I get the chance....some will of course be posted independently by my customers that already post here
Looking forward to seeing what they do behind a C6Z's much more efficient driveline!
Cheers,
Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 03-18-2016 at 12:27 PM.
Popular Reply
04-29-2016, 10:06 PM
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Yes....Im using/starting with the TFS 260 castings because after flowing and working with alot of other LS7 castings, I felt the TFS head was the best starting point for me to create/design my product.
They allowed me to get the most air thru the smallest runner and anytime you can accomplish that you have moved mountains because the only way that happens is with alot of airspeed in the port from its extremely optimized shape/valvejob etc. (that's the only way a smaller port can outflow a larger port....the airspeed thru the port measured in feet per second is higher). Airspeed cleans up reversion.....packs and fills the cylinder with more authority but usually comes at the cost of peak airflow which usually dictates how much peak power the engine can make. In this case its a have your cake and eat it too scenario.....big airspeed.....big peak flow numbers for an explosive and extremely powerful combination.
Btw, I offer cathedral heads in my Mamo Motorsport line using both AFR castings and TFS casting depending on the product in question. I always use the castings that give me the most creative freedom and the best results for any given cylinder head architecture or design that I'm working on. AFR doesn't even offer an LS7 product so they were out of the running immediately.
To be honest, I was all set to launch my MMS LS7 head using Brodix castings but after porting and experimenting with the TFS castings I found I could get even better results at less cost to my customer.....another win win for you guys.
Hope this clears things up
Btw I have an awesome program for OEM castings also and have done alot of them over the years with good results but they were never as efficient as the new crop of LS7 heads I'm shipping now with the clean sheet aftermarket head offering me more metal in the right place.
Porting and designing heads isn't about just removing material....its also about leaving material in the right places to improve a ports flow potential (and efficiency). That's the only way I can finish a TFS casting at 265 cc's and have it outflow heads on my bench that are 20-30 cc's larger....which I should add is painstakingly difficult to accomplish but offers the end user soooo many upsides (more power everywhere in a much more explosive package.....better throttle response.....better tip in....less reversion/surging issues with large cams and even better fuel economy). Its the end result I am always striving for....creating the most efficient port that flows alot of air and its the general reason every AFR head I designed over the last decade and a half has kicked azz....I use the same winning formula whether Im designing a BBC head, an SBC head, a Ford head....an LS head....it doesn't matter!
Regards,
Tony
They allowed me to get the most air thru the smallest runner and anytime you can accomplish that you have moved mountains because the only way that happens is with alot of airspeed in the port from its extremely optimized shape/valvejob etc. (that's the only way a smaller port can outflow a larger port....the airspeed thru the port measured in feet per second is higher). Airspeed cleans up reversion.....packs and fills the cylinder with more authority but usually comes at the cost of peak airflow which usually dictates how much peak power the engine can make. In this case its a have your cake and eat it too scenario.....big airspeed.....big peak flow numbers for an explosive and extremely powerful combination.
Btw, I offer cathedral heads in my Mamo Motorsport line using both AFR castings and TFS casting depending on the product in question. I always use the castings that give me the most creative freedom and the best results for any given cylinder head architecture or design that I'm working on. AFR doesn't even offer an LS7 product so they were out of the running immediately.
To be honest, I was all set to launch my MMS LS7 head using Brodix castings but after porting and experimenting with the TFS castings I found I could get even better results at less cost to my customer.....another win win for you guys.
Hope this clears things up
Btw I have an awesome program for OEM castings also and have done alot of them over the years with good results but they were never as efficient as the new crop of LS7 heads I'm shipping now with the clean sheet aftermarket head offering me more metal in the right place.
Porting and designing heads isn't about just removing material....its also about leaving material in the right places to improve a ports flow potential (and efficiency). That's the only way I can finish a TFS casting at 265 cc's and have it outflow heads on my bench that are 20-30 cc's larger....which I should add is painstakingly difficult to accomplish but offers the end user soooo many upsides (more power everywhere in a much more explosive package.....better throttle response.....better tip in....less reversion/surging issues with large cams and even better fuel economy). Its the end result I am always striving for....creating the most efficient port that flows alot of air and its the general reason every AFR head I designed over the last decade and a half has kicked azz....I use the same winning formula whether Im designing a BBC head, an SBC head, a Ford head....an LS head....it doesn't matter!
Regards,
Tony
03-18-2016, 03:25 AM
#2
Team Owner
03-18-2016, 07:28 AM
#3
Burning Brakes
Guys,
Most of you already know I have been investing alot of my recent time in R&D wrapped up in the LS7 engine platform.
Just wanted to share one of the first dyno results from my new MMS LS7 heads (utilizing the TFS castings). Unfortunately it's an LS7 engine that is installed in a 5th Gen Camaro that has been heavily modded for the strip (stronger rear, 6L80 conversion, beefed up driveshaft, etc) so the numbers are lower than we are accustomed to seeing (and perhaps the dyno is a little stingy.....not sure there), but its a good A/B comparison peak regardless with the only changes being heads and a small bump in cam timing.
What makes the gains more significant is the fact the baseline engine already had a well known shop's 285 cc ported OEM castings on the car milled for more compression (I matched that chamber volume on the heads I sent them) so we aren't looking at a stock to ported head comparison which makes it alot easier to see significant gains (and most of those comparisons include milled heads versus stock so some gains are coming from the increase in static compression).
The baseline cam was a 232/249 if I recall (I know it was low 230's) and the cam the shop installed was something more along the lines I recommended for this particular combo (239/252) so it was a little larger which would hurt the bottom (a little) and help the top a little. I think most who have spent enough time dyno'ing different combinations would agree a cam bump this modest would be worth 8-12 ponies or so.
Here is what the comparison of the before and after curves looked like....I attribute the gain down low to the higher airspeed and efficiency these new MMS LS7 head have.....Im getting more air thru a 265 cc port than competitors stuff I have seen up to 35 cc's larger.
If the baseline heads were stock it would be considered a pretty stout gain in my book, but the fact they were already ported (and milled for higher compression), makes the results that much more impressive....Im pretty stoked with the results.
I probably have a half dozen of these already in the works for C6Z applications which will of course be alot more directly relevant to those reading, but none the less, a good back to back comparison is always hard to come by, and while this did have a small bump in cam timing to muddle it a bit, anyone with a clue would understand the bulk of the gains seen would be attributed to the cylinder heads. As I mentioned a bigger cam always hurt low speed performance and the new combo is up big at the very beginning of the pull (there is a point the two draw closer before the new combo gets up on the cam a little but as soon as it does there are huge gains from there till the pull is eventually terminated).
I will post more results on other combo's whenever I get the chance....some will of course be posted independently by my customers that already post here
Looking forward to seeing what they do behind a C6Z's much more efficient driveline!
Cheers,
Tony
Most of you already know I have been investing alot of my recent time in R&D wrapped up in the LS7 engine platform.
Just wanted to share one of the first dyno results from my new MMS LS7 heads (utilizing the TFS castings). Unfortunately it's an LS7 engine that is installed in a 5th Gen Camaro that has been heavily modded for the strip (stronger rear, 6L80 conversion, beefed up driveshaft, etc) so the numbers are lower than we are accustomed to seeing (and perhaps the dyno is a little stingy.....not sure there), but its a good A/B comparison peak regardless with the only changes being heads and a small bump in cam timing.
What makes the gains more significant is the fact the baseline engine already had a well known shop's 285 cc ported OEM castings on the car milled for more compression (I matched that chamber volume on the heads I sent them) so we aren't looking at a stock to ported head comparison which makes it alot easier to see significant gains (and most of those comparisons include milled heads versus stock so some gains are coming from the increase in static compression).
The baseline cam was a 232/249 if I recall (I know it was low 230's) and the cam the shop installed was something more along the lines I recommended for this particular combo (239/252) so it was a little larger which would hurt the bottom (a little) and help the top a little. I think most who have spent enough time dyno'ing different combinations would agree a cam bump this modest would be worth 8-12 ponies or so.
Here is what the comparison of the before and after curves looked like....I attribute the gain down low to the higher airspeed and efficiency these new MMS LS7 head have.....Im getting more air thru a 265 cc port than competitors stuff I have seen up to 35 cc's larger.
If the baseline heads were stock it would be considered a pretty stout gain in my book, but the fact they were already ported (and milled for higher compression), makes the results that much more impressive....Im pretty stoked with the results.
I probably have a half dozen of these already in the works for C6Z applications which will of course be alot more directly relevant to those reading, but none the less, a good back to back comparison is always hard to come by, and while this did have a small bump in cam timing to muddle it a bit, anyone with a clue would understand the bulk of the gains seen would be attributed to the cylinder heads. As I mentioned a bigger cam always hurt low speed performance and the new combo is up big at the very beginning of the pull (there is a point the two draw closer before the new combo gets up on the cam a little but as soon as it does there are huge gains from there till the pull is eventually terminated).
I will post more results on other combo's whenever I get the chance....some will of course be posted independently by my customers that already post here
Looking forward to seeing what they do behind a C6Z's much more efficient driveline!
Cheers,
Tony
Do you have flow data on the heads you could post up?
Thanks,
03-18-2016, 10:15 AM
#4
Burning Brakes
Seems very promising but as you stated not a "true" A-> B test.
Two of the three "most important elements" (heads, cam and intake being the third) to air delivery/power production were changed. That will make it very difficult to assess gains/losses.
That said, I believe that is fair to assess that the heads are making power.
Can't wait to see more!!
Two of the three "most important elements" (heads, cam and intake being the third) to air delivery/power production were changed. That will make it very difficult to assess gains/losses.
That said, I believe that is fair to assess that the heads are making power.
Can't wait to see more!!
03-18-2016, 10:29 AM
#5
Melting Slicks
So it has a different cam in it, and new heads. I wouldnt call that anywhere close to scientific. Even if the advertised .050 numbers were identical, which they are not, the lobe choice and ramp rates can make a HUGE difference in power. Im sure the heads are nice, but Im hard pressed to say that you picked up 40hp across a HUGE RPM band just by the change
Last edited by atljar; 03-18-2016 at 10:29 AM.
03-18-2016, 12:35 PM
#6
So it has a different cam in it, and new heads. I wouldnt call that anywhere close to scientific. Even if the advertised .050 numbers were identical, which they are not, the lobe choice and ramp rates can make a HUGE difference in power. Im sure the heads are nice, but Im hard pressed to say that you picked up 40hp across a HUGE RPM band just by the change
Went to larger cam
Went to smaller CC chambers
-------------------------------------
If Tony's work matched the work of the OEM 285CC heads - or in other words, we only changed the camshaft out - we'd expect to have seen a 10-15hp bump in peak hp, with possibly a slight loss of torque down low and mid range - this is normal expectation for a larger lift cam. I would have said 505/460 as a final result, with significant loss of power under the curve up to about 3.5K rpms.
In summary - the cam change alone should have:
Increased top end slightly
Decreased power under the curve slightly
If you start there, then you can see how helpful the Mamofied heads were to the end result.
Tony's heads were smaller CC. With average port work, smaller cc heads will have higher velocity and thus build power quickly on an engine but generally it might suffer on the last 1500rpms of the power band, where total volume of air really matters a lot.
In this case, we'd have expected:
Increase in bottom end and mid-range grunt
A neutral effect on top end power (remember, bigger cam but smaller cc ports).
If we use an average set of 265cc heads, I would have guessed the dyno to show something like 492/470. More power under the curve but no appreciable amount of top end gains.
But what did we see? Recap.
We would have expected (assuming Tony's work is not exceptional):
Negligible gains, mainly because we're decreasing the port size but increase the cam lift slightly. The two would compromise each other in a fist fight for power.
But instead it picked up on both the low end AND the top end, and by large margins on the top end.
Now, Tony, along with a handful of other air flow specialists out there, actually know how to approach and even surpass 400cfm on a .650 lift with stock cc heads, which I do think is 265cc. Impressive. It's a "have your cake and eat it too" kinda scenario.
That being said, you have to pay to play. Expect to drop a few grand on port work alone to get this kind of result. If the guy kept the original cam he had in the first place, he would have picked up power across the entire power band. Maybe not 40rwhp peak, but I bet it would have been 25-30rwhp peak and his torque would have likely landed in the 490 range, making the car more powerful across 90% of the entire rpm range. Tony happens to also be an expert at figuring out how to get cars down the 1/4 mile as fast as possible, hence the cam change recommendation. This car stays at the top of the power band in those conditions. I bet he picks up 2-3mph on the track.
Going from stock heads to Tony's on a full bolt-on, cammed Ls7, we should expect 40-70rwhp and gobs of torque too. Sounds crazy, but he did it over and over again on the LS1/2/3's and w/ the cathedral port heads.
Last edited by fueledpassion; 03-18-2016 at 12:47 PM.
03-18-2016, 01:01 PM
#7
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Seems very promising but as you stated not a "true" A-> B test.
Two of the three "most important elements" (heads, cam and intake being the third) to air delivery/power production were changed. That will make it very difficult to assess gains/losses.
That said, I believe that is fair to assess that the heads are making power.
Can't wait to see more!!
Two of the three "most important elements" (heads, cam and intake being the third) to air delivery/power production were changed. That will make it very difficult to assess gains/losses.
That said, I believe that is fair to assess that the heads are making power.
Can't wait to see more!!
Guys, I never made any bones about the fact its not a true cylinder head A/B test but IMO, with minimal other changes, the results are exactly what I stated (promising) and we will leave it at that.
There will be alot more info to pour over soon enough in applications closer to home (C6Z). I will post more information and start a new thread on the official product release in the upcoming weeks....wanted to see a larger cross section of heads across the flowbench first but suffice to say they flow over 410 CFM at .700 thru a modest sized port (and 260 ish on the exhaust). Should be a really effective street/strip head with the right complimenting components. Having designed many a cylinder head in my past I can tell you that when you get this type of airflow thru a conservatively sized runner, really good things always tend to happen
Stay tuned....anyone with a glass half full outlook on what I just posted, feel free to PM, email, or call if you would like additional information
Regards,
Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 03-18-2016 at 01:02 PM.
03-18-2016, 02:22 PM
#8
Melting Slicks
....wanted to see a larger cross section of heads across the flowbench first but suffice to say they flow over 410 CFM at .700 thru a modest sized port (and 260 ish on the exhaust). Should be a really effective street/strip head with the right complimenting components. Having designed many a cylinder head in my past I can tell you that when you get this type of airflow thru a conservatively sized runner, really good things always tend to happen
03-18-2016, 02:25 PM
#9
Melting Slicks
The point here is:
Went to larger cam
Went to smaller CC chambers
-------------------------------------
If Tony's work matched the work of the OEM 285CC heads - or in other words, we only changed the camshaft out - we'd expect to have seen a 10-15hp bump in peak hp, with possibly a slight loss of torque down low and mid range - this is normal expectation for a larger lift cam. I would have said 505/460 as a final result, with significant loss of power under the curve up to about 3.5K rpms.
In summary - the cam change alone should have:
Increased top end slightly
Decreased power under the curve slightly
If you start there, then you can see how helpful the Mamofied heads were to the end result.
Tony's heads were smaller CC. With average port work, smaller cc heads will have higher velocity and thus build power quickly on an engine but generally it might suffer on the last 1500rpms of the power band, where total volume of air really matters a lot.
In this case, we'd have expected:
Increase in bottom end and mid-range grunt
A neutral effect on top end power (remember, bigger cam but smaller cc ports).
If we use an average set of 265cc heads, I would have guessed the dyno to show something like 492/470. More power under the curve but no appreciable amount of top end gains.
But what did we see? Recap.
We would have expected (assuming Tony's work is not exceptional):
Negligible gains, mainly because we're decreasing the port size but increase the cam lift slightly. The two would compromise each other in a fist fight for power.
But instead it picked up on both the low end AND the top end, and by large margins on the top end.
Now, Tony, along with a handful of other air flow specialists out there, actually know how to approach and even surpass 400cfm on a .650 lift with stock cc heads, which I do think is 265cc. Impressive. It's a "have your cake and eat it too" kinda scenario.
That being said, you have to pay to play. Expect to drop a few grand on port work alone to get this kind of result. If the guy kept the original cam he had in the first place, he would have picked up power across the entire power band. Maybe not 40rwhp peak, but I bet it would have been 25-30rwhp peak and his torque would have likely landed in the 490 range, making the car more powerful across 90% of the entire rpm range. Tony happens to also be an expert at figuring out how to get cars down the 1/4 mile as fast as possible, hence the cam change recommendation. This car stays at the top of the power band in those conditions. I bet he picks up 2-3mph on the track.
Going from stock heads to Tony's on a full bolt-on, cammed Ls7, we should expect 40-70rwhp and gobs of torque too. Sounds crazy, but he did it over and over again on the LS1/2/3's and w/ the cathedral port heads.
Went to larger cam
Went to smaller CC chambers
-------------------------------------
If Tony's work matched the work of the OEM 285CC heads - or in other words, we only changed the camshaft out - we'd expect to have seen a 10-15hp bump in peak hp, with possibly a slight loss of torque down low and mid range - this is normal expectation for a larger lift cam. I would have said 505/460 as a final result, with significant loss of power under the curve up to about 3.5K rpms.
In summary - the cam change alone should have:
Increased top end slightly
Decreased power under the curve slightly
If you start there, then you can see how helpful the Mamofied heads were to the end result.
Tony's heads were smaller CC. With average port work, smaller cc heads will have higher velocity and thus build power quickly on an engine but generally it might suffer on the last 1500rpms of the power band, where total volume of air really matters a lot.
In this case, we'd have expected:
Increase in bottom end and mid-range grunt
A neutral effect on top end power (remember, bigger cam but smaller cc ports).
If we use an average set of 265cc heads, I would have guessed the dyno to show something like 492/470. More power under the curve but no appreciable amount of top end gains.
But what did we see? Recap.
We would have expected (assuming Tony's work is not exceptional):
Negligible gains, mainly because we're decreasing the port size but increase the cam lift slightly. The two would compromise each other in a fist fight for power.
But instead it picked up on both the low end AND the top end, and by large margins on the top end.
Now, Tony, along with a handful of other air flow specialists out there, actually know how to approach and even surpass 400cfm on a .650 lift with stock cc heads, which I do think is 265cc. Impressive. It's a "have your cake and eat it too" kinda scenario.
That being said, you have to pay to play. Expect to drop a few grand on port work alone to get this kind of result. If the guy kept the original cam he had in the first place, he would have picked up power across the entire power band. Maybe not 40rwhp peak, but I bet it would have been 25-30rwhp peak and his torque would have likely landed in the 490 range, making the car more powerful across 90% of the entire rpm range. Tony happens to also be an expert at figuring out how to get cars down the 1/4 mile as fast as possible, hence the cam change recommendation. This car stays at the top of the power band in those conditions. I bet he picks up 2-3mph on the track.
Going from stock heads to Tony's on a full bolt-on, cammed Ls7, we should expect 40-70rwhp and gobs of torque too. Sounds crazy, but he did it over and over again on the LS1/2/3's and w/ the cathedral port heads.
03-18-2016, 02:35 PM
#10
Instructor
Just some more info on what Tony has posted. I did all the work originally on the car and then the changes. The car has forged pistons and rods, so it isn't a stock bottom end LS7. The cam I originally had in it was a 231/247 .653/661 114LSA 110ICL, that was replaced with a 238/252 .652/.652 114LSA 113ICL. As he said, the car has an unported FAST intake and 1-7/8" headers. I'm sure there are gains to be had with 2" headers and a ported MSD, but the FAST is plumbed up with a direct port fogger and the customer doesn't want to redo the nitrous setup.
The car gets tracked a good bit and we'll have some actual ET differences we can associate with the dyno graph in the near future. The car is much more crisp now and has excellent low speed manners, which I would attribute to the higher velocity of the new heads. This was my first project with Tony and I'm impressed with the quality of his work.
The car gets tracked a good bit and we'll have some actual ET differences we can associate with the dyno graph in the near future. The car is much more crisp now and has excellent low speed manners, which I would attribute to the higher velocity of the new heads. This was my first project with Tony and I'm impressed with the quality of his work.
03-18-2016, 04:24 PM
#12
03-18-2016, 09:19 PM
#13
Melting Slicks
Tony, congrats on a truly amazing cylinder head combination!! I absolutely agree that the change in cam timing should have resulted in a reduction in low speed torque, but that didn't happen here.
While there are some internet experts out there who will armchair quarterback your porting program, it's always better to just walk the walk, and not talk the talk. These results speak for themselves.
I'm looking forward to great things
While there are some internet experts out there who will armchair quarterback your porting program, it's always better to just walk the walk, and not talk the talk. These results speak for themselves.
I'm looking forward to great things
Last edited by Josh B.; 03-18-2016 at 09:20 PM.
03-19-2016, 02:56 PM
#14
Melting Slicks
So it has a different cam in it, and new heads. I wouldnt call that anywhere close to scientific. Even if the advertised .050 numbers were identical, which they are not, the lobe choice and ramp rates can make a HUGE difference in power. Im sure the heads are nice, but Im hard pressed to say that you picked up 40hp across a HUGE RPM band just by the change
Unless you change the heads on the EXACT same engine, in five mins while the car is still hot on the dyno, without releasing the dyno straps, and only if the dyno operator is holding two forms of valid government IDs and today's newspaper, and only if both Smokey Yunick and Carroll Shelby return from the grave to witness and sign the bottom of the SAE dyno sheet, then and ONLY then will the results be valid.
Logically, we can assume that the results are invalid, as they occur across such a huge rpm band. Either the results are invalid, or Tony Mamo is familiar with airflow just like Eddie Van Halen is familiar with the guitar.
Last edited by Josh B.; 03-19-2016 at 02:58 PM.
03-19-2016, 03:48 PM
#15
Drifting
Great results Tony? Subd for this.
03-19-2016, 03:56 PM
#16
Drifting
Well said Mr. altjar.
Unless you change the heads on the EXACT same engine, in five mins while the car is still hot on the dyno, without releasing the dyno straps, and only if the dyno operator is holding two forms of valid government IDs and today's newspaper, and only if both Smokey Yunick and Carroll Shelby return from the grave to witness and sign the bottom of the SAE dyno sheet, then and ONLY then will the results be valid.
Logically, we can assume that the results are invalid, as they occur across such a huge rpm band. Either the results are invalid, or Tony Mamo is familiar with airflow just like Eddie Van Halen is familiar with the guitar.
Unless you change the heads on the EXACT same engine, in five mins while the car is still hot on the dyno, without releasing the dyno straps, and only if the dyno operator is holding two forms of valid government IDs and today's newspaper, and only if both Smokey Yunick and Carroll Shelby return from the grave to witness and sign the bottom of the SAE dyno sheet, then and ONLY then will the results be valid.
Logically, we can assume that the results are invalid, as they occur across such a huge rpm band. Either the results are invalid, or Tony Mamo is familiar with airflow just like Eddie Van Halen is familiar with the guitar.
It's not a good look. I think kids these days call it "thirsty". Are you familiar with the term?
03-19-2016, 05:08 PM
#17
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion....I have been posting on these message boards for well over a decade and have pretty thick skin. In the end the cream always rises to the top and I'm in no rush to convince anyone the products I offer might be worth their consideration. I just thought these results were worth a look and decided to share (to be honest I was encouraged to share by a few people I'm close to). As more positive independent feedback rolls out, the less anything needs to be said. I know these heads are kick azz but more importantly the package approach I have taken to the design (the right valves, rocker arms, cam lobe profiles, etc.) help guarantee the end user experiences above average results from the install. Getting the combination correct makes the sum of all the parts shine even brighter
Million dollar question....did you get to see that "rowdy 5th Gen" run down the track with the new combination and if so how did it perform? You had mentioned in a previous thread you might have the opportunity to check that out.
-Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 03-19-2016 at 05:12 PM.
03-19-2016, 05:19 PM
#18
i will be very interested in seeing specs and talking with u mamo when u get more info test or heads available for purchase and prolly know pricing more i have stock cast heads right now with IPS stage 2 port work just made 639 with my shortned 102 runners i would never even think about changing my heads for even a big name just never seen the gains worth the money but since your in the game if i could sell my heads to pay for half of what yours would cost this winter thats money well spent cause i like winning
03-19-2016, 05:40 PM
#19
Melting Slicks
I tend to not feed trolls. But let's give one a steak dinner, just for giggles.
A true passive aggressive likes to use phrases like "calm down, you're getting so mad", "you're insulted", all in the hopes that their provocation (and relative calmness) might elicit a response. So, no, there is not an insult by Mr. Turbo2L. I don't know where he(she?) came to that conclusion. As to their opinions, please, proceed with opinions away. I simply find it interesting how someone can ask a question about object A, good feedback for a dozen or so comments, then someone comes along with criticism for object B without ever referencing object A. It's almost as though a person (for reasons known to them...) has to cherry pick a thread of nearly a thousand words, then cherry pick two words regarding Object B, when Object A was the only topic solicited for feedback. Then when you disagree with their unsolicited advice, it is evidence that you disagree with all unsolicited advice? And if you reject Mr Turbo2L's advice, you will have "good luck" with "underwhelming results". Perhaps, you, sir, are the one who should stop? One of the hallmarks of a coward is someone who secretly wishes that others fail. Personally, I hope everyone succeeds. Even Mr. Turbo2L.
Maybe it's my two decades in the Marine Corps of dealing with actual men that fuels my hatred of internet warriors who criticize doers of deeds (a quote from Teddy Roosevelt that everyone should read).
Overzealous? Really? Zeal would be claims such as "fine, do don't take my advice, underwhelming results....". That is zeal. Those who are well read might get the idea that doubt more often begat intelligence than did certainty.
A true passive aggressive likes to use phrases like "calm down, you're getting so mad", "you're insulted", all in the hopes that their provocation (and relative calmness) might elicit a response. So, no, there is not an insult by Mr. Turbo2L. I don't know where he(she?) came to that conclusion. As to their opinions, please, proceed with opinions away. I simply find it interesting how someone can ask a question about object A, good feedback for a dozen or so comments, then someone comes along with criticism for object B without ever referencing object A. It's almost as though a person (for reasons known to them...) has to cherry pick a thread of nearly a thousand words, then cherry pick two words regarding Object B, when Object A was the only topic solicited for feedback. Then when you disagree with their unsolicited advice, it is evidence that you disagree with all unsolicited advice? And if you reject Mr Turbo2L's advice, you will have "good luck" with "underwhelming results". Perhaps, you, sir, are the one who should stop? One of the hallmarks of a coward is someone who secretly wishes that others fail. Personally, I hope everyone succeeds. Even Mr. Turbo2L.
Maybe it's my two decades in the Marine Corps of dealing with actual men that fuels my hatred of internet warriors who criticize doers of deeds (a quote from Teddy Roosevelt that everyone should read).
Overzealous? Really? Zeal would be claims such as "fine, do don't take my advice, underwhelming results....". That is zeal. Those who are well read might get the idea that doubt more often begat intelligence than did certainty.
03-19-2016, 05:59 PM
#20
I hate this forum sometimes. lol
Nice results Tony.
Nice results Tony.