[Z06] Promising dyno results of my new LS7 heads
04-29-2016, 10:06 PM
#42
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
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 04-29-2016 at 10:17 PM.
04-30-2016, 12:02 PM
#43
Race Director
Nor was I. I know well of Tony's expertise. I just have had a great experience with my TF 215s I now have on my C5Z, and was considering a C6Z in the future. Since I may need to replace the LS7 heads, I would probably go with Trickflows again.
Last edited by zeevette; 04-30-2016 at 12:03 PM.
05-01-2016, 12:34 PM
#44
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.
Tony
Tony
05-04-2016, 01:00 AM
#45
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
I really like hearing your comments above. I kinda got a woody when these heads were first announced with initial specs, but was waiting to hear some third party reports and flow data. I am curious though, when do you start worrying about sonic choke? Or is it even a possibility with these heads?
They have out flowed every LS7 I have had on my bench thus far (when I'm finished with them) and do it with 20-30 less cc's then some of the other castings I have tested and I have had a very large cross section of LS7 product on my flowbench.
Win-win as I alluded to in my previous post.....its the killer combination....almost like a heavyweight fighter that can move like a middle weight. An almost un-natural goodness going on here and it does represent the best of both worlds.....big airspeed and big peak numbers as well equals an extremely efficient piece. That's the winning formula I have been relying on for two decades now
-Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 05-04-2016 at 02:31 AM.
05-04-2016, 07:26 AM
#46
Melting Slicks
Exhaust port
Tony obviously the LS7 intake port in just about in any form flows very well and as you stated some even better than others. What about the exhaust port I do feel sometimes that is getting somewhat left out as approach 400 cfm on the intake and yet most of the exhaust numbers (with no tube or even with a tube add 15) are like 240-250. At what point do you do all this for the intake but we can not get it all out. I realize some of this is mitigated but a longer exhaust duration on cam but it would be nice to keep overlap down to and get same performance. Are we at a point were the 410 cfm really needs exhaust to flow like 280 (70%)?
05-05-2016, 03:44 AM
#47
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Tony obviously the LS7 intake port in just about in any form flows very well and as you stated some even better than others. What about the exhaust port I do feel sometimes that is getting somewhat left out as approach 400 cfm on the intake and yet most of the exhaust numbers (with no tube or even with a tube add 15) are like 240-250. At what point do you do all this for the intake but we can not get it all out. I realize some of this is mitigated but a longer exhaust duration on cam but it would be nice to keep overlap down to and get same performance. Are we at a point were the 410 cfm really needs exhaust to flow like 280 (70%)?
While the large 2.205 intake valve is completely unshrouded from the chamber wall, that feature means just the opposite for the smaller 1.615 exhaust and it's "shrouded" pushed against the wall of the head which reduces the effective area of the valve being so close to the wall. Its just not ideal
I have invested alot of time on the exhaust side in an effort to better balance the flow relationship and my exhaust port flows about 265 CFM which is pretty solid on my bench (especially for an SBC head)....very solid in fact considering the geometry of the LS7 architecture which doesn't favor the exhaust port at all.
That said I do have to share that motors naturally aspirated respond more to gains in flow on the intake than they do on the exhaust and its interesting how low a percentage (exhaust to intake relationship) you can get away with cammed properly and still make alot of power. Pro Stock engines are perhaps the pinnacle of that example as the intake valves keep getting larger as the exhaust valves keep getting smaller....LOL Apples and oranges in some respects but relative to this conversation in others.
I would add I am working on an even larger exhaust port for my LS7 program but I am a long ways from completing it and confirming I can even pull it off without compromising the integrity of the casting (aka a port wall that's too thin that could effect reliability). I mention this only to further validate that I would love to have a higher flowing exhaust with a 415 CFM high velocity intake port, but my hands were tied a long time ago by the original designers of the head and their clear bias of "lets build a raised runner 12' head with a really kick azz intake port".
Btw on my flow equipment a stock LS7 flows about 372 CFM on the intake and 215 CFM on the exhaust. My new program using the TFS LS7 casting bumps that intake output by 12% or so (a significant gain with such a high baseline), and the exhaust by almost double that (23%), so the head Im offering does have a much better E to I relationship and requires less crutch with the exhaust cam timing than a stock head would require for optimal results.
Thankfully we have the cubes to offset some of the loss in torque the additional exhaust duration brings to the table....I suspect the designers of the LS7 recognized that and the fact intake flow plays a larger role in power output than exhaust flow
Good stuff!
Regards,
Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 05-05-2016 at 03:46 AM.
05-05-2016, 06:38 AM
#48
Burning Brakes
And THAT is one of the best discussions of LS7 air flow ever to appear on the forum or anywhere else.
Thank you!
Thank you!
In a word.....YES....but its easier said than done. The LS7 designers focused there bias so much on the intake with the size and positioning of the valve that the exhaust was almost an afterthought.....LOL
While the large 2.205 intake valve is completely unshrouded from the chamber wall, that feature means just the opposite for the smaller 1.615 exhaust and it's "shrouded" pushed against the wall of the head which reduces the effective area of the valve being so close to the wall. Its just not ideal
I have invested alot of time on the exhaust side in an effort to better balance the flow relationship and my exhaust port flows about 265 CFM which is pretty solid on my bench (especially for an SBC head)....very solid in fact considering the geometry of the LS7 architecture which doesn't favor the exhaust port at all.
That said I do have to share that motors naturally aspirated respond more to gains in flow on the intake than they do on the exhaust and its interesting how low a percentage (exhaust to intake relationship) you can get away with cammed properly and still make alot of power. Pro Stock engines are perhaps the pinnacle of that example as the intake valves keep getting larger as the exhaust valves keep getting smaller....LOL Apples and oranges in some respects but relative to this conversation in others.
I would add I am working on an even larger exhaust port for my LS7 program but I am a long ways from completing it and confirming I can even pull it off without compromising the integrity of the casting (aka a port wall that's too thin that could effect reliability). I mention this only to further validate that I would love to have a higher flowing exhaust with a 415 CFM high velocity intake port, but my hands were tied a long time ago by the original designers of the head and their clear bias of "lets build a raised runner 12' head with a really kick azz intake port".
Btw on my flow equipment a stock LS7 flows about 372 CFM on the intake and 215 CFM on the exhaust. My new program using the TFS LS7 casting bumps that intake output by 12% or so (a significant gain with such a high baseline), and the exhaust by almost double that (23%), so the head Im offering does have a much better E to I relationship and requires less crutch with the exhaust cam timing than a stock head would require for optimal results.
Thankfully we have the cubes to offset some of the loss in torque the additional exhaust duration brings to the table....I suspect the designers of the LS7 recognized that and the fact intake flow plays a larger role in power output than exhaust flow
Good stuff!
Regards,
Tony
While the large 2.205 intake valve is completely unshrouded from the chamber wall, that feature means just the opposite for the smaller 1.615 exhaust and it's "shrouded" pushed against the wall of the head which reduces the effective area of the valve being so close to the wall. Its just not ideal
I have invested alot of time on the exhaust side in an effort to better balance the flow relationship and my exhaust port flows about 265 CFM which is pretty solid on my bench (especially for an SBC head)....very solid in fact considering the geometry of the LS7 architecture which doesn't favor the exhaust port at all.
That said I do have to share that motors naturally aspirated respond more to gains in flow on the intake than they do on the exhaust and its interesting how low a percentage (exhaust to intake relationship) you can get away with cammed properly and still make alot of power. Pro Stock engines are perhaps the pinnacle of that example as the intake valves keep getting larger as the exhaust valves keep getting smaller....LOL Apples and oranges in some respects but relative to this conversation in others.
I would add I am working on an even larger exhaust port for my LS7 program but I am a long ways from completing it and confirming I can even pull it off without compromising the integrity of the casting (aka a port wall that's too thin that could effect reliability). I mention this only to further validate that I would love to have a higher flowing exhaust with a 415 CFM high velocity intake port, but my hands were tied a long time ago by the original designers of the head and their clear bias of "lets build a raised runner 12' head with a really kick azz intake port".
Btw on my flow equipment a stock LS7 flows about 372 CFM on the intake and 215 CFM on the exhaust. My new program using the TFS LS7 casting bumps that intake output by 12% or so (a significant gain with such a high baseline), and the exhaust by almost double that (23%), so the head Im offering does have a much better E to I relationship and requires less crutch with the exhaust cam timing than a stock head would require for optimal results.
Thankfully we have the cubes to offset some of the loss in torque the additional exhaust duration brings to the table....I suspect the designers of the LS7 recognized that and the fact intake flow plays a larger role in power output than exhaust flow
Good stuff!
Regards,
Tony
05-05-2016, 08:16 AM
#49
Melting Slicks
Exhaust flow
Thanks for the comment on this Tony. I guess if we can get the exhaust flow up to say 250 cfm with a tube that probably gets most of it out for NA purposes. Then we have to rely on the cam to finish it up.
05-05-2016, 08:26 AM
#50
Burning Brakes
I have a question regarding the few documented failures of the Trick Flow head regarding to casting cracking.
Could you shed some light on this Tony?
Also, what valves are you recommending with the TM/TF head?
05-05-2016, 08:53 AM
#51
Burning Brakes
BTW, how many "documented" failures are out there? I recall only one that was posted here in the CF, and a reference to another one. It was not established that the casting were at fault.
05-05-2016, 10:53 AM
#52
Burning Brakes
I do not know the number of failures but, I have "read" and "seen" pics of 3 different incidents. If there are more, I don't know. I can only speak of the one's I have "read" about. I'm curious to find out what caused the failures, possible cause and what was done to rectify it.
05-05-2016, 11:50 AM
#53
Burning Brakes
If he has, and you know the link please share it.
I do not know the number of failures but, I have "read" and "seen" pics of 3 different incidents. If there are more, I don't know. I can only speak of the one's I have "read" about. I'm curious to find out what caused the failures, possible cause and what was done to rectify it.
I do not know the number of failures but, I have "read" and "seen" pics of 3 different incidents. If there are more, I don't know. I can only speak of the one's I have "read" about. I'm curious to find out what caused the failures, possible cause and what was done to rectify it.
and
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...a-terra-3.html
If there was a systemic problem with the Gen X 260 heads, there would be a LOT of failures and an epic $hit storm on the internet. A logical mind would also rationalize that several other TFS LS heads would experience similar issues, but history tells us otherwise.
05-05-2016, 11:59 AM
#54
Burning Brakes
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...estions-4.html
and
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...a-terra-3.html
If there was a systemic problem with the Gen X 260 heads, there would be a LOT of failures and an epic $hit storm on the internet. A logical mind would also rationalize that several other TFS LS heads would experience similar issues, but history tells us otherwise.
and
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...a-terra-3.html
If there was a systemic problem with the Gen X 260 heads, there would be a LOT of failures and an epic $hit storm on the internet. A logical mind would also rationalize that several other TFS LS heads would experience similar issues, but history tells us otherwise.
Thank you for the links.
05-05-2016, 04:36 PM
#56
In a word.....YES....but its easier said than done. The LS7 designers focused there bias so much on the intake with the size and positioning of the valve that the exhaust was almost an afterthought.....LOL
While the large 2.205 intake valve is completely unshrouded from the chamber wall, that feature means just the opposite for the smaller 1.615 exhaust and it's "shrouded" pushed against the wall of the head which reduces the effective area of the valve being so close to the wall. Its just not ideal
I have invested alot of time on the exhaust side in an effort to better balance the flow relationship and my exhaust port flows about 265 CFM which is pretty solid on my bench (especially for an SBC head)....very solid in fact considering the geometry of the LS7 architecture which doesn't favor the exhaust port at all.
That said I do have to share that motors naturally aspirated respond more to gains in flow on the intake than they do on the exhaust and its interesting how low a percentage (exhaust to intake relationship) you can get away with cammed properly and still make alot of power. Pro Stock engines are perhaps the pinnacle of that example as the intake valves keep getting larger as the exhaust valves keep getting smaller....LOL Apples and oranges in some respects but relative to this conversation in others.
I would add I am working on an even larger exhaust port for my LS7 program but I am a long ways from completing it and confirming I can even pull it off without compromising the integrity of the casting (aka a port wall that's too thin that could effect reliability). I mention this only to further validate that I would love to have a higher flowing exhaust with a 415 CFM high velocity intake port, but my hands were tied a long time ago by the original designers of the head and their clear bias of "lets build a raised runner 12' head with a really kick azz intake port".
Btw on my flow equipment a stock LS7 flows about 372 CFM on the intake and 215 CFM on the exhaust. My new program using the TFS LS7 casting bumps that intake output by 12% or so (a significant gain with such a high baseline), and the exhaust by almost double that (23%), so the head Im offering does have a much better E to I relationship and requires less crutch with the exhaust cam timing than a stock head would require for optimal results.
Thankfully we have the cubes to offset some of the loss in torque the additional exhaust duration brings to the table....I suspect the designers of the LS7 recognized that and the fact intake flow plays a larger role in power output than exhaust flow
Good stuff!
Regards,
Tony
While the large 2.205 intake valve is completely unshrouded from the chamber wall, that feature means just the opposite for the smaller 1.615 exhaust and it's "shrouded" pushed against the wall of the head which reduces the effective area of the valve being so close to the wall. Its just not ideal
I have invested alot of time on the exhaust side in an effort to better balance the flow relationship and my exhaust port flows about 265 CFM which is pretty solid on my bench (especially for an SBC head)....very solid in fact considering the geometry of the LS7 architecture which doesn't favor the exhaust port at all.
That said I do have to share that motors naturally aspirated respond more to gains in flow on the intake than they do on the exhaust and its interesting how low a percentage (exhaust to intake relationship) you can get away with cammed properly and still make alot of power. Pro Stock engines are perhaps the pinnacle of that example as the intake valves keep getting larger as the exhaust valves keep getting smaller....LOL Apples and oranges in some respects but relative to this conversation in others.
I would add I am working on an even larger exhaust port for my LS7 program but I am a long ways from completing it and confirming I can even pull it off without compromising the integrity of the casting (aka a port wall that's too thin that could effect reliability). I mention this only to further validate that I would love to have a higher flowing exhaust with a 415 CFM high velocity intake port, but my hands were tied a long time ago by the original designers of the head and their clear bias of "lets build a raised runner 12' head with a really kick azz intake port".
Btw on my flow equipment a stock LS7 flows about 372 CFM on the intake and 215 CFM on the exhaust. My new program using the TFS LS7 casting bumps that intake output by 12% or so (a significant gain with such a high baseline), and the exhaust by almost double that (23%), so the head Im offering does have a much better E to I relationship and requires less crutch with the exhaust cam timing than a stock head would require for optimal results.
Thankfully we have the cubes to offset some of the loss in torque the additional exhaust duration brings to the table....I suspect the designers of the LS7 recognized that and the fact intake flow plays a larger role in power output than exhaust flow
Good stuff!
Regards,
Tony
05-05-2016, 08:01 PM
#57
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
05-05-2016, 08:21 PM
#58
Burning Brakes
05-05-2016, 08:27 PM
#59
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
Actually I really prefer emails.....much easier to access and track and Im notified instantly via my phone.
Guys.....if any of you have questions about my products, want to order something, whatever it may be....while I will get back to all your PM's you will have faster response if you email me at:
mamomotorsports@yahoo.com
Bad Ax.....shoot me an email and I will get you the info you seek and whatever else you might need
Cheers,
Tony
Guys.....if any of you have questions about my products, want to order something, whatever it may be....while I will get back to all your PM's you will have faster response if you email me at:
mamomotorsports@yahoo.com
Bad Ax.....shoot me an email and I will get you the info you seek and whatever else you might need
Cheers,
Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 05-05-2016 at 08:27 PM.
08-26-2016, 03:10 PM
#60
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
-Tony
-Tony