M112 or M122?
Race Director
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 16,667
Likes: 1,209
From: Raleigh, NC
St. Jude Donor '15
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,373
Likes: 1,128
From: cold & windy
either way, i prefer my TVS unit over either MP. the efficiency & power potential is way better.
as for LS1 vs LS2 asked a dozen years ago: the kits had different hardware & components between the C5 & C6 installations (pumps, tanks, lines, etc). i know because they initially sent me a C6 kit for my FRC, and they didn't fit.
as for LS1 vs LS2 asked a dozen years ago: the kits had different hardware & components between the C5 & C6 installations (pumps, tanks, lines, etc). i know because they initially sent me a C6 kit for my FRC, and they didn't fit.
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,395
Likes: 50
From: Dove Mountain, AZ
either way, i prefer my TVS unit over either MP. the efficiency & power potential is way better.
as for LS1 vs LS2 asked a dozen years ago: the kits had different hardware & components between the C5 & C6 installations (pumps, tanks, lines, etc). i know because they initially sent me a C6 kit for my FRC, and they didn't fit.
as for LS1 vs LS2 asked a dozen years ago: the kits had different hardware & components between the C5 & C6 installations (pumps, tanks, lines, etc). i know because they initially sent me a C6 kit for my FRC, and they didn't fit.
Yea, this is a 13 year old thread that was brought back from the dead (not by me).
Back then I had an LS2 and I was looking for a solution, now I have an LS3 with the Heartbeat and it works for what I need.
1st Gear
Joined: Sep 2024
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Go with the 122. Torque will be there either way. I have a GMC truck with 6.0L LQ4 that started with a 112 and wound up with a 122. The truck has 220/580/115lsa cam along with long tube headers and open exhaust. The LQ4 is a lower compression version of the LS2 with a milder cam. I believe the heads are the same or similar.
With the 112, it made 440 rwhp on a very stingy dyno. Same setup with the 122 made 480. Doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it's night and day difference. There's no loss of low end grunt. Your LS2, with an extra point or two of compression, ought to be stout.
If you were going to leave the engine as is without ever adding any mods, the 112 would be a nice bump in power. However, the extra .8K would be well spent if you ever want to go higher (and you will).
With the 112, it made 440 rwhp on a very stingy dyno. Same setup with the 122 made 480. Doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it's night and day difference. There's no loss of low end grunt. Your LS2, with an extra point or two of compression, ought to be stout.
If you were going to leave the engine as is without ever adding any mods, the 112 would be a nice bump in power. However, the extra .8K would be well spent if you ever want to go higher (and you will).
I'm curious as to what adapters or intake manifold u used
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,373
Likes: 1,128
From: cold & windy
checks to the best of my knowledge.
by the time the rectangle port (LS3+) heads came out, they'd stopped making MP kits & transitioned to all the TVS-based variants. i'm aware of three different manifold designs / shapes: one for cathedral port heads (used on MP & TVS), one for rectangle port heads (TVS), and one specifically noted for the LS7 & 2650 kits (not sure why the shape changed, but it did).
by the time the rectangle port (LS3+) heads came out, they'd stopped making MP kits & transitioned to all the TVS-based variants. i'm aware of three different manifold designs / shapes: one for cathedral port heads (used on MP & TVS), one for rectangle port heads (TVS), and one specifically noted for the LS7 & 2650 kits (not sure why the shape changed, but it did).
