Picked up the car today. We dyno'd about noonish, here's the before and after:
BEFORE(mild cam,FAST intake,LG headers,tune) 421.2RWHP 392.3RWTQ
AFTER(L92/L76,same as above but no FAST) 447.1RWHP 404.4RWTQ
There is a 30RWHP increase and a 25RWTQ increase at 6250RPM
I'll try to post the dyno soon. From 4500RPM on , the new set up is a monster and did a little better in the low end than my previous set up. Best of all, IMO, is that the car idles and sounds STOCK.I didn't opt for a pully as I wasn't sure that the cam was going to swapped, and it may be some time in the future,when I'll get a pully as well, but for now , I hit my target of 450RWHP BTW, uncorrected(STD dyno read out) says the car has 454RWHP and 414RWTQ, but I listed the SAE corrected, as most go by this. By far, this is the strongest the car has ever pulled at HWY speeds, should be fun at the track.The heads were milled and the car is at 10.25:1 compression, a different cam may help that too.Any comments appreciated.BTW, BC Bob, I reccommend it

 

 

You should have had the shop mill the heads .030 to get back to ~ stock 10.9:1 compression, but not bad considering your compression dropped so much.

 

You must be very happy with the results from CAM. Jeff is reported the best.

What CAM are you running?

 

Head were milled, did a compression test right before the dyno. Jeff thinks it's the cam, but I can live with it as long as I see 11's at the track.

 

Cam is one of Jeff's"blower cams", belive it or not, low on intake, high on exhaust. The specs are up to him to give out. I'm pretty happy with the massive"pulling" I feel now when accelerating compared to before.

 

I dont understand, if the heads were milled .030 you should be around a 65 cc chamber for a static compression ratio (SCR) of around 10.9:1. The cam may affect your dynamic compression ratio (DCR) but not your SCR. Sounds like the heads were only milled ~.020.

 

 

good luck. now hit the 11s

 

Very good numbers for the price.

 

Nice #s Tony

 

Exactly right,good numbers for the price. Not great numbers. Most likely if you would have just added a set of 205 AFR's or 215 ET's to what you already had, you would have surpassed 460rwhp instead of 447rwhp., and your torque would have been in the 430 range instead of 404. BTW corrected is the gold standard on a dyno. I know everybody wants the latest and the greatest, but it's not always the best in terms of power unless you have the right componets to go with it. ie a big cam on a 6 liter motor with L92 heads. The L92 heads were designed for the L92 block, 4.065 bore. 376 ci vs 364 ci. The engineers know what there doing. Those extra cubes help those heads flow the way they were intended to. That's why I choose them in there CNC'ed form for my stroked L92 motor. They fit even better with a 4.1 crank. I'm not trying to put down what you did at all. I'm just stating that I think you could have done much better if you didn't get wraped up in this L92 craze of got to have it!!. As I stated in another thread. My LS2 with a small 224/228 cam a FAST, and the smallest heads ET has 215's made 461/435. All you needed was a set of heads you had everything else. Please don't take this in a negative way, I just trying to understand why you went in that direction??

 

Always helpful

 

I thought (I'm not sure) that also GM is using L92 heads on their 6.0L LQ9 "high output" version of the truck engine ?

 

Helpful, indeed. I wanted, from the begining, to have a solid 11 sec car, reliable and around 425-450 RWHP. Hopefully, now I have that. The heads I looked at was more expensive than the entire setup I have now and would've further made the car less stock appearing. The way it is now, you'd be hard pressed to find 2 people at the track that can point out whats different with the car. Headers are obvious, maybe hear a little cam lope, but thats it. Thats my target, and as long as the big sign says better than 11.99, I'll be happy.Part of my wanting to do this set up is to do something not everyone has, although that may change soon.Hope this clears it up to all who wonder why I went this direction. I could've dropped $10 and had a TT set up installed, or another $3k for different heads + labor, or even a couple of grand for nitrous, but I went the way I wanted to . G. is very informative, indeed, and I appreciate all the comments. Glad to have educated people here!

Please remember, the RWHP difference is from my last dyn run with the FAST installed. Before the FAST, I had 406.5, so if you take that into account, the L92/L76 took me from 406.5 to 447.1RWHP, thats a gain of 41RWHP for the $$. I did not get caught up in the GOTTA HAVE IT, though. Thats a little unneccesary to say that. I simply saw that there was a combo being produced that fit what I was looking for , but it came too late because I had already done the FAST. BTW, I also re couped $$$ from both builds by selling the old cam, intake and FAST. The $$ to HP result is hard to beat when all factors are accounted for.

 

You would know better than me. I don't know. I thought that engine at 394 hp uses the low compression ls6 head, LQ4. Not sure.

 

I think I'm lost with the truck motor codes, but this is a quote from SLP:

"GM uses the their 70.2cc L92 head and L92 truck manifold on the 6.0L block in 2007 on the Vortec MAX option (same block pistons rods and crank used in 2006 LQ4 option) and added another 20+hp and torque to the factory rating compared to 2006."

I have not validated the accuracy, but I believe it's true.

 

That truck intake flows better than the L76, but will not clearance the hood of the GTO or the C6. Those applications also have variable torque on demand, I belive. I heard/read it somewhere recently.

 

nice numbers. but for them to make sense, we need the cam specs you have in there now and the cam specs you had with your fast combo since you said you sold that cam. otherwise, we cant really say what credit to give this combo.

 

I guess the only point I was trying to make is that also GM is using these heads with 6L block.