LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

AI200cc stock bottom end dyno results, 429rwhp with a miss

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 11:19 AM
  #46  
SS MPSTR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,525
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by speed_demon24
so with the only changes as going back to a stock intake and the AI heads/cam setup I gained 24rwhp.
what stage LE heads/cam did you have again?
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 11:26 AM
  #47  
speed_demon24's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,245
From: Ocala, Florida
Originally Posted by SS MPSTR
what stage LE heads/cam did you have again?
LE2 heads with a BRE cam,... not sure what stage my cam was but it's the cam he reccomended for my stock bottom end just like AI's.
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 11:30 AM
  #48  
SS MPSTR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,525
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by speed_demon24
LE2 heads with a BRE cam,... not sure what stage my cam was but it's the cam he reccomended for my stock bottom end just like AI's.
I don't think they knew what 'stage' your cam was either. Isn't your car the one that had the valve guides all screwed up? I think your car is the closest one we have to compare company 'A' product with company 'L' product, no? Has anything else been changed that might skew performance numbers? I want to be fair here.
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 01:50 PM
  #49  
speed_demon24's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,245
From: Ocala, Florida
Originally Posted by SS MPSTR
I don't think they knew what 'stage' your cam was either. Isn't your car the one that had the valve guides all screwed up? I think your car is the closest one we have to compare company 'A' product with company 'L' product, no? Has anything else been changed that might skew performance numbers? I want to be fair here.
Nope. Only changes were going back to the stock intake, swapping the heads and cam. I also changed the oil pump and pan, but if anything thats costing me more power since I have the higher releif spring in it. And yeah all the valve guides were cracked. I know of another car that did the swap but I'm not sure AI or the owner of the car wants the gains to be posted, but they were bigger than mine.
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 03:43 PM
  #50  
JP95ZM6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 746
From: Rochester Hills, MI
Originally Posted by SS MPSTR
Just curious - what was your trap speed?
117 something
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 07:13 PM
  #51  
dangalla's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,092
From: lakeville, pa
Out of curiosity

Did AI measure your intake runner size before they started, and also did they measure your combustion chamber size?

more than anything, I am wondering for my own knowledge
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 07:19 PM
  #52  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
Originally Posted by dangalla
Out of curiosity

Did AI measure your intake runner size before they started, and also did they measure your combustion chamber size?

more than anything, I am wondering for my own knowledge
I will let you on in a secret...but don't tell anyone
What ever head flows more@.300 and .400 with the smallest intake runner is the head you want. I know people with really high nuimbers but I know for a fact I make wayyy wayy more power with a smaller head. I don't know the specifics of why but I know.
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 07:34 PM
  #53  
tireburnin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,193
From: San Diego, CA
Lol how many hundreds of LE vs Ai posts have there been? And now numbers show a back to back comparison (as close as this board will likely ever get) with an obvious "winner."

Good to see some results.
Old Dec 31, 2007 | 07:56 PM
  #54  
firebirdStud's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,161
From: Colorado
congrats on the AI setup! They really have their stuff together. Hell, two springs ago they only offered the 190cc intake port on stock castings, and that is what I bought, and I am at 438rwhp, but that is with a 385 bottom end.
That accomplishment on a stock bottom end with that many miles, WOW! That is awesome.
Wonder what those heads could do for me...
Old Jan 1, 2008 | 12:20 PM
  #55  
truedualws6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,406
From: Downey, CA
Originally Posted by speed_demon24
I'm still in shock that I put out 429rwhp. My old setup did 405/372 with a ported intake, so with the only changes as going back to a stock intake and the AI heads/cam setup I gained 24rwhp.
Now you've got me thinking regarding the stock intake. I remember a post
somewhere where LE removes some huge amount of weight from an intake
when it's ported. Did you happen to weigh the stock vs. ported intakes?

I noticed that the work done on my intake is very subtle with the main effort
opening the front up for a 58mm TB, and of course any milling to match the
heads for proper sealing.
Old Jan 1, 2008 | 12:36 PM
  #56  
SS MPSTR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,525
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by mdacton
I will let you on in a secret...but don't tell anyone
What ever head flows more@.300 and .400 with the smallest intake runner is the head you want. I know people with really high nuimbers but I know for a fact I make wayyy wayy more power with a smaller head. I don't know the specifics of why but I know.
That's what I've always been told too.

I suspect the OP heads are a tad smaller than the heads they replaced
Old Jan 1, 2008 | 01:11 PM
  #57  
speed_demon24's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,245
From: Ocala, Florida
Originally Posted by truedualws6
Now you've got me thinking regarding the stock intake. I remember a post
somewhere where LE removes some huge amount of weight from an intake
when it's ported. Did you happen to weigh the stock vs. ported intakes?

I noticed that the work done on my intake is very subtle with the main effort
opening the front up for a 58mm TB, and of course any milling to match the
heads for proper sealing.
I never weight them but I can tell the stock one is definatly heavier than my old ported one. It was also really opened up in the runners as well.

Originally Posted by SS MPSTR
That's what I've always been told too.

I suspect the OP heads are a tad smaller than the heads they replaced
~18cc's to be exact.
Old Jan 1, 2008 | 05:53 PM
  #58  
Kory 88 Iroc Lt-1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 473
From: New Berlin Wi
congrats on the good numbers.
Maybe this will be the incentive I need to finish mine so I can finally get it tuned.
Good job
Kory
Old Jan 2, 2008 | 08:21 AM
  #59  
T/A lt1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,582
From: Louisiana, USA
Nice numbers but the Canton oilpan you added is good for a few horsepower so if you made 10more rwhp with a little larger cam then you guys are the greatest thing since sliced bread huh?
Old Jan 2, 2008 | 08:25 AM
  #60  
dangalla's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,092
From: lakeville, pa
Originally Posted by T/A lt1
Nice numbers but the Canton oilpan you added is good for a few horsepower so if you made 10more rwhp with a little larger cam then you guys are the greatest thing since sliced bread huh?
and my question about combustion chamber size was also disregarded, without knowing that nobody can pass judgement

a little bigger cam and a little smaller chamber and you easily get the results shown here. i am in no way advocating anyone just think if everyone is gonna judge the facts should be straight



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 PM.