cuisinartvette wrote:
Print is very small and hard to read but looks like Lunati crank and pro mod rods, AFR 195s, TPIS ZZX cam??

mseven wrote:
Spalyed block w/oliver billet caps, lunati pro mod rods/crank, Diamond inverted dome slugs, 11.1:1 cr., zzx 239/239@50, approx .558 lift, 112 lsa, afr 195 eliminater 58cc., 1.7 comp cams "hi-tech" stainless, 58 tb., 36lb bosch III(white)..........it would have been nice to see the tq. number up a bit though.

cuisinartvette wrote:
Print is very small and hard to read but looks like Lunati crank and pro mod rods, AFR 195s, TPIS ZZX cam??

mseven wrote:
Spalyed block w/oliver billet caps, lunati pro mod rods/crank, Diamond inverted dome slugs, 11.1:1 cr., zzx 239/239@50, approx .558 lift, 112 lsa, afr 195 eliminater 58cc., 1.7 comp cams "hi-tech" stainless, 58 tb., 36lb bosch III(white)..........it would have been nice to see the tq. number up a bit though.

88BlackZ51 wrote:
I think the tq would of been higher if they went a little less duration. Looks like a nice package.
Are those the street ports are the comp ports? Not sure if AFR only makes comp ports for LTx. Thanks!

jsup wrote:
Ya know, with this spec, I don't see how I'm not over 600HP. more lift, more duration, more head, more displacement....The only thing I have less of is compression....and that isn't worth much...5-10hp for 1/2 point...That's gotta be worth 50HP easy.
I should do the About 600 Club proud...
Course I didn't spring for the stainless rockers, wonder what that's gonna cost me.

BrianCunningham wrote:
Did you notice they use a stock LT1 intake with the AFR 195's?

jsup wrote:
I will dyno tune, so as a residual.... I don't live and die by them for many reasons. btw, nice to see you around.
about 600 club:
http://www.corvette-guru.com/modules/ ... php?topic_id=6034&forum=6

BrianCunningham wrote: Did you notice they use a stock LT1 intake with the AFR 195's?

mseven wrote:
Quote:

jsup wrote:
I will dyno tune, so as a residual.... I don't live and die by them for many reasons. btw, nice to see you around.
about 600 club:
http://www.corvette-guru.com/modules/ ... php?topic_id=6034&forum=6

understandable............in the day when I was at the track everyweek and was serious about this stuff, no-one (aside from chrysler R&D)had a dyno...so it didn't matter. This time around the dyno pulls were part of a total deal that I struck....it was nice, but for me it's a source of reference for the rest of car.
Never-the-less, I would rather use a chasis dyno for c.loop tuning (if I had the chance as opposed to my drive pull over and tweak method). I'll bet I could get a tune done way faster being able to hold it any rpm/load and tweak than my current method.

Likewise, so.....what have I missed, where are you w/yours ? tune going well w/greg ? etc....guessin' the weather there has got you parked as well

BrianCunningham wrote:
It means I can use that spare LT1 intake, so I don't need to go buy an LT4 or Edelbrock.

Yippee!!!

mseven wrote:

the reality is because TPIS didn't pick the parts.

BrianCunningham wrote:
I'm running a blower remember?

BrianCunningham wrote:
you need a 13th.

I wanted to know if they would physically fit

Looks good.

It's also a nice combo that people on the forum are interested.

mseven wrote:
It was from the magazine (editors?), of Street Thunder:

"After choosing the necessary components
for our project 396 LT1, we worked with
TPIS/Cottrell Racing Engines to assemble,
dyno, and tune the engine. Combining
our research and TPIS’ LT1 experience
was sure to produce exceptional results"

"We didn’t use the most expensive
parts to achieve the highest power
figures; instead, we built a high performance
engine that walks the line between
street and race, but thatwould be at home
under the hood of most any street machine,
whether an early street rod or a latemodel
sports car. Not only that, but our
LT1 creation should easily achieve over 20
mpg on the highway in our six-speed
equipped ’85Camaro!That’s hard to beat."

BrianCunningham wrote:
PEAK HORSEPOWER: 552@6,200
PEAK TORQUE: 484 FT.-LBS.@5,500

http://www.tpis.com/LT1-lowres.pdf

BeachBum wrote: Torque is good too, I know some will look at it as a low number, but when you consider this is a motor based upon a 4" bore that is cammed to make its HP peak above 6k, 480 ftlbs is pretty solid. Easy low 11's in a C4 with that motor, and even into the 10's. It is an interesting combination.... I've seen the ZZX cam on several different builds and was seriously considering early in my build, but passed on it.

mseven wrote:
No there's nothing wrong with the tq. I look at various feature builds and feel most like seeing hp. They also stated they did 3 pulls, so it appears they didn't go too hog nuts tuning. What software are you using to do et.calculations ?
The zzx seems to produce good results, but after valve lash it's probably down to 235ish. I'm becoming more of a believer that at that point in hr.'s, the 242/242 solid becomes a good choice.

mseven wrote:
the ss rockers are around 400.-500. now, they were more when they first came out. Difference in comparison to yours is not only weight but the increase to a 1.7 ratio.

But, your motor should have more 550chp (I have reservations being over 600 though), but since you aren't a fan of dyno's, I guess you/we will never know.

OK, stupid question....honest question however....
You're saying the weight of the stainless is less than the Chrome Molly I have? By how much and what is that worth 5HP? I can't find a spec that they are lighter than the chro mo I have, Comp doesn't say that, summit doesn't say that. Not so sure they are. In fact, the chro mo are more expensive and I believe lighter than stainless. So +5 if that's the case?
As far as the 1.7, why would that make a difference? The overall lift is still .558. I'm running .602 with smaller rockers. I am not sure how you think the 1.7s make much difference on that cam.
Then, we have to look at the cam profile, no? The 1.7 will ramp the cam sooner given it's the same profile and ramp on each cam. Right? Without knowing the profile and ramp for each, it would be impossible to conclude, no?
What we do know is that I have overall more lift and more overall duration, despite the 1.7s on this motor. Therefore we can conclude that my cam ramps faster, we just don't know by how much.

People would post something like this motor and insist it would make more power than another, more robust, setup, like mine in this example.I don't get it or see how you come to the conclusion. I'm not even saying you're wrong, on paper it doesn't add up.

jsup wrote:


Let me repeat, more head,

mseven wrote:
when comp first released that rocker it there statement regarding less recipricating weight and strength, however, as I said, IMO, it would not be weight that would effect/increase your perfromance but the change in ratio (you stated "how much is this going to cost me").
http://www.compcams.com/information/P ... rArms/HiTechStainless.asp
The zzx is .558 gross lift w/a 1.5:1, using the 1.7:1 raises the lift to .632.
On your motor if the cam you have was rated at .602 w/a 1.5, changing to the 1.6:1 puts it at .642.lift., using a 1.7 would put it at .682 lift.
Again if yours started at .602 lift rated w/a 1.6 the change to a 1.7:1 would bring it to .640....altering ratio, not weight would be the gain.

first off, let me be clear, I am talking about ratio changes on any motor. I am not coming to any conclusions, comparisons or the like....on their motor, mine or yours....don't even try it.

I don't make any assumptions on paper or otherwise without all the facts. Have I said anything to give you the idea that it needed to be any certain way to make good power?

jsup wrote:
Thanks mseven. I screwed up, I thought the .558 was total lift with the rockers considered. My error.

mseven wrote:
first off, let me be clear, I am talking about ratio changes on any motor. I am not coming to any conclusions, comparisons or the like....on their motor, mine or yours....don't even try it. I don't make any assumptions on paper or otherwise without all the facts. Have I said anything to give you the idea that it needed to be any certain way to make good power?

jsup wrote:
I wasn't addressing you, I was speaking in general terms......You haven't. Others have.