Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Best bang for the buck cylinder head?

This is a discussion on Best bang for the buck cylinder head? within the Internal Engine forums, part of the LSx Technical Help Section category; Originally Posted by dbs1 I'd have to second that on the L92 heads. I have a nbs 07 truck with ...

  1. #41
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by dbs1 View Post
    I'd have to second that on the L92 heads. I have a nbs 07 truck with the 6.0 max pkg that has the L92 heads. I previously had the 06 with the LQ9 6.0 engine. Both trucks ran a 15.2 with the L92 headed truck almost 3 mph faster, but a dog out of the hole. It starts to wake up after 4200 rpm, but the heads overwhelm it. It seems gears or a different cam or stroke it would help, but it won't win many stoplight wars.
    Gears for sure is a step in the right direction. Anything high strung like that needs a gear.

    Interesting how 2 engines (cathedral verses square port heads) run nearly identical ET's yet the square port heads run 3 mph faster.
    Just shows how the square port headed motor is lacking torque in the low and mid ranges. That's definately a "more gear" type of scenario.

    In all honesty, what is a truck used for??? Towing and hauling. I'd rather have a torquey motor making grunt down low. But that's just me.

    My father has an 03 with the 6.0 and it tows his open car trailer with a 4,000 lbs car pretty decent. He's been pretty happy with the truck for what he's using it for. I'm still using my trusty 79 1 ton with a 454 to pull mine around
    Just for a giggles comparison, it runs 14.60's at 94 mph and weighs 5,300 lbs. compared to your 15.2. Interesting what grunt does for a heavy vehicle.

  2. #42
    Member jerri311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    111

    Silver
    2002 Trans Am WS6

    I've never had any problems with Dart heads. Been running them on cars for awhile.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    coon rapids, MN
    Age
    52
    Posts
    404

    red
    2000TA

    maybe less torque down low would be easy on transmission and rear ends?

  4. #44
    Veteran 0rion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    22,520

    98 Formula
    06 duramax

    Quote Originally Posted by garygnu65 View Post
    maybe less torque down low would be easy on transmission and rear ends?
    the stock stuff isn't even meant to hold stock HP so once you start modding the car you're just on borrowed time period. Some just have better luck than others.

    It's like the old saying goes......cheap, reliable, and fast. Pick 2.

  5. #45
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    show low, az
    Posts
    65

    now-atomic orange
    2002 SLP M6 SS

    I think GM's reasoning is really to have a high hp # to banty about, knowing most folks don't have a clue about down low tq. Then on top of that they program in a butt load of tq management so it's really a dog down low and doesn't break things.

    It's amazing how much a good tune can pull out of these stoved up engines.

    I will say that the truck pulls ok with an enclosed trailer and 7000lbs worth.
    15.2 @ almost 93mph tells the tale. It should run 14.8 or thereabouts, but no torquee down lowee.

    Even with the sc on it, it felt like it wanted at least 4.10's, or a good stall.

  6. #46
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    show low, az
    Posts
    65

    now-atomic orange
    2002 SLP M6 SS

    And the 241's I mentioned are not world beaters but flowed well, showing 290,220 @ .600 lift.

  7. #47
    cutting and welding mark21742's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    mercersburg pa
    Posts
    6,443

    hugger orange
    2004

    Quote Originally Posted by dbs1 View Post
    And the 241's I mentioned are not world beaters but flowed well, showing 290,220 @ .600 lift.
    I wish I would have had my 241s flowed (just out of curuiosity) after I ported and milled them.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Help: best bang for the buck
    By pewter Z28 in forum Camaro / SS
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-30-2011, 05:17 PM
  2. Best bang for the buck...
    By j12h in forum Stereo and Electronics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-17-2008, 05:54 PM
  3. Most bang for tha Buck
    By thegoodthebadtheWs6 in forum External Engine
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 04:59 PM
  4. which kit is the best bang for the buck?
    By 99RedRagtop in forum Nitrous
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-12-2006, 10:05 PM
  5. Bang for the buck
    By camaro_freak86 in forum GM Trucks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-02-2006, 04:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •