Printable View
Looking at 243 assembled heads for around600. Saw dart 205 assembled heads for 700 ish. What other options do I have ? Have to lol into Ai and le for porter ls1 prices. Considering heads and cam if I keep the Z I'll be going semi aggressive cam longtubes hellwithemissions into a corsa exhaust.
Where did you find assembled Dart 205's for 700? Im sure there are the better choice. Correct me if im wrong guys.
If there is nothing wrong with those heads, get them! Just keep in mind they're one of the worst, if not THE worst performing aftermarket head, but still have lots of potential in the right hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5abivt
And this is why I've seen them advertised, but never heard anything about them or anyone running them? (This is a serious question, not sarcasum)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 85Z28
I found this a while ago:
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ads/index.html
The darts didn't do so well in the shoot out.
Thanks! Good readQuote:
Originally Posted by azfrc
So your better off with ported stock heads over the Darts...that's not a good investment lol
I have no experience with dart heads but I notice they're also comparing them to heads that cost way more. They're budget heads....how many more HP are you getting for the $800 difference in price? That's what you have learn to live with when doing budget heads. You have to be willing to sacrifice the HP for the dollar. I didn't go over all the numbers with a fine tooth comb but just looking at peak (which doesn't really tell the whole story) it looks to me like the Dart's held their own really.Quote:
Originally Posted by azfrc
I'd like to see a budget shootout which I'm sure they've done but I've never seen. Patriot, PRC, dart, and home ported 243's.
Held their own? I don't know what you were looking at, but those Dart 205s are not much better than a stock set of 243 heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by 0rion
Unless you are willing to spend another $1000-$1500 to make the Darts work, they're a waste of money. But for $700 initial cost? That's still a deal!
205's?? I just see the 225's
AFR
* Peak Horsepower 547.1 @ 6,400 rpm
* Peak Torque 479.5 @ 5,500
Dart
* Peak Horsepower 532.5 @ 6,700 rpm
* Peak Torque 478.4 @ 5,200 rpm
taken straight from that article
"On the engine dyno, the Dart heads stayed right with the other competitors--that is, until they reached 5,500 rpm and the torque went away. Still, a little port work could easily solve that. The horsepower is right there, flat and broad from 4,500 rpm until past the engine's peak at 6,700 rpm. The Dart heads have a lot of potential, and this study only hints at what they offer the end user. All things considered, a Dart-headed LS2 would be hard to distinguish from the other castings."
I should have looked at that article closer. I only looked at flow numbers. The dart heads didn't do so bad afterall, but also keep in mind those are 225cc intakes. That article shows flow isn't everything, so for the money the darts really are a good deal for $700 a pair, but I've never seen them for $700 a set. The best I've seen was about $1600 a set.
Intake CC is one critical aspect that needs attention when comparing heads, as well as valve angles.
Notice the Trick Flows used a 13.5 degree angle which gives a nice advantage over the others that all used 15 degree. Yet they were marginally better than the AFR's with their smallish 205cc intake runners and 15 degree valve angles. That says alot about the AFR's.
If you ask me the AFR's really shined in this test considering the small intake runner size.
I run AFR's on a BBC and can't say too many bad things about them. (just make sure they install the correct valve springs :rolleyes:)
On the same token I run a set of Dart 200cc heads on a gen 1 406 small block currently. Dart makes a decent Gen 1 cylinder head but it seems they jumped on the LS bandwagon a bit late compared to some other head manufactures.
TSP sells LS6 heads cnc ported,stock valves or bigger valves.$1000-$1400.patriot sells a cnc #243 head for $1300.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygnu65
Where did you see that?? The only $1,000 heads I see from them are the 5.3 versions which have smaller intake runners than the LS6's. They peak flow at 312 cfm after cnc porting.
To jump up to LS6 heads from TSP requires $2,100 But you get a little more flow.
It's a matter of how much HP you are willing to sacrafice verses money spent.
I did fish around some more on there. It does appear they offer LS6 castings nearly stock for that money, along with a camshaft package that doesn't look bad price wise.
I know you 5.7 guys cant run l92 heads but they sell them with vet springs ready to go for 899.00 pair they also offer all other gm heads mild to wild im sure they can hook you up with a set of modded 243's alot cheaper than what you all are talking
stage 1 ls6 heads for $1025,cnc ported.they need better springs .stage 2 ls6 head for $1425 ,cnc ported.they use stock guides ,no need for roller rockers.
I wouldn't want a head like L92's on a little motor like a 5.7 anyway. Extremely too much intake port volume. Would make for a very soggy and rpm peaky motor. GM high tech even proved that on a 6.0 (364 ci). Was very soft in the torque department and didn't come alive until over 5,000 rpm.Quote:
Originally Posted by robznob11
I honestly wouldn't even use those on anything less than 400 cubes naturally aspirated.
How about a 404 stroker with an Edelbrock proflo xt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebirdjones
Probably work nice. Enough cubes there to take advantage of the larger heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark21742
Smaller engines just don't need intake runners that large to fill cylinders. Unless you like 4.88 gears and 7,500 rpm shift points.
I'm still runningg my oringinal 241s ported and milled for now, but I'm saving and reading reading reading to make a good choice when the time comes to buy heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebirdjones
Understandable. I wouldn't have any problems putting the L92 heads on a 400 ci + motor.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark21742
On the other hand, there are some nice cathedral port heads on the market that flow enough to support well over 600 hp. They cost much more than out of the box L92's though. Depends on your goals.
I have what I want for now in the bottom end, I won't be doing heads till atleast next year...unless I win the lotto lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Firebirdjones
I know you don't run l92 s on small engines they wont even work on less than 6.0 engines because the valves would hit. the point is that gm offers heads what ever casting you want that are upgraded from the factory you can get them at scoggin dicky performance probably cheaper than else where. just throwing a bone not everyone knows where to source a good deal its worth a call.
Jegs has good prices on ls6 heads
SDPC sells #12564824 for $445 each,ls6 head.
Ya I think we all know you need a 4 inch bore for the L92's to work. What I was getting at is,,,,,although those heads are a good deal, they have way too much intake runner volume to work well on anything under 400 cubes. So even the 6.0 (364) with it's 4 inch bore wouldn't qualify in my book. GM high tech proved this as well with a very soft motor on the dyno that was peaky.Quote:
Originally Posted by robznob11
Now throw a power adder in the mix like a procharger or turbo and we have a completely different story. But a naturally asperated motor I would not use them on unless you are building a stroker.
Not to mention, they also have a very weak exhaust port. Even after CNC porting the IE ratio isn't that great. Those heads need a huge duration split of at least 10-15 degrees to compensate for the weak exhaust side.
I agree the price is attracting, but when I look at all other things considered, there are better options even if they cost a little more.
^^^I am glad to finally find somebody who understands what im talking about in respect to the L92 head. Ive tried to explain the same concept to several people but they are all hung up on flow numbers.
Using high velocity theory, with the big long ported runners of my Proflo xt port matched to my, ported/ milled 241s with their stock sized valves actually be helping me make power, or more of a restriction over bigger valve bigger heads?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoscamaroSS
Nothing any engine builder wouldn't understand. Problem is, people have gotten hung up on dyno numbers and and flow bench numbers. Neither of which means the car is going to be fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoscamaroSS
Peak flow isn't all it's cracked up to be. Even if you had a camshaft that reached peak flow (say .600") it only hits that one time during the cycle. What everyone should be more concerned about is mid lift flow, say .300"-.400" because you pass over that twice during the lift cycle.
AFR has been hard to beat in this area, Trickflow is another one. Prices reflect that.
L92's hit the market and it was all the craze because of the cheap prices. Ya they flow 320 cfm on the intake side, but mid lift numbers aren't impressive, and the exhaust side sucks.
Not to mention take this for example-------------------------------------
If you really look at it, and this is where people should pay close attention,,,,,,,,,,you are looking at heads with an intake runner size of 260cc,,,and it only flows 320cfm!!!!!
You can port cathedral heads with an intake runner size of 205-220cc and get 320 cfm of flow.
Now which head do you think is going to perform better accross the board??? I'll take the smaller cc intake runner any day of the week, smaller intake runner means more velocity, better throttle response, better torque with a nice smooth curve on the dyno graph that theoretically would still make the same peak HP, and more average HP accross the board.
And we aren't even taking into account the weak IE ratio of the L92's. That would be yet another factor.
I don't mean to dog the L92's, my hats off to GM for offering a new head so cheap. They work well on larger motors that need an intake of that size to fill the cylinders. Smaller cubes could be made to work, but expect peaky performance that would require alot of rear gear and high rpm shift points. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that, if you like that sort of thing.
L92's with a well matched cam it would be wicked on that motor and the most economical way to 500+rwhp......Quote:
Originally Posted by mark21742
Firebirds post pretty much summed it up, but I believe you definately would benefit from having a little more runner volume and a larger valve size since you're running a large cube stroker.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark21742
Hard question to answer. Who did the work on your 241's and what was done??Quote:
Originally Posted by mark21742
Keep in mind switching to L92's also means switching your intake setup completely, which adds to the cost.
Like others mentioned, it really comes down to cost and how much HP you are willing to sacrifice per dollar spent.
Oh ya you are right, he did mention he was building a stroker didn't he???Quote:
Originally Posted by NoscamaroSS
How did this discussion go to L92s? There's a whole section of the LS1tech forum dedicated to fourth gen small blocks and a lot of write ups on 6.0 liter/L92 intakes. They seem to get pretty good reviews.
Has anybody ever seen dart ls heads for $700 a pair? Where?
I'm disappointed at the flow resultsof the LS heads since I have run a set of Dart pro1 200ccs and been very pleased with the power on a 388. Of course that was a small block in a 240z weighing about 2500lbs so bottom end torque was not a priority.
Thread has been about best bang for your buck heads, and naturally the L92's come into play. Wouldn't know much about LS1tech articles, I don't frequent over there at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by azfrc
Ya the Dart LS heads were in a recent article that was linked in a thread earlier here. May have been this one, I get them mixed up.
They talk about prices and how affordable they are. Wasn't a terrible head, but they were compared against AFR's and Trickflows.
I also run 200cc dart heads on a gen1 406 that made ~480 hp with a very mild 240 at .050 cam on pump gas. Great daily driver. They make a pretty decent head for the gen 1 engines. We only did a little clean up work and some bowl blending for the 2.05 intake valves we installed. Otherwise they are out of the box.
I like the power they made, but l had to clean mines up as well. I cut my hand on a pretty big casting flash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebirdjones
The first thing I did to my heads was to around off every sharp edge so I wouldn't cut myself up...I should buy stock in the band aid companies lolQuote:
Originally Posted by azfrc
so what would be the best heads/cam for a stock lq4 and it be a daily driver
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.
I am curious what cnc'd 241's will do with a 224/228 588/588 cam and the accompanying bolt ons?
Should be an 11 second 4th gen. I had a flow chart here somewhere that compared ported 241's to ported 243's.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbs1
The 243's had an exhaust flow advantage and therefore a better I/E ratio. But otherwise somewhat comparable in HP.
The better I/E ratio would favor a straight pattern camshaft. The split duration camshaft you listed might be better suited for the 241 heads that lack some of the exhaust flow of the 243's.
Gears for sure is a step in the right direction. Anything high strung like that needs a gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbs1
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 :lol:
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.
I've never had any problems with Dart heads. Been running them on cars for awhile.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by garygnu65
It's like the old saying goes......cheap, reliable, and fast. Pick 2. :D
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbs1