427 coming along

[jonszr1]

ryan thanx for sharing ,i am learning alot on this thread , its amazing how things have changed since the old days .i like the aproach that todd is taking and can hardly wait to see how she comes out , now if one could only get women to think about shape instead of size . jk

[flyin ryan]

Your welcome. I'm sure your one of the few who will appreciate my point of veiw, the others will throw stones....I can feel it already, LOL. Don't know what it is, but when it comes to porting & cams, seems everyone want's to gravitate to bigger is better...well it's not . LT-5's can be great engines, don't need to get carried away. Lotus had some sharp people back then who were way, WAY ahead of the curve in terms of engine development. Here's a quick one...When I'm dynoing something & the customer is on site, We throw a spacer at it & it picks up, customer is like give it another...& another....& another....keeps picking up. Truth is, generally, it will pick up until the carb tickles the ceiling of the dyno cell!! But on the track, it won't run (accelerate) hard at all. The dyno will lie to you if you let it...every time! When the rubber hits the road...that's real world. Jeff along with some others were bugging me for the longest time about my 90's dyno...Well truth is, I don't like talking about dyno numbers at all cause' every single one (Dyno) in the world is not the same. That's a fact! Dyno numbers being thrown out are only good for picking up chick's in the bar, aside from that they don't mean much to anybody but the person him/her self. I wanted to run my 90 at the track to back up my dyno numbers but never had the chance so to me everything is still up in the air. My 90 dynoed higher here than my 93 did in Portland Aug.2008 at the PNW gathering, so that a good start, but doesn't mean much to me till I run down the track . I don't hear anybody on here talking about average or minimum cross sectional area...& that's damn important! How many F.P.S. (Feet per Second) are you running over the short turn....? Damn important. Sorry Todd, not trying to steal your great thread. You've got an awesome platform, gonna stand everybody on their ear's .

[Polo-1]

Damn Canadians...........








When are you coming back

Originally Posted by flyin ryan

Jeff along with some others were bugging me for the longest time about my 90's dyno...

Well you shouldn't dangle them out there. I think you just like to tease us.

=D>

[flyin ryan]

Originally Posted by Jeffvette

Well you shouldn't dangle them out there. I think you just like to tease us.

=D>

When I E-mailed you the result's I didn't say...'Just keep it to yourself only'...whatever buddy. I never got an indication from you if it was good or not . Feels good/great in the car but that means squat . Things bone stock...Exh., Manifolds etc., except I ported the stuff & timed the cams (they were out in left field) did a PROM but had to have Marc H. modify the timing tables cause 'My guy' didn't lay it up as I asked/told him to. Got the impression from You & Dwight E., in Portland my 93 was pretty decent for stock & this thing on the dyno here was a hair better so I dunno...wanna run it down the track & see what that says . We'll see.

[flyin ryan]

Originally Posted by Polo-1

Damn Canadians...........








When are you coming back

Didn't think you wanted me back ?...LOL!

[Pete]

Here is my thoughts on this.

If you think old school pushrod motor with single big ports then yes worry about velocity LT5 has 2 small ports i don't think you can port them big enough to slow down velocity.

Pete

Ryan what the heck did the dyno show?
I'll tell you what your MPH should be

[tomtom72]

I would like to say a big thank you to all of you guys that know all this stuff about engine building and air flow for sharing your knowledge.

You guys, Todd, Pete, Ryan, Jeff, Kevin, Bob, Paul, Lee, and a host of others that I can't remember.....thanks!

To be clear. I'm speaking for myself. I'm not trying to imply that there are a lot of other members here that are as behind the learning curve as I. I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to be a wise guy.

I really do appreciate it when these kinds of conversations take place among all of you and I get to listen in on it!

[LGAFF]

This is interesting and has prompted me to do some research. First, there is no doubt that increasing the size of ports increases power. If not Haibeck and others would not be in business. I know the cars I have ported have seen 25-30hp increases even without tuning. The GM Techs siamesed Snakeskinners intake and that car was pretty damn fast.

That said, I have been reading up on port size and velocity. Many high rev motorcyle engines see a HP increase be actually reducing port size to 65% of the valve diameter. I also have read that many DOHC cars had oversized port diameters in order to ensure better emissions(much like the 2ndry ports we have).

I guess there are two ways to get there 1)by increasing port diameter and volume 2)by increasing port velocity and ramming the air in....

This is the kind of stuff that keeps in interesting.

[Polo-1]

Originally Posted by Pete

Ryan what the heck did the dyno show?
I'll tell you what your MPH should be

I heard it's over 370 rwhp on a 100% stock car. air filter to tail pipes-factory stock..
My 100% 92 car was 323rwhp then hit 397 after filter,chip,porting,headers,corsa no cats.

Over 370 on a stock quiet car would be a hell of alot of fun. SLEEPER.....