why 2" headers for LSx, but not SBC/ LTx... ?
12-15-2013, 08:25 AM
#81
Le Mans Master
this thread is about WHICH option is overall an easier, cheaper, more reliable method of getting 700 hp normally aspirated pump gas motor into your c4.
so, i personally don't care which way to go, but if you had $20k max to spend on getting a running motor in a c4 making 650 rwhp, which way would get you there as the best solution?
so, i personally don't care which way to go, but if you had $20k max to spend on getting a running motor in a c4 making 650 rwhp, which way would get you there as the best solution?
however, since you want to know............this:
440ci. sb2.2, smal hydraulic roller, 720+ NA on pump gas, no numbers on the hose . You will plenty left over to make the rest of the car right, and your w.p., trans. etc. will all bolt up.
Speaking of head flow, these heads flow over 420 in. and 285 ex.
Last edited by mseven; 12-15-2013 at 09:06 AM.
12-16-2013, 08:44 PM
#82
Race Director
Member Since: Jan 2003
Location: Summerland B.C. Canada
Posts: 19,667
Likes: 0
Received 36 Likes
on
32 Posts
NO, not really, this thread was about 2" headers
however, since you want to know............this:
440ci. sb2.2, smal hydraulic roller, 720+ NA on pump gas, no numbers on the hose . You will plenty left over to make the rest of the car right, and your w.p., trans. etc. will all bolt up.
Speaking of head flow, these heads flow over 420 in. and 285 ex.
however, since you want to know............this:
440ci. sb2.2, smal hydraulic roller, 720+ NA on pump gas, no numbers on the hose . You will plenty left over to make the rest of the car right, and your w.p., trans. etc. will all bolt up.
Speaking of head flow, these heads flow over 420 in. and 285 ex.
12-16-2013, 10:15 PM
#83
Way cool. I assume the exhaust ports require custom headers? What about bolt holes for accessories?
Love it. And i do think 2" headers for either.
Ps. I mixed this thread up with another one but they kind of match up.
Love it. And i do think 2" headers for either.
Ps. I mixed this thread up with another one but they kind of match up.
12-17-2013, 02:32 AM
#84
Yes.. it's first year, made 15 more hp than an engine that was at the end of it's development cycle.
Let's look at the the LS2, just for example. That's 400 ponies right out of the box.
Or the 6.2 out of the Denali even makes 400 horse. (which is cheaper than finding an LT4 by the way)
Most C4s by the way, even in 96 thump... 300 horse. Not 330. So really Base Car to Base car. That's a 45 horsepower jump in One Year.
And need we say more about the LS6?
385 in it's first year by the end of the run? 405. Gee, I wonder what's better to start with
330... or 385 or 400. Or if we go with the more common route.. 345 to 400. (Truck blocks 6.0s and the 6.2)
And it's more fuel efficient than an equivalent Gen 1 or 2 engine.
Let's not kid ourselves here man. I'm not saying the LTX is a bad engine. No one is. You on the other hand are deluded if you think the LSX is a "poser engine".
If the LTX was Where it's at, people would be swapping the LTX into their cars. Not the LSX. And there are scores of reasons not the least of which is sheer bullet proof reliability. Especially compared to anything with an Optispark
Let's look at the the LS2, just for example. That's 400 ponies right out of the box.
Or the 6.2 out of the Denali even makes 400 horse. (which is cheaper than finding an LT4 by the way)
Most C4s by the way, even in 96 thump... 300 horse. Not 330. So really Base Car to Base car. That's a 45 horsepower jump in One Year.
And need we say more about the LS6?
385 in it's first year by the end of the run? 405. Gee, I wonder what's better to start with
330... or 385 or 400. Or if we go with the more common route.. 345 to 400. (Truck blocks 6.0s and the 6.2)And it's more fuel efficient than an equivalent Gen 1 or 2 engine.
Let's not kid ourselves here man. I'm not saying the LTX is a bad engine. No one is. You on the other hand are deluded if you think the LSX is a "poser engine".
If the LTX was Where it's at, people would be swapping the LTX into their cars. Not the LSX. And there are scores of reasons not the least of which is sheer bullet proof reliability. Especially compared to anything with an Optispark
Now I know you could pick up a LS whatever from a salvage yard for X amount of dollars but if I'm building a motor for power, I want to know where it's been and how hard it's been driven.
12-17-2013, 08:03 AM
#85
NO, not really, this thread was about 2" headers
however, since you want to know............this:
440ci. sb2.2, smal hydraulic roller, 720+ NA on pump gas, no numbers on the hose . You will plenty left over to make the rest of the car right, and your w.p., trans. etc. will all bolt up.
Speaking of head flow, these heads flow over 420 in. and 285 ex.
however, since you want to know............this:
440ci. sb2.2, smal hydraulic roller, 720+ NA on pump gas, no numbers on the hose . You will plenty left over to make the rest of the car right, and your w.p., trans. etc. will all bolt up.
Speaking of head flow, these heads flow over 420 in. and 285 ex.
12-17-2013, 10:11 AM
#86
Team Owner
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
The LS6 cams were
Ls6 Cam specs 204/218@.50 .550/.550 lift 117.5 LSA
LS6 Cam specs 207/217 @.50 .525/.525 lift 116 LSA
GM LS6
Hot Cam specs 219/228@.50 .525/.525 lift 112 LSA
An LTx with a 225 cc head and the LS6 spec(basically stock LT4) cam I doubt would make 405, torque would be...low
Last LT4 I played with used the Hotcam a ported to the max head (betting close to 220cc)ported intake headers tune etc etc. 392rwhp was all it could do and the tune was a little on the lean side. Torque was in the 330 if that. Add a cam/tune to a Z06 youre about there. Technology progesses
Mick tell us more about that bad boy
Better yet send it out this way you cant drive in the snow anyway
Ls6 Cam specs 204/218@.50 .550/.550 lift 117.5 LSA
LS6 Cam specs 207/217 @.50 .525/.525 lift 116 LSA
GM LS6
Hot Cam specs 219/228@.50 .525/.525 lift 112 LSA
An LTx with a 225 cc head and the LS6 spec(basically stock LT4) cam I doubt would make 405, torque would be...low
Last LT4 I played with used the Hotcam a ported to the max head (betting close to 220cc)ported intake headers tune etc etc. 392rwhp was all it could do and the tune was a little on the lean side. Torque was in the 330 if that. Add a cam/tune to a Z06 youre about there. Technology progesses
Mick tell us more about that bad boy
Better yet send it out this way you cant drive in the snow anyway
Last edited by cv67; 12-17-2013 at 11:30 AM.
12-17-2013, 11:19 AM
#87
The LS2 is a bigger motor. So yes, there will be a bump in power clearly on the larger displacement. It's hard to compare it with any 350. I'm glad you brought up the LS6 though. This is even more telling. The LS6 enjoys 225cc heads and a cam that is equivalent to an LT4 hot cam. It also carries a larger intake manifold, better flowing exhaust manifolds and a titanium exhaust. With all this said, it only put out 385 or 405hp. That is at the crank. If I put 225cc heads, ported intake, 1.7rrs, a hot cam, shorty headers and a better flowing cat back exhaust on my LT1, it would have a lot more than 405hp. Shoot, just with the hot cam and bolt-ons it would be 405 at the crank.
Now I know you could pick up a LS whatever from a salvage yard for X amount of dollars but if I'm building a motor for power, I want to know where it's been and how hard it's been driven.
Now I know you could pick up a LS whatever from a salvage yard for X amount of dollars but if I'm building a motor for power, I want to know where it's been and how hard it's been driven.
And if we want to make things equivalent, you might as well put at least shorties on that LS6. By the way there's plenty of room for growth in just the tune of the LS6. Like all cars they left power on the table. So all things being equal you'd be pretty north of 405 with headers and a tune on the LS6.
Just starting out, LS1 to LT1, there's a 45 horsepower gap out of the box to out of the box.
If you're building an engine, in one of these cars especially you're going to have to go through it anyway if you're serious about making power in an older engine.
The reason I brought up the 6.0 and 6.2s is because that's out of the box more displacement, coupled with more power. That's just that much less hassle involved. And given the LSX engines strengths (6 bolt mains etc) and more importantly on the street loads more torque at lower rpms. They're also quite a ways more common to find than an LS6.
12-17-2013, 11:54 AM
#88
i dont understand the argument.... the only things that matter are airflow, displacement, reliability at the rpm you desire for desired power range, packaging, and cost.
SB, LT, and LS motors can all make 700 reliably on pump gas if you spend enough money.
certainly an LS is a superior design in concept, and a better starting point if you are looking at a motor for a dyno contest....
but if you are looking at a motor IN A C4, it may be less clear what the best option is.
my favorite one so far might be an SB2.2 setup, but again, I'd want to see an affordable intake that will fit under a c4 hood, and confirm that you can bolt some c4 accessories to the heads without a major PITA.
the LS requires spending a lot of time and money on the conversion for ac/ps/alt/etc., the SB requires spending a lot of money on intake and EFI setups, and an aluminum block and heads if you are wanting something comparable to an LS.
SB, LT, and LS motors can all make 700 reliably on pump gas if you spend enough money.
certainly an LS is a superior design in concept, and a better starting point if you are looking at a motor for a dyno contest....
but if you are looking at a motor IN A C4, it may be less clear what the best option is.
my favorite one so far might be an SB2.2 setup, but again, I'd want to see an affordable intake that will fit under a c4 hood, and confirm that you can bolt some c4 accessories to the heads without a major PITA.
the LS requires spending a lot of time and money on the conversion for ac/ps/alt/etc., the SB requires spending a lot of money on intake and EFI setups, and an aluminum block and heads if you are wanting something comparable to an LS.
12-17-2013, 05:40 PM
#89
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,628
Received 239 Likes
on
167 Posts
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/
Need to go to day coverages to see the #'s
How's a 711hp smallblock grab you?
12-17-2013, 05:46 PM
#90
Le Mans Master
If you're too cheap to buy, the online pages are here.
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/
12-17-2013, 06:09 PM
#91
If you're too cheap to buy, the online pages are here.
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/
Need to go to day coverages to see the #'s
How's a 711hp smallblock grab you?
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/
Need to go to day coverages to see the #'s
How's a 711hp smallblock grab you?
grabs me just fine, big woody!
you know, that intake might even fit under a c4 hood with a shorter efi TB.... custom headers all the way though.
12-18-2013, 02:05 PM
#92
And the 6 bolt mains, and the intake, and the throttle body design, and the potential for larger headers, crank trigger ignition, far more advanced computers, better sensors across the board, better block architecture (good luck making 600 hp on an LTX NA without it wanting to Grenade. The Mains are only part of this... and it's got 6 bolt mains vs at best 4 for the LTX), it's far lighter. Only advantage is the heads. 
And quite a few people buy junkyard Gen 1s and Gen3s, for their engine builds. No one buys a junkyard LTX because comparatively it's about the same cost as getting a salvage LSX (and if you buy from a reputable buyer, you get a warranty anyway, and it's been started up).
What you guys repeatedly ignore, is what you are doing with mods particularly after the heads have been Properly Ported you could have paid for an LSX that is both stronger, vastly more truly streetable, and more fuel efficient while having an equal amount of power....with the engine having more room to go afterwards.
A 400 horse LTX is not a cheap engine to have handy. And the real kick in the teeth is you're only making power at that point of someone with an LSX that's Stock, without the 27 to 28 mpg to go with it,
And quite a few people buy junkyard Gen 1s and Gen3s, for their engine builds. No one buys a junkyard LTX because comparatively it's about the same cost as getting a salvage LSX (and if you buy from a reputable buyer, you get a warranty anyway, and it's been started up).
What you guys repeatedly ignore, is what you are doing with mods particularly after the heads have been Properly Ported you could have paid for an LSX that is both stronger, vastly more truly streetable, and more fuel efficient while having an equal amount of power....with the engine having more room to go afterwards.
A 400 horse LTX is not a cheap engine to have handy. And the real kick in the teeth is you're only making power at that point of someone with an LSX that's Stock, without the 27 to 28 mpg to go with it,
12-18-2013, 08:49 PM
#93
I really doubt you'd be putting down more than 405 hp. And I very highly doubt you'd be doing it and getting 27 avged highway mpg.
And if we want to make things equivalent, you might as well put at least shorties on that LS6. By the way there's plenty of room for growth in just the tune of the LS6. Like all cars they left power on the table. So all things being equal you'd be pretty north of 405 with headers and a tune on the LS6.
Just starting out, LS1 to LT1, there's a 45 horsepower gap out of the box to out of the box.
If you're building an engine, in one of these cars especially you're going to have to go through it anyway if you're serious about making power in an older engine.
The reason I brought up the 6.0 and 6.2s is because that's out of the box more displacement, coupled with more power. That's just that much less hassle involved. And given the LSX engines strengths (6 bolt mains etc) and more importantly on the street loads more torque at lower rpms. They're also quite a ways more common to find than an LS6.
And if we want to make things equivalent, you might as well put at least shorties on that LS6. By the way there's plenty of room for growth in just the tune of the LS6. Like all cars they left power on the table. So all things being equal you'd be pretty north of 405 with headers and a tune on the LS6.
Just starting out, LS1 to LT1, there's a 45 horsepower gap out of the box to out of the box.
If you're building an engine, in one of these cars especially you're going to have to go through it anyway if you're serious about making power in an older engine.
The reason I brought up the 6.0 and 6.2s is because that's out of the box more displacement, coupled with more power. That's just that much less hassle involved. And given the LSX engines strengths (6 bolt mains etc) and more importantly on the street loads more torque at lower rpms. They're also quite a ways more common to find than an LS6.
It would be easier to swap the heads and cam on a C4 with an LT motor than to implant a LS. Maybe the same $ wise, but the time saved would most def make up for it.
400 crank hp with a hot cam and bolt-ons has been done numerous times with the F-body guys. A good amount also have put down 360-370rwhp with just a cam and bolt-ons. The ones using the AI 200cc heads are putting down 425-455rwhp. That is on stock cubes. The ignition system has held some of them back but they have been swapping in the 24X.
12-19-2013, 01:25 AM
#94
The reason behind the 'potential' in an LSX build are the cylinder heads. GM did an awesome job. They flow to the equivalent of an aftermarket LT cylinder head. So naturally, any bolt-on to a LS motor will respond very well. The reason behind small gains to an LT is because the cylinder heads barely flowed over 200 on a 170cc.
It would be easier to swap the heads and cam on a C4 with an LT motor than to implant a LS. Maybe the same $ wise, but the time saved would most def make up for it.
400 crank hp with a hot cam and bolt-ons has been done numerous times with the F-body guys. A good amount also have put down 360-370rwhp with just a cam and bolt-ons. The ones using the AI 200cc heads are putting down 425-455rwhp. That is on stock cubes. The ignition system has held some of them back but they have been swapping in the 24X.
It would be easier to swap the heads and cam on a C4 with an LT motor than to implant a LS. Maybe the same $ wise, but the time saved would most def make up for it.
400 crank hp with a hot cam and bolt-ons has been done numerous times with the F-body guys. A good amount also have put down 360-370rwhp with just a cam and bolt-ons. The ones using the AI 200cc heads are putting down 425-455rwhp. That is on stock cubes. The ignition system has held some of them back but they have been swapping in the 24X.
The more advanced electronics helps things too for the LSX.
Oh the cam and head swap is easier no doubt there. But if the car's not your DD, and if you've got the money and patience why not go the extra step? In my case I doubt my C4 will go LSX. I like the appearance of the TPI style intake too much (mine's got ASM runners, edelbrock base manifold). My 86Z28 on the other hand. That's going LSX. It's not like I'm losing out by not having it on the road asap. (I've had the Z off the road longer than I've even owned the Vette) in the case of my Z28 I look at it for performance vs dollars spent.
I've heard the LTX family suffers from heat soak due to how close the intake is to the engine and was one of the reasons GM went to the composite intakes for the LSX family.
Last edited by Aaron Keating; 12-19-2013 at 01:33 AM.
12-19-2013, 09:15 AM
#95
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,628
Received 239 Likes
on
167 Posts
NO, not really, this thread was about 2" headers
however, since you want to know............this:
440ci. sb2.2, smal hydraulic roller, 720+ NA on pump gas, no numbers on the hose . You will plenty left over to make the rest of the car right, and your w.p., trans. etc. will all bolt up.
Speaking of head flow, these heads flow over 420 in. and 285 ex.
however, since you want to know............this:
440ci. sb2.2, smal hydraulic roller, 720+ NA on pump gas, no numbers on the hose . You will plenty left over to make the rest of the car right, and your w.p., trans. etc. will all bolt up.
Speaking of head flow, these heads flow over 420 in. and 285 ex.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/auto...-or-trade.html
12-19-2013, 09:32 AM
#96
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,628
Received 239 Likes
on
167 Posts
FYI Lingenfelter built a C4 with one
http://www.zr1.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20267
http://www.zr1.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20267
LINGENFELTER 1990 C4 CORVETTE Convertible 400 CID 570 HP
- 570 Horsepower @ 7,000 RPM
- 400 CID 11:1 compression - 93 Octane
- 6 Speed Manual Transmission
Featured in Vette Magazine July 1993 where John Lingenfelter ran the car at
Beach Bend Dragway where it produced a high 10 sec 1/4 mile @ 126 MPH with slicks
- 570 Horsepower @ 7,000 RPM
- 400 CID 11:1 compression - 93 Octane
- 6 Speed Manual Transmission
Featured in Vette Magazine July 1993 where John Lingenfelter ran the car at
Beach Bend Dragway where it produced a high 10 sec 1/4 mile @ 126 MPH with slicks
12-19-2013, 04:47 PM
#97
Le Mans Master
the short track one in the pics below would work.......but thats not the one I am using.
hey how have you been ? yea totally new project .
why?, I already have that .......
hey how have you been ? yea totally new project .
Last edited by mseven; 12-19-2013 at 09:51 PM.
12-26-2013, 09:18 AM
#99
Safety Car
Back to the orginal topic of the thread.
2" Primary tube headers for the SBC/LTX in a C4 Corvette. These were made by Stahl Headers for me.
As far intakes worth a crap fitting under the hood. On my 1984 last season I ran a Pro Products Hurricane single plane intake with a nitrous plate and a QFT Q Series 950 carb and it comes right to the top of the factory hood. That intake is taller than a 2925 Super Victor, a Victor E, Victor jr, and Team G. It is identical to the Chevy 23* Bowtie and Dart single planes.
Orginally my 84 had a little forward facing hood scoop that was only 2" tall.... You can see it in this pic. All that engine above fit under it.
Rules changes forced me to put the big cowl induction scoop I have on it now. If not for the class rules about "no forward facing hood scoop" I would have kept the little scoop it had.
If you wanted to stay EFI on the intake then do what I have on my 1992 6spd.
Totally flat hood. Car looks completely stock when I want it to. You would never know THIS was living under the hood. 487RWHP and 24mpg, normally aspriated, on 93 octane pump gas and I drive it in the worst traffic in the USA (Washington DC).
BTW I have NEVER been outrun by LSX power in either of my Corvettes. Taken plenty of 500+RWHP LSX $$$ with my the 92 thou....
Will
2" Primary tube headers for the SBC/LTX in a C4 Corvette. These were made by Stahl Headers for me.
As far intakes worth a crap fitting under the hood. On my 1984 last season I ran a Pro Products Hurricane single plane intake with a nitrous plate and a QFT Q Series 950 carb and it comes right to the top of the factory hood. That intake is taller than a 2925 Super Victor, a Victor E, Victor jr, and Team G. It is identical to the Chevy 23* Bowtie and Dart single planes.
Orginally my 84 had a little forward facing hood scoop that was only 2" tall.... You can see it in this pic. All that engine above fit under it.
Rules changes forced me to put the big cowl induction scoop I have on it now. If not for the class rules about "no forward facing hood scoop" I would have kept the little scoop it had.
If you wanted to stay EFI on the intake then do what I have on my 1992 6spd.
Totally flat hood. Car looks completely stock when I want it to. You would never know THIS was living under the hood. 487RWHP and 24mpg, normally aspriated, on 93 octane pump gas and I drive it in the worst traffic in the USA (Washington DC).
BTW I have NEVER been outrun by LSX power in either of my Corvettes. Taken plenty of 500+RWHP LSX $$$ with my the 92 thou....
Will
