Discussion
i took dave smiths (not sure of his user name on here) black ute to tvr power for a power check today, it is a dynojet roller, it made 522 whp and 508 ft lb. it is running very rich due to some mods that have not been tuned fully yet but we wanted a base to see what it was doing.it is a stock ls1 with 224-228 cam and a 122 blower,headers,3"twin system. oh and a clutch that now grips. these figures will back up it doing 170 at thunder rd with a dodgy clutch. we might even see dave smile for once !!! (for the people who know him you know what i mean !). oh on a 9 psi pulley
tinker-27 said:
out of interest on the same dyno the m3e36 with a ls3 and a cam ,headers,big throttle body,de cat etc made 439 whp (174.5mph) at thunder rd, and the tvr with a 416ci ls3 with all the goodies made 513 whp,
Is the Tivvy`s Brummies, and do you know if he`s running at TR (and are you?)
Blimey thats a lot of questions
the ls3 stroker has heads and a 92mm fast ls2 type heads, and it make good power, it does 11.1 sec 129 terminals quarters you can only dream of going that fast !!! the intake is not a restriction on this motor and it is built to rev hard and make power everywhere. i would say that daves makes very good power rather than pauls not doing the numbers ?
ringram said:
Oh dear, so the ls3 stroker was only 9rwhp off the cammed and blown engine..
Hmm, if the stroker had CNC heads and Fast102 I suspect the supercharged setup would be toast.
Hmm, if the stroker had CNC heads and Fast102 I suspect the supercharged setup would be toast.
Yes, true and the cost, £2.5k ....then the blower boy sticks on a bigger pulley...cost £60.00 and its back to the same.
Also didn`t realise that a stock LS1 was 416 ci, otherwise how can you make a direct comparison
We going to see you at TR mate
Edited by crisisjez on Friday 29th January 14:40
£2500! I bet it cost more than that all up mate. Or did it magically install itself with a camshaft, exhaust and tune etc by itself?
Also Im comparing 5.7L with a 60% air mass advantage to an NA with only a 17% displacement advantage. So the NA is clearly disadvantaged in the airmass dept yet it still puts down more power.
Why does the 5.7 SC which at 9psi (+60% air pressure) should be equivalent to 9.2L not beat a 6.8L Hmmm. Something is shot to pieces.
Oh wait, yes its the inefficient supercharger that explains the failure of efficiency. Also Im sure if he ups the boost the exploding pistons, conrods and cylinder block would cause much entertainment to the NA crowd. That sort of event frequently does already
As for TR, Im in NZ from the 19th and still dont have a working vehicle as my clutch is still shagged.. Next visit to the doc's set for tomorrow!
Also Im comparing 5.7L with a 60% air mass advantage to an NA with only a 17% displacement advantage. So the NA is clearly disadvantaged in the airmass dept yet it still puts down more power.
Why does the 5.7 SC which at 9psi (+60% air pressure) should be equivalent to 9.2L not beat a 6.8L Hmmm. Something is shot to pieces.
Oh wait, yes its the inefficient supercharger that explains the failure of efficiency. Also Im sure if he ups the boost the exploding pistons, conrods and cylinder block would cause much entertainment to the NA crowd. That sort of event frequently does already
As for TR, Im in NZ from the 19th and still dont have a working vehicle as my clutch is still shagged.. Next visit to the doc's set for tomorrow!
As you know BSFC with FI is up to 50% more than NA. Already that tells you efficiency is atrocious with forced induction.
But its like building a massive bonfire outside your house just because you want to heat the living room. Sure you can build a bigger fire outside, but its much more efficient just to build one in the living room fireplace
Ultimately the bondfire will get so large your room will heat, but it seems foolish and silly to waste energy, money and fuel in that way.
Still if that floats your boat and your wallet is large enough to find such wasteful excess I wont argue.
Just dont tell me its more efficient or more reliable than an NA setup! Because its clearly not.
does it matter how efficient the blower is if it add that much power ? as you know im a big fan of na but you cant knock the results the 122 has given ? we were going to build a big cc motor for this car but time had a big part to do with it and if we put a stroker kit in the 5.7 then more to come,the 122 also give about 70 ft lb more torque at the bottom end over the 416 which in the pig iron ute is good. my na motor was more power than this blower set up but then it cost cost more even though i built it my self, anyway as for efficiency we are talking 4" bore two valve push rod motors so they will only ever be so good !!
tinker-27 said:
does it matter how efficient the blower is if it add that much power ?
Thats the £1m question. Id argue it does, especially in a daily driver, which is what mine is. Maybe not in a weekend racer.The unsaid question is "does it matter how reliable the blower is if it add that much power ?"
My answer would be the same, yes it does matter. But again maybe not on a weekend racer.
Also interesting info on the cathedral heads on the LS3. I assumed they were LS3 heads. But yeah good numbers on that mate.
Hopefully Gareth sorts his engine spec out properly. He keeps telling me he doesnt want too much power. But done right his 454 should prove interesting..
Gassing Station | HSV & Monaro | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff