Jump to content

shadowsniper3006

Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,278

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by shadowsniper3006

  2. 4l60e stall question

    in AWD, Differential, & Transmission Tech

    Posted · Edited by shadowsniper3006 (see edit history)

    Don't worry, I will be breaking a record with my TCS S3 4600 :thumbsup:

    I'm sorry I remember going over some stuff on your truck but can't remember all. Can you list your full mods and why your using a 4600 stall. Only two members I know of have used such a high stall. Myself being one, but both trucks being na. If your going to impress me (in this case) lay down a 1.6 60 foot time.

     

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  3. 4l60e stall question

    in AWD, Differential, & Transmission Tech

    Posted · Edited by shadowsniper3006 (see edit history)

    Jons truck is a tribute to what these motors can handle, but a 1.9 60 foot time isn't to great. Granted I bet he was spinning hard. Zach had a tcs to right?

    Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2

     

    Yes he did... mind you the only one that we ever had built for strictly track performance was brians.

    Zach's truck laid down a hell of a time, despite his 60 foot. But it figures shinny never laid down a time(I'm sure it would've been top notch). I guess I wouldn't say tcs usa lays down the best performance(based on 60 foot) but it could also be argued they have good efficiency up top because they have laid down some good sc times.

    Truth be told I love my circle d, but it also doesn't compare to the tcs Canada. But chris's customer service is second to none. And although i've tried to break his converter by many locked dyno runs and locked track passes, and have not succeeded in breaking it yet, but I'm trying.

     

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  4. 4l60e stall question

    in AWD, Differential, & Transmission Tech

    Posted

    I didn't know that either. Thanks for pointing it out danny.

    Although I'm not sure about the tcs converters. I don't remember any terrific 60 foot times coming from them. I don't recall any failures though either. Tcs out of Canada produced some of the best 60 foot times posted, but the two guys that used them also blew them up

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

    And you might not as there is only a handfull of them around here and only one of them was built with pure track performance in mind and that was the converter that was in Brians (2BFAST) truck. Jon (Idahoblkss) also has a TCS from me and his seems to do just fine :)

     

    Jons truck is a tribute to what these motors can handle, but a 1.9 60 foot time isn't to great. Granted I bet he was spinning hard. Zach had a tcs to right?

     

    Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2

     

     

  5. 4l60e stall question

    in AWD, Differential, & Transmission Tech

    Posted

    No it wont fit if it is out of the small input shaft 4L60e which a 97 truck is a small input shaft transmission. I know you decided to pass on it but seeing several people giving bad advice on fitment is something we dont need members to read and think it is right.

    Another vote for TCS I have sold several of them to members here and I have ran them in my personal stuff for the last 4-5 years

    I didn't know that either. Thanks for pointing it out danny.

     

    Although I'm not sure about the tcs converters. I don't remember any terrific 60 foot times coming from them. I don't recall any failures though either. Tcs out of Canada produced some of the best 60 foot times posted, but the two guys that used them also blew them up

     

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  7. Look what I did! My build

    in Builds

    Posted

    Then thats why your truck feels like a dog down low. You need a good converter so you can take advantage of your power band.

     

    Again, just what Art said. Think around 3600 minimum for good times, any 3000+ converter will work, but that cam is going to want to be on the higher side.

     

    Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2

     

     

  8. went to the track...

    in Strip

    Posted

    Me and my brother are tuning it, we just didnt have much seat time with it so the tune is only half there.

    And the blue truck me and my buddy built, 5.3 with a cam and 75mm turbo, 80e, e85/18psi. It went 10.8 @ 127 with a 1.70 short time. Track just wasnt holding any more power we were gunning fir a 10.6.

     

    Holy hell....hats off to you guys!!!!

     

    Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2

     

     

  10. thinking about getting these heads...

    in Bolt On Performance

    Posted · Edited by shadowsniper3006 (see edit history)

    Jon,

    Not sure how much of this you knew or not:

    You can figure the compression with a zero deck, which is how most guys do it, or I actually checked my truck and the piston comes out .008. I only found one article that said the lq9 was supposed to be .010 out of hole and I just found another that said .006. Most guys dont figure in the head gasket bore diameter either, but I used it to ask another question.

    65 cc head with zero deck ls9 gasket=10.809

    65 head with .008 deck ls9 gasket=11.026

    Just for ref.

    65 head zero deck stock gasket=10.864

     

    The bore diameter on the gasket on the ls9 is 4.1 where as the stock is 4.02. I guess I wouldn't like the idea of a .051 tall ring around the top of the deck where carbon can form or possibly effect the amount of quench or some other small factor I'll never even know about. In theory it gives you more gasket in between cylinders as well if that evens makes a difference. Any reason your choosing the ls9 gasket? Is the 5 to 7 layer difference that big? Cometic also offers a 4.03-4.04 if that helps. You could also get a cometic 4.030 gasket a liitle thicker to run closer to stock compression if you or zippy thinks you need to.

    4.030x.060 on a zero deck=10.618

     

    As for the heads, there better then stock, but I wouldn't use a head under 225, I would prefer a 235. When I had my stock ported heads tea said even they were around 227cc. You will get the chamber benifit though. At least the 225 head seems to eat advance with no kr. Im able to run 33 degrees of advace, so I can see that really helping your cause. If your going to put that amount of money into those heads, why not a few hundred more for the larger runners. However, the larger runners will reduce your boost, and im not sure how that reduced boost but more actaul air flow effects the final hp number. Remeber tf heads require roller tip rockers.

     

    Edit: are those the fast as cast heads? Have they been worked over like hinted above? If not, just for ref.

    220 flow intake only vs stage 2.5 ported 68cc stock heads

    .1=67 vs 68

    .2= 133 vs 140.4

    .3= 211 vs 208.7

    .4= 263 vs 267.1

    .5= 297 vs 302.6

    .55=306 vs 318.8

    .6= 314 vs 328.7

     

    Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2

  12. anybody see this yet

    in Bolt On Performance

    Posted

    Brad I was just joking when I said I was going to run nothing off the heads. I forgot to leave a gesture after that sentence.

    As for scavenging you are correct as it plays a role in expelling the gasses. And without it the amount of backpressure exceeds the rate at which the exhaust gases can be removed from the cylinder as the velocity has dropped and it takes pressure to move the next wave of expelled gasses.

     

    In Brads case, he winds his motor very high for being a truck and he can use the larger primary because it constantly has a hi rate of flow being spent out the exhaust. This might move his peak power up say to 6500rpm as this is where most people are not revving to. But the power has a small to no gain from 1k to 5k on his motor. But he won't see below 5k other than on a launch.

    Ohh I know bud. But your sarcasm actually made a great point that with essentially no back pressure from the header tubes you might loose hp but for a different reason.

     

    Truth be told, my motor peaks at exactly 7200 with the converter unlocked, which is how I race it. And that is with 1.750 header.

     

    I'm still of the opinion though a 1.875 on a stockish truck would be a good idea. I think Art should test this to.

     

    I do plan on testing a new header on my truck one of these days, but the results would be way to far off to use in any discussion like this.

     

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  13. anybody see this yet

    in Bolt On Performance

    Posted

     

     

    I don't know if I add any useful info or not, but I love giving my opinion so...

    Jon I don't know if what you said is true, but then again what sinner hit on may be more true. Back pressure equals torque not hp, the way I understand things, the less back pressure you have the more hp will be created but it will raise where your peak hp is made. If we needed back pressure to make power we would all still have the manifolds on. However, the argument of running straight out the heads producing more power hits on the scavaging effect of the headers. If you did run straight out the heads and had zero back pressure you may just be down on power because there is no scavaging or increase in volocity from the headers, plus burnt valves. If that's true, and I'm not saying it is, there has to be a line in primary diameter that allows scavaging but has the least amount of back pressure. And I guess this assumes you want to find the most hp in your truck, not target a peak rpm or purpose built torque motor or target a lower stall converter. Which I think is what Jon and I do with our trucks.

     

    That being said, where is that line? And this where I agree that what's said on the Internet is kinda a myth. Look around, every body that knows something says 1.75 is the best all around header or the best for a stockish motor. Where is the info that they "know" coming from? Did they dyno everything from manifolds, 1.625 primaries to 2" primaries? I'm betting it came for years of tests with small block Chevys and small block fords being repeated time and time again. I know the ls motor is pretty old now, but you still have a lot of guys that know the sbc Inside and out, pretending they know the ls and what's good for it. I have a buddy at work building a 600 hp 427 ford motor for 7000 rpm use, and he is using 225 afr heads and 1.75 primary headers. The fricken stock heads on a ls motor are what 210 and we run 1.75 headers on stock motors...not 600 horse ones. And go figure you can buy a 205 head for ls motors.....because for a small block....that's a big head. So if you ignor all the opinions that guys "know" to be true, is it hard to believe that a motor that comes with a 210 head from the factory might want a 1.875 header? Yeah you'll move your hp peak up a touch and yeah you'll loose some bottom end, but if it makes more average hp and torque from 3000 up.....did you loose anything, especially when most guys run a 3000 converter. Hell zippy wants a 2" header on my stock cubed truck. We constantly fight what guys "know"', like the stock fuel pump needs to be changed if you do a cam swap, or you need a high pressure oil pump if you do cam swap.

     

    As for building a truck for torque or for higher hp, I did both. One got me to 12.8 and one got me to 12.4. One with a 3800 converter and one with a 4500. Was the 3800 converter and enough torque for a 1.633 60 foot time better on the street, yeah. But right now I promise you if you rode in my truck, you would never see any street ability issues with a 235 cam and 4500 stall. You tune it right, and the biggest thing is learning how to drive the truck, if it doesn't like 30 mph in 4th gear unlocked....you drive in 3rd. Don't force it to do something it did stock if it doesn't want to. Or if it doesn't have the bottom end torque, add gears and it may just work great. You can believe me or not, my truck is not a race truck. It is not hard to drive. And it could be a dd. I drove it to Kansas City and back to prove to guys it's not that bad. If I remember right Jon was there, he sure didn't notice me limping it around nor did Brian who saw the truck on the street a lot. Does it have down falls, yeah, mpg sucks in the city(still gets 13.0 on the highway), valve guide life isn't good neither is spring life. But, if you want to go faster na....eventually you have to give up this bottom end torque everybody loves so much. With the limit of stock cubes, how do you get a truck with a 224 cam and stock intake and 1.750 headers to go faster? Bigger cam, less torque down low. Short runner intake, less torque everywhere. Larger headers, less low end torque. Eventually you say f it, and the 4000 stall goes in, and the truck still drives good at every mph on the street, because YOU learn how to drive it. Or you hold onto your torque...and you beat me to the 60 foot line by .055 seconds and then I pass you like your standing still, much like Jon and his turbo lag, lol....except he would pass me like I'm standing still.

     

    So that doesn't answer the question, but maybe it gets you thinking about what we all "know" and maybe opens a few minds to some new ideas

  19. Have a few more mods coming for the daily...

    in General SS

    Posted

    Yeah I run a skinny tire for less weight and rolling friction. 245/45/20. Proxes 4 tires were very good to me.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

    Thanks Brad. I'm gonna pick up something kinda like those myself.Actually that is considered big cam in a Hemi, all the Ram guys thought I was crazy. If you go much larger p2v becomes a issue on the intake side. The Hemi heads flow so well you don't need as large of a cam, you go much larger you stop gaining and just loose low end.

    Here are heads similar to mine, actually probably flow less since the are not hand blended.

    .100" lift 74 cfm int/50 cfm exh = 68% (exhaust to intake ratio)

    .200" lift 152 cfm int/103 cfm exh = 68%

    .300" lift 227 cfm int/158 cfm exh = 70%

    .400" lift 277 cfm int/196 cfm exh = 71%

    .500" lift 297 cfm int/212 cfm exh = 71%

    .600" lift 309 cfm int/221 cfm exh = 72%

    In good weather and on the new light weight track wheels/tires I bet it would have ran 12.3's. But I bailed on it out of fear I was going to eat another trans. The 545RFE is like a 4L60e with no real answer of making stronger...

    I'm not a huge ram fan but give credit where it's due. That was one fast truck. Congrats

    Any time I can ever help, I'm always happy to

     

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

  24. Have a few more mods coming for the daily...

    in General SS

    Posted

    Didn't take it as a cut at all. Sorry if I seemed short, was in a hurry. Yeah it's my truck. Search my screen name on YouTube for vids of mine and the current second fastest stock cube na sss. I actually used to be on dodge talk and was chasing the fastest ram na stock cube truck, but lost touch with guys and never found out if my 12.4 was enough to beat them. Can you give some info on your dodge?

     

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

×
×
  • Create New...