Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Thanks, Sent texas speed a email, ordering their headers as well. Might do a port n polish on the heads. Have to talk to the shop and see what they recommend. They have been working on ls motors since the beginning. They just might say bite the bullet and do super charger who knows.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

Buy a whipple...use it for a bit and then sell it to me for a fair price [emoji51]

 

Edit...ever talk to that biggerdogg guy, wonder how his setup is doing [emoji848]

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Ever watch those YouTube video's on stage building normally asperated engines? Same motor over several 'stages' of build? Eventually they all hit a ceiling whose height is chained to the fuels resistance to knock. When they hit that ceiling they may get one or two more increases in horsepower but the peak torque number stays pretty close to the knock limit. More power it obtained by moving the same peak torque further up the rpm scale. 

 

If your old enough you've seen this played out by OEM engineers. About 50 years ago 87 octane fuel had a mechanical compression ratio limit between 8.0:1 and 8.5:1. Now it's closer to 11:1 to 12:1. Go back 50 years further and the limits were nearer 5.0:1. Back then getting big increases in torque, that thing that makes towing easier, was not that difficult. Many of the OMG moments in these videos are provided with motors of that era that are being treated to todays technology. 

 

Where ever you stop along that time line you could bring the oldest to the performance of the newest but never beyond. And as this was happening, and if you were paying close attention, you would have noticed that as power levels went up the rpm was coming down which meant that other factors besides mechanical compression ratio that influence  knock were constantly being fretted out. Chamber shapes, fuel introduction methods, camshaft profile and manipulation, to name a few. 

 

To get 465 horsepower out of a 6 liter motor in the mid 60's on 93 pump fuel would have required a dedicated race motor builder spinning it a couple of thousand rpm higher than the OEM does now. 

 

Still getting a 50 pounds/feet increase in torque at the same rpm? 

 

Here's a link to a cam swap that does ALMOST as you ask: (peak torque rpm placement is quite a bit higher) 

 

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/l92-6-2l-camshaft-dyno-test/

 

After reading this link and reviewing the dyno charts ask yourself if this motor is the motor you want to use towing

 

The factory 6.2 is already a beast by any yardstick you care to measure it with....apples to apples ? 

Edited by Grumpy Bear
Posted

Back in the day we did light modifications to our big block gas motors for towing. Gearing was the most gains were for pulling. One of our first tow vehicles was a two ton wrecker we put a tow ball in. It was a 6 cylinder with a 4 speed, two speed rear. It would pull our 7K gooseneck trailer and 14K tractor with ease up to 65 mph. Later with light engine mods we added gear vendors to accomplish the same result. After pulling my brother in laws large camper with his Ford diesel. I can’t imagine the need for additional mods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted
Buy a whipple...use it for a bit and then sell it to me for a fair price [emoji51]
 
Edit...ever talk to that biggerdogg guy, wonder how his setup is doing [emoji848]
Have not heard back from him..curious too

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I had an 88 K1500 with a 5.7 that had those symptoms, I know totally different, it ended up being the ECM. Once you get the fuel system fixed if it still runs lousy you may want to investigate that. it didn't set any codes, stalled ,ran rough at times etc
    • Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.
    • I do too. I’ll never be stuck again 😂
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...