Results 1 to 11 of 11
-
04-02-2008 #1
Starting The Transformation
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Frisco, TX
- Posts
- 194
Popular Hot Rodding LS2 build link
Can't find the link to Steve's November LS2 build where they layed out how to get like 572 hp. Anyone know it off hand?
Bob
(Added by the mod. for easy searchin' Thanks Texas Bob)
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tec...ion/index.html
Last edited by TonyL; 04-02-2008 at 09:20 PM.
Bob
-
04-02-2008 #2
Banned
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 288
I'd also like this link...
04-02-2008 #3
Starting The Transformation
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Frisco, TX
- Posts
- 194
Funny, it's for your engine should everything work out.
Originally Posted by saunacrank
We shall see.
Bob
04-02-2008 #4
Starting The Transformation
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Frisco, TX
- Posts
- 194
Bob
04-02-2008 #5
Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 1,368
Riiight, so they're saying the stock motor puts out 72 more horsepower than it's rated at? I call b.s.
Matt
04-02-2008 #6
-Moderator-
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Mountain View, CA
- Posts
- 9,583
Did you read the WHOLE series of articles?
The answer is a matter of some pretty simple physics.True T.
Whats new with Project 1/2-Trak?
Follow my wisecracks on Sports, Food, Politics and other BS on Twitter.
My blog
When they kick out your front door, How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head, Or on the trigger of your gun?
04-02-2008 #7
Banned
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 288
?? enlighten us
04-03-2008 #8
Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Anaheim Hills, CA
- Posts
- 11,967
Did you read past the title? Originally Posted by DarkoNova
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
1968 Track Rat Camaro:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGHJ5c1yLIo&t=2s
1971 Chevelle Wagon with a few mods:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVPR3sRgyU
04-03-2008 #9
Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Anaheim Hills, CA
- Posts
- 11,967
The 572 number was after heads, cam, intake and with killer stepped long tube headers.
The LS2 is rated by GM at 400hp. However GM uses a different correction factor than most dyno shops and thus by most Magazines. I have to re-read the story, but I think the bone stock LS2 put out 450hp.. why the extra hp? It's a combination of the different correction factor and the fact that since we couldn't run the stock exhaust manifolds on the dyno we had to use headers. Add in that we ran an electric water pump and the extra 50 hp over GMs numbers makes sense.
It's all explained in the series of stories. First was the dyno test of the crate engine then theh linked story above with the killer AFR heads, cam and FAST intake."A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
1968 Track Rat Camaro:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGHJ5c1yLIo&t=2s
1971 Chevelle Wagon with a few mods:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVPR3sRgyU
04-03-2008 #10
-Moderator-
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Mountain View, CA
- Posts
- 9,583
No, read it. Originally Posted by saunacrank
True T.
Whats new with Project 1/2-Trak?
Follow my wisecracks on Sports, Food, Politics and other BS on Twitter.
My blog
When they kick out your front door, How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head, Or on the trigger of your gun?
04-05-2008 #11
Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 1,368
I read the first paragraph and then stopped caring because Originally Posted by Damn True
a) it's an LS2 and the main power item is the heads and I can't use them on my LS1.
b) it said 472 hp bone stock. And THEN let's put performance parts on there.
c) I didn't know it was part of a series, sorry.
Thanks for clearing it up Steve. I dunno, maybe I'm closed minded but you might want to state somewhere in the beginning of the article next time that you're running an electric pump and whatnot. I know a lot of performance engines are claimed to be underrated from the factory, but it's just hard to fathom that it's seriously 72 hp underrated.
Matt
Reply With Quote
