Got the bird dyno tuned the other day and was hoping for a little more but it runs and drives pretty good now, made 380hp/378 foot pounds to the wheels think it's a conservative tune?



2006 gto 6.0, T56, ls7 clutch, 3.73 gears, Katech ported 243 heads, Johnson lifters, 42 pound injectors, cam motion titan 4 with their recommended valve springs, stock intake and throttle body, stock rockers with trunion upgrade, home made intake, hooker blackheart 1⅞ headers an the hooker blackheart true duel exhaust definitely faster then the 305tbi.

 

Hmmmm, well 380 RW is PLENTY to make for a wicked fun car...and that's a gorgeous, fun car!

I had a bone stock C6 (T56 car)that did 361....then 366 after a tune (a pretty lame 5 hp gain from the tune!?). Anyway, I'd think that with a cam, LT headers and exhaust it should do more than about 20 better than stock....you're about 20 better than my stockity-stock, so I think it should do better. That's a pretty healthy cam you got there...I'd think it should be over 400 wheel. My car also did 355 RWTQ, so you're about 20 better there, too.

Another thing; your peak hp is at 5800....box stock, that engine should peak at 6k, IIRC, so it's weird that w/way. more cam and better (on paper) exhaust, you're peaking lower? Hmmm....

 

I was thinking 400 at the wheels, it's good enough for now I have a few small things to do but Ill keep my eyes open for deals on intakes to get it tuned again.

 

I would have expected more with that setup to be honest

 

Can you test the exhaust back pressure?

 

Confused on what your block is. 305 or 350?

 

lol its a 6.0 ls. I was confused by the thread title too

 

I thought it was funny title because my 305 had been conquered by the might 6.0 ls swap

 

What is your air intake setup? Filter size and piping?

 

Thats about right considering that your peak power hits at 5800rpm or so and then it noses over. With 6.0L if you want more power you gotta spin it faster.

But looking at that cam in other cars it seams to make peak power in the low-mid 6000's on a 6.0L.

 

Exactly. W/that cam, it should be peaking higher, IMO.

 

363 rw with a 5.7 243 heads LS7 cam and very mild tune

 

Your combo probably has more in it as your tuner didn't extend the run until power significantly dropped off. Also, a dyno is a just a tool where the numbers are for the most part meaningless. Your track times will stress test your dyno results. I'd ask your tuner why they let off so early. It may be because of knock counts, AFR, or suspected valve float.

 

It's 3.5 inch which is what the maf is, and a generic filter from https://www.siliconeintakes.com/

 

Im gonna save for a new intake and get another tune eventually, not sure if I should get a new tuner or just voice my opinions about the mild tune. Unless he took into account its just a street car I'm not sure, but it should be good for a while

 

Your piping size is good. These motors do not like a small filter. I gained almost 15rwhp switching to a giant cone filter from a "basic" sized filter.

Edit: did your tuner see any signs of pulling vacuum at WOT?

 

I mean how many miles have you been able to even drive this thing?

You've got plenty of power. Use it for the year, shake bugs out of everywhere else, then maybe re tune.

 

he didn't really say much, said everything ran good and didn't have any problems or fueling issues, he said he had a hard time to get the speedometer dialed in but it went in reading around 130mph driving 28 according to GPS

 

As of now not much, was a head snapper according to my buddy lol. Hopefully get it out a little more this year.

 

here's a pic of the filter, I'll probably get something a bit better after you mentioned it since it was a good for now sort of deal

 

Double post

 

How is your speedo configured? He shouldn't be dialing it in as that's not a thing. It's GPS or trans driven. None the less, even though a dyno is a tool and the numbers are subjective, I feel there is something off. Do you have a link or part number for the filter you're using? Working backwards.

 

I have no idea how it worked, I tried using my old dakota digital and couldn't get it to work so got annoyed with the tbi speedometer box and had it on jack stands in gear. Somehow the speedometer worked when I ran the stock t56 to the box but was way off and said "good enough for now, hopefully the tuner can get it"
so as far as I know the 06 gto speedometer on the trans goes to the computer back through what I bypassed on the tbi box then into the factory gauge cluster.

 

You beat me to the punch! That filter is way too small. By a lot. I would guess that your tuner saw vacuum at high rpm and stopped the pull short. If you replace it you'll likely need another tune. My fueling was way off after switching filters.

 

Even my filter was sucking in during dyno run. I run an amsoil dry with a prefilter.

 

What did that vid show, as it relates to air filters??

 

Fix the thread title.

 

Waaaaaay back in the day, when I'd take my first TA to the drag track, and lay down some sick 15-16 second passes....there was frequently a GTA there w/the vanity plate: "TPI 305". Thing looked and sounded 100% stock on the outside and ran 12's. It looked 100% stock under the hood except for this one extra accessory it had that I wasn't sure what it was, back then.
Needless to say, it blew people's minds....it sure blew MY mind! A 305 TPI/auto running 12's!? Wha...tha...??

I was thinking this thread would be another sump'n-sump'n like that. but it turned out to be.... "just another LS". Still a totally sweet car, though. I love it.

 

I always ran aem dryflow filters. My 383 made 400 whp with a 3.5” aem dryflow. I ran two of them on my twin turbo 400 sbc and made 1000+ and took them off and made no difference.

 

You can see my prefilter(blue) being sucked in, then expand once he let's up throttle.

 

With a 3.5 inch conical filter having a base diameter of 6 inches... You need about an 8 inch long filter for a 364 ci engine at 6500 rpm.
This is based on calculations of minimum surface area published at K&N website, and calculating the surface area of a circular truncated cone.

 

I tried to find that sizing chart the other day and couldn't. (Unrelated to this thread but on a similar topic here a thirdgen).
Could you post a link to it?

 

I had found surface area guidelines at K&N FAQ website. It was many years ago, I don't know if it is still there today.
I found surface area equations at Wiki website.

A high level explanation is in Post #1305 of my build thread, https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...ml#post6330021

I still have my old spreadsheet with all the calculations. All I did is put in his engine size (364 ci) and the graph updates. I can try to attach the spreadsheet to the post in my thread.

 

Looking at the equations in my worksheet, K&N guideline for target surface area is,

Filter Surface Area = (engine displacement in cubic inch) * (rpm) / (20839)

 

Thanks for that. Their FAQ page had exactly the formula I was looking for. Just as you've written above. Thanks.
Then there's this conversation I had with Chad Speiers when he was developing a modified TPI air lid. Somehwere I had read that 6-7 sq. in. is required for 1 HP. Since Chad was using K & N OEM style filter panels I had suggested based on area that we might be limited to ~420 HP.
He shot that down. His guideline was that there's 146 CFM per sq. in. of filter available. His testing further demonstrated that on the flow bench, his modified lid with and without the filter panels made zero difference.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/fabr...ir-intake.html

Posts 2 and 3 specifically and posts 8, 12 and 13 as a follow up after bench testing.
As I said to him, who am I to argue with a guy that makes a living on a flow bench?

FWIW: According K & N, their twin filter panels (with a combined surface area of 60 sq. in. (5.5" x 5.5" x 2)) will support a 350 up to about 3500 RPM. That sure doesn't sound right so maybe Chad has a valid point.

Filter Surface Area = (engine displacement in cubic inch) * (rpm) / (20839)
RPM = (20839 x area) / CID
RPM = (20839 x 60) / 350
RPM = 3572
Am I missing something?

 

I'd think that you would want to use the sq" of the actual media....not the area between the seal?

 

Not exactly sure what you're describing however that 5.5" square is about the area of the exposed filter material.
Outside to outside is 6 5/8".

 

Flat panel flows better than a conical.

 

Might be getting a little off the OP's topic but this air filter thing is often one of those overlooked items that sucks potential power away.
I've a 14" x 4" K&N traditional open element deal which, although it has plenty of airflow capacity, the open design doesn't do much for keeping the air charge cool. That's why I was intrigued with Speier's TPI deal. I do have a cowl hood but turning into a real cowl induction is a sizeable job.

 

The paper. or gauze, or what ever material the media is made from...is pleated. So the actual area if the material is many times great than simply measuring the L x W and calling it good.

"Well I'm comparing one filter to another, so..." So all filters are made differently and have a different number of pleats, thickness of media, density, etc. SO...if you want the actual surface are of a filter, you need to cut it apart, stretch it out, and measure the amount of material. Wix is going to have 2-4 times more surface area, in the same filter housing, as a Fram.

 

I suppose then that kind of comparison would show up in an A/B flow bench test. Seems reasonable enough.
So, in parallel to that, the formula that K&N posts would be unique to their product. Makes sense.
Still, I wish I could have been the fly on the wall when Speier's was testing his modified air lid with and without filters.
Maybe somewhere out there in the ether somebody has tested a whack of air filters. I've half heartedly poked around looking for such but so far, nothing.

 

I picked up 15rwhp on the same dyno by going from this smaller AEM filter to the larger K&N. It was enough of a change to require fuel trim changes. I spent a lot of time figuring out how much filter I needed and boy was I wrong the first go around. Lesson learned, as mentioned above, these filters are all different and surface area cannot be simply calculated based on their exterior volume.

 

Exactly. These are first principles when it comes to HP production. And you have to sweat the details if your goal is the most of what you've put together.
While not quantified on a dyno, I do have dragstrip correlation between my exhaust being fully in play, most notably the weak Flowmaster muffler in the stock location, to having s single cut-out opened just before the muffler. There was both ET and MPH improvements in the 1/8. I wish the full track had been opened on that day as it's legging it out in 3rd gear that the dividends would really pay out.
But yeah, cause and effect. Nice to see you pursue it too Shifty.

 

Maybe you could hit up Mike111. He built his own flow bench to test all that CFI intake mods. He's a great resource for this forum, IMO.

 

K&N is giving you simple guidelines, not engineering principles. They probably already accounted for pleats in that equation and just want you to focus on overall filter dimensions. And if that assumption is wrong then you'll just be erring on the safe side anyway, so no big deal.

But yes, I would assume that equation is based on K&N filter media so using a cheap *** filter probably won't net you as much flow for the same size. Don't squeeze the boundary on the minimum size and you'll give yourself more margin of design to make a mistake with no negative impact.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to get it wrong. This is why I presently have a 14 x 4, The part I'm hoping to incorporate, as I mentioned, was some means of CAI and that brings me back around to the TPI twin filter panels. But according to K&N (and this is assuming that they are representing the area as the actual visible sq. in.and not the expanded pleating), they're not much good for anything. Which I find very odd. If it wasn't for Speier's actual testing, I'd abandon the idea altogether. But...
Anyway, not to belabor the point, it'll be something I'll work through on another day.
Thanks for the loan of the thread too. Sometimes there is reasonable and useful dialogue and it's helpful in guiding decisions.