INTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS Valvetrain |Heads | Strokers | Design | Assembly

TSP 228/228 .588/.588 112 in 5.3?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-30-2006, 11:56 PM
  #11  
formerly silverbrick (changed 02/17/2013)
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pasadena, Tx
Posts: 4,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

you shouldnt get too worked up about the rod bolts yet though. members have been spinning their stock ones up to 7k every once in a while and havent lost em. its not like you are going to be spinning that high everyday or the rod bolts wont be your only problem. im shifting at 6400 right now with my cam and truck intake. i probably could spin a little higher and next time i hit the dyno i will check that out but you are going to have some head work done to hit 400 with a 5.3 n/a for sure. you still might not get there, but good luck man.
Old 09-30-2006, 11:57 PM
  #12  
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Anderson, TX
Posts: 2,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

More or less, I am just looking for a good h/c package I can put on the 5.3. I can't afford heads now, so I am planning on getting the cam just for now.
Old 09-30-2006, 11:59 PM
  #13  
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Anderson, TX
Posts: 2,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

BTW, I don't have to hit 400. Just a number I thought I could get to with a 5.3
Old 10-01-2006, 12:09 AM
  #14  
v8
17,16,15,14,13,12,11 Drvr
iTrader: (10)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mont Belvieu, Texas
Posts: 6,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

that cam won't start to pull in your heavy truck untill 4200-4500 but it will pull to 7k easy lol, just put it in the camaro and get you a nice 220-224 cam on a 112 and the 3200 stall will help it alot. good luck brandon.

there is a guy down in rgv. with h/c,full bolt-ons and putting down 381hp and 3?? tq.
Old 10-01-2006, 12:20 AM
  #15  
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Anderson, TX
Posts: 2,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks for the help!
Old 10-01-2006, 09:49 AM
  #16  
Tin Foil Hat Wearin' Fool
iTrader: (36)
 
1slow01Z71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 23,204
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

With the stock truck intake numbers will flatline at 380ish.

Kevin that was on a 6L I believe wasnt it?
Old 10-01-2006, 11:09 AM
  #17  
TECH Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Anderson, TX
Posts: 2,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I always had the impression that the truck intake flowed almost as much as an LS6 intake?
Old 10-01-2006, 11:12 AM
  #18  
Tin Foil Hat Wearin' Fool
iTrader: (36)
 
1slow01Z71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 23,204
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sleek silverado
I always had the impression that the truck intake flowed almost as much as an LS6 intake?
We all pretty much had tht impression until Kano dropped 4tenths I believe with just the swap and tuning.
Old 10-01-2006, 12:00 PM
  #19  
formerly silverbrick (changed 02/17/2013)
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pasadena, Tx
Posts: 4,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

i think it flows just fine until you get to high rpms, thats why its not worth the time and effort unless you are shifting like 6400+ after all, these trucks werent built to do that so GM didnt make their intakes to do it either
Old 10-01-2006, 12:30 PM
  #20  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (6)
 
Sport Side's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Soon2bSpooled
i think it flows just fine until you get to high rpms, thats why its not worth the time and effort unless you are shifting like 6400+ after all, these trucks werent built to do that so GM didnt make their intakes to do it either
Check out Richard of WCCH's intake comparison before you make that assumption. The loss of CFM across the flow curve is unbelievable.


Quick Reply: TSP 228/228 .588/.588 112 in 5.3?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 PM.