Pay attention folks. Richard Holdener doesn't sell out to anyone. He brings hard factual data. Hard data that will never be presented in other avenues that are slaves to advertiser money. Thank You Mr Holdener!!!!!! Been reading your tests, buying your books since the Silver State Notch😁
@@richardholdener1727 Hi Richard. That’s so much for doing what you do. I’m in my second year of circuit racing in Darwin Australia, I have a VT commodore with a rock stock Ls1 T 56 box. I’d like to do some upgrades to the big 3. Can you please provide some input on the upgrades and hopefully be able to move the heads cam and intake to a 6 or 6.2 in 18 months time when a new motor is built. Cheers And Thanks again Ash.
Brother I wonder if people realize how time consuming the testing you do.I just figured out that the magazines I used read the tech articles years ago were written by you.Much respect my friend..
It's a huge effort. BUT, when you're an engine nerd and there's an empty test cell with a dynamometer - well, it's like a wet pussy just waiting to get fucked. The urge to fill the test cell and put it to good use is simply overwhelming. Been there. Loved it. Miss it.
This was the video ive been wanting to see. Those Gm performance cnc heads actually made more power than i thought they would. Thanks you Richard for all your hard work and excellent content! You are the man. By you doing all this testing, we see what does what , and it saves us money, time and headaches by using wrong parts and combos.
Soon as the rocker ratio changed, the results were out the window and not comparable to the others. Yes, the mast would be right up there but you can't fairly compare those to the others with having more lift. I know guys bust your chops about using the wrong cam, lol, but i think the test definitely coulda used a bigger cam with that amount of cubes. Besides the Mast heads, you proved the difference between all the rec's, great test !
Looking back to a serious cylinder head test-amazing effort! The Mast heads appear to be attuned to the 0.661” lift as they drop off a bit at 0.700” lift. So the lift was probably a big factor. But Richard, we need to compare this LS 468 to a 0.060”-over 454 with optimized heads, cam, and intake! And while you’re at it, include the overall weight of the package. I’m sure you’ve got the data in your archives, so let’s see it!
I’d like to see that as well but I would also like to see mast intake vs Holley LS3 dual bdw crossram intake. In the last intake test with the crossram, it made more power everywhere.
Just looking at the flow numbers, The West Coast Cylinder Heads did not drop off in flow as the flow increased. That is a good thing, even if you are not using a cam with lifts above 0.600". It indicates the flow will be even better at low lift when actually in operation.
The mast heads out flow all the others across the board, so the higher peak power is not just a function of the higher lift, but it does help. Thank you for sharing all of this info!!!! I was kind of waiting for this but lost patience and sent mine out to Frankenstein.
As always you have a habit of separating the wheat from the chaff. For my money on a 5.3 or 6.0 ls I would probably stick with the stock heads and limit camshaft lift to around 0.550-0.580. At these lifts spring life would be reasonably good on the street and more lift with the stock heads probably would not appreciatively increase the hp very much. On the street I seldom took street motors much past 5500-6000 rpm and rarely ran more than 9:1 cr. Ran all my motors on reg or unleaded gas. I’d leave the valve timing up to those more knowledgeable than me. Would I produce tons of hp. Nope. But I’d have a dependable play toy I could beat on for a long time. Thank you for your debunking lessons. I really do enjoy them. Keep making them and I’ll keep watching them.
Badass testing. Thank you! What mad scientist have they got at Mast that came up with the (by far) smallest port with the most flow - that made the best power? I've long been a fan of Darin Morgan cylinder heads, and would have liked so see something by him. EDIT: I swear I wrote that first part before googling and learning that Darin is now working for MAST. I guess now I know who that mad scientist is!
The extra lift isn't going to add the much more HP on the Mast heads. The little taller deck and port making it a better flowing head is why it makes more power. But those heads are big bucks.
I think that was the underlying point he was making. Unless we have 700 hp na engines the stock rec port stuff is pretty good. Leaves me wanting a 6.0 with a stock Rec port head and some compression for power.
I have heard good things about the Liberty heads once they have been ported. They are VERY inexpensive and more than cover the cost of good port job and quality valvetrain.
@@hendo337 if I was gonna build something for the street I would look for a gen4 4.8 they're almost free and crazy strong. Even at car guy power levels you need to finance your tire budget. Your right though I probably wouldn't boost a 4.185 bore ls too much. Take the 12ci hit in displacement so that it lives longer.
I have a 454 LSX with that same split/ hand polished intake with 2250 accufab Dominator TB., 11.7:1, cast LS7 style gmpp heads. Stock GMPP cam. Makes 650hp. Now i want a bigger cam!!
I think that the extra lift on the mast heads had a lot to do with the more power. Most of the time the more u open that valve the more air u will flow which translates to more power!
Richard, you're amazing. You present and speak very well, you let the data present itself, and you seem completely independent and unbiased by 3rd parties. For example, repeating that the FAST intake shows almost no gains, all the aftermarket heads don't offer too much more over stock LS3, etc... From my watching your first vid I clicked, I was hooked. You are enabling people that want to do some research and planning, to save a lot of money, and allocate their $ toward better improvements from a value and return perspective......all for free. We thank you immensely, and when it does come time to spend $ on dyno service or such, I will now gladly look up Westech first in an effort to repay what you have given to the performance community. Contributing to others is very non-selfish, and one of the highest achievements possible, thank you.
I want to congratulate you for channel and thank you for taking the time to do everything you do to share us top notch information, better than those magazines
Richard, you are a legend! Thanks for throwing on those afr 245s on a big engine. They were never designed for an engine that big but they did hang on good for what they are. They were only 20hp down from the mast heads which is not much different. If you go on AFRs website they are designed for 416-454 engines. Mast do you have the best ls3 heads though IMO. AFR's Ls3 head is also very good too. Great test. One of my favourites. Another suggestion, reach out to Tony Mamo and get one of his reworked trickflow LS7 heads. These have made 700rwhp through a manual trans corvette along with his ported MSD intake.
Would love to see some test on torque for these "LS3" heads. I've got both an LY6, and a L96 truck. They work for a living. We need truck torque tests!
Forget it these heads are so big there's not going to be any difference down low cathedral ports for torque on the vortec 350 s there's no aftermarket head that makes low speed torque production like the factory vortec heads
There is no magic bullet to make more torque down low.... other then displacement... different cam/heads/compression, can give you a boost at the lower end, but don't expect to gain 50 ft.lbs from those changes at 3500 or below.
I think the fact that, on the Mast head, the valves are opening 10% faster accounts for the majority of the performance gains seen. I'd be interested to see an engine test with different rocker arm ratios, and the difference (if any) on idle vacuum, and the avg hp / tq for said engine..
I here ya...but they do flow more everywhere on the intake.....so that means something too. I think they would shine more with more camshaft-comp-rpm. incredible the stuff out there today.....inflation adjusted, its peanuts. I am a Ford guy, these ls are making cheap race motors that run good.
For me I prefer power in the low range with lots of low end torque. Unless you are all out racing, twisting the engine up to 7000 RPM is rarely seen in everyday driving. I like to have fun in my hot rod and that doesn't include driving around with 4:56 gears turning 5000 RPM on the freeway.
Would’ve like to have seen how Texas speed ported ls3 heads did but not at all taking away from your work. Lot of time and work when into this. Thank you for your very informative videos
This video helped me a lot! I've got a 02 Camaro and am building a 6.2. I've sold the rec port heads off of it because I knew it was just getting a set of pistons. Now I feel that using my Cartek 243 heads was the right decision. Hopefully I can make 650hp.
Thank you a ton, was doing a budget build on a 2010 Camaro and decided to keep the heads the way they are. Going to move that extra money toward a stall converter.
When gm was doing the c5r program the engineers said even if they could they wouldn't use a flat plane because the gain from tuning would be less than the loss from increased frictional losses. It's almost a mute point. Ford has gone back to typical crank with the gt500 and FCA uses 90° cranks in Maserati cars and flat cranks in the same engine family in Ferrari cars. The gains comes from tuning and rotational inertia of the crank. A good exhaust header does one and a light weight crank does the other. It's really had to justify the cost, a 90° v8 will have a higher Rev limit all else being equal because of the inherent natural balance of the engine. There is a reason that flat crank ls engines are one off or showcase engines because there isn't anything to be gained.
GMPP cnc ported ls9 heads are where its at. They flow 340 cfm, and come STOCK with titanium intake valves and sodium filled incolnel exhaust valves. Never miond the thicker deck and stronger casting with a better alloy.
At first blush, I would have thought just the rockers would have pushed the Mast heads over the top, especially when you consider these heads peaked and fell off sharply sooner than the rest of the heads ... however, there's always more to the tale. Looking at the flow numbers of the Mast heads, they outflow EVERYTHING on the chart by a large margin throughout most of the flow chart. It's no wonder these heads produced better results than the other heads. They would most likely have done that with 1.7:1 rockers, just not quite as large a gain.
absolutely. great power for the mildness.....if the numbers are not overly corrected. the bigger heads would shine more.... huge valves in these heads.....like the ole cleveland Ford. whats old is new.
Awesome!! I can see you are getting closer to test ls3 heads vs ls7 heads. You may use this same short block and cam. That's going to be really interesting!!!
The problem with stock LS3 heads is valve drop you need PTV clearance to get the most potential of these heads and big lift duration cams are limited for stock LS3 heads
Richard. I would like to see all the truck cams comparisons to see which comes out on top. Such as Tick, BTR, and Texas Speed. They all have different specs and just would like to see the top "overall" grind.
If the mast heads utilize the offset ls7 rocker arms that must mean the intake runners are wider like an ls7 head? That would explain the power gains along with the extra lift.
Darin Morgan works for Mast. Nuff said. Their ports were the smallest tested (which is a Darin ideology), aside from stock, had the best flow, and of course, made the best average power. Darin is the cylinder head man.
I'm a Ford guy that loves stroker Windsors with Cleveland heads, although the Ford does make good power it is not nearly as easy or affordable as the LS platform. GM hit it out of the park with this design. I'm just curious what the new direct injected engines are like, better or worse??
The Mast head made the most power because of its mid lift airflow advantage over all of the other heads (between .300 to .600). Just goes to show that Mast really did their homework when they designed that head.
I really appreciate your time and effort to do all of this testing . I don't know much about poring heads and after watching some videos I realized how little I really knew. I remember hearing a fellow replaced heads on a ls7 with a set off a ls3 and the car did a lot better off the corners , road racing .
That Cathedral heads has air velocities. And what rpm you going shift and how far down the rpm it's going drop after shift. So much more factors. I still learning. Good info Richard. Thanks
Fast EFI manifold VS Blow thru single plane manifold. Same engine, turbo, intercooler, and boost lvl. Would be interesting to see the different power curves, and if the added cooling from the blow thru would make more power. Good stuff
check out the LS3 intake test to find your answer-just like this test-the fast is better through most of the curve-then the short runner is better up top-same under boost
6 of those heads had an intake port 20cc larger than OEM which I've read doesn't help air speed and thus only helps power in the upper RPMs. I was hoping to see recent aftermarket options like the AFR ls3 260, tfs 255, mamo ls3 260, and prc 255/260 to see if they offer better gains in the 3-4K rpm range for HPDE. I really hate paying for the FAST cathedral penalty when I already have a Rick Crawford rod mod ls3 intake.
@@richardholdener1727 This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels Richard, learning a lot , thank You Sir. Doing HPDE with my LS3 also and would love to see a comparoo like this on 376ci. I'm thinking your suggestion of TFS 225 heads would still be worth 35hp over the the stock LS3 heads and some extra power under the curve over something like TFS 255 or stock ported heads.
First, I really appreciate this gentlemens testing and efforts. This stuff makes us all better. But my two cents is....... Although something to be learned there. Without trying similar cams except with very different valve lifts. Say .550 .650 and .750 lift ranges. It makes it hard to digest any power curve test results. I have not picked up the calculator to see if its enough. But maybe 3 sets of rockers. Like 1.4 to 1 up to 1.9 to 1
It's summer time Richard. You need to take a road trip to Parker, or Havasu for inspiration, and research. Cold Beer, Skimpy Bikinis and Hot Boats. How about some BB boat motors for our Flat Bottoms, and Hydros. Every guy with a boat tinkers on the motors in the winter. They have families, so money is a budget thing. Mopars, Chevies, Fords, in every size and shape. Just an idea.
Richard, you've mentioned in past videos, correct me if I'm wrong, that the real limit of stock bottom end LS is too much torque. Being a bit of a sloppy fan, I was hoping you could elaborate more on this in video content. I realize that might take require a lot of sacrifices to the horsepower gods to come to a conclusion. So a simple explanation of your belief would suffice. Just hoping to save a few LS for the future. Keep up the great work, and thank you! P.S. don't be afraid to do some monetization for yourself...you should be making some cheese for this kind of content!
Low speed performance for the win. unless all you do is 1/4 mile racing. In my opinion on the streetyou spend way more time at slower engine speeds than twisting it as fast as it'll turn. But, what do I know.
Good test but I really want to see more aftermarket rec port heads. Afr, trickflow, brodix, Edelbrock and maybe some promaxx for a value brand. And maybe I'm off base here but I think most people want to see what they will do on a bigger cubic inch engine but with fuel injection. I just don't see many people wanting to build carbureted LS engines compared to fuel injection.
@@richardholdener1727 completely agree but it would be nice to see the numbers on the setups people are building. Love the channel and not telling you how to do what you already do better than anyone else.
Still hoping to see that tri-y vs long tube vs shorty headers with different intake manifolds. My race car needs good low and mid-range power and sometimes touches 6500 for like .5 seconds before hitting the brakes for the next corner.
@@johnclary729 my bad dude I just assume you have an ls of some sort. If you have an ls3 the fast isn’t worth as much. Just use long tubes I dunno if any tri y trickery would be worth it. If you need every average hp to 6500 the cross ram long runner intakes show good (probably the best on a lot of applications) “average power” to 6500.
What happened to the Mast dyno run that you had to cut it off at 6700 rpm? All the others ran out to 7000. Did the valvetrain go out of control, and are the 1.8 rockers to blame? Yes, the higher ratio rockers helped the Mast heads. Higher ratio slightly increases duration, in addition to the increase in lift. And because of the higher lift, the port is operating at higher flow numbers throughout the valve event.
Sounds like a good setup for my 6.0 thanks! You should do a test on bbc peanut port heads In stock form (no removing the heads) then change springs out do another test, then gasket match just the openings of the ports and blend (no porting or removing heads) and run another test showing that you can take peanut port heads and make good bottom end power all the way up to 6000 rpms with out removing the heads.
@@richardholdener1727 no but the blunt sharp opening of the port combined with a large oval intake ( most people buy large oval intakes) causes turbulence and the point is so people that are scared to disassemble an engine (or to broke) can still do mods to make a peanut perform as a good street engine.. I watch alot of your videos👍
If you were running this with E85 on the street, a road course or even a 1/3 mile oval car, the efi intake would probably be the way to go. How much torque this makes your gonna have issue on the strip and the 30hp will show up every single time.
Great video. Looking forward to the SBC version. I know you have the data... Results should be a lot more dramatic, considering that the stock SBC heads are not in the same league with stock LS units.
@@richardholdener1727 I'm surprised... Actually, I'd be happy to see a simple comparison between the most commonly used ones. I always wondered what the actual hp differences were between the single, and double hump stock heads were, for instance. Been working with this old stuff all my life, and still have a lot of it lying around. You get the idea...
Thanks for the continued testing. Is there perhaps a misprint in the head specs chart for the Average Torque on the stock LS3? It shows 483.1? The CNC version can't possibly be over 110 ft lbs increase can it?
Badass test; my TFS 225 R's from TEA are in the ballpark with the Mast LS3 head. My exhaust port out flows all in the chart @ 282 CFM at 700 lift. Going on a 430 windsor, 13:1 cr motor that will run on corn. I wonder why race/pump gas was used instead of corn? Was it because the test was done back in 2010? just a thought as I saw the date on the file tab and maybe E85 wasn't available as much in Socal back then? Anyways good test.
Weirds how David Vizard has been around for so many decades, but his cam formula is rarely used. The 112 you used in this engine should have been more like 108. You say well that's only 4deg . Yes but the difference in torque curve might be enough to beat the next guy. Oh well . Keep on pushing BT and his wide angle high duration cams. Rob Peter to pay Paul. I do respect what you do, and you are a great resource yourself and it's hard to buck the trend I know. Even though you occasionally do as when you did the LSA test and tell people that they will no lose boost even though they have been brainwashed into thinking this will happen. Thanks for all your videos/info. Very much appreciated Ps Dont they make adjustable timing chain/belt kits? Just saying
no one is pushing anything, I know David Vizard well, Your conspiracy thing is foolish, this (like every other video) is just a test of this or these specific parts. Every build isn't about max power.
nice to see the bigger motor. a 468 at 6700 rpm and 100% volumetric efficiency should make 693 hp. the mast uses 2.20" intake valves whereas everything else is only 2.165". that should be worth 3%. the added lift is likely the other 2.4%.
I really wonder how the engineers at GM ever managed to get the LS3 head past the bean counters. They basically put a race-quality cylinder head into mass production.
Helluva nice torque curve with the fast and im assuming factory ly6 would be close i really dont think more lift is the key more than likely itsthe extra flow in the 3-500 area
Please help, I have TSP 228/228 600/600 112LSA cam kit 660" dual valve spring kit PRC titanium retainers TSP 7.400 pushrod kit TSP rocker trunion upgrade kit w/intake exaust valves on stock non-ported heads. Also, 102mm TB with FAST intake. I need some down low HP/TQ. I have the $ for heads and fuel pump. I heard RHS matches with FAST intake. But my cam?
Wow I remember reading about this test in Hot Rod like 10 years ago or so. Same 468ci motor, cam, heads used etc. Is all this information from that test? Everything sounds about the same.
@@richardholdener1727 thanks for the reply. I started reading hot rod before I could read. It was my bed time book in the 70s lol. I've always enjoyed your stuff and maybe that's why much of what I see on your channel is so familiar. Keep up the great work bro.
I'm in the process of building a stout shortblock for my Silverado and im curious just how much of a difference you'll see in going from a 3.6 stroke to a 4.0 stroke in an LM7. would love to hear your thoughts. oh, and yes I would be selecting a different cam for the longer stroke engine but I wouldnt be changing the heads. I'm more concerned with power below 6500 being that's where a street truck will spend most of it's time and obviously have more weight to move.
@@richardholdener1727 But do you still run out of cylinder head the same way? For instance, let's say I have some ported 243's that flow 300cfm, and I'm running a D1sc procharger making 800hp. That's 2.6 hp per cfm. If I upgraded to AFR 245's that flow 356cfm, would I make more power on the top end? Or would the boost pressure I'm observing just decrease.
Pay attention folks. Richard Holdener doesn't sell out to anyone. He brings hard factual data. Hard data that will never be presented in other avenues that are slaves to advertiser money. Thank You Mr Holdener!!!!!! Been reading your tests, buying your books since the Silver State Notch😁
thnx
@@richardholdener1727
Hi Richard.
That’s so much for doing what you do.
I’m in my second year of circuit racing in Darwin Australia,
I have a VT commodore with a rock stock Ls1 T 56 box.
I’d like to do some upgrades to the big 3.
Can you please provide some input on the upgrades and hopefully be able to move the heads cam and intake to a 6 or 6.2 in 18 months time when a new motor is built.
Cheers
And Thanks again
Ash.
Brother I wonder if people realize how time consuming the testing you do.I just figured out that the magazines I used read the tech articles years ago were written by you.Much respect my friend..
thnx
Off subject but,where can I buy one of those 2nd gen Camaro shirts like your wearing?
@@mikehicks65 that's a David freiburger F bomb shirt. I believe shop.davidfreiburger (dot) com
Yessir Rich been writing articles for years💪🏾💪🏾💪🏾 this is exactly why I follow him
It's a huge effort. BUT, when you're an engine nerd and there's an empty test cell with a dynamometer - well, it's like a wet pussy just waiting to get fucked. The urge to fill the test cell and put it to good use is simply overwhelming. Been there. Loved it. Miss it.
This was the video ive been wanting to see. Those Gm performance cnc heads actually made more power than i thought they would. Thanks you Richard for all your hard work and excellent content! You are the man. By you doing all this testing, we see what does what , and it saves us money, time and headaches by using wrong parts and combos.
Those GMPP heads work damn well. Look at the port size though - GM hogs them the fuck out! 19cc material removed!
Soon as the rocker ratio changed, the results were out the window and not comparable to the others. Yes, the mast would be right up there but you can't fairly compare those to the others with having more lift.
I know guys bust your chops about using the wrong cam, lol, but i think the test definitely coulda used a bigger cam with that amount of cubes. Besides the Mast heads, you proved the difference between all the rec's, great test !
Looking back to a serious cylinder head test-amazing effort! The Mast heads appear to be attuned to the 0.661” lift as they drop off a bit at 0.700” lift. So the lift was probably a big factor. But Richard, we need to compare this LS 468 to a 0.060”-over 454 with optimized heads, cam, and intake! And while you’re at it, include the overall weight of the package. I’m sure you’ve got the data in your archives, so let’s see it!
I'd love to see an updated test that includes the AFR and TFS LS3 heads.
I’d like to see that as well but I would also like to see mast intake vs Holley LS3 dual bdw crossram intake. In the last intake test with the crossram, it made more power everywhere.
Yes I believe this test is from almost 10 years ago.
TFS tested there’s on a ls3. Made almost 600hp with a very conservative cam stock everything else 6.2.
Just looking at the flow numbers, The West Coast Cylinder Heads did not drop off in flow as the flow increased. That is a good thing, even if you are not using a cam with lifts above 0.600". It indicates the flow will be even better at low lift when actually in operation.
The mast heads out flow all the others across the board, so the higher peak power is not just a function of the higher lift, but it does help.
Thank you for sharing all of this info!!!!
I was kind of waiting for this but lost patience and sent mine out to Frankenstein.
As always you have a habit of separating the wheat from the chaff. For my money on a 5.3 or 6.0 ls I would probably stick with the stock heads and limit camshaft lift to around 0.550-0.580. At these lifts spring life would be reasonably good on the street and more lift with the stock heads probably would not appreciatively increase the hp very much. On the street I seldom took street motors much past 5500-6000 rpm and rarely ran more than 9:1 cr. Ran all my motors on reg or unleaded gas. I’d leave the valve timing up to those more knowledgeable than me. Would I produce tons of hp. Nope. But I’d have a dependable play toy I could beat on for a long time. Thank you for your debunking lessons. I really do enjoy them. Keep making them and I’ll keep watching them.
Badass testing. Thank you! What mad scientist have they got at Mast that came up with the (by far) smallest port with the most flow - that made the best power? I've long been a fan of Darin Morgan cylinder heads, and would have liked so see something by him. EDIT: I swear I wrote that first part before googling and learning that Darin is now working for MAST. I guess now I know who that mad scientist is!
The Mast heads were designed for the big bore motors. The power was not just from more lift.
The extra lift isn't going to add the much more HP on the Mast heads. The little taller deck and port making it a better flowing head is why it makes more power. But those heads are big bucks.
I think that was the underlying point he was making. Unless we have 700 hp na engines the stock rec port stuff is pretty good. Leaves me wanting a 6.0 with a stock Rec port head and some compression for power.
I have heard good things about the Liberty heads once they have been ported. They are VERY inexpensive and more than cover the cost of good port job and quality valvetrain.
Love seeing the tests iv read about years ago on video. I remember a lot of details but I'm a visual learner. Way better now.
Thank you!
Now I want a 468 cubic inch LS
There even better with boost
@@hendo337 if I was gonna build something for the street I would look for a gen4 4.8 they're almost free and crazy strong. Even at car guy power levels you need to finance your tire budget. Your right though I probably wouldn't boost a 4.185 bore ls too much. Take the 12ci hit in displacement so that it lives longer.
You mean need.
I have a 454 LSX with that same split/ hand polished intake with 2250 accufab Dominator TB., 11.7:1, cast LS7 style gmpp heads. Stock GMPP cam. Makes 650hp. Now i want a bigger cam!!
Just go with the LSX454r
Been trying to catch up on all your videos man keep them coming 🤘
Where you been, Lunar 🤣
No catching up. Better off searching videos of interest.
I'm waitin' for that dyno re-test for the 318 :)
I think that the extra lift on the mast heads had a lot to do with the more power. Most of the time the more u open that valve the more air u will flow which translates to more power!
Richard, you're amazing. You present and speak very well, you let the data present itself, and you seem completely independent and unbiased by 3rd parties. For example, repeating that the FAST intake shows almost no gains, all the aftermarket heads don't offer too much more over stock LS3, etc... From my watching your first vid I clicked, I was hooked. You are enabling people that want to do some research and planning, to save a lot of money, and allocate their $ toward better improvements from a value and return perspective......all for free. We thank you immensely, and when it does come time to spend $ on dyno service or such, I will now gladly look up Westech first in an effort to repay what you have given to the performance community. Contributing to others is very non-selfish, and one of the highest achievements possible, thank you.
thnx and good luck
I want to congratulate you for channel and thank you for taking the time to do everything you do to share us top notch information, better than those magazines
My pleasure!
Richard, you are a legend!
Thanks for throwing on those afr 245s on a big engine.
They were never designed for an engine that big but they did hang on good for what they are. They were only 20hp down from the mast heads which is not much different.
If you go on AFRs website they are designed for 416-454 engines.
Mast do you have the best ls3 heads though IMO.
AFR's Ls3 head is also very good too.
Great test. One of my favourites.
Another suggestion, reach out to Tony Mamo and get one of his reworked trickflow LS7 heads.
These have made 700rwhp through a manual trans corvette along with his ported MSD intake.
Wonder how much closer they would of been if the same rocker ratio was used.
It would be interesting to see how the cathedral port 245's would compare to the mast LS3 heads with lift being equal.
Would love to see some test on torque for these "LS3" heads. I've got both an LY6, and a L96 truck. They work for a living. We need truck torque tests!
Forget it these heads are so big there's not going to be any difference down low cathedral ports for torque on the vortec 350 s there's no aftermarket head that makes low speed torque production like the factory vortec heads
There is no magic bullet to make more torque down low.... other then displacement... different cam/heads/compression, can give you a boost at the lower end, but don't expect to gain 50 ft.lbs from those changes at 3500 or below.
take a look at the BTR truck cam test video on the 6.0L (LY6)
@@richardholdener1727 where is the link my man?
@@broz1969 truck cam triple test 5.3 6.0
I think the fact that, on the Mast head, the valves are opening 10% faster accounts for the majority of the performance gains seen.
I'd be interested to see an engine test with different rocker arm ratios, and the difference (if any) on idle vacuum, and the avg hp / tq for said engine..
I here ya...but they do flow more everywhere on the intake.....so that means something too.
I think they would shine more with more camshaft-comp-rpm.
incredible the stuff out there today.....inflation adjusted, its peanuts.
I am a Ford guy, these ls are making cheap race motors that run good.
I would like to see a test with the mast heads and all pro go head to head…. Lol
Old guy told me, (intake flow)x2+10%=max horsepower possible. I'm assuming that's for NA apps. Nice job, as usual. Thanks Richard! 😁
The 1.8 rockers allowed heads to get deeper into high flow lift numbers and spend more % of valve open above .300 lift
For me I prefer power in the low range with lots of low end torque. Unless you are all out racing, twisting the engine up to 7000 RPM is rarely seen in everyday driving. I like to have fun in my hot rod and that doesn't include driving around with 4:56 gears turning 5000 RPM on the freeway.
Would’ve like to have seen how Texas speed ported ls3 heads did but not at all taking away from your work. Lot of time and work when into this. Thank you for your very informative videos
This video helped me a lot! I've got a 02 Camaro and am building a 6.2. I've sold the rec port heads off of it because I knew it was just getting a set of pistons. Now I feel that using my Cartek 243 heads was the right decision. Hopefully I can make 650hp.
I want to see some Texas speed heads, and gwatney performance heads
PRCs are pathetic. Checkout JPI cylinder heads on Facebook he shows their heads vs his, you'll see what I mean.
Love it, the last 30 seconds was all I needed though. Thats what she said!
Free thumbs up for great titles. My favorite was battle of the borgs. But this is up there
Thank you a ton, was doing a budget build on a 2010 Camaro and decided to keep the heads the way they are. Going to move that extra money toward a stall converter.
Great videos I'd like to see a comparison of flat plane crankshafts against a standard crankshaft, where do you gain power or loose.
When gm was doing the c5r program the engineers said even if they could they wouldn't use a flat plane because the gain from tuning would be less than the loss from increased frictional losses. It's almost a mute point. Ford has gone back to typical crank with the gt500 and FCA uses 90° cranks in Maserati cars and flat cranks in the same engine family in Ferrari cars. The gains comes from tuning and rotational inertia of the crank. A good exhaust header does one and a light weight crank does the other. It's really had to justify the cost, a 90° v8 will have a higher Rev limit all else being equal because of the inherent natural balance of the engine. There is a reason that flat crank ls engines are one off or showcase engines because there isn't anything to be gained.
GMPP cnc ported ls9 heads are where its at. They flow 340 cfm, and come STOCK with titanium intake valves and sodium filled incolnel exhaust valves. Never miond the thicker deck and stronger casting with a better alloy.
Can you please test out Edelbrock's E-CNC renctangle port heads for small bore Cathederal port engines?
At first blush, I would have thought just the rockers would have pushed the Mast heads over the top, especially when you consider these heads peaked and fell off sharply sooner than the rest of the heads ... however, there's always more to the tale. Looking at the flow numbers of the Mast heads, they outflow EVERYTHING on the chart by a large margin throughout most of the flow chart. It's no wonder these heads produced better results than the other heads. They would most likely have done that with 1.7:1 rockers, just not quite as large a gain.
Thanks for this rich, I was about to pull the plug on some prc heads but I’ll just stick to the milling my stock ls3 since my build is mild at best
I'd love to see some more lt1 action maybe ported lt1 heads vs lt4 heads or forced induction
I’m thinking a solid roller with 270-280 duration and .700 or more lift would’ve widened the gap much more at the top.
agreed
absolutely.
great power for the mildness.....if the numbers are not overly corrected.
the bigger heads would shine more....
huge valves in these heads.....like the ole cleveland Ford. whats old is new.
Awesome!! I can see you are getting closer to test ls3 heads vs ls7 heads. You may use this same short block and cam. That's going to be really interesting!!!
I tested all the LS7 heads on a 495 stroker
I would have liked to see the mast cathedral port head that was designed for large bore/displacement engines tested.
Guess those 1961 Chrysler long rams really were the ticket for street motors besides the cool factor of having the carbs over the shock towers. :-)
The problem with stock LS3 heads is valve drop you need PTV clearance to get the most potential of these heads and big lift duration cams are limited for stock LS3 heads
Richard. I would like to see all the truck cams comparisons to see which comes out on top. Such as Tick, BTR, and Texas Speed. They all have different specs and just would like to see the top "overall" grind.
look at the stage 2 turbo cam (NA) test-the truck cam results will be similar (the truck cams will all make similar power
If the mast heads utilize the offset ls7 rocker arms that must mean the intake runners are wider like an ls7 head? That would explain the power gains along with the extra lift.
That's what I thought when I heard 1.8.
Darin Morgan works for Mast. Nuff said. Their ports were the smallest tested (which is a Darin ideology), aside from stock, had the best flow, and of course, made the best average power. Darin is the cylinder head man.
I'm a Ford guy that loves stroker Windsors with Cleveland heads, although the Ford does make good power it is not nearly as easy or affordable as the LS platform.
GM hit it out of the park with this design. I'm just curious what the new direct injected engines are like, better or worse??
they work well-check out the L83 video
The Mast head made the most power because of its mid lift airflow advantage over all of the other heads (between .300 to .600). Just goes to show that Mast really did their homework when they designed that head.
I would have liked to see the SDPC heads run with the 1.8 rockers to see how much they added and to compare to the Mast heads.
thats alot of effort....and great test overall. I subbed you for all that effort and useful info.
nice job....and I am a Ford guy
Your last line got me: "... then add boost!". Brilliant ;^)
interesting results I'm going to use LS3 heads after seeing this ill just get mine touched up and smooth out the ports and go with that
MIND BLOWN 🤯 damn those ls3 heads are good
With that said I'm surprised that the LS3 is good for only 30 more hp than the LS2 even with the extra 12ci
its a lot more than that once you add a cam to the mix-the LS2 heads flow 60-70 cfm less than the LS3
I really appreciate your time and effort to do all of this testing . I don't know much about poring heads and after watching some videos I realized how little I really knew. I remember hearing a fellow replaced heads on a ls7 with a set off a ls3 and the car did a lot better off the corners , road racing .
That Cathedral heads has air velocities. And what rpm you going shift and how far down the rpm it's going drop after shift. So much more factors. I still learning. Good info Richard. Thanks
Fast EFI manifold VS Blow thru single plane manifold. Same engine, turbo, intercooler, and boost lvl. Would be interesting to see the different power curves, and if the added cooling from the blow thru would make more power. Good stuff
check out the LS3 intake test to find your answer-just like this test-the fast is better through most of the curve-then the short runner is better up top-same under boost
6 of those heads had an intake port 20cc larger than OEM which I've read doesn't help air speed and thus only helps power in the upper RPMs. I was hoping to see recent aftermarket options like the AFR ls3 260, tfs 255, mamo ls3 260, and prc 255/260 to see if they offer better gains in the 3-4K rpm range for HPDE. I really hate paying for the FAST cathedral penalty when I already have a Rick Crawford rod mod ls3 intake.
i have not run the modded LS3 intake, but would not spend money on the Fast ls3 intake over the stock one
@@richardholdener1727 This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels Richard, learning a lot , thank You Sir. Doing HPDE with my LS3 also and would love to see a comparoo like this on 376ci. I'm thinking your suggestion of TFS 225 heads would still be worth 35hp over the the stock LS3 heads and some extra power under the curve over something like TFS 255 or stock ported heads.
First, I really appreciate this gentlemens testing and efforts. This stuff makes us all better. But my two cents is.......
Although something to be learned there. Without trying similar cams except with very different valve lifts. Say .550 .650 and
.750 lift ranges. It makes it hard to digest any power curve test results. I have not picked up the calculator to see if its enough. But maybe 3 sets of rockers. Like 1.4 to 1 up to 1.9 to 1
Wish this was done on a stock ls3 bottom end. This is a badass comparison
a stock ls3 bottom end isn't enough motor to use the flow from these ported heads
@@richardholdener1727 yeah I just wanted to see if they made any difference or not. This comparison is so good
they will definitely add some power, just not as much as they could on a more powerful combo
Richard please forgive the lack of knowledge, but have you done an episode testing TFS220 Fast as Cast heads on a 6.0?
Is there more to the story than WOT power production? Do the heads notably influence drive-ability or engine responsiveness at part throttle?
It's summer time Richard. You need to take a road trip to Parker, or Havasu for inspiration, and research. Cold Beer, Skimpy Bikinis and Hot Boats. How about some BB boat motors for our Flat Bottoms, and Hydros. Every guy with a boat tinkers on the motors in the winter. They have families, so money is a budget thing. Mopars, Chevies, Fords, in every size and shape. Just an idea.
20:24 The CORRECT Answer is
ADD BOOST
Glad I got my GMPP CNC LS3 heads a while back for $1300 complete from SDPC👍🏻
Scoggins Dickey are great! They just have a funny name.
What’s the part number on the GM Performance CNC LS3 heads?
Best deal out there 👍
Richard, you've mentioned in past videos, correct me if I'm wrong, that the real limit of stock bottom end LS is too much torque. Being a bit of a sloppy fan, I was hoping you could elaborate more on this in video content. I realize that might take require a lot of sacrifices to the horsepower gods to come to a conclusion. So a simple explanation of your belief would suffice. Just hoping to save a few LS for the future. Keep up the great work, and thank you!
P.S. don't be afraid to do some monetization for yourself...you should be making some cheese for this kind of content!
the cylinder pressure exerted on the connecting rod breaks the rod at some point
@@richardholdener1727 any ballpark as to where that would be? Like 800 ftlb below 4500 rpm?
After seeing the gains with the 1.8 rockers I have to ask what the gains on factory heads would be with those rockers.
we didn't see gains with 1.8 rockers-it was the cylinder heads
Great info here, Richard
Low speed performance for the win. unless all you do is 1/4 mile racing. In my opinion on the streetyou spend way more time at slower engine speeds than twisting it as fast as it'll turn. But, what do I know.
Good test but I really want to see more aftermarket rec port heads. Afr, trickflow, brodix, Edelbrock and maybe some promaxx for a value brand. And maybe I'm off base here but I think most people want to see what they will do on a bigger cubic inch engine but with fuel injection. I just don't see many people wanting to build carbureted LS engines compared to fuel injection.
fuel injection and carburetion don't change what the heads do
@@richardholdener1727 completely agree but it would be nice to see the numbers on the setups people are building. Love the channel and not telling you how to do what you already do better than anyone else.
Question is did the 245 heads have a 1.7 or 1.8 rocker like the MAST?
They should be 1.7. Think the 1.8 on the Mast with the bigger intake valve made the Mast out shine the others.
1.7 on the AFR
How would the 1.8:1 rockers change the AFR numbers?
I don’t think the 1.8s would of made up the difference between the mast and afr but it would of tightened up the gap.
Still hoping to see that tri-y vs long tube vs shorty headers with different intake manifolds. My race car needs good low and mid-range power and sometimes touches 6500 for like .5 seconds before hitting the brakes for the next corner.
Did you get a fast intake?
@@hondatech5000 fast enough, I'm just looking for a little more low-end grunt and airflow at high RPMs
@@johnclary729 tbss or fast would do
@@johnclary729 my bad dude I just assume you have an ls of some sort. If you have an ls3 the fast isn’t worth as much. Just use long tubes I dunno if any tri y trickery would be worth it. If you need every average hp to 6500 the cross ram long runner intakes show good (probably the best on a lot of applications) “average power” to 6500.
What happened to the Mast dyno run that you had to cut it off at 6700 rpm? All the others ran out to 7000. Did the valvetrain go out of control, and are the 1.8 rockers to blame? Yes, the higher ratio rockers helped the Mast heads. Higher ratio slightly increases duration, in addition to the increase in lift. And because of the higher lift, the port is operating at higher flow numbers throughout the valve event.
Sounds like a good setup for my 6.0 thanks! You should do a test on bbc peanut port heads In stock form (no removing the heads) then change springs out do another test, then gasket match just the openings of the ports and blend (no porting or removing heads) and run another test showing that you can take peanut port heads and make good bottom end power all the way up to 6000 rpms with out removing the heads.
thnx-I don't think port matching does much to the peanut port heads-the flow restriction is not at the port entry-I have done some peanut port stuff
@@richardholdener1727 no but the blunt sharp opening of the port combined with a large oval intake ( most people buy large oval intakes) causes turbulence and the point is so people that are scared to disassemble an engine (or to broke) can still do mods to make a peanut perform as a good street engine..
I watch alot of your videos👍
You should try a little more duration on the intake side. The ported head looked very promising
If you were running this with E85 on the street, a road course or even a 1/3 mile oval car, the efi intake would probably be the way to go. How much torque this makes your gonna have issue on the strip and the 30hp will show up every single time.
Great video. Looking forward to the SBC version. I know you have the data...
Results should be a lot more dramatic, considering that the stock SBC heads are not in the same league with stock LS units.
I have not done this for SBC-only SBF-there are just too many SBC heads to compare them all
@@richardholdener1727 I'm surprised... Actually, I'd be happy to see a simple comparison between the most commonly used ones.
I always wondered what the actual hp differences were between the single, and double hump stock heads were, for instance.
Been working with this old stuff all my life, and still have a lot of it lying around. You get the idea...
Thanks for the continued testing.
Is there perhaps a misprint in the head specs chart for the Average Torque on the stock LS3? It shows 483.1? The CNC version can't possibly be over 110 ft lbs increase can it?
I'll check-its 583
Badass test; my TFS 225 R's from TEA are in the ballpark with the Mast LS3 head. My exhaust port out flows all in the chart @ 282 CFM at 700 lift. Going on a 430 windsor, 13:1 cr motor that will run on corn. I wonder why race/pump gas was used instead of corn? Was it because the test was done back in 2010? just a thought as I saw the date on the file tab and maybe E85 wasn't available as much in Socal back then? Anyways good test.
Ported TFS R's could always get it done! How did that 430 W turn out?
@@dennisrobinson8008 there's the video on my channel. Made 715/592 on engine dyno. Two dyno sessions, changed cam only.
Weirds how David Vizard has been around for so many decades, but his cam formula is rarely used. The 112 you used in this engine should have been more like 108. You say well that's only 4deg . Yes but the difference in torque curve might be enough to beat the next guy. Oh well . Keep on pushing BT and his wide angle high duration cams. Rob Peter to pay Paul.
I do respect what you do, and you are a great resource yourself and it's hard to buck the trend I know. Even though you occasionally do as when you did the LSA test and tell people that they will no lose boost even though they have been brainwashed into thinking this will happen. Thanks for all your videos/info. Very much appreciated
Ps Dont they make adjustable timing chain/belt kits? Just saying
no one is pushing anything, I know David Vizard well, Your conspiracy thing is foolish, this (like every other video) is just a test of this or these specific parts. Every build isn't about max power.
Were the ls3 heads test performed on a complete stock bottom end
I wonder if the Mast heads would still have done the best had you used a 1.8 rocker on all the other heads
nice to see the bigger motor. a 468 at 6700 rpm and 100% volumetric efficiency should make 693 hp.
the mast uses 2.20" intake valves whereas everything else is only 2.165". that should be worth 3%. the added lift is likely the other 2.4%.
other heads used the 2.2 also
I really wonder how the engineers at GM ever managed to get the LS3 head past the bean counters. They basically put a race-quality cylinder head into mass production.
THE REASON GM MADE THOSE HEADS , WAS BECAUSE THE HEMI'S CAME OUT WITH THE APACHE HEADS ! GM HAD TO COMPETE
@@daviddavids3468 GM '821/'823 heads = 2008 6.2L LS3, while the Eagle heads came along in 2009 5.7L Hemi.
Helluva nice torque curve with the fast and im assuming factory ly6 would be close i really dont think more lift is the key more than likely itsthe extra flow in the 3-500 area
AFR and TFS LS3 heads, please.
Please help, I have
TSP 228/228 600/600 112LSA cam kit
660" dual valve spring kit
PRC titanium retainers
TSP 7.400 pushrod kit
TSP rocker trunion upgrade kit w/intake exaust valves on stock non-ported heads. Also, 102mm TB with FAST intake. I need some down low HP/TQ. I have the $ for heads and fuel pump. I heard RHS matches with FAST intake. But my cam?
Wish the Frankenstein heads would have been tested to see how they stack up against the mast heads
they were not avail when this was done
@@richardholdener1727 when we gonna get one then haha
Gpi ported ls3 Head flow specs compete with the mast heads, using stock valves for only $1000
Lmfao
Wow I remember reading about this test in Hot Rod like 10 years ago or so. Same 468ci motor, cam, heads used etc. Is all this information from that test? Everything sounds about the same.
same test-I did it for Hot Rod
@@richardholdener1727 thanks for the reply. I started reading hot rod before I could read. It was my bed time book in the 70s lol.
I've always enjoyed your stuff and maybe that's why much of what I see on your channel is so familiar. Keep up the great work bro.
@Richard Holdener, any possibility of doing a heads or cam test like this on the Gen V LT1?
not a lot of head choices
What is the part number on the GM PERFORMANCE CNC LS3 heads? Are they also the 821 castings? Thanks
821
Excellent just like the last test. Thanks again Richard for all the time & effort, that was awesome. Much respect to you & the gang.
Cheers
A stock LS3 head can make 700hp... that is wild.
I'm in the process of building a stout shortblock for my Silverado and im curious just how much of a difference you'll see in going from a 3.6 stroke to a 4.0 stroke in an LM7. would love to hear your thoughts. oh, and yes I would be selecting a different cam for the longer stroke engine but I wouldnt be changing the heads. I'm more concerned with power below 6500 being that's where a street truck will spend most of it's time and obviously have more weight to move.
the added displacement will improve power everywhere-especially down low where you want it most
I'd like to see you take a stock 2016/17 LT1 engine and find what bolt ons make the most increase in power.
they make 518hp with headers... ls3 made 495hp
I would go with the higher torque as long as I could hook up with traction on launch.
GM cnc ported Ls3 heads a good choice for BTR STG 4 cammed sbe street ls3?
Thank you so much brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good video 👍
How does that hp per cfm ratio change when boost is mixed into the equation?
boost just increases what is there
@@richardholdener1727 But do you still run out of cylinder head the same way? For instance, let's say I have some ported 243's that flow 300cfm, and I'm running a D1sc procharger making 800hp. That's 2.6 hp per cfm. If I upgraded to AFR 245's that flow 356cfm, would I make more power on the top end? Or would the boost pressure I'm observing just decrease.
Could you do a dyno test on a hemi for the difference of throttle body sizes?
using what intake?
@@richardholdener1727 any but I'd prefer the 6.1.