[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

The results are little disappointing but I hear that 91 octane fuel is pretty awful. OP can you do up an E85 flash? That might better showcase what the head can do. I know a lot of people myself included are interested to see what it can do.

Mike

[jyeah]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The results are little disappointing but I hear that 91 octane fuel is pretty awful. OP can you do up an E85 flash? That might better showcase what the head can do. I know a lot of people myself included are interested to see what it can do.

Mike

It is awful, but it is California after all.

I might do E85 in the future, but for the time being I'm going to stick with 91. It takes quite a bit of time to drive out and do the remote dyno tuning in addition to the nearest E85 station is not right around the corner for me.

Going to also check to make sure my car is running fine for the next week or so before I make any more changes.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by jyeah

I do have the flow bench numbers, but I was asked to not share them. :O

That is weird right? @Mike@VAC why is this the case if you have the numbers?

Originally Posted by 135Pats

Has any N54 ever been revved out appreciably beyond 6.7K? So far as I know, no one really knows the limits of the stock retainers, springs, etc. No sense of when we'd see valve float and all that jazz..

Yes. At 8,200 the springs broke on a ST. Could have been a 1 off occurrence but I wouldn't trust them above 7600.

Originally Posted by Ingeniator

I was interested in the vac head just not enough information.

It's amazing how little seems to be known about the head. Apparently they do not want the flow numbers released according to the OP? They didn't rev out the ST on the dyno past 6800 which compared the stock vs. ported head, and the stock head stopped reving at 6500. Strange for a head that has springs that are good until 10k supposedly. I mean at least rev it out to 7200 or 8k...that is only 800rpms more than stock.

Originally Posted by Ingeniator

I kind of wish they would just sell the valve train but they are not interested in that.

You can buy it separately. These are the prices from Mike@VAC that he posted on the forums a while ago:
3. Preliminary pricing:
a. Spring and retainer kit: $869.95
b. Complete valve kit (stock or +.5): $769.95

"Springs are made with premium grade super-clean PAC Alloy materials. They are progressively coiled with tighter tolerances, heat treated, stress relieved, and multistage shot peen for extended life and durability. 10k RPM in a racing environment - no problem."

Originally Posted by 135Pats

So even assuming Tony's HPFP gets us enough fuel to supply big singles in the stock powerband, upping the revs will only tighten the injection window. Doubt we'll have enough fuel to make 9K useful but hopefully i'm wrong.

True but the limit has yet to be found. There is a chance the window is too small and it can't squirt enough fuel in at say 9k. If the limit is 9k and the injection window is just too small then go with the PTF port fuel injection system and your stock HPFP no need for any of Tony's fueling support right? If the injectors can supply enough fuel at or above 8k but not 9k that is still good news. Look at a ST dyno, another 1000 RPM or 1500 would be huge and a much higher power band after the shift.

Originally Posted by 135Pats

I I just don't see this motor (in anywhere near stock configuration) being at 9K piece, perhaps a 100% built and blueprinted one off could do it.

Even 8000 would be helpful or 8500. The higher the better.

[135Pats]

@Torgus all fair points. 8K would seem most feasible. I doubt we'll ever see much more than that due to the Piezo DI.

Who revved their single out to 8.2K? Assuming it was a 6MT and they just held the gear in? Props for their bravery I guess.

[Ingeniator]

Originally Posted by jyeah

It is awful, but it is California after all.

I might do E85 in the future, but for the time being I'm going to stick with 91. It takes quite a bit of time to drive out and do the remote dyno tuning in addition to the nearest E85 station is not right around the corner for me.

Going to also check to make sure my car is running fine for the next week or so before I make any more changes.

Originally Posted by Torgus

That is weird right? @Mike@VAC why is this the case if you have the numbers?




Yes. At 8,200 the springs broke on a ST. Could have been a 1 off occurrence but I wouldn't trust them above 7600.




It's amazing how little seems to be known about the head. Apparently they do not want the flow numbers released according to the OP? They didn't rev out the ST on the dyno past 6800 which compared the stock vs. ported head, and the stock head stopped reving at 6500. Strange for a head that has springs that are good until 10k supposedly. I mean at least rev it out to 7200 or 8k...that is only 800rpms more than stock.




You can buy it separately. These are the prices from Mike@VAC that he posted on the forums a while ago:
3. Preliminary pricing:
a. Spring and retainer kit: $869.95
b. Complete valve kit (stock or +.5): $769.95

"Springs are made with premium grade super-clean PAC Alloy materials. They are progressively coiled with tighter tolerances, heat treated, stress relieved, and multistage shot peen for extended life and durability. 10k RPM in a racing environment - no problem."





True but the limit has yet to be found. There is a chance the window is too small and it can't squirt enough fuel in at say 9k. If the limit is 9k and the injection window is just too small then go with the PTF port fuel injection system and your stock HPFP no need for any of Tony's fueling support right? If the injectors can supply enough fuel at or above 8k but not 9k that is still good news. Look at a ST dyno, another 1000 RPM or 1500 would be huge and a much higher power band after the shift.





Even 8000 would be helpful or 8500. The higher the better.

That is interesting I didn't know they were offering the valve train.

Do either of you know if they replace the valve seats when they do the profiling? Do they offer a hardened seat option?

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Ingeniator

That is interesting I didn't know they were offering the valve train.

Do either of you know if they replace the valve seats when they do the profiling? Do they offer a hardened seat option?

"1. Why only .5 over:

a. The valve seats in the cylinder head are not thick enough to put +1mm oversize valves. It's possible, but it would require a proper cylinder head valve seat swap. We do this for mega racing applications as well as restoration efforts, but in our (and Ferrea's) opinion it's not worth the investment as it adds a LOT more $$$ to an already expensive job and the gains would be hard to calculate.
b. If you go to use larger camshaft lifts there could be an issue with not enough valve overlap clearance.

2. Ferrea retainers work with only Ferrea springs and OEM style locks. "



I believe Dzenno from PTF has 1mm oversized but he didn't use VAC I don't think. I also don't remember and talk about the valve seats but who knows.



To find the thread google VAC-N54-valvetrain-kit-springs-valves

[jyeah]

Originally Posted by Torgus

"1. Why only .5 over:

a. The valve seats in the cylinder head are not thick enough to put +1mm oversize valves. It's possible, but it would require a proper cylinder head valve seat swap. We do this for mega racing applications as well as restoration efforts, but in our (and Ferrea's) opinion it's not worth the investment as it adds a LOT more $$$ to an already expensive job and the gains would be hard to calculate.
b. If you go to use larger camshaft lifts there could be an issue with not enough valve overlap clearance.

2. Ferrea retainers work with only Ferrea springs and OEM style locks. "



I believe Dzenno from PTF has 1mm oversized but he didn't use VAC I don't think. I also don't remember and talk about the valve seats but who knows.



To find the thread google VAC-N54-valvetrain-kit-springs-valves

From what I heard from Jake, I think they received a Stage 3 Head from VAC this month.

Anyways, for your info I'm only using stock valve sizes.

I personally don't think the whole reworked head is a good investment unless you need to repair your engine anyways. It's a good amount of money you can save towards the new M3.

If you want the flow numbers, PM me and I'll send it to you, but VAC does not want me to post it over the internet as they consider it proprietary information.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by 135Pats

@Torgus all fair points. 8K would seem most feasible. I doubt we'll ever see much more than that due to the Piezo DI.

Who revved their single out to 8.2K? Assuming it was a 6MT and they just held the gear in? Props for their bravery I guess.

I think it was pwr hungry or 3000GT MR. Someone with an FFTEC kit. I forget who. Every time I mention it the person usually see's my post and confirms it was them.

[idrift4wd]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The results are little disappointing but I hear that 91 octane fuel is pretty awful. OP can you do up an E85 flash? That might better showcase what the head can do. I know a lot of people myself included are interested to see what it can do.

Mike

for real.

tune e85 cars make the same power and your telling me a PRO-TUNED RB turbo car with "upgraded" heads are only putting down a smear over 400?

RB turbo alone should be well over 400. Stock turbos have reached over 450. many in the 380-400 range.

[V8bait]

Originally Posted by idrift4wd

for real.

tune e85 cars make the same power and your telling me a PRO-TUNED RB turbo car with "upgraded" heads are only putting down a smear over 400?

RB turbo alone should be well over 400. Stock turbos have reached over 450. many in the 380-400 range.

Well he's using piss to fuel it so the numbers seem fine. A ported head turbo car is capable of tons of torque at lower boost and higher rpm breathing, but only if everything else is right. 91 piss and stock exhaust manifolds won't give you much room for gains. E85 or racegas will showcase benefits more, probably along the lines of 540tq in the midrange and down from there as the turbos and manifolds choke.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by V8bait

A ported head turbo car is capable of tons of torque at lower boost and higher rpm breathing, but only if everything else is right.

Do you base this on Dzenno's glory run?

Based on the ST dyno with the VAC head I don't see the same thing...

[JStang]

RB's need octane to really shine. Get a race gas / e85 tune or RBs are a waste of $$$$.

[V8bait]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Do you base this on Dzenno's glory run?

Based on the ST dyno with the VAC head I don't see the same thing...

Dzennos run sure but mostly other platforms I've been a part of and built. Headwork can typically hit higher or similar numbers with less boost on a properly set up car. RB turbos are limited in airflow and on stock engines have to hit pretty high boost pressures to flow them, a head should make it easier to hit their max flow ratings at a lower boost pressure.

I haven't seen the single turbo dyno with headwork, but lots of things can influence power in a big turbo car. On a ST car with say a 6466 the power should drop until the turbo spools, at that point power should be up. But for a 6466 that happens so late and the turbo is so over sized for what people typically push them to headwork might be counter productive. I think something more applicable would be the smaller twins vargas is building until the motors start revving higher, if possible, or something like rb's but without constricted manifolds.

GTX3582R on 3.4 DOHC made 440whp/460tq at 14psi pre headwork, 480whp/520tq post at same boost, full boost was a few hundred rpm later, and power held out to 8k vs 7500rpm.

[Ingeniator]

Originally Posted by V8bait

Dzennos run sure but mostly other platforms I've been a part of and built. Headwork can typically hit higher or similar numbers with less boost on a properly set up car. RB turbos are limited in airflow and on stock engines have to hit pretty high boost pressures to flow them, a head should make it easier to hit their max flow ratings at a lower boost pressure.

I haven't seen the single turbo dyno with headwork, but lots of things can influence power in a big turbo car. On a ST car with say a 6466 the power should drop until the turbo spools, at that point power should be up. But for a 6466 that happens so late and the turbo is so over sized for what people typically push them to headwork might be counter productive. I think something more applicable would be the smaller twins vargas is building until the motors start revving higher, if possible, or something like rb's but without constricted manifolds.

GTX3582R on 3.4 DOHC made 440whp/460tq at 14psi pre headwork, 480whp/520tq post at same boost, full boost was a few hundred rpm later, and power held out to 8k vs 7500rpm.

Having now seen the numbers. I still don't know whether they are head only or with intake plenum. In order to maximize this head I think a set of velocity stacks and log manifold would be useful to recover some of the low end. If it proves to have those issues hard to tell with this dyno pull.

[V8bait]

Someone was developing a manifold that did away with the cylinder 6 bump and helped equalize the flow to all the cylinders, but for whatever reason it stopped after CAD design. But I agree the intake could be improved, I'm not sure how good/bad it honestly is.

[Wes335XI]

Is this a RWD car? I guess with the octane rating, the numbers are acceptable.

I have RB's running 90 octane and meth. With only 15 psi on the JB4 and map 3, I'm running fairly decent. I do need to get a base dyno. I expect 400AWHP, which is what I was estimated at with stock turbos. I need the APV3/backend flash to unleash the full potential of the RB's. on 90 with meth we estimate 475AWHP, which is still allowing room for more.