Corvette Z06 Forum banner

The Bassani Catless X-pipe

  • I would be interested in this mod

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • I would not be interested in this mod

    Votes: 5 10.0%
  • It would depend on the dyno results but yes I would be interested

    Votes: 20 40.0%
  • I would rather see headers and mufflers that provide the same numbers if possible

    Votes: 14 28.0%
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
First of all, the T-2 package will include all of the "jaw-dropping" performance of the T-1 package, with no replacements. If you have the T-1 package, you do not have to worry about replacing anything. We are building on that package.

The Halltech T-2 package will be the next jump for the Z06, with a very lofty goal of 405 RWHP on our 2002 Z06. Thats a 15% gain in HP from stock. The same RWHP as advertised BHP!

We have two new components that are being tested now, with dyno numbers available as we add each item. If the dyno numbers do not show an increase, we will post the numbers for all to see.

By the end of January, we will have pulled out all the stops in our bolt-on catagory.

We have already seen 392 RWHP with our full T-1 package and an ex-pipe replacing the cats for one of our customers. I will post the dyno and 1/4 mile results here later.

Please give us feedback on the no cat conversion. We have a Bassani X-pipe that will accomplish this, but it is definately "off-road" only.

Please enter your choice above.

Thanks

Jim Hall
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
In SoCal the CHP sets up road blocks with a portable dyno
for emissions tests, they randomly stop new and old cars.
I've seen them do this a couple times in Lake Forest on Muirlands.

That makes this mod truly off-road in Ca. I'd be embarassed trailering a Z06 to any event to be beat by legal cars that drive in.
If I was going to trailer to a dragstrip, it better be in the low 9's,
and to a road course, at least a Formula Ford.
-Len
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Brian,

It's overcrowded and overbuilt down here.

I don't know the latest laws on diesels except that they'll
ticket one if it smokes too much.

'73 and earlier for no smog checks, but must maintain orig. smoq eqpt.

The old law was '65 and earlier, so I've got a GT350R replica
project. The 289 with '65 technology for VARA rules dyno's at 405hp and it weighs 2500lbs. The Z06 won't touch it in the
1/4 mi. but will probably lap it in 20 minutes at Willow Springs.

-Len
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,096 Posts
Jim:

I am interested in the T-2 for my '02 Z06.

What does the T-2 offer for the '02 Z06 that is better/improved over your current system?

I currently have a Donaldson Black Wing, and Corsa Indy exhaust. However, I am planning on returning to the OEM air filter unit next spring because of stories I've heard that the '02 Z with the DBW loses hp at higher rpm's since it flow "too" much air. :-?
If that is true (and I'm not convinced yet that it is), why don't Halltech equipped Z's "lose" hp at higher rpm's?

What am I missing here?

Zippy :z: :z:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Jim,

Your T2 system is just what I have been thinking of. (my zo6 has a build date tpw of 12/3101) I would like to see the price stay reasonable for the bolt ons. I was thinking: your sidwinder in the plastic (to keep cost down while still having factory quality) MAFT for the tuning (also much less expensive then your new system). Coolant by-pass, thermostat and fan switch, Bassani front and rear x-pipe, o2 sims, and choice of mufflers (stock should work fine). And of course your knowledge to tune for best performance. On the exhaust I was thinking of cuting out one of the x pieces and replacing it with two (one on each side) race style muflers like Dynomax Race Magnums, then go over the rearend and strait out to the back. The sound could by changed by what lenth mufler is used. Cant wait to see your test results in dyno before and afteas well as 1/4 mile before and after. Good luck.
thanks Mac
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,018 Posts
I have been confused on Halltech's web site in that in one area they advertise the T-1 at $599.00 which produces 367 RWHP and in another area of the site they advertise the T-1 Kit at $1649.00 which produces 367 RWHP.

Has anyone else noticed the dissparity here?

Sounds like the obvious choice would be the T-1 at $599.00 and save $1050.00.

Pat
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks for pointing out the error

Virgin Stock pulls


30 minutes later with T-1 Intake



The T-1 Package (30# injectors, ported TB, Magnecor Wires, NGK TR55 plugs, TB Bypass, and Halltech 'Insolator') was dynoed by our customer at Cartek in NJ at 392.7/375.5 (The dyno included results yielded from no cats*) Notice how the power climbs all the way to 6700 rev limit!




Tomorrow we will have the results of our AFR Controller mod and our complete T-1 package, which previously only showed 2 HP gain, but solved the dropouts in power seen by the lean condition shown above in the bone stock dyno.

Friday we install the B&B Ceramic Headers, then back to the dyno.

The only disparity, is the difference between our mod and stock.

*If you interpolate the value of the cats-off, it should be 10-12 RWHP. That would put our T-1 kit at 380 RWHP, and a dyno done by one of the big shops in NJ.

Jim Hall
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
One more mod before we finish our dyno testing

The hope is that we can make the same RWHP as GM claims at the flywheel.

That will yield a true 15% increase in power over stock.

The steps to the T-2 package: Dyno test an evaluate the AFR Controller. (Feels like 20 HP, but it could be torque that unloads the tires when it hits 4000 rpm in first gear)

Turned out to be 14.2 RWHP

Dyno test the B&B Ceramic coated shorty headers.


Dyno test the Bassani X-pipe (cat-less for off-road racing)

Dyno test a special exhaust system.

As you can see, the T-1 deals with the intake and fuel control. We may have to include the AFR in the T-1, or just make it optional altogether.

The T-2 package will consist of the best exhaust mods available for the Z06. The titanium exhaust will be very hard to beat.

Jim Hall
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Halltech Test Observations:

Engine water temp was not stabilized or consistent for the tests. Water and oil temp are critical to comparative tests.

SAE correction factor was set to 1.000 for all tests. It is nearly impossible to have exact standard day conditions exist for this many pulls with wait time in between. The older DynoJet PEP systems require manual CF input but this operator didn’t do it.

Why aren’t the before and after runs overlaid? It is much easier to see the differences between pulls when one is on top of the other. The PEP system can do this.

The hood was left open for the T-1 intake pulls. Why? That is not real world.

No PCM re-learn was done. The ideal test scenario would be; normal operating temp for water and oil systems, hood down, while measuring the ambient temp, baro pressure, and humidity for each pull.
Do a stock pull.
Do the mod and another pull.
Do a PCM re-learn and another pull.

I suggest that you get yourself a good motorsports weather station that calculates SAE horsepower correction factor and use that same system for everything you try. Weather instruments are different – using different instruments gives ambiguous results.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Roger RamJet

Your observations are totally incorrect:

Engine water temp was not stabilized or consistent for the tests. Water and oil temp are critical to comparative tests. Engine water temp is very difficult to stabilize when we have only 1 hour in which to test. The water temp was as cool as we could get it in the alotted time and considering all tests were done OEM including the thermostat.

SAE correction factor was set to 1.000 for all tests. It is nearly impossible to have exact standard day conditions exist for this many pulls with wait time in between. The older DynoJet PEP systems require manual CF input but this operator didn’t do it.
You do not understand Dynojet dynos. They automatically set the correction factor. The only input from the operator is the wet bulb factor before each run. It was the same on all runs by shear coincidence, but since the testing was done within the same hour, that is not unusual

Here is another dyno done on our LS1 during dyno day at the same facility: Note the correction factors:


Here is one done on a customer's 2001 Z06 at the same facility:


Why aren’t the before and after runs overlaid? It is much easier to see the differences between pulls when one is on top of the other. The PEP system can do this. The are on our website




The hood was left open for the T-1 intake pulls. Why? That is not real world. We dyno both ways. The stock pulls were done this way to allow cooling of the coolant to try to achieve the baseline water temps you suggested in 1) We agree that this does not duplicate the real world, but neither does the closed hood. Why? No fan available can duplicate the airflow to the chin spoiler dam, which is aeodynamic (something you should understand) and needs dynamic motion to bring cool air to the radiator. With the hood closed the run might start at 198 water temp, but they end at 235 degrees. This throws the numbers out the window. Look at the stock pulls. The dramatic drop in performance can be attributed to the water temps causing knock retard.

No PCM re-learn was done. The ideal test scenario would be; normal operating temp for water and oil systems, hood down, while measuring the ambient temp, baro pressure, and humidity for each pull.
Do a stock pull.
Do the mod and another pull.
Do a PCM re-learn and another pull.
Exactly what we did. Done within the same hour and a half

I suggest that you get yourself a good motorsports weather station that calculates SAE horsepower correction factor and use that same system for everything you try. Weather instruments are different – using different instruments gives ambiguous results.

I suggest you do some homework on the DynoJet Dyno. If you are really who you claim to be, and not working for our competition:roll: then you would research the forum post archives to find many of these same questions answered long before you arrived


We do not own the dyno used in our dyno testing, which subjects us to the schedule of R&D Dyno. You can call Darren if you like to verify his methods of dyno testing, which are standardized by DynoJet. His facility is used by magazines, this forum and others for dyno days, Steve Cole (The world's finest programmer for Corvettes-used by Lingenfelter, Mallett, Doug Rippey, and Katech Engines). If this dyno is good enough for Steve, it's good enough for me.

One last point about correction factors. We were going to dyno yesterday, but the weather was in the low 70s. I try to dyno on days in the 80s, when the correction factor may be at 1.00.

There is no way to control the correction factor, anymore than you can control the weather. You pointed out the water temps. The reason we included them in our dyno testing was to provide the most honest evaluation we could achieve under the circumstances. I did a relearn, came back to the dyno, and the additional strapdown cost me an additional 1 hour at $75.00 per hour. The correction factors were COINCIDENTALLY the same on all the pulls.

When we dyno on a day that shows 1.01 or .97 correction it throws our results into the garbage. Here's why: Most minor changes cannot be seen on the dyno. If we were to dyno today, for instance, the AFR mod, which may yield a few more HP, will be obscured by the correction factor of probably .96 to .97 due to the cool weather.

The correction factor was designed to level the playing field when dynoing on different days, but it assumes a couple of things that are not true. 1) The DynoJet DOS software takes baro, ambient temp, and wet bulb into consideration, but does not consider the dynamic PCMs ability to readjust trims, which neither gain nor lose the horsepower anticipated by the software. 2) The cooler weather will put the C5 into one of three different timing curves. Under 59 degrees is the most aggressive curve.

An example:
Let's say you have a day when it is 70 degrees. Pull one and two are at .98 and .99 respectively, due to a change from a temperature that corrects to .98 to one that corrects to .99.
That 1% gain in power on the dyno, may yield no actual horsepower at all. I have seen this. So now the car makes 350 RWHP insteady of 346.5 RWHP, simply because a temperature threshold in the software has been reached.

As you can see, there is alot more to the dyno than you have captured so far in your 'scientific' analysis.

I have been dyno testing Corvettes for many years. The C5 since early 1999, with over 200 pulls on three of our C5s. I have viewed several hundred more during various dyno day events, and need no lesson on the dyno.

Our goal at Halltech is to provide our customers with the most accurate, honest, and detailed results possible with the tools at our disposal. I would suggest that if you have further questions regarding our testing methods, you email me personally, and I'll be happy to spend some time engaging your honest qustions.

Last point. This forum has been great place to gather information from all sources. We manufacture the best intake system on the market and do not need to spend time reiterating available information to self appointed forum oversears. While I find your questions valid, I question your motives for asking them.

You and Powershifter will never purchase anything from us, so what is your point? What is your agenda? Who put you up to this? If you have legitimate questions as a prospective purchaser of our products, I could understand your zeal to undo the legitimate and honest work we do on this forum.

Thus far, every post I make, I can count on you and Powershifter to peck away. Your comments have taken a turn. Why? What has Halltech done to you?

Powereshifter insinuates in nearly every thread, that we are liars and dishonest with the forum. He will not be here much longer with his blatant disregard for rules concerning vendor bashing.



Best Regards and Happy New Year


Jim Hall

PS My stepson flys a Draken fighter (war games) under contract for the Navy and Air Force our of North Carolina. It looks like you have a jet landing on your car in your sig.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,844 Posts
Jim,

Love the documentation, and the T-1...keep up the good work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,175 Posts
Jim, This thread was brought to my attention. I don't think I bash you. I do point out when you post something that is less than true, it is interesting that when you do this it's ALWAYS to boost your interests and products. If your interested in acurate imformation post what you KNOW about. If you want me to stop correcting you that's all you have to do. Your right I WILL NEVER BUY FROM YOU BECAUSE OF THE BS YOU PUT OUT. I have avoided this section because of it. I don't know how much longer the moderators will let you post this BS but my bet is there more interested in bettering the Corvette image than geting a few bucks from you. Ric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
What about the tric

Has the tric fallen off the face of the earth? Wouldnt a filter out in the air have the greatest effect?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top