Corvette Z06 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,414 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Done a side by side run, to see how much quicker the '02's are, compared to the '01's??
If so, what was the results............
Secondly, if you have OWNED both, and have times on them, this would probably be as close as we can get........
Just curious...........
 

·
Z06 Power Adder Authority
Joined
·
3,265 Posts
Still trying to justify a reason to trade the '01 in on an '02, huh? ;)

I really wish I had my car, so we could test this ourselves!

Have a great holiday, Z06LS6.
 
G

·
Check out Ranger vs.J-Rod

Both used slicks. Ranger has a 2001 with just the Halltech TRIC, but other than the intake, is bone stock.

J-Rod has an 2002 bone stock except for slicks. Both had fairly close 60' times.

The comparison:

2001

Ranger with the TRIC - 11.94 @ 116.65 MPH- Factory 385 HP-Computed HP=408.8 HP* Dynoed 345 RWHP or 405.88 HP.
The TRIC added 23.8 HP bringing it past the 2002's terminal speed.

J-Rod bone Stock - 11.96 @ 113.52 MPH-Factory HP 405




The terminal speed is an indicator of the HP.

Ranger actually has over 3 mph more than the stock 2002 even though the 2002 claims +20 over the 2001. It takes 41.8 HP to gain 3 mph in the 1/4 mile.

* See Calculator section at www.CorvetteC5.com

Tom Easterday did an experiment last year with his 2001 Z06, running it before and after the TRIC. His best run stock was 12.71 @ 113.8. Best with the TRIC was 12.40 @ 116.

This year the average MPH with the T-1 and TRIC have jumped to 118 to 121 MPH.

The factory quoted 12.6 @ 114 MPH for the 2001 Z06 and 12.4 @ 116 MPH for the 2002.

J-Rod. I need to get you behind our 2002 soon! Excellent 60' et and run!

Jim Hall
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
I'll say it again, Gentlemen.

If you don't correct the ETs & mph to Std Day conditions using the SAE HP correction factor computed from the weather conditions of the run, comparisons are meaningless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,414 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Roger

I agree.................

But, this is probably AS close as an answer as I'll get........

And, to be REALLY realistic, you would have to have the SAME drivers, doing the same 2 cars, same day, one run, RIGHT after the other.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,175 Posts
Re: Check out Ranger vs.J-Rod

Halltech said:
Both used slicks. Ranger has a 2001 with just the Halltech TRIC, but other than the intake, is bone stock.

J-Rod has an 2002 bone stock except for slicks. Both had fairly close 60' times.

The comparison:

2001

Ranger with the TRIC - 11.94 @ 116.65 MPH- Factory 385 HP-Computed HP=408.8 HP* Dynoed 345 RWHP or 405.88 HP.
The TRIC added 23.8 HP bringing it past the 2002's terminal speed.

J-Rod bone Stock - 11.96 @ 113.52 MPH-Factory HP 405**** Jim, I would like to think your inacuracys are inexperience with drag raceing but your marketing skill precedes you in my mind. Ranger is runing on drag radials not slicks, and J-Rod is on ET Streets a dot approved tire but closer to a slick. As Roger stated there is much to analize between the two but your not even close to a logical asumption.
Z06LS6, With the imformation available to us right now I have seen 01's run 114-6 stock and 02 run 116-8 with no air box, if you extrapolate an et differance I think .2-.4 posible improvement with the 02. Ric
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Originally posted by PowerShifter
Reply to Halltech post:

.......Jim, I would like to think your inacuracys are inexperience with drag raceing but your marketing skill precedes you in my mind.
MARKETING! Is that what I keep hearing? I thought it was just ...
:bs:

The model shows a 0.26 sec ET advantage to the '02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
I can compair for you:

Three months ago I had a 01 zo6 for nine weeks the mods are as follows TTS 1.58 long tube headers, Halltech bottom breather, underdrive pully, and x pipe. The 01 ran the following times

12.396 at 114.51 mph
12.4.57 at 115.39 mph

Now I have an 02 with the same mods and the times are posted on this link "with and without nitrous"
http://www.opticwebsolutions.com/ssm/index.html

11.936 at 119.mph

My 02 with the same mods is quicker and faster in the 1/4 mile. If you are thinking of getting a zo6 get the 02 but they are both great cars.

Merry Christmas:cheers: :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
OpticZ06 said:
I can compair for you:
......The 01 ran the following times
12.396 at 114.51 mph
12.4.57 at 115.39 mph

Now I have an 02 with the same mods and the times are......11.936 at 119.mph
Let's see. That would make the only difference the cam:
The 2001 Z cam is 0.525/0.525 204/211.
The 2002 Z cam is 0.551/0.547 204/211.

So, for ~ 0.025 in lift the new car is ~ 0.5 sec faster?
WOW!

I suspect there was a big difference in air density between the runs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Roger Ramjet said:


Let's see. That would make the only difference the cam:
The 2001 Z cam is 0.525/0.525 204/211.
The 2002 Z cam is 0.551/0.547 204/211.

So, for ~ 0.025 in lift the new car is ~ 0.5 sec faster?
WOW!

I suspect there was a big difference in air density between the runs.
It is strange there was no real difference in the runs with the air density, the 02 computer is a strange beat. On the wideband on the dyno this car do 11.0 on pass then up to 12.4 the other changing the RWHP big time I have seen as much as 19 RWHP change on the same dyno day, this car runs FAT that is for sure.
 
G

·
Intellegence isn't really the ability to find some degree of fault with logic

This is just a holiday suggestion..

if track runs are bullsh-t and dyno runs are bullsh-t..ie. comparisons between the 01 and 2001 Z06's for which this post is about.

What do you people who dislike this guy Jim Hall and his posts want to talk about in a Corvette ZO6 site..?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Caveat Emptor

JBsC5 said:
...if track runs are bullsh-t and dyno runs are bullsh-t..ie. comparisons between the 01 and 2001 Z06's for which this post is about.

What do you people who dislike this guy Jim Hall and his posts want to talk about in a Corvette ZO6 site..?
Performance of the '01 and '02 Z06 were the subject. I think a typo sneaked in with the flames. Intelligence is not in question - science is.

My years of experience around after-market suppliers is that they are making a living selling stuff. They will generally sell you anything they can – if you need it or not.

Evaluating any performance change without including the science that applies is simply marketing. Atmospheric changes affect air breathing engine performance – simple as that! I would venture to say all pro race teams and most sportsman teams track weather data. They know how important it is.

Check out the dyno data in this post:
http://www.z06vette.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=76393#post76393
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,300 Posts
Well having seen both on a dyno same day same mods and stock 9-13rwhp is what we saw.
Usually all after 4,500 rpm and only 5 rwhp below about 5,500rpm
Folks a small increase in lift combined with two less cats and no air screen does make a difference but nothing you can't duplicate yourself. And most of gain is way top end so unless your racing.
I road race so to me the biggest change was brake pads,shock valving, and 12 pounds less weight.
The difference in price could buy the parts to change this easy.

I do agree with above though. Drag strip is to many variables (driver, condition) even on the same day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Silver Bullet said:
Well having seen both on a dyno same day same mods and stock 9-13rwhp is what we saw.
Usually all after 4,500 rpm and only 5 rwhp below about 5,500rpm
I assume no re-learn was done. Has anyone done a base dyno, then an intake change only dyno, then a re-learn (~100 miles) and another dyno. I think that some of the HP increase noticed on the post mod pull will go away after the PCM re-learns the LTFT.
 
G

·
I live on the cutting edge of science everyday of my life and it amazes me that

professionals..who care and think they ... are experts in their field of science..can try and find a fault in a situation by utilizing some degree of logic..to just deny positive results..time and time again...

In fact..the utilization of logic to maintain the status quo..is the irony.


Change is tough..Change is uncomfortable..

Stay stock ..its better for you.

Its ok...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Re: I live on the cutting edge of science everyday of my life and it amazes me that

JBsC5 said:
....Stay stock ..its better for you.
Its ok...
I agree it is better for me. I don't modify or race my street cars.

I hate to see people buy into the party line without thinking the situation through. Think of me as a father figure trying to warn of the pitfalls ahead - make an informed decision.

Peace Brutha! I'll be one of the first in line for the C6.
 
G

·
Roger...in the theory of staying stock or not..

I honestly believe its a personal decision that should be respected.

In moving to a C6 ..your absolutely right..

Mods that can't be reversed in an hour or less..are losers in many ways.

Thanks


JB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,175 Posts
JB, I think trying to help members understand more of the true value (real world) of modifications should be the goal. The comparison of J Rod's 113.52 and Rangers 116.65 and reaching the conclusion that ranger was makeing more power is specious. To alude that it was the intake that made the diferance is marketing. It seems more plausible that beyond the BIG differance in traction Drag Radial to ET Street there was more likely a big diferance in weather, track and driveing style. The point being this pairing of runs is not a real comparison of the 01-02, or intake-no intake on them. The question in this thread was 01 to 02 right? Ric
 
G

·
Ric,

This simple mod of an intake has some value for performance.

Looking at the repeated increase that often occurs with the addition of an intake system as well as my own personal experience would lead to the benefit of installing one on a 01 if you wanted to try and more easily emulate the 2002 zo6's extra 20 horsepower.

Without a doubt..the most important variable is drivers skill on a six speed ZO6.

You've done a wonderful job with your car. I've seen you run and I would like to say congratulations..

All that said and done..this 12 minute and 27 second installation of a intake or however long it takes..might give you a little added trap speed..

Is that important to you? I don't know..and as a gentlemen..as one corvette enthusiast to another..

If I bought a 01 zo6 or a 02 zo6 and I wanted an extra 20 ponies..I would throw on this sidewinder to get some easy extra ponies..that could be taken off with ease..at a time to sell the car..

Whats this mod cost? 499? For $499's and no labor cost to put it on..I think the money is worth it..(again..just my opinion) is it one percent the cost of the car? .

Is this mod the end all..absolutely not..

Does this mod make up for a defiency in drivers skill...absolutely not.

Does this mod knock .2ths of a second off the times and/or .2mph with its 20 extra hp..in most cases I believe it will.

Will there be runs where this might not be the case..without a doubt..

Will the better times or trap speed be more easily achieved..I believe it will.

I will say..the trap speeds on these cars amazes me..right out of the box and with a 12 minute and 27 second installation of an aftermarket product..

No fuss..no muss...

Its easy and it works so simply..

Just by putting the filter behind the zo6 grill..

I laugh as I say to myself..what a cool idea.
------------------------------just an fyi...........on a different way to skin a cat.........THE REVERSE FLOW ELECTRIC WATER PUMP!


Heres another way to gain .2ths but I'm not sure the 4 hour labor installation is considered a bolt on....and the cost is higher..and the potiential risk is higher..

Well here goes.

524
posted December 26, 2001 02:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to make an attempt at trying to set the facts straight and to clear up any misunderstandings. It's going to be long.
(1) First, I read through almost all of these pump related thread replies, and to be honest with you, I'm even confused at this point. I guess a good place to start is to mention that 7-8 months ago on the other .Com, members there were privy to the building, design and Tech info as the pump was in various stages of development. Due to the huge interest expressed, the members there were kept informed weekly if not daily on its R&D progress. I spent alot of time and energy sometimes to the wee hours of the morning fielding questions and adding any interesting info for that day and tried to answer at least 90 % of polled questions and answered them to the best of my ability. I really didn't have to do that and I don't want to hear that we are on an SLP-ish advertising campaign" if that were true, everybody would have been given the "mushroom treatment" from the first day. In respect to this product, and it's R&D testing. Like Thomas Edison said, "inventing is 90% perspiration and 10 % inspiration" Which means, you will find what doesn't work more often than finding what does, I found what works = accomplishment.

Okay, in the beginning of my R&D process, the first car tested was my Camaro, mainly getting housing fitment issues addressed and hose routings taken care of. Once we had a real life working manifold/pump assembly that was functional, (not running too cold on the highway) there was extensive temp split (heads, block) testing done to find the "best power" temp splits. Then highway and dyno testing came afterwards, over this evolution of changes, the pump and housing was removed and replaced no less than 7 times from my car alone and temp adjustments and other fitment refinements were made. My Camaro at this testing stage had all of my engine mods already done at that point including the programming that was never touched during the testing process. (JS has my data files saved from our late night temp testing before the dyno sessions and he can confirm the gear ratio, fuel/spark tables that were unmodified during the EWP testing to clear up any doubts/rumors that I advanced or modded the PCM tables to reflect a more preferable curve.) I tossed around that idea of more advance and more preferable S/F tables but never did the modification in fear of a non repeatable back to back comparisons to us and the end user and would skew any further data testing from that point on. Anyway, my base line pulls were saved in Julio's Dyno Jet computer files previous to the install of the EWP, which can be viewed at jayfisherpontiac.com. Then, when I felt the EWP was road worthy and the temp splits were fine, I drove it up to Cartek for another dyno session to see exactly what this unit was worth in power. The dyno showed a substantial RWH gain with the stock 2000 stat and I was more than pleased with the performance although may have been skewed from a non same day R&R scenario, but encouraging nonetheless. With the mods that I already had, my A4 went from 327 RWH to 353 RWH. It was a great jump in the hp and torque and was hardly what I expected for being in such a mild state of performance mods, but it was what it was for that day.
After that stage of data gathering, I installed it on my stock TA, (lid & filter) SOP reflected basically the same increase that was found with the Camaro, but was then removed to be installed on "Talon's" (Tom McKegney) Trans Am for further road testing. Tom's car was baselined a week previous to EWP install and was returned for pump dyno testing at Cartek. Again, initial SOP on the street reflected a power increase but felt a little peakier than a strong mid range found on the other examples, so it was then taken to Julio to see what the dyno reflected. Our suspicions were correct, it only made 13 to 14 additional RWH over his original MWP dyno test, but it now reflected a screwy WB 02-fuel table that did not exist there on the initial dyno base line. So, I knew there was more latitude in the RWH department if it had a translator on it that day with a click of (5%) base put in it but wasn't. It was taken off the dyno and we went straight to the race track that night, (talk about trying to cram in alot of R&D in one day!) The track reflected 1.4 tenths off and 1.5 MPH improvement with the EWP. Cartek then borrowed the only functional prototype at the time to try on a car that was a repeat offender of overheating and with a history of lifting heads/blown gaskets. It was track tested and for the most part, stayed together till the end of the day, results were inconclusive, TEKTRANSAM (Mark) knows more about that session than I do. Don C. was the next to have the new version of pump/manifold installed on his 1999 stock TA, he went to the track and recorded 2 tenths and 2 MPH improvement over his previous bests from running the stock manual pump with no other changes made. Then the new revised pump/housing was installed back on my TA again. Now my TA only has a lid/filter/Vortex muffler. With the EWP installed, it went straight into 12.80 @ 111.44 at the ¼ mark and 88.12 at the 1/8 exactly right out of the box on a 2.05 60' mark when this car would never pull over 85.34 MPH in the 1/8 or over 108.32 at the ¼. So I summed up these compared runs as 2.2 tenths 2.2 MPH gain CONSERVATIVLY on MY car. My TA has run the best of a 12.98 @ 108.XX in a -2,100 DA (best conditions) on a 1.97 60' mark with the stock water pump, lid/filter/Vortex muffler on drag radials. On average back to back, the TA was a 13.10-17 @ 108.xx all day with the MWP. With the addition of the EWP racing on the F1's in a worse DA, it still improved over 2 MPH at both 1/8 – ¼ data points even over a preferable weather condition. With more quarter testing done and reflecting about the same average track improvements, it was then stated "To be worth about a 20 horsepower improvement" By me. Now, with that said, I do agree that there should be more testing done, I'm not arguing that fact at all but I am under unusual financial constraints that prohibit ME from sending testers to the 4 corners of the globe for "independent look see". Bottom line for me is that I started this project without the idea of even marketing this product. I personally didn't care if it was billet or braided lines with $212.00 worth of AN fittings to boot. It was just an exercise in thermo dynamics for me and something to have some fun with. If it worked to my expectations, I was going to keep it for myself with maybe a couple special exceptions to some close friends, BUT, this is business, production = build quality and Pride, so the final production price went 2 fold. I decided to see just where I could go with this great idea. I was responsible for all the R&D, pump/manifold testing design/function, track/dyno testing U.S. Pat. office work and lawyers fees. I am the most knowledgeable source for Technical and Proprietary data in regards to this product, and it has taken up to 3 spread sheets worth of data in Microsoft Word where I have been documenting the progression and design of this unit from day 1. Needless to say, I have $20,000 plus out of pocket at this point to bring a High quality standard along with great performance to this market place, not to mention what Jay Fisher has put into it. The way the final production pics are viewed is the way Jay and I wanted our product to be represented to the discriminating consumer, although, we now offer a lower quality and less “attractive looking” hose and fitments. But if that’s what it takes for price sensitive enthusiasts to enjoy this product, it's available with those hoses.
(2) Now, on to the total weight of this product. It will come in "as viewed" at a total estimated 10 lbs tops due to the use of billet construction, but this will be weighed exactly and then I will re-post for accuracy. I have weighed individual parts but not accumulative in a box.
(3) The overall track performance/dyno testing has been done at steady temps for accuracy sake. Just to clear up another repeated inconsistency, I have found the best temp to run the heads and block split. Just like trying to get in your best run for the night, you let the motor cool down or to aid that process, some people might even ice down there motors to achieve a new best. :clue: heat rises, reverse cooling negates that effect.
(4) A couple other attributes to this pump is that it can have a manual override switch installed to aid pit cool down time or can be used in conjunction with the primary fan.
(5) On those cold track days, KOEO function will effectively provide you with 1/2 hour of cabin heat parked. (Pump functions as if the engine is running)
(6) EWP can be used with stock fan settings with a 160 stat to keep perfect highway temps. We suggest the use of your stock 180 stat if you have enhanced fan controls for the correct head/block temp.
(7) With the use of the stock stat/fan settings, it WILL pass LEV testing, but not with enhanced fans or a lower 160 stat. That’s where the "off road use" comes into play, not to imply that it's not streetable.
(8) This, like all other bolt on goodies, may not respond out of the box as expected, very close though. Reason being, if you have a perfect fuel table previous to the install of our EWP product, re-check your tables after the install and allow ample time for learn in. ie fuel load tables in the PCM are effected, or a possible tweak with a translator/edit in the base for best results.
(9) We and others have seen up to 85,000+ trouble free miles from this electric CSI motor that we have employed going back to the LT series electric water pumps. I have 30,000 miles on my electric motor to date on the LS1 reversed cooled pump without any problems.
(10) There are NO aeration problems with this EWP design. There was alot of concerns and speculations raised about 6-7 months ago about this potential problem and it never came to life. IE, there are head coolant feed back pipes from the factory.
(11) I have enjoyed the advantages of reverse cooling for months now, and I want to share this technology with the masses especially the FI large cube crowd.
Sorry so long, but I had to get that all out.

Joe Prince.

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe


-------------heres the link to this thread..look at the guy named terry..whats his deal?

http://www.ls1tech.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001390
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,175 Posts
JB, I started to read your reply, I don't have the time right now as most of it is unrelated to this thread. I hope I answered your concerns as to my responce to jims post and why it's important and valuable to give honest straight forward imfo to the vette community. You and I both should be giveing Roger a big thank you for shareing unbiased enginering insight to these issues. I do give my thanks Roger for your insight's and depth of knowlege. BS is BS the problem comes in when a well respected vender- member posts it and knowingly tryes to mislead.(I am assuming his knowlege) Why this has happened more than 1-2 leads me to think it's more than a simple mistake. I am happy for you that your satisfied with the price and performance of your intake. I heard a line the other day that may apply; even a blind squrel finds an acorn wonce in a wial. JMO Ric
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top