Corvette Z06 Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Yikes! My second backup computer died last night. No BIOS. I'm trying to get the new dyno numbers posted here:

First of all the dyno issue with R&D Dyno was NOT the reason for the low numbers for stock. The dyno was correct all the time. The stock numbers are very low. Lower than some stock 01s dynoed at this same dyno. Oh well, here's the report:

Second opinionI dynoed our TRIC intake at Powertrain Dynamics in Huntington Beach today, and got 351.3 RWHP / 345.1 Torque- best pull. All pulls were done with the hood closed and NO fans. Dyno owner Steve said they don't make any difference (OK). This dyno was our first dyno of the TRIC on a 2002 Z06.

I then took the car 25 miles to R&D without touching anything, and dynoed the TRIC again. The first pull: 351.4/344.2 which was almost to the tenth of the Powertrain dynamics dyno pull several hours earlier.

Our best pull was (at very low temps 205-degrees) 353.0 RWHP/349 RWT. Correction factor 1.00 That's 415.3 Flywheel and 410.6 torque.

Remember from another post stock: 337.6/333.6
SideWinder 351.4/344.2
TRIC no coolant bypass lines 353.0/349.0


That's 15.4 RWHP over stock, and 15.4 lbs. ft. torque over stock. Throughout the powerband. Once again the TRIC made continuous HP all the way to 6700 rpm where it peaks. This has been true of every TRIC system we have ever dynoed.

Our TRIC T-1 setup is next with dyno results very soon. We expect to dyno at 365-370 RWHP.

Here you can plainly see the beauty of the TRIC, check out the curve ALL THE WAY TO 6700 RPM. Tunnel Ram Induction Cold-air at it's finest.


The Vortex we had could not be tested since it was the old design (3.5") and we could not locate the airbridge. Since the airbridge comes with the TRIC, we decided that until we have the full piece, we will not dyno. Maybe RG could send us one.
Jim;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,590 Posts
Jim, a couple of observations on my part. First, I believe that the octane available to you in California is lower than what many of us have access to - I had heard that the best available is 91 or 92? Where I live, Sunoco 94 octane is readily available. If you were forced to use 91 or 92, I suspect it had some impact on power production - the factory recommendation is 93, and i have it on good authority that it will respond to 94.

My second observation is that in my business, when we do comparisons of different competing products offered by a variety of vendors, we level the playing field , then let each vendor present their product under exactly the same conditions/rules. You see this same approach used by various car magazines when they do "tuner shootouts".

There is no doubt in my mind that your system is one of the better ones available on the market. However, if a "shootout" of sorts is to be conducted between your product, Vortex, Blackwing, etc., I think it would make sense to have each vendor be present during this comparative testing. I for one, am curious as to why Lingenfelter and some other "name brand" supertuners use the Blackwing, even though it would seem to me that the version they use would not make the power of either the TRIC or Vortex. perhaps they are concerned about potential warranty issues, or view it as the best power approach - it would be interesting to find out.

Perhaps one of the magazines such as Vette or Corvette fever would be willing to host such a shootout - clearly it is of great interest to many.


Just my .02 cents...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,992 Posts
Jim, your second paragraph above lends credance to what I stated yesterday that perhaps GM has done nothing more than to restate the HP and TRK figures for the 02Z. I hope someone else will do some dyno comparisons on a (stock) 01 and a (stock) 02 to see if my suspicions are borne out. I would hope they won't be. At any rate it appears your products will lend similar performance gains on the 02 as they did on the 01 and I look forward to any package systems you recommend for an otherwise stock 02. Thanks!
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
GM's numbers

I have a personal friend who is VERY high up in GM, and he recommended I wait for the 02 due to the power increase. I don't believe for one minute that GM didn't make the stated changes.

Here's what I have discovered which is a possible reason for the increadibly low dyno results:

When we dyno stock, it is always done with 35 mph fans blowing directly into the radiator cavity, to duplicate the actual conditions as closely as possible, with the hood ALWAYS closed. The reason we keep the hood closed is to duplicate dynamic conditions (You don't drive with the hood up and a fan blowing cool air on the filter)

Other dyno shops do lift the hood and do blow air on the engine.

This helps bias the TRIC slightly on the dyno when comparing it to stock, since we get slightly cooler, say 15 degree air from under the radiator cavity, than the underhood air, even with the hood closed. Running a dyno without a strong fan blowing into the cavity, turns the TRIC into a hot radiator heat breather instead of a cool air system. Not very scientific.

But with the SideWinder, we dynoed with the hood closed just like stock, to keep the religion. We believe this is the true dyno religion. To duplicate as close as reasonably possible the real world.

Honesty is our only policy. We know others will be dynoing and we want them to get the same results as closely as possible.

Unfortunately, dynos do vary throughout the country, to a large extent, creating this I did better than you from state to state. I say, take it to the track, or shutup! That's the REAL Dyno.

I would have been happy with 10 RWHP from the SideWinder, but we were frankly shocked at 14. The TRIC Dyno was very satisfing showing the higher numbers all the way to 6700 rpm.

 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
BLEUBYU said:
Jim, a couple of observations on my part. First, I believe that the octane available to you in California is lower than what many of us have access to - I had heard that the best available is 91 or 92? Where I live, Sunoco 94 octane is readily available. If you were forced to use 91 or 92, I suspect it had some impact on power production - the factory recommendation is 93, and i have it on good authority that it will respond to 94.

My second observation is that in my business, when we do comparisons of different competing products offered by a variety of vendors, we level the playing field , then let each vendor present their product under exactly the same conditions/rules. You see this same approach used by various car magazines when they do "tuner shootouts".

There is no doubt in my mind that your system is one of the better ones available on the market. However, if a "shootout" of sorts is to be conducted between your product, Vortex, Blackwing, etc., I think it would make sense to have each vendor be present during this comparative testing. I for one, am curious as to why Lingenfelter and some other "name brand" supertuners use the Blackwing, even though it would seem to me that the version they use would not make the power of either the TRIC or Vortex. perhaps they are concerned about potential warranty issues, or view it as the best power approach - it would be interesting to find out.

Perhaps one of the magazines such as Vette or Corvette fever would be willing to host such a shootout - clearly it is of great interest to many.


Just my .02 cents...
You are right about the Octane level, but lower Octane will make more power than higher Octane if the engine does not have pre-ignition. which causes timing retard in conjunction with the knock sensors. The flame front will be too retarded with Octane beyond the recommended level. That's NOT the case in CA. 91 is now the available fuel. Some genius stated that the new car warranties do not require higher Octane. BS. I saw the dealer letter from Mobil. Very good point and observation!

Since our dyno testing has not been done with better than 91 and without an AutoTap to check for knock retard, your point is well taken.

I have access to 100 Octane, which, when mixed with our MTBE oxygenated crap, will raise the Octane level enough to offset any pinging. Look at the SideWinder dyno above to see what happens when pinging occurs at the end of the rpms.

As far as dynoing the competition vs Halltech. It's been done many times before included the dyno of BPP where our TRIC won out. (Narrow margin) I wouldn't expect the Vortex to dyno much differently from our SideWinder, since the filters are made by the same manufacturer.

We have decided NOT to dyno anyone elses products until we can be sure the motor is making Max Hp stock. The other factor is the faulting we have already received on this most recent dyno.
I have personally dynoed over 100 pulls on different C5s so I know what to expect. The 2002 has completely rewritten the books on dyno testing.

Tomorrow I will reinstall the stock intake again, and drive it for 100 miles (relearn should be about 15 miles). I will then dyno it three more times at each dyno facility, recording everything on AutoTap and report back. That will be the end of our stock dyno testing vs our system.



Thanks for the info.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
JMHO, I think Jim is being very straight forward and honest about his findings. Thanks Jim, this is very good infprmation!!
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
New Beginning

Sound like a commercial?

I have now seen two 02 dyno claims posted by C5 guys proportedly making 349 and 350 RWHP for the stock 2002.

Our stock dyno testing has been faulted by these guys as a misrepresention of the truth, or lying to sell intakes.

We started the T-1 yesterday, and have made some pretty awesome numbers, but we are putting these mods on hold for now.

Today we try to establish the same numbers as the other baselines before we continue.

Here's why: If the Halltech Z06 only makes 337 RWHP stock, something is very wrong. Our dyno testing was fair and accurate.
Two things may have contributed to the lower numbers.

1) We do not lift the hood and run a fan on the intake manifold and directly at the airbox the way many shops do. When this is done, science goes out the window, since that is impossible to duplicate dynamically (on the road).

2) The fuel in CA has dropped to 91 Octane (was 92) which is two Octane points below the factory recommendations (93). Could this be contributing to spark knock, which pulls timing and HP?

We are going to dyno with our new Windows AutoTap software to see.

We will be dyno testing, and will make as many pulls as possible, with the hood up and fans blowing to see if we can get even close to the 350 mark. If needbe, I will repeat the dyno testing at a different shop.

Jim
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
One more thing

Once our best baseline is established, we will invite a couple of local Z06 guys to the dyno to see just how much power the SideWinder and TRIC really make.

Halltech does not own a dyno, but would if our lease would allow it.

The problem with owning your own dyno is pretty obvious. When our cars are dynoed, we can only choose the shop, not the numbers that come out the rear meats.

Our TRIC will make more horsepower than any other intake on the market, PERIOD. The problem is, if we start with a 337 RWHP engine and end up with a 353 RWHP motor, which is 3 RWHP more than the average 02, you can see the problem.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,590 Posts
By my calculations 345 rear wheel h/p (divided by .85) makes the claimed 405 factory h/p. Given the crap that passes for fuel in California, I can easily imagine the timing being backed off as the knock sensors detect detonation. The difference between 337 and 345 is less than 3%. Given even miniscule programming, and dyno differences and abysmal fuel quality, less than 3% is probably accurate an not statisitacally significant. Now if folks insist that GM willingly understates the h/p on their halo performance car, obviously the above would not be true.

But I am wondering, why would GM do this? If I were them, I would be shouting more power from the rooftops. Despite what they say, they ARE competing with the Viper and others.

One other factor to consider. GM claims that C5 engines are assembled with remarkable consistency, therefore there are only 1 perhaps 2 percent power variations between vehicles. That was not true with the ZR-1's - had one for 5 years - and had one of the "better ones". But, if one engine was two percent more powerful than another... well you can see where i am goin with that.

Now, as far as cold air systems in general - sure, I believe they work to some extent. The ricers have been running AEM and other cold air systems for years. But with anything else, I think we all need to realistic about how much real world change any bolt-on will produce be they MAFs, cat-back exhausts, headers, etc.

God knows I have done all kinds of mods for years - mostly because I can and I like to fool with things. But in every case, I only made really major h/p after going into the engine...

Just my .02 cents...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
While I see where you are coming from on the "bolt ons are limited in the HP they make" point of view I have to disagree from personal experience.

On my '96 Z-28 6-spd I put down 255rwhp and 285 ft lbs stock. I put a cold air intake, Whisper MAF ends, BBK 52mm TB, Pullies, HPP+ with 160* thermo, cat back exhaust with a cutout and I then put down 295rwhp and 325 ft lbs.

With the catback alone (with the stock dual cat exhaust manifolds and stock cats in place) I gained 17rwhp and 15 ft lbs. Then with the cutout I gained another 6 hp and 6 ft lbs.

Sure these aren't huge numbers, but 40rwhp and 40 ft lbs of torque from smog legal, street legal, dealer warranty friendly bolt ons is impressive. This took me from 14.0 @ 100mph to 13.0 @ 106.5mph. I agree that going into the engine would show MUCH larger benifits, but nowhere near the same price. The above bolt on parts cost me about $1,200-$1,400. I'm in the process of building a solid roller 396" engine for the Z-28 right now, which is costing about $12,000 for the engine and then an additional $2,000-$3,000 in extra parts to let it run it's best. That should take me to about 475rwhp and 500 ft lbs. Then add a 150-175 shot of spray and life is good :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,590 Posts
Z0 SIC, your points are well taken and do address something which I should have clarified in my post and did not. That is, the car you are talking about. I think bolt-on mods do have a much greater effect on the Z-28 and even the SS, than the Corvette (which is what I was referring to in my post)

Why? Well because the Z-28 is somewhat deliberately detuned by Chevrolet so as to not compete as directly with the Corvette. Camaro exhaust and intake systems, even on the latest models, seem almost artificially constricted. Folks who know much more than i about these things also claim the PCM programming is somewhat restrictive. I know a lot of guys who have these cars and had results similar to yours, by simply removing the deliberately constricted installed components. I do not think this is as much the case with Corvette.
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Programming

Just a footnote on programming the C5. We have yet to see any program outperform stock unless that particular car is used in an AutoTap evaluation by the programmer and the mods onboard are the mods that they are programming for.

GM sets the open loop (no O2 feedback-non-stoichiometric settings) factory pre-sets at specific a/f levels which are around 13:1 at WOT.

All of the other throttle positions return to stoichiometric within a few miles, no matter how much fuel is taken out or added. If over 23% more fuel has to be added to any fuel cell, a lean code will cause a MIL either in one bank or both. If the computer sees over 10% correction less fuel in any fuel cell a rich code sets a MIL. I guess the assumption is that most guys will add intakes, which add 15 to 17% more trim, but 10% less fuel is a real problem. i.e. Where's the extra fuel coming from? GM's knows its market. We found that the Granatelli missed so much air at the sensor from airfoil removal that some of the LT trims were at 25%
setting lean codes. The MagicBox cured this completely, but should not be needed on the 02.

The guys that took off their airbox altogether instantly went to well over 15 or 16:1 a/f ratio. That's why the drop in HP.

When fuel cell 22 (WOT) suddenly goes from its preset 13:1 which is not ideal or the best performance ratio, it cannot correct for the sudden large increase in airflow, resulting in an air/fuel ratio which is worse than stock, pinging and timing redardation, turbulence at the mouth of the MAF (the screened version would probably show somewhat better numbers) and the list goes on. That's almost like drilling holes in the top of the pistons to save reciprocating weight.

Two years ago we tried taking the filter off during one of our pulls. Instantly lost 8 HP on that pull. We gained it back by putting the filter back on. The dyno guy, said before we did it, that everyone that has ever tried that lost hp.

Programming may add fuel to the closed loop trims, and by bringing the Long Term Trims back down to as close to zero as possible gain fuel at the WOT open loop cycle.

We get our best pulls on the C5 if we can achieve a 12.6 to 12.7 a/f ratio with the Halltech mods. Other mods will affect this ratio and every car is different. What is ideal for mine may not be ideal for yours. That's why the MagicBox only worked on Z06s with the TRIC setup. We did make it too rich, due to the Granatelli on the car we AutoTaped the program from.

Jim
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top