Tekhombre

I'm very pleased with the results so far. These numbers are with our Stage 2-X heads and cam, ported TB, custom LS1-edit tuning, TPIS headers and the stock Z06 mufflers.


460.5 RWHP & 414.9 RWTQ STD corrected.
446.1 RWHP & 401.9 RWTQ SAE corrected.


I will dyno it tomorrow with out the mufflers and post those numbers.

Julio

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Now that is a stout Z06.. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Congrats...those dyno numbers are some of the highest around for a 346. Outstanding job!

Patrick

CHRISPY

Nice numbers, especially torque. You wouldnt be willing to divulge cam specs would you?
<img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">
Cheers,
Chris

BIGBOS

Nice #'s....... <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

JS

iTrader: (4)

OMG <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0"> I'm speachless..
Keep up the good work..

CARTEK ROCKS...

JS Y2K RA T/A
CARTEK S2X H/C
Dynoed 432.7RWHP/388.4RWTQ


[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: JS ]

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: JS ]</p>

Jim98TA

Just for clarification, on this package, you perform your stage 2-X porting on a set of LS6 heads? Is this the same kind of cam that you would use in an LS1 stage 2-X? And finally, have you installed a similar package on an LS1(stage 2-X heads, cam)? The numbers you have posted here are very impressive.

The thing I don't understand, is the main differences between an LS6 and LS1 are the heads and the cam. So, would an LS1 with this same package put out the same numbers?? Please don't take this as a flame or anything. I am really impressed with the numbers. I am just trying to understand how the LS6 pulled about 20-30 more RWHP than a similarly modded (similar heads, cam) LS1 would...

Excellent numbers, and thanks for any info you might have (just trying to learn a bit more <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0"> )...

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

lol quit posting non-SAE numbers!

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Holy ****! <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0">

I don't think its the hardware that has changed much, I am suspecting that Julio is getting very good at tuning with LS1-EDIT and is showing us the potential that we have been missing out on until now.

Good job guys!

Tony

WeatherGuy

Very, very nice results! 446 RWHP SAE from heads/cam is really impressive. I noticed that the peak torque of 402 RWTQ (SAE) is not out-of-line with what you would expect from a stock cubed engine with heads/cam and no power-adders, but the peak RWHP is up in the stratosphere. That tells me that you have designed a package that is breathing/flowing exceptionally well.

Congrats!

Tekhombre

Chris ARE 360, the cam is a 224-224 custom ground.


Jim98ta, these numbers are with the 02 Z06 heads. There is a 15-20 RWHP difference between the LS1 vs LS6 heads with our "X" package. I don't use the same cam for both. The LS6 exhaust runner flows more than the LS1 exhaust runner, because of the intake/exhaust flow ratio on the LS6 being closer I use a more symmetrical cam on the LS6 than on the LS1.

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>lol quit posting non-SAE numbers!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Terry, the SAE numbers are posted along the STD numbers. Would you like me to put a "PG" rating or maybe even an "X" rating on it? Just look away if you don't like it. LOL.


Julio

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

[quote]
Terry, the SAE numbers are posted along the STD numbers. Would you like me to put a "PG" rating or maybe even an "X" rating on it? Just look away if you don't like it. LOL.
<hr></blockquote>

The STD numbers are intentionally misleading and you know it, why else would you post them?

Anyway doesn't 446rwhp SAE seem a bit low for LS6 heads/large cam? Here is a car that for example makes similar power with LS1 heads and an undoubtably milder 224v3 camshaft.

http://www.mmsracing.com/dyno_charts...essor475v3.gif

Maybe your power will pickup when you open the exhaust, although the Z06 exhaust isn't all that bad as long as you gut the cats.

WeatherGuy

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>

The STD numbers are intentionally misleading and you know it, why else would you post them?

Anyway doesn't 446rwhp SAE seem a bit low for LS6 heads/large cam? Here is a car that for example makes similar power with LS1 heads and an undoubtably milder 224v3 camshaft.

http://www.mmsracing.com/dyno_charts...essor475v3.gif

Maybe your power will pickup when you open the exhaust, although the Z06 exhaust isn't all that bad as long as you gut the cats.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I actually don't mind seeing both numbers - there is more than one way to correct numbers (DIN, EEC, SAE, STD, etc. . . . ), and it lets me know how much the correction factor came into account. I alternatively prefer even more just getting the CF factor, as this tells me exactly how much change was made.

For example, here in Houston the usual actual atmospheric pressure is around 1016 hPa (about 30.01" Hg), while the SAE uses a base pressure of 990 hPA (29.23" Hg). In other words, regardless of how hot and humid it gets in Houston (which is about half of the year), you will always get penalized for the higher normal atmospheric pressure here in Houston. Among other reasons, this is why HRP sometimes produces some very fast numbers.

On the other thing - those numbers were very,very good that he got. You can dig up an example of someone else getting close to that (which is also impressive), but calling them "a bit low" seems unwarranted.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: WeatherGuy ]</p>

Tekhombre

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>

The STD numbers are intentionally misleading and you know it, why else would you post them?

Anyway doesn't 446rwhp SAE seem a bit low for LS6 heads/large cam? Here is a car that for example makes similar power with LS1 heads and an undoubtably milder 224v3 camshaft.

http://www.mmsracing.com/dyno_charts...essor475v3.gif

Maybe your power will pickup when you open the exhaust, although the Z06 exhaust isn't all that bad as long as you gut the cats.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can you explain how I'm misleading anyone if I'm posting both SAE and STD corrected numbers? Even if I had posted STD numbers alone you are still wrong for saying that I'm misleading anyone. You are posting 442.8 SAE on a spike from hitting the rev limiter at 6,600 rpm with an open cut-out, I think that's misleading. It's probably more like 436 RWHP at 6,450. What happened? didn't have LS1-edit to bump the rev limiter?

I will post our dyno numbers with no mufflers later.
These dyno numbers are with a 224-224 custom ground cam. C5-PIG (Mark) has passed NJ emissions with an older version of this combination with the same cam, he ran 11.19 at over 123 and has a best MPH of 124.51 and was making 434 SAE through a full exhaust (Borla 3 muffler setup) and cats.


BTW, how fast did that car go with 442.8 RWHP (436 JCN corrected) Terry?

Julio

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

[quote]
Can you explain how I'm misleading anyone if I'm posting both SAE and STD corrected numbers? Even if I had posted STD numbers alone you are still wrong for saying that I'm misleading anyone.
<hr></blockquote>

It's misleading because a lot of people don't know the difference between the two, they just see the 460rwhp number and figure it’s the same as all the other rwhp figures they see around. Like I said obviously this is the reason you posted it, just like why you posted the SAE 510rwhp figures for your 408ci motor. It looks more impressive than the 49x STD figures. I'm sure if you wait for the weather to get a bit better you'll be able to post much better SAE dyno charts. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> In fact I understand there are currently some great barometer conditions in Texas, I'm sure MTI could post a 460-470rwhp SAE LS6 head/cam setup if they wanted. Maybe you should relocate your dyno down there for a few weeks? Of course MTI doesn’t do that, because they know its misleading. Which sums up my point on the SAE/STD argument, posting non-STD figures is misleading at best on your part.


[quote]
You are posting 442.8 SAE on a spike from hitting the rev limiter at 6,600 rpm with an open cut-out, I think that's misleading. It's probably more like 436 RWHP at 6,450. What happened? didn't have LS1-edit to bump the rev limiter?
<hr></blockquote>

Well it's not my car, just a dyno I saw on the MMS website. I have no idea what the car runs. Looking at that chart I agree that the 442 is a spike. On that same topic I noticed you haven't posted your chart, any reason?


Here is another chart I found on their site:

http://www.mmsracing.com/dyno_charts...gressor500.gif

Again with LS1 heads and without a cutout (sounds like it has a C5 loudmouth type setup). These dynos are probably over a year old, I know I've personally seen much better charts and results from the brand new parts and tuning over there. Unfortunately their web person is being seriously lazy and has not put that stuff online yet. Also I'm sure I could use charts from any of the good LS1 tuners on here. My point here is 1) you're not working in uncharted territory, and 2) I'm sure the LS6 heads have a high profit margin for you, but from my view the verdict is still out on how well they work over the LS1 heads in 346ci applications.

Visceral

iTrader: (1)

Terry,

I'm gonna be completely honest here and say I think you are completely blowing this crap out your ***.

If they put up the SAE numbers, and then we started talking about fuel, and we came down to what the STD numbers were, you would have said they were hiding something by not posting their STD numbers right out.
If some guy said that he felt mislead by a vendor who provided BOTH STD and SAE numbers, you would tell the dude how much of a retard he was and how he deserved what he got.

This kind of thing is, I suppose, par for your course and I dont mind reading past your usual keyboard diarreaha. But in this case, you are totally wasting the time of a vendor who has ahad alot of success doing something we all want to do. I would like to know what they are willing to share, but you are on here wasting their time and pretty soon they are not going to want to come back.

Previously, your crap has been tolerable in the sense that I could scroll down and no harm was done. In this case, I suspect we are gonna get alot less info out of Julio than if you had never appeared on this board. Your contributions have turned net-negative.

Surely you have better things to do with your time.......

\chris

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Visceral ]</p>

WeatherGuy

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>
. . . . .
I'm sure if you wait for the weather to get a bit better you'll be able to post much better SAE dyno charts. In fact I understand there are currently some great barometer conditions in Texas, I'm sure MTI could post a 460-470rwhp SAE LS6 head/cam setup if they wanted. Maybe you should relocate your dyno down there for a few weeks?
. . . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Currently great barometer conditions? If you mean Houston, our location at about sea level means that we always get *hit* when using SAE corrections because our surface pressure (outside of a hurricane) is always higher than the SAE specification of 990 hPa - that's never going to change regardless of the current weather. The SAE standard does not help you here. For example, my car pulled 527 RWHP uncorrected, but only 491 SAE corrected (but the air was also cool that day which increased the normal SAE hit).

But to get back to the point of it, I think the best approach is always to post the CF with any dyno chart. That gets around some of these issues.

WeatherGuy

[quote]Originally posted by Tekhombre:
<strong>


It's was too fat at torque peak (12.2/1 AF), I'm still beta testing the 2002 LS1-edit, I have some runs with 410 RWTQ SAE but the RWHP was 444 SAE. We are taking the mufflers off and retuning today, Ill post later.


Julio</strong><hr></blockquote>

Please let us know how it does later today. From what you wrote, it looks like that you have room for even *more* power than what you have obtained so far. Impressive.

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Terry, if you want the STD's removed, go see your Doctor. They have treatments for those now. <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Hahaha, LMAO Tony! Good one!