Cadillac CTS-V - LS2 Dyno Results: Headers, FAST 102




dudesweet
04-30-2012, 12:47 PM
After a successful install of Kooks 1 3/4" with HF cats and a FAST 102 ported by Tony Mamo at AFR, the car posted some decent numbers.

My baseline numbers (http://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v/1538911-baseline-ls2-dyno-results.html?highlight=dyno) (K&N CAI only) netted 336 RWHP & 335 TQ untuned.

Today the car did 381 RWHP & 368 TQ. The best run came in at 385/380, but the car didn't like it, and some timing was pulled back out of it. Better safe than sorry. So that's +45rwhp/+33tq.

While I'm happy with the results, the biggest question mark will be realizing the potential of that FAST 102. I really don't want to go much further with the car; it's my daily driver and I'd rather save the $ for a V2. But I think a small cam is in my future to seal the deal.


wcryan
04-30-2012, 01:24 PM
i'd say cam it and be done with it. Your not gonna get much from anything else, bolt on wise. Heads are expensive

ChitownLS1
04-30-2012, 01:45 PM
After a successful install of Kooks 1 3/4" with HF cats and a FAST 102 ported by Tony Mamo at AFR, the car posted some decent numbers.

My baseline numbers (http://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v/1538911-baseline-ls2-dyno-results.html?highlight=dyno) (K&N CAI only) netted 336 RWHP & 335 TQ untuned.

Today the car did 381 RWHP & 368 TQ. The best run came in at 385/380, but the car didn't like it, and some timing was pulled back out of it. Better safe than sorry. So that's +45rwhp/+33tq.

While I'm happy with the results, the biggest question mark will be realizing the potential of that FAST 102. I really don't want to go much further with the car; it's my daily driver and I'd rather save the $ for a V2. But I think a small cam is in my future to seal the deal.


Nice numbers!!

I second the cam...you should end up around 420RWHP with a very streetable cam.

Couple of questions -

How much was the FAST 102?
What launch technique did you use to get that 13.1/111 1/4 time?


dudesweet
04-30-2012, 02:30 PM
Nice numbers!!

I second the cam...you should end up around 420RWHP with a very streetable cam.

Couple of questions -

How much was the FAST 102?
What launch technique did you use to get that 13.1/111 1/4 time?
I'd say you'll spend between $1,200 & $1,500 on a ported and painted FAST 102 depending on where you get it and what you do to it. That said, call Tony or PM him directly to get some pricing. Looking back, I would have only purchased that if I knew I was going to get a cam...especially heads and cam...for sure. I still may, but less likely. Regardless, the header/FAST combo made decent numbers.

As far as my launching, I just squeeze the throttle and go. I leave everything alone including TC. And that's the reason I didn't get a 12.xx time with a 111 trap. I'm too nervous about breaking the rear end. So nice and easy for me. It was also very cold...and the -900 DA was most helpful.

garrettg
04-30-2012, 02:49 PM
After a successful install of Kooks 1 3/4" with HF cats and a FAST 102 ported by Tony Mamo at AFR, the car posted some decent numbers.

My baseline numbers (http://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v/1538911-baseline-ls2-dyno-results.html?highlight=dyno) (K&N CAI only) netted 336 RWHP & 335 TQ untuned.

Today the car did 381 RWHP & 368 TQ. The best run came in at 385/380, but the car didn't like it, and some timing was pulled back out of it. Better safe than sorry. So that's +45rwhp/+33tq.

While I'm happy with the results, the biggest question mark will be realizing the potential of that FAST 102. I really don't want to go much further with the car; it's my daily driver and I'd rather save the $ for a V2. But I think a small cam is in my future to seal the deal.

Is the fast 102 really only worth about 5hp on a stock ls2 with headers? Does the fast or any other ported intake require head porting/different heads or cam to really provide any meaningful gains?

wcryan
04-30-2012, 03:13 PM
the fast is worth it WITH supporting mods. a cam being one of them

dudesweet
04-30-2012, 03:29 PM
Definitely heads and cam. But a cam will likely add significant numbers.

That said, I don't think I only gained 5 hp with a FAST. Most of the dyno sheets I've seen with CAI/headers were in the mid-360 range. Not saying the FAST resulted in 15-20 either. Just think 5 is too low.

whisler151
04-30-2012, 03:42 PM
Great numbers!

garrettg
04-30-2012, 04:21 PM
Definitely heads and cam. But a cam will likely add significant numbers.

That said, I don't think I only gained 5 hp with a FAST. Most of the dyno sheets I've seen with CAI/headers were in the mid-360 range. Not saying the FAST resulted in 15-20 either. Just think 5 is too low.

Mid 360 sounds right for the ls6 thought ls2 was >370.

Anyway this is ls2 with just headers and hiflo cats for reference. I know our cars and dyno's are not identical but these sheets appear very similiar at all rpm's.

plastus85
04-30-2012, 04:26 PM
my ls6 was somethere in the 380's with just headers and catback

dudesweet
04-30-2012, 05:26 PM
Mid 360 sounds right for the ls6 thought ls2 was >370.

Anyway this is ls2 with just headers and hiflo cats for reference. I know our cars and dyno's are not identical but these sheets appear very similiar at all rpm's.

my ls6 was somethere in the 380's with just headers and catback

Thanks for sharing, guys. Great comparisons, and exactly what I need to see. Gives me more "cam" inspiration.

wcryan
04-30-2012, 07:27 PM
Gotta remember. Dyno is just a tool. They all read different

itsslow98
04-30-2012, 09:35 PM
I knew the 102 would be a waste of 1500+ on a bolt on only ls2. Good numbers but id sell the 102 and put a ported LS2 back on it. The sale of the 102 will fund just about an entire cam swap.

BTW why is your graph so wavy? Car have fresh plugs and what kind/gap?

dudesweet
04-30-2012, 09:44 PM
New plugs, yes. TR55s at 0.6mm.

garrettg
04-30-2012, 10:03 PM
Thanks for sharing, guys. Great comparisons, and exactly what I need to see. Gives me more "cam" inspiration.

I will be interested in what a small cam brings you since you stated daily driver earlier. I am all about putting miles on the V averaging about 20-25k a year. Let us know all the details.

dudesweet
04-30-2012, 10:14 PM
I'm thinking about a G5X1 cam from LG Motorsports...on a 114 LSA. Or a cam with similar numbers.

Tony Mamo @ AFR
05-01-2012, 12:37 AM
Those are solid gains Derrich....

Where is the overlay between the old baseline run and the new runs.

The power and especially the flat torque curve are excellent.

I also bet you there are areas in the curve comparison that show more than the peak gains you claim. The car should feel notably stronger, especially because I suspect the area under the curve gains and power past peak are pretty fat.

Considering a stock set of heads and a stock cam Im not sure how you could have realistically expected more.

Can you have your dyno shop overlay the baseline run and the run you posted above. Btw....how did you know the engine "didnt like" the tune when it was making 385 RWHP. The tuner might have simply opted to be overly safe which I see quite often. If the engine made more power it was happy or it wouldn't have made more power. Im not saying backing it off a degree or two is a bad idea, but I typically run my stuff where it makes the most power assuming the A/F ratio isn't crazy lean and there is no sign of knock retard.

Truthfully, if you weren't happy with these gains or the way the car feels now with the added power you didn't approach this in a sensible fashion. Considering your missing the two largest ingredients in the airflow (power) pipeline....Im referring to heads and cam of course, I think you should be very satisfied with your results.

The right small cam would wake this car up 45-50 RWHP with zero penalties in drivability.....get in touch with me if your thinking of going down that road.

Enjoy the new power....I bet the car feels great

-Tony

PS.....Get the overlay posted (baseline versus new curve) so folks can see the entire picture and post this in the dyno section. I bet you the general response is very positive and most would feel you got your money's worth. $50-$60 a pony is what you typically spend to improve the performance of your vehicle and the more power you make the more expensive it becomes. I would say your right in the hunt for my rule of them to be close. The cam is the biggest bang for the buck in an N/A combo but once thats out of the way expect to spend about what I said and more to improve performance.

dudesweet
05-01-2012, 08:19 AM
Thanks for chiming in, Tony. And you're right...based on several dyno sheets I found and on our discussions, I expected 380. We pulled 385 out of it and settled for 381. I'm supposed to get the baseline/mod overlay today via email. I'll post it once it's here.

As far as the 385 rwhp/380 tq run the car made, the car knocked right up at the top. The run was nearly peaked, and it coughed a couple of times right at the end. So he decided to pull a couple of degrees back off. I was happy with that decision. My priority is definitely a safe tune.

kl2onik
05-01-2012, 10:14 AM
considering it is difficult to find fast 92s around, and at times used ones sell for more than the new 102...was wondering if I went with a fast 102 and a 90tb just so I dont over do it will I lose power with a 102 vs a 92? I know the tbody will be the limiting factor for this N/A engine. However I know if I decide to ever go turbo I can change it to a 102 if needed. I have all the bolt-ons including a cam 227/233 at 113lsa. I know some people say 102 is overkill but will I lose power with it in my ls6?

Tony Mamo @ AFR
05-01-2012, 04:49 PM
Thanks for chiming in, Tony. And you're right...based on several dyno sheets I found and on our discussions, I expected 380. We pulled 385 out of it and settled for 381. I'm supposed to get the baseline/mod overlay today via email. I'll post it once it's here.

As far as the 385 rwhp/380 tq run the car made, the car knocked right up at the top. The run was nearly peaked, and it coughed a couple of times right at the end. So he decided to pull a couple of degrees back off. I was happy with that decision. My priority is definitely a safe tune.

Hi Derrich,

You may have had some false knock....the headers and the intake swap will effect the knock sensors (headers are like a pipe organ....LOL). You can adjust the sensitivity of those but safe is good. Point is I look at this exercise like you picked up 50 HP from the manifold/header swap (and a bunch of torque), and If I recall your still running the 90 mm LS2 TB (a 102 TB is worth 3-5 more....5 on a hotter combo).

The reality here is a sizable portion of the gains cam from the intake swap....not the other way around. Headers are typically worth 15 - 20 HP at most (with stock heads and cam)....maybe 15 ft/lbs of torque or so. When you do the overlay I think your going to see close to a 40 ft/lb gain in torque at 4000 RPM's! (a very bonus point in the curve to feel a gain like that).

I did some quick digging for CTSV header swaps with dyno and came up with these two snippets.

Ok, this is from CTSV_510s car (with MP112). Is the fainter line the torque? That's seems pretty flat, but is that because of the Maggie? Someone have a sheet w/o a blower?
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn240/ctsv510/dynoCC4-20-12.jpg


I gained 22 rwhp and 15rwtq with catted 1 7/8. If you think you can do noticeably better with 1 3/4 I'd like to see it lol. Headers were my favorite mod besides nitrous


In the first case the gains are with a blower which should really like a header swap and produced so-so results....the second example is a 1 7/8 header which always looks about 5 or so HP better in peak power but is usually down in torque in the lower/middle part of the power curve compared to the same header with a 1.75" primary tube.

I think when you see your overlay compared to the one above (and others) you will be glad you dropped dime on that intake and keep in mind that even with the large gains you saw from it, you haven't fully tapped into what it has to offer yet primarily due to your stock heads and cam, not to mention the proper fitting 102 TB (I'm not 100% but I think your running a ported LS2 90mm unit still with this set-up).

Realize that the better the heads the larger the gains going with a higher flowing more efficient manifold. As the heads get better, the stock manifold becomes more and more a restriction, thats why an application with a really good heads will see a larger gain swapping to the better intake but as your combination also proves, there is still alot to be had even with the stock heads and cam. As the mod bug keeps biting you some of your future gains from a cam or possibly a head swap will be from tapping into the flow this manifold has to offer that your current combo hasn't quite exploited yet.

I know you were on the fence about this and I essentially promised you results or should I say strongly encouraged you to continue down the path you had started. I hope as you read a bit more and do some digging around you will come to realize everything really did work out as best could be expected.

Alright guys....sorry for the novel!

So how does the car feel??....have you driven and played with it much?

:burn:

Cheers,
Tony

dudesweet
05-01-2012, 06:56 PM
So how does the car feel??....have you driven and played with it much?

:burn:

It actually feels great! I'm really anxious to get it down the track...esp this coming fall.

I've only run the car hard twice, once down my friend's concrete driveway (pre tune), which is pretty long (little over 1/8 mile) -- I couldn't get the tires (nearly new Goodyear RSAs) to stop spinning for a few hundred feet -- and once from 30-65ish in 2nd getting on the highway. Tires got loose there too, but gets up pretty quick.

I'm expecting about 114 or 115 in the 1/4 mile. No idea about the time since I tend to launch soft.

garrettg
05-01-2012, 09:27 PM
Hi Derrich,

The reality here is a sizable portion of the gains cam from the intake swap....not the other way around. Headers are typically worth 15 - 20 HP at most (with stock heads and cam)....maybe 15 ft/lbs of torque or so. When you do the overlay I think your going to see close to a 40 ft/lb gain in torque at 4000 RPM's! (a very bonus point in the curve to feel a gain like that).



Are you saying a stock ls2 v1 would dyno well north of 350 stock or are your inferring after other mods are done the headers become a lesser bang for the buck? I have no doubts the c6 platform can yield north of 350 stock but the v1 driveline is a hp leech. See above for my print out which was 1 7/8 kooks w/hi flow cats and tune, everything else on the car was stock except a drop in kn air filter. From the tuner - another ls2 based v1 with obx headers/cai pulled north of 380. Either their dyno is extremely generous or 35-40hp closer to the right number for a good set of headers on a stock ls2. I didn't baseline my ls2 V1 but 335-340 seems about right from other postings and the 370-380 number also seems common for header only ls2 v1's posts.

CTSV_510
05-01-2012, 09:45 PM
In the first case the gains are with a blower which should really like a header swap and produced so-so results....

That was my dyno graph and just to clarify - that was not a header swap, that was just a re-tune (by a new tuner) after a new boost a pump was installed. The 1 3/4 headers were on before the blower was. When I installed the headers on my stock V I was at ~365-370 rwhp.

Tony Mamo @ AFR
05-02-2012, 01:20 AM
Are you saying a stock ls2 v1 would dyno well north of 350 stock or are your inferring after other mods are done the headers become a lesser bang for the buck? I have no doubts the c6 platform can yield north of 350 stock but the v1 driveline is a hp leech. See above for my print out which was 1 7/8 kooks w/hi flow cats and tune, everything else on the car was stock except a drop in kn air filter. From the tuner - another ls2 based v1 with obx headers/cai pulled north of 380. Either their dyno is extremely generous or 35-40hp closer to the right number for a good set of headers on a stock ls2. I didn't baseline my ls2 V1 but 335-340 seems about right from other postings and the 370-380 number also seems common for header only ls2 v1's posts.
You guys must understand that dyno's, much like flowbenches, all read differently. While in a perfect world it would be nice if they all read the same that statement couldn't be further from the truth. Different brands and different styles of dyno's, not to mention the quality of the test cell or lack there of, all read differently so comparing data from different dyno's is really kind of a fruitless exercise. Its just not scientific at all and having been on many, while some are close, you can still see a really wide spread, especially with chassis dyno's that add more variables than an engine dyno.

What does make for extremely useful info however is changes made on the same dyno and essentially what I am saying is IMO, a larger portion of the OP's gains came from the manifold swap....not the header swap.

I have seen many header swaps on stockish engines....my own Corvette being one of them as I was doing all the typical bolt ons prior to ultimately getting deeper into the engine. While worth more on modified rides complimenting all the other airflow related mods, stock head/cam engines usually see in the vicinity of what I quoted with a long tube header install(about 15-20 HP.....15 ft/lbs of TQ) which in and of themselves are reasonably stout gains and produce a noticeable improvement in the SOTP. I saw 20 HP and 15 TQ on my C5 and it added to the fun factor for sure because the entire curve was lifted up, not just gains upstairs.

That leaves alot left to make up the difference that Derrich actually realized (achieving close to 50 HP and 30-35 ft/lbs of torque with even more gains in torque seen in various portions of the curve that will be easier to see with an overlay of the two runs).

That was my dyno graph and just to clarify - that was not a header swap, that was just a re-tune (by a new tuner) after a new boost a pump was installed. The 1 3/4 headers were on before the blower was. When I installed the headers on my stock V I was at ~365-370 rwhp.

Thanks for the clarification and that makes more sense because a blower engine will typically respond better to exhaust mods than an N/A engine. I didn't have a bunch of time earlier and quickly read your post quickly thinking the overlay you posted was the header swap.

Truthfully, whether we are discussing F-Bodys, Vettes, CTS-V's, etc. the gains seen installing a set of long tubes on basically a stock Gen III longblock (no internal mods) usually fall in the same area from the data I have experienced and seen over the years.

Sorry to sound defensive, but I see so many guys poo-poo the FAST intake for no reason (usually griping about the cost), the bottom line is its a very effective mod if you have the money to spend and can be made even more effective with the right porting and prep work (adding more to the cost and more to the net gains as well). Especially over an LS2 manifold which is arguably the worst performing factory manifold GM ever produced. The LS6 makes more power in spite of it smaller TB opening handicap because the runner design if far more important than the size of the opening to the plenum..

Another novel.....alright Im outta here.....Derrich I expect to see that overlay tomorrow!:judge:

:lol:

-Tony

06vLo
05-02-2012, 01:33 AM
I wanna add my two cents.....

This is my dyno of both my car before cam and after cam layover. The before cam mods were 1-3/4 pacesetters, no cats, magnaflow catback, ported stock manifold, and the stock airbox with a k&n...on a dyno jet.

The after dyno was the above mods with a ported tb, and the cam. I know all dynos read different but since we were talking about the power made i thought i would post mine for comparison.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b271/dnta01/altered.jpg

lilgcts-v
05-02-2012, 06:36 AM
maybe i missed it but was it a dyno jet or a mustang dyno ?

garrettg
05-02-2012, 01:15 PM
You guys must understand that dyno's, much like flowbenches, all read differently. While in a perfect world it would be nice if they all read the same that statement couldn't be further from the truth. Different brands and different styles of dyno's, not to mention the quality of the test cell or lack there of, all read differently so comparing data from different dyno's is really kind of a fruitless exercise. Its just not scientific at all and having been on many, while some are close, you can still see a really wide spread, especially with chassis dyno's that add more variables than an engine dyno.

What does make for extremely useful info however is changes made on the same dyno and essentially what I am saying is IMO, a larger portion of the OP's gains came from the manifold swap....not the header swap.

I have seen many header swaps on stockish engines....my own Corvette being one of them as I was doing all the typical bolt ons prior to ultimately getting deeper into the engine. While worth more on modified rides complimenting all the other airflow related mods, stock head/cam engines usually see in the vicinity of what I quoted with a long tube header install(about 15-20 HP.....15 ft/lbs of TQ) which in and of themselves are reasonably stout gains and produce a noticeable improvement in the SOTP. I saw 20 HP and 15 TQ on my C5 and it added to the fun factor for sure because the entire curve was lifted up, not just gains upstairs.

That leaves alot left to make up the difference that Derrich actually realized (achieving close to 50 HP and 30-35 ft/lbs of torque with even more gains in torque seen in various portions of the curve that will be easier to see with an overlay of the two runs).



Thanks for the clarification and that makes more sense because a blower engine will typically respond better to exhaust mods than an N/A engine. I didn't have a bunch of time earlier and quickly read your post quickly thinking the overlay you posted was the header swap.

Truthfully, whether we are discussing F-Bodys, Vettes, CTS-V's, etc. the gains seen installing a set of long tubes on basically a stock Gen III longblock (no internal mods) usually fall in the same area from the data I have experienced and seen over the years.

Sorry to sound defensive, but I see so many guys poo-poo the FAST intake for no reason (usually griping about the cost), the bottom line is its a very effective mod if you have the money to spend and can be made even more effective with the right porting and prep work (adding more to the cost and more to the net gains as well). Especially over an LS2 manifold which is arguably the worst performing factory manifold GM ever produced. The LS6 makes more power in spite of it smaller TB opening handicap because the runner design if far more important than the size of the opening to the plenum..

Another novel.....alright Im outta here.....Derrich I expect to see that overlay tomorrow!:judge:

:lol:

-Tony


I am sure the fast piece is helping the bottom line but there are so many dyno sheets of headers/tune providing ~30hp on the gen4 ls2 on the v1 platform that its difficult to agree with everything you have stated given the trend.

I agree these dyno's are a crap shoot and based on the most popular technology driveline weight/efficiency affects the numbers(as seen by flywheel upgrades), heck when I dyno ran mine it was wearing heavy snow tires ~4 extra pounds a tire. Does your tuner roam from shop to shop and have a good idea of what dyno is more optimistic than others or is your tuner in house? Would they say yours is known to being less optimistic than others. Do you have dyno days, do those people think your dyno is less optimistic. It just hasn't been the norm for the v1 gen3 or gen4 engines, again from those who post online to only see 20hp. Perhaps we are all getting cooked numbers. I am not trying to scare you off in fact it would be great if more people in the business posted and stated research and secrets like you have done keep the info flowing. :)

Tony Mamo @ AFR
05-02-2012, 08:58 PM
I am sure the fast piece is helping the bottom line but there are so many dyno sheets of headers/tune providing ~30hp on the gen4 ls2 on the v1 platform that its difficult to agree with everything you have stated given the trend.


Thirty ponies is just alot of power on a stock heads/cam longblock from just a header swap.

Now I will admit I am much more familiar with Vette's and F-Bodys and how they respond to a typical long tube install (and perhaps the CTS-V's have a more restrictive OEM cast manifold and respond better....I don't know), but I did a search on this forum specifically and didn't see anything like that.

Honestly in the 5 - 10 mins I spent looking there was very little in the way of documentation (before and after dyno overlays) one way or the other although I only looked specifically in the CTS-V section because I felt it would be better than providing data from other vehicles which add a variable.

Anyway, if you have some links to share I would be interested in seeing them but the facts remain even at that figure (30) which I feel is high, that leaves a good margin of gain for the manifold which alot of folks on the net would tell you is a waste of time and money....and that's just not the case, keeping in mind with better heads the manifold swap would have shined alot more.

I still suspect the average gain from a long tube install is much closer to twenty.....especially of we are discussing stock head/cam vehicles but as I said I don't have as much real world experience with the "V"'s to know for sure.

For what its worth in the next 6-12 months or so I plan on purchasing a low mileage used one for my next project cars (a newer boosted model).....its just such a practical real world refined hot rod as opposed to the Vette, which I enjoy, but its not as multi faceted as the CTS-V.

I drove a newer one recently for the first time and was extremely impressed with it....probably one of the smartest cars GM decided to build.

:usa:

Cheers,
Tony

garrettg
05-02-2012, 09:57 PM
Thirty ponies is just alot of power on a stock heads/cam longblock from just a header swap.

Now I will admit I am much more familiar with Vette's and F-Bodys and how they respond to a typical long tube install (and perhaps the CTS-V's have a more restrictive OEM cast manifold and respond better....I don't know), but I did a search on this forum specifically and didn't see anything like that.

Honestly in the 5 - 10 mins I spent looking there was very little in the way of documentation (before and after dyno overlays) one way or the other although I only looked specifically in the CTS-V section because I felt it would be better than providing data from other vehicles which add a variable.

Anyway, if you have some links to share I would be interested in seeing them but the facts remain even at that figure (30) which I feel is high, that leaves a good margin of gain for the manifold which alot of folks on the net would tell you is a waste of time and money....and that's just not the case, keeping in mind with better heads the manifold swap would have shined alot more.

I still suspect the average gain from a long tube install is much closer to twenty.....especially of we are discussing stock head/cam vehicles but as I said I don't have as much real world experience with the "V"'s to know for sure.

For what its worth in the next 6-12 months or so I plan on purchasing a low mileage used one for my next project cars (a newer boosted model).....its just such a practical real world refined hot rod as opposed to the Vette, which I enjoy, but its not as multi faceted as the CTS-V.

I drove a newer one recently for the first time and was extremely impressed with it....probably one of the smartest cars GM decided to build.

:usa:

Cheers,
Tony

Most of the dyno sheets seem to get posted on the other site. Google using site:<site> works decent for searching that site.

You had to speak of the V2 now I will be thinking about it again. Don't need a v2 don't need a v2 don't need a v2 luckily it doesn't have a 22+ gallon tank like the new m5 otherwise I would have a v2 and I drive 20k+ a year in all climates and even have a hitch on my v.

dudesweet
05-03-2012, 05:43 PM
Tuner sent me the overlay, but with the wrong baseline run. Actually, this was the third baseline run...the second netted the higher 336HP number that I posted originally. That said, this gives an idea of the before and after KOOKS headers/FAST 102.

garrettg
05-03-2012, 08:17 PM
right on with the baseline

both assume proper tune still believe
35-40 headers
6-11 intake

More importantly have you dropped the clutch on that beast yet?

itsslow98
05-03-2012, 09:36 PM
Tuner sent me the overlay, but with the wrong baseline run. Actually, this was the third baseline run...the second netted the higher 336HP number that I posted originally. That said, this gives an idea of the before and after KOOKS headers/FAST 102.

Id be figuring out why the graph is so wavy.

garrettg
05-03-2012, 09:55 PM
Id be figuring out why the graph is so wavy.

^^ ya also looked like the baseline pull stumbled a touch as well
Did you do new plug wires with the plugs?

dudesweet
05-03-2012, 11:33 PM
Yeah...wondering that as well. Smoothing is 5, so it should be fine. My plugs and wires are brand new. Really shouldn't be so wavy.

More importantly have you dropped the clutch on that beast yet?

Not yet. LS7 clutch is in the plan. Just not in the budget.

dudesweet
06-11-2012, 08:09 PM
I ended up getting a pull at one of the local tuners in town since I was there getting my DMH cutouts wired up. Turns out the dyno results were nearly identical. Another identical characteristic was the fact that I'm getting a fair amount of jumpiness at the top of my curve as well as a little pull in timing.

What's even more discouraging is that there was a 6.0L GTO that pulled before me with a FAST 102 (not ported by Tony Mamo...or anyone else) and headers...same exact mods as my car plus a catback that pulled 402 RWHP and 392 TQ.

Anyway, here's my run with 0 smoothing. Looks like it wants to crawl higher, and then some timing pull. Ugh!

Gabbiani
06-12-2012, 08:43 AM
Where are the SAE numbers? I see a graph with 1.04STD and a 1.06STD.
I'm afraid to put mine on the dyno again. Know I will be disappointed.

dudesweet
06-12-2012, 11:35 AM
I'm assuming those STD figures are different due to the weather conditions. When it comes down to it, I don't put a lot of stock into dyno #'s. Rather just a tool to measure relative increases. The real #'s come at the track for me.

vmapper
06-12-2012, 03:14 PM
Where are the SAE numbers? I see a graph with 1.04STD and a 1.06STD.
I'm afraid to put mine on the dyno again. Know I will be disappointed.

The graph you see and the peak numbers within the chart ARE the STD numbers.
The operator would have to change to SAE to see the SAE numbers. Its easy if one has the dlf/drf file and winpep 7 on their workstation to view the run file. and you can then look at any number, make cross hairs, compare other runs...
If he has the file, I can change for him.

I usually print out STD, SAE and an Uncorrected.

In this case, based on the weather conditions, a correction was added of approx 4% for one run and 6 % for the other.
This correction varies as weather (air) varies, as for STD (or the others), there is a formula to bring the hp and tq value to a reference using the Dyno Baro, temperature and other sensors.

Ideally, if all sensors are calibrated correctly, the dyno was operated correctly, removal of tire spin (tied down correctly), regardless of which day, the curve should be the SAME! (except for Uncorrected - as this is your at that DA at that time).

Dyno (same brands) variances are from crap operators, crap maintenance on the actual dyno, crap maintenance of dyno air sensors or inability to operate and configure the software. or heat soaking the engine or lack of or any other little habit. SAE for example is a Standardized Engineering and is accurate or NA combustion engines.
Turbos should ONLY BE UNCORRECTED as a waste-gate allows for PSI to be reached regardless of air density (sea level or denver - your manifold will hit 15psi for example.. just at a different ramp rate. There are other considerations such as leaving the turbo efficiency map or actually hitting the turbo limit.. but I wont get into that.
Adding correction (SAE for example) only falsely adds HP/TQ.
Belt driven blowers is fine for correction, as its fixed based on RPM, unless one is using a wastegate (again) on the intake or a restrictor plate.

dudesweet
06-12-2012, 03:19 PM
Thanks for the explanation, vmapper. Extremely helpful!

CTSVBiggie
06-12-2012, 03:49 PM
Nice numbers I was at about 363 with headers. Then cammed without a FAST... 398whp.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/546448_3635731417627_1198998489_n.jpg