'99 M6 with boltons... low #'s?
#21
TECH Resident
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long island, NY
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I havent dyno'd it since I put on the LT's, ory and LS6 intake. I just had them installed last week. I am expecting in the 340-350rwhp range. I will be happy as long as it's at least 340.
#22
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by KB99WS6
I havent dyno'd it since I put on the LT's, ory and LS6 intake. I just had them installed last week. I am expecting in the 340-350rwhp range. I will be happy as long as it's at least 340.
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
#23
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I put down 340 (oops...not 430) rwhp, 340 rwtq on my 1999 with an LS1 intake and the A/F ratio was around 11.5:1
Are your duals mandrel bent?
Additionally, the dip in your graph may be caused by a dirty MAF sensor...a friend of mine had the same dip in his dyno graph and it was because the MAF sensor had some debris on the screen and some K&N filter oil on the resistors.
Are your duals mandrel bent?
Additionally, the dip in your graph may be caused by a dirty MAF sensor...a friend of mine had the same dip in his dyno graph and it was because the MAF sensor had some debris on the screen and some K&N filter oil on the resistors.
Last edited by NOBR8KSS; 11-11-2004 at 02:31 PM.
#24
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by NOBR8KSS
I put down 430 rwhp, 340 rwtq on my 1999 with an LS1 intake and the A/F ratio was around 11.5:1
Are your duals mandrel bent?
Are your duals mandrel bent?
![EEK !!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_eek2.gif)
No mine are not mandrel bent. I'm thinking that could be costing me. Hmmm... I will check out my MAF for gunk. Any cleaning advice?
#25
On The Tree
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
Indeed I do have an LS6 intake. Ricekillman, are your numbers with the Ford rear and the 4.10's? Because both of those cost power on the dyno. Also, the flowmaster exhaust is not known for putting out good #'s. (although it is quite known for sweeeet sound)
My point? I should be making a lot more than you, but I'm not. I dunno, maybe it's just that I need tuning...
My point? I should be making a lot more than you, but I'm not. I dunno, maybe it's just that I need tuning...
Last edited by ricekillman; 11-10-2004 at 06:26 PM.
#27
On The Tree
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Rafael, CA
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
So, ricekill, to sum up what you're saying is that dyno variation and tuning would account for the kind of differances I am seeing and that I don't have anything to worry about?
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
![Icon Confused](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_confused.gif)
Last edited by ricekillman; 11-10-2004 at 06:39 PM.
#28
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: miami, florida
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
your car is fine man. once u tune and do the rest you should be where you should be at. dont expect crazy numbers like the 01s or 02 ls1s though. they have revised heads and a smaller cam that performs a little better and therefore it puts down more power. i put down 328rwhp untuned before my ls6 intake and cam and totally untuned.
after cam, tune and intake i gained 35rwhp which is where i should be at. granted, i see many people putting down more than what i put down, but once again not all cars are the same. 99s for some reason were never strong as other years.
after cam, tune and intake i gained 35rwhp which is where i should be at. granted, i see many people putting down more than what i put down, but once again not all cars are the same. 99s for some reason were never strong as other years.
#29
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by whitecamaross
dont expect crazy numbers like the 01s or 02 ls1s though. they have revised heads and a smaller cam that performs a little better and therefore it puts down more power.
Sorry It's taking me so long to post the graphs; I just keep forgetting to bring them to work.
#30
TECH Resident
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long island, NY
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I never even realized the 01-02's had revised heads. Whitecamaro, your HP seems a little low. I think a ported TB may get you to hit 370. Your track time and mph is good though so I am thinking that your dyno just reads a little lower than some others. I have seen plenty of other people with more power listed in their sig but not as good of a trap speed or e.t. I think dyno variances from one to the next and one day to the next make a big difference.
#32
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: miami, florida
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i am m6. i dont know if it was the fact that it was 85 degrees here in fl or the fact that i drove 2 hrs and 30 min away to get tuned. car sat down for about 1 hr before going on the dyno. also, there was a kid there with a 00 trans am who got it dynoed and he put down 395rwhp with the same cam i have and heads?? i dont know, perhaps it is the a/f ratio which is set at 13.5 across the board. i have 368ft/lbs of tq which is more than my hp. i do love the tq on this cam across the board, but yes i agree that my hp is low. once again, i wouldnt buy a 99 ls1 again if i had to do it all over again. also, my e.t. is my first time out with m/t drag radials. i didnt know how hard i should launch with them, i heated them up nicely, but i have the crappy master cylinder so when i launched at 3k my clutch stayed on the floor. after it was all said and done i went around the wate box and staged. i launched at 3k and didnt spin at all, but bogged which gave me a best 60 of 1.98. that was it. that was the best 60 foot i could get all night after 8 passes. i think that if i could drop it to 1.7s i could easily go 12
12.2-12.3 which is where i should be at with this cam considering that i have full weight, stock gears.
12.2-12.3 which is where i should be at with this cam considering that i have full weight, stock gears.
#34
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: miami, florida
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by davered00ss
Your #'s seem good to me they are just like mine w/similar mods.
#35
TECH Addict
iTrader: (70)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by NOBR8KSS
oops...not 430 rwhp, 340 rwtq on my 1999 with an LS1 intake and the A/F ratio was around 11.5:1
Are your duals mandrel bent?
Additionally, the dip in your graph may be caused by a dirty MAF sensor...a friend of mine had the same dip in his dyno graph and it was because the MAF sensor had some debris on the screen and some K&N filter oil on the resistors.
Are your duals mandrel bent?
Additionally, the dip in your graph may be caused by a dirty MAF sensor...a friend of mine had the same dip in his dyno graph and it was because the MAF sensor had some debris on the screen and some K&N filter oil on the resistors.
#36
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
![EEK !!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_eek2.gif)
No mine are not mandrel bent. I'm thinking that could be costing me. Hmmm... I will check out my MAF for gunk. Any cleaning advice?
Stock with lid and loudmouth cat-back: 318 rwhp, 326 rwtq
Lid, MAC headers, 2.5" crush bent w/ x-pipe & Dynomax bullets: 308 rwhp, 311 rwtq
Lid, MAC headers, Lane's 2.5" mandrel bent duals w/ Dr. Gas x-pipe and 14" Magnaflow mufflers: 340 rwhp, 340 rwtq
PCM had stock tuning in all three cases.
As for cleaning the MAF, just get some q-tips and some carb cleaner/brake cleaner/ electric parts cleaner. Wet the q-tips with the cleaner and VERY GENTLY clean the resistors on the MAF. Than spray them with the cleaner to remove any residue. I would spray the MAF screen also in case it has oil on it.
#37
TECH Resident
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long island, NY
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
whitecamaro, I don't know why you are singling out 99's, I think it's just the simple fact that 01' & 02's seem to perform slightly better on average than all models prior to 01'. I don't think there is anything wrong with 99's. just look at you 1/4 mile times... 12.59@113 looks pretty impressive to me for a full weight fbody with stock cam and heads. Your dyno number's are clearly low relative to your track perfromance. Where evre you take it to get dyno'd obviously reads low...similar to a mustang dyno.
NOBR8KSS,
I can't figure out your middle dyno numbers at all. Since you mentioned the MAF cleaning, was that the problem on the 2nd dyno?? Adding Headers, Y-pipe and bullets obviously should not make you lose 10rwhp and 15rwtq. Was this all the same dyno?? Either way those 2nd dyno numbers are insanely low for the mods.
NOBR8KSS,
I can't figure out your middle dyno numbers at all. Since you mentioned the MAF cleaning, was that the problem on the 2nd dyno?? Adding Headers, Y-pipe and bullets obviously should not make you lose 10rwhp and 15rwtq. Was this all the same dyno?? Either way those 2nd dyno numbers are insanely low for the mods.
#38
11 Second Club
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I agree with whitecamaro. I started a similar post a few months back and the overwhelming responses about low dynos were from 99 owners. My m6 dynoed 296 rwhp with a lid. Very low compared to other years.
#39
TECH Resident
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long island, NY
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
you are saying lower than 00's AND 98's?? It seems to me 98-00's are all the same but the 01' & 02's dyno higher. Not sure what would make 99's less powerful. Is there anything unique to the engine/drivetrain in 1999?
#40
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: miami, florida
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by KB99WS6
you are saying lower than 00's AND 98's?? It seems to me 98-00's are all the same but the 01' & 02's dyno higher. Not sure what would make 99's less powerful. Is there anything unique to the engine/drivetrain in 1999?
the only thing i have learned since owning this car is that dyno numbers dont mean ****. it is track numbers what count and right now i know i have a low 12 sec ls1 in my hands, but i just havent had the ***** to get it off the line the way i should.