2011 C6 ZR1 vs 2013 GT500
08-14-2012, 07:07 PM
#43
9 Second Club
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clear up some confusion about the GT500 dyno numbers this was posted in the other thread:
And for reference, the ZR1 in this vid has Intake/Tune and put down 535rwhp on a Mustang dyno, right on par with what OP claim for the ZR1 in the video.
To clear some things up...
We tuned the gt500. It made 680/722 on our superflow.
Its making 700 ft/lbs by 2800 rpm. I don't think the roll speed matters too much in this case, the torque curve (plateau?) is nuts. Had to roll into the throttle in 4th gear on the dyno to keep the tires from spinning...
We tuned the gt500. It made 680/722 on our superflow.
Its making 700 ft/lbs by 2800 rpm. I don't think the roll speed matters too much in this case, the torque curve (plateau?) is nuts. Had to roll into the throttle in 4th gear on the dyno to keep the tires from spinning...
Last edited by UBoysPlayBall?; 08-14-2012 at 07:19 PM.
08-14-2012, 09:16 PM
#44
I find no reason to see 15-20whp for a CAI unreasonable, ESPECIALLY on a blower car. I'd be willing to bet those numbers are very realistic in terms of real world.
Secondly, I've purchased many items from C&L dating back to my pushrod 5.0 days and have never been disappointed or saw any "bogus" claims with their products. That has been my experience with them.
Secondly, I've purchased many items from C&L dating back to my pushrod 5.0 days and have never been disappointed or saw any "bogus" claims with their products. That has been my experience with them.
2 reasons why C&L sucks in regards to their meters....
1. Tolerance stack ups - There is a tolerance associated with physical machining. The sample tubes can vary, as well as the housing diameter. In OEM and other Aftermarket meters this is corrected for by the fact that the meters output 'calibration' is done after the sensor is installed. OEM and other Aftermarkets literally put the meter on a flowbench. With C&L you are dropping in a stock sensor, and hoping for the best.
2. Sampling Location - Airflow is not even around a turn. Think of water flowing down a straight creek, then coming to a sharp right hand turn... The inertia of the water will make the water want to run to the outer edges of the turn. Air does the same thing. You feel this inertia when making a turn in your car; we refer to it as 'g-force'.
Now think about where the C&L flow sampling is done.... On the very outside edge of the inner diameter of the housing.
This is why 'clocking' the C&L meters can be so critical to their performance.
Issue 1 can be correctly fairly easily with tuning, but it takes time. Usually the dyno shops aren't willing to spend any more time on a car than they have to, so that they can tune more cars per day. They want a meter that is FAST to calibrate.
Issue 2 is more difficult to correct, as it takes special care in the intake tract to keep sharp bends away from the MAF.
C&L really does suck. It is by far the work MAF option we have for Fox bodies and their HP claims in ads were flat out wrong. I won't even go into their claims for 2valves and 3 valves I had experience with.
Now back to the thread....
08-14-2012, 09:28 PM
#45
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Greenhaven/ South Sacramento 'Burbs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I don't have an experience with their kit for the Gt500. However their MAF meters for the old 5.0 were terrible. A lot of cars couldn't even idle with them. How anyone can claim a HP increase with one(they claimed 15 at the wheels were criminal.
2 reasons why C&L sucks in regards to their meters....
1. Tolerance stack ups - There is a tolerance associated with physical machining. The sample tubes can vary, as well as the housing diameter. In OEM and other Aftermarket meters this is corrected for by the fact that the meters output 'calibration' is done after the sensor is installed. OEM and other Aftermarkets literally put the meter on a flowbench. With C&L you are dropping in a stock sensor, and hoping for the best.
2. Sampling Location - Airflow is not even around a turn. Think of water flowing down a straight creek, then coming to a sharp right hand turn... The inertia of the water will make the water want to run to the outer edges of the turn. Air does the same thing. You feel this inertia when making a turn in your car; we refer to it as 'g-force'.
Now think about where the C&L flow sampling is done.... On the very outside edge of the inner diameter of the housing.
This is why 'clocking' the C&L meters can be so critical to their performance.
Issue 1 can be correctly fairly easily with tuning, but it takes time. Usually the dyno shops aren't willing to spend any more time on a car than they have to, so that they can tune more cars per day. They want a meter that is FAST to calibrate.
Issue 2 is more difficult to correct, as it takes special care in the intake tract to keep sharp bends away from the MAF.
C&L really does suck. It is by far the work MAF option we have for Fox bodies and their HP claims in ads were flat out wrong. I won't even go into their claims for 2valves and 3 valves I had experience with.
Now back to the thread....
2 reasons why C&L sucks in regards to their meters....
1. Tolerance stack ups - There is a tolerance associated with physical machining. The sample tubes can vary, as well as the housing diameter. In OEM and other Aftermarket meters this is corrected for by the fact that the meters output 'calibration' is done after the sensor is installed. OEM and other Aftermarkets literally put the meter on a flowbench. With C&L you are dropping in a stock sensor, and hoping for the best.
2. Sampling Location - Airflow is not even around a turn. Think of water flowing down a straight creek, then coming to a sharp right hand turn... The inertia of the water will make the water want to run to the outer edges of the turn. Air does the same thing. You feel this inertia when making a turn in your car; we refer to it as 'g-force'.
Now think about where the C&L flow sampling is done.... On the very outside edge of the inner diameter of the housing.
This is why 'clocking' the C&L meters can be so critical to their performance.
Issue 1 can be correctly fairly easily with tuning, but it takes time. Usually the dyno shops aren't willing to spend any more time on a car than they have to, so that they can tune more cars per day. They want a meter that is FAST to calibrate.
Issue 2 is more difficult to correct, as it takes special care in the intake tract to keep sharp bends away from the MAF.
C&L really does suck. It is by far the work MAF option we have for Fox bodies and their HP claims in ads were flat out wrong. I won't even go into their claims for 2valves and 3 valves I had experience with.
Now back to the thread....
08-14-2012, 11:51 PM
#47
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Greenhaven/ South Sacramento 'Burbs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
08-15-2012, 01:57 AM
#50
To clear some things up...
We tuned the gt500. It made 680/722 on our superflow.
Its making 700 ft/lbs by 2800 rpm. I don't think the roll speed matters too much in this case, the torque curve (plateau?) is nuts. Had to roll into the throttle in 4th gear on the dyno to keep the tires from spinning...
Posted by: Mike@DiabloSport
in Multimedia Exchange
We tuned the gt500. It made 680/722 on our superflow.
Its making 700 ft/lbs by 2800 rpm. I don't think the roll speed matters too much in this case, the torque curve (plateau?) is nuts. Had to roll into the throttle in 4th gear on the dyno to keep the tires from spinning...
Posted by: Mike@DiabloSport
in Multimedia Exchange
