Welcome to the FirebirdV6.com/CamaroV6.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Drag strip and GTECH is completely different. I know a guy that used a gtech and it wasn't even close to what is car ran at the strip fwiw
Do you not floor the car and hold it there untill the you complete the 1/4 mile for both? Your taking the same chance at " blowing it up" regardless where you run it at.
Guys,
I think we are missing the forest for the trees here. The reason I posted this is because the numbers sound a little unbelievable. However, the car "felt" MUCH quicker. The GTech data is not Drag Strip data. My "test environment" was not Drag Strip flat and the GTech is not calibrated and does not account for temperature and atmospheric pressure.
That being said, you cannot completely dismiss the GTech data either. Here are the facts:
1. The pre-Magnaflow runs were spot on for a mostly stock car, implying no more than a few percent measurement error in the older set of runs. This implies that the newer runs should have similar accuracy.
2. Both sets of runs were performed in the same area, eliminating one source of error.
3. Even if the GTech was "broken" in some way, my "butt dyno" measured a clear increase in acceleration and torque over stock, particularly over 4,000 RPM.
Lots of people have cat-forward mods (headers) or cat-back systems, but I haven't seen many posts documenting the improvements due to the Magnaflow cat itself. The stock cat is the largest obstruction in the exhaust flow. If their cat (which is really a larger diameter mandrel-belt Y-pipe assembly with an integrated high-flow Cat) flows as well as Magnaflow claims, there SHOULD be a significant increase over the cat-back by itself or even a cat-back with headers and a stock (or stock like) cat.
I should also emphasize that the stock Y-pipe is a tiny-tubed, restrictive piece of garbage that looks like it was "bent up" by Cousin Skeeter in his shed. If anyone has installed headers on a stock Y-pipe, you have left a lot of power on the table. That part is HORRIBLE! GM could have done so much better.
Has anyone else used this part/assembly in their setup? If so, what was your experience?
1997 Camaro, Y87 Perf. Package, iRotor Drilled & Slotted Brakes, Bilstien Shocks, Custom drive shaft, K&N Filter, & Mobil 1 synthetic. 202+K miles and still drives like new.<br />-If you can\'t stomp \'em in the straights, kill \'em in the corners...
Ok, I think I've figured out the "miracle." After looking more closely at the GTech data, I realized that my fastest runs showed significantly more "power" in second gear. This prompted me to take another look at my test location. Turns out the end of the "course" has a slight downhill grade. I'm guessing this accounted for the phantom horsepower.
I found a flatter test location and recorded a more reasonable 0-60 of 6.8 sec and 1/4 of 15.09 @91.6 mph. These numbers are not perfect for sure, but they seem a lot more plausible.
BTW: This series of GTech has a pitch factor setting that effectively changes the G-level at which it starts measuring your run. You are supposed to be able to adjust this setting to get the meter to match your time slips. I have not calibrated my meter, so this adds some more uncertainty on top of my numbers. At this point, I'm kind of stuck with my current settings so that I can compare new runs with old ones. Still, I think the real story here is the improvement over my best stock numbers (~7.5 sec 0-60 & 15.7 @88 mph).
A 0.6-0.7 sec improvement for less than the cost of stock replacement parts isn't bad.
@Brian: Maybe I will come out to the track just to calibrate the GTech. I blew my heater bypass elbow collecting data to feed this thread, but I forgot how much I enjoyed wrenching on the old girl. If she breaks, she ban probably be fixed. ;-)
1997 Camaro, Y87 Perf. Package, iRotor Drilled & Slotted Brakes, Bilstien Shocks, Custom drive shaft, K&N Filter, & Mobil 1 synthetic. 202+K miles and still drives like new.<br />-If you can\'t stomp \'em in the straights, kill \'em in the corners...
The part that failed is a very crappy plastic unit. It did last a loooong time, but it literally snapped at both ends. (I'll upload a video soon showing the failure). I ordered the Dorman aluminum version online for $10. Works great.
Be warned, if this part hasn't failed yet, It will.
1997 Camaro, Y87 Perf. Package, iRotor Drilled & Slotted Brakes, Bilstien Shocks, Custom drive shaft, K&N Filter, & Mobil 1 synthetic. 202+K miles and still drives like new.<br />-If you can\'t stomp \'em in the straights, kill \'em in the corners...
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment