ZL1 in sheeps clothing-STAGE 1

[ADM PERFORMANCE]

GMHTP Magazine Test Vagon- April 2012 Issue

In the April 2012 issue of GM High Tech Performance we are showing an ADM Performance Stage I intallation and dyno test. The subject vehicle is my '12 Opulent blue, manual trans wagon which was special ordered at Sewell Cadillac of Dallas and delivered in September of 2011. The Stage I kit in this configuration consists of a LPE 2.55 upper pulley, LPE solid isolator, ADM ported snout, Halltech Stinger Intake and an ADM HO tune. Since the magazine will likely hit subscribers mailboxes in a few days, here's a tease of the STOCK dyno numbers and conditions.

Date test performed: November 29, 2011
Dynojet 224X Dyno
ADM's Temperature controlled dyno facility
Tires set at factory specified ratings
Stock- No tuning
Mileage: 860 miles
Service: Oil change at 608 miles with Mobil 1 5W30
Gasoline: Exxon 93, Tank-Full

All GMHTP procedures followed (strapping technique, tire pressures, dyno equipment inspection; etc.)

SAE correction factor: .98
Rear wheel horsepower: 524.8 at 6125 rpm
Rear wheel torque: 521.2 at 3775 rpm
Run conditions: 72.21 degrees F, 29.50-in HG
Coolant temp 178 start, 180 finish
Boost- 9.44 max, 8.18 average

Once the magazine gets to subscribers I will post the results of Test 2 (Halltech Stinger Intake with no tuning) and the ADM Performance Stage I kit. Many thanks goes out to ADM Performance and Andy Meges for accomodating all that goes into a one-day marathon session to complete the dyno testing, labor and camera intrusion involved. ADM did a top-notch job in all aspects and was excellent to work with.

See post below from Scott Parker, editor of GMHTP for links to graphs on the GMHTP website.

Regards,
Randy Allen
Authors magazine name:Randall D. Allen
Article Title: ZL1 in Sheep's Clothing
Share

[Camaro21]

[radz28]

AH HA!!! IT WAS YOU GUYS, LOL!!! That was a cool article. I haven't gotten a chance to completely go through it, but my preview was promising

That CTS-V was a FREAK!!!

Excellent work

It was interesting in the article they say that they though a lower pulley would be more obvious... Did I interperate that correctly? I mean - the first think you see is the upper pulley, so I didn't really understand what they were trying to convey with the lower pulley. I can see maybe because of labelling and such, but all that stuff is removable, isn't it? Also - isn't it more desirable to play with the lower pulley instead of a smaller upper for belt slip?

I'm definately going to be doing both pulleys on my car. I'm going to have to see what inlet elbow and air box work I'm going to have to do. This was an excellent write-up that I think is directly relatable in this Section.

Excellent work, once again, Andy






SPOILER:
















The outcome of this article is quite eye-opening to the potential of LSA, even with the smaller 1900. If anyone is still worried about the 'Stain from Dearborn - this might help ease your mind a little

[Mr.R]

I would love to put on a cold air intake and a mild to wild switch on my future ZL1. I would also love to take it to the track once in a while. As the ZL1 has factory warranty for track use - WOW (if the car is not modified - whatever the extent of that is), I wouldn't want to void it.
What do you suggest will constitute a breach of the warranty provision or better yet, what are you allowed to do before it voids it?
Thanks!

[ADM PERFORMANCE]

Originally Posted by Mr.R

I would love to put on a cold air intake and a mild to wild switch on my future ZL1. I would also love to take it to the track once in a while. As the ZL1 has factory warranty for track use - WOW (if the car is not modified - whatever the extent of that is), I wouldn't want to void it.
What do you suggest will constitute a breach of the warranty provision or better yet, what are you allowed to do before it voids it?
Thanks!

"I wouldn't want to void it."

Than leave it alone.Dont try to pull a fast one with GM EVER!

Accept responsibility for you actions,Like all the others on this forum do!

[hognutz]

Originally Posted by Mr.R

I would love to put on a cold air intake and a mild to wild switch on my future ZL1. I would also love to take it to the track once in a while. As the ZL1 has factory warranty for track use - WOW (if the car is not modified - whatever the extent of that is), I wouldn't want to void it.
What do you suggest will constitute a breach of the warranty provision or better yet, what are you allowed to do before it voids it?
Thanks!

talk to your dealer. mild to wild can't void the waranty.

Catbacks I have never had an issue with. Cold air on most cars I have not but I have heard stories of boosted cars having issues here but in court unless they could prove it leaned you out I can't see them winning.

pulley and tune unless the dealership did something special with you would void you waranty 99.9% of the time. It takes the engine outside the parameters it was designed for.

To me the bottom line is you don't want any supprises so before you mod talk to the people that do your waranty work. the internet is not always an accurate source for this kind of info I hear things all the time that contradict my experience. I have never had an issue because I have always cleared mods if with the dealer if I wanted to keep my waranty.

they do have to prove the mod caused the damage if you go to court though to deny you. read up on the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act.

[stlrammer]

When I'm out of warranty I"ll be looking at mods. Until then I only did airaid cold air induction and chevy factoy axel back pipes.

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by hognutz

they do have to prove the mod caused the damage if you go to court though to deny you. read up on the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act.

This is probably the most misunderstood document in the history of the internet. The intent of the MM Act was so dealers couldn't hold us hostage replacing parts on our cars like fan belts,alternators,batteries & the like. That's the long & short of it.

Somehow,the guys at SEMA latched onto the MM Act on performance parts. But there has never been a case of the MM Act being succesfully litigated when performance parts were involved. Not one.

The bottom line is you can believe all you want that the dealer has to prove the part caused the failure. The truth is though they can deny warranty coverage at their discretion & it's ultimately up to you to take them to court if you choose. And you can bet your bottom dollar that GM has a battery of lawyers well versed for anything you may come up with.

As a last,I'm still waiting on GM(not some magazine) to say that tracked cars will be warrantied.

[ADM PERFORMANCE]

Originally Posted by Wondering

This is probably the most misunderstood document in the history of the internet. The intent of the MM Act was so dealers couldn't hold us hostage replacing parts on our cars like fan belts,alternators,batteries & the like. That's the long & short of it.

Somehow,the guys at SEMA latched onto the MM Act on performance parts. But there has never been a case of the MM Act being succesfully litigated when performance parts were involved. Not one.

The bottom line is you can believe all you want that the dealer has to prove the part caused the failure. The truth is though they can deny warranty coverage at their discretion & it's ultimately up to you to take them to court if you choose. And you can bet your bottom dollar that GM has a battery of lawyers well versed for anything you may come up with.

As a last,I'm still waiting on GM(not some magazine) to say that tracked cars will be warrantied.

Amen

[hognutz]

Originally Posted by Wondering

This is probably the most misunderstood document in the history of the internet. The intent of the MM Act was so dealers couldn't hold us hostage replacing parts on our cars like fan belts,alternators,batteries & the like. That's the long & short of it.

Somehow,the guys at SEMA latched onto the MM Act on performance parts. But there has never been a case of the MM Act being succesfully litigated when performance parts were involved. Not one.

The bottom line is you can believe all you want that the dealer has to prove the part caused the failure. The truth is though they can deny warranty coverage at their discretion & it's ultimately up to you to take them to court if you choose. And you can bet your bottom dollar that GM has a battery of lawyers well versed for anything you may come up with.

As a last,I'm still waiting on GM(not some magazine) to say that tracked cars will be warrantied.

they can but there are regional reps, the law etc. I have never had a car that I did not lightly mod. I have never had a car that did not get warantied if the part was the defective.

period.

So I always read people online saying you can't mod or a dealer will void you waranty and it is just not true. you just have to chose what mods and you also have to be forceful with the dealership. I know dealerships that will try to get out of performing TSB's but they can't if you forceful.

IE the clutch last year in my Z06 they did not want to waranty but I really did not give them a choice they admited it was defective so they fixed it under waranty. I can't count the number of times I have read clutch was not covered by waranty. Then again I work in engineering and I work on cars so I know when they are lying.

now if you have a real life experience to back up you statment then maybe it is true but my Z06 is not bone stock so why was my waranty not voided like you say?

Civil litigation gets settled out of cour most of the time. In my personal experience car waranty is alot like health coverage. if you go in and they just say no and you don't push the answer will be no. Now if you ask the right questions talk to the right people that no can turn into a yes. that act also covers the lemon law and if your trying to say there has never been a succesful litigation of the lemon law I think you facts might not be in line. Unless the manufacturer has always caved before it went to a final decision.

my 2007 Z06 clutch was like this and my 2008 C6 coupe transmission was like this. they wanted to repair the transsmision I wanted a new one. only had 170mils.

both cars had cold air, diablo tune, catback. nothing big but not stock.

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by hognutz

they can but there are regional reps, the law etc. I have never had a car that I did not lightly mod. I have never had a car that did not get warantied if the part was the defective.

period.

So I always read people online saying you can't mod or a dealer will void you waranty and it is just not true. you just have to chose what mods and you also have to be forceful with the dealership. I know dealerships that will try to get out of performing TSB's but they can't if you forceful.

IE the clutch last year in my Z06 they did not want to waranty but I really did not give them a choice they admited it was defective so they fixed it under waranty. I can't count the number of times I have read clutch was not covered by waranty. Then again I work in engineering and I work on cars so I know when they are lying.

now if you have a real life experience to back up you statment then maybe it is true but my Z06 is not bone stock so why was my waranty not voided like you say?

Civil litigation gets settled out of cour most of the time. In my personal experience car waranty is alot like health coverage. if you go in and they just say no and you don't push the answer will be no. Now if you ask the right questions talk to the right people that no can turn into a yes. that act also covers the lemon law and if your trying to say there has never been a succesful litigation of the lemon law I think you facts might not be in line. Unless the manufacturer has always caved before it went to a final decision.

my 2007 Z06 clutch was like this and my 2008 C6 coupe transmission was like this. they wanted to repair the transsmision I wanted a new one. only had 170mils.

both cars had cold air, diablo tune, catback. nothing big but not stock.

The MM law(federal) has nothing to do with lemon laws which vary from state to state. And good for you(no sarcasm intended) for getting them to replace your clutch under warranty. Gm does consider the clutch a wear item,but I've seen clutches replaced many times under warranty when there was an obvious defect.

The main point of my post was if someone has a modded car(other than a CAI & exhaust), don't expect the words "Magnusson-Moss" to be magical & get GM to change their stance.

[AC Promotions]

In regards to the lower pulley being more obvious, here is the owners perspective (me). When you open the CTS-V hood the engine cover hides the upper pulley and you can't see the lower pulley. If the wagon was put on a lift the lower pulley would be more obvious. As stated in other posts mod at your own risk. My dealers service manager and sales manager were both informed of the changes so there was no deception involved with the dealer at all. It's meant to be stock appearing not hide from dealership appearing. With that out of the way, the second test was installing a Halltech Stinger Intake which used the stock airbox and a K&N flat panel filter. Andy modified the airbox to enlarge the front opening. With no tuning the combination increased power on pull one and finally pull two (results below). The wagon never left the dyno room and there have been no check engine lights to this day:


SAE correction factor: .99
Rear wheel horsepower: 548.1 at 6175 rpm
Rear wheel torque: 527.0 at 3675 rpm
Run conditions: 73.57 degrees F, 29.49-in HG
Coolant temp 172 start, 172 finish
Boost- 10.01 max, 8.06 average
Gains- Rhwp 23, rwtq, 6

[hognutz]

Originally Posted by Wondering

The MM law(federal) has nothing to do with lemon laws which vary from state to state. And good for you(no sarcasm intended) for getting them to replace your clutch under warranty. Gm does consider the clutch a wear item,but I've seen clutches replaced many times under warranty when there was an obvious defect.

The main point of my post was if someone has a modded car(other than a CAI & exhaust), don't expect the words "Magnusson-Moss" to be magical & get GM to change their stance.

by my understanding the magnusson moss is the federal lemon law but lemon law is actually slang. then states may have there own laws on top of it and if they are stricter then they would apply. just like minimum wage and any other program. federal rights/states rights.

there is nothing magical about the process or our court system as it blows. it is what it is. It cost both parties money and because of that a valid claim will usually get settled. In civil court everthing is a rebutable assumtion if you file they have to respond. been on both sides of it.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by AC Promotions

In regards to the lower pulley being more obvious, here is the owners perspective (me). When you open the CTS-V hood the engine cover hides the upper pulley and you can't see the lower pulley. If the wagon was put on a lift the lower pulley would be more obvious. As stated in other posts mod at your own risk. My dealers service manager and sales manager were both informed of the changes so there was no deception involved with the dealer at all. It's meant to be stock appearing not hide from dealership appearing. With that out of the way, the second test was installing a Halltech Stinger Intake which used the stock airbox and a K&N flat panel filter. Andy modified the airbox to enlarge the front opening. With no tuning the combination increased power on pull one and finally pull two (results below). The wagon never left the dyno room and there have been no check engine lights to this day:


SAE correction factor: .99
Rear wheel horsepower: 548.1 at 6175 rpm
Rear wheel torque: 527.0 at 3675 rpm
Run conditions: 73.57 degrees F, 29.49-in HG
Coolant temp 172 start, 172 finish
Boost- 10.01 max, 8.06 average
Gains- Rhwp 23, rwtq, 6

SWEET! That was your car? It's a beautiful color

I'm curious to see some more chassis dynos' of '12s, because yours started quite high.

Thanks for the details on why you chose to go the way you did. It totally makes sense. It was curious that they pinned the SC snout to the pulley. There goes my thoughts about at least the pulley slipping I have to say that your results put you pretty much very close to where I'd like to end up - right around 600. There are some exhaust mods' that I'm going to do, too, and I might end up having to run a little larger crank pulley, but I'm very encouraged by your results.

The bottom line, for me, is this is an outstanding article. I'd encourage anyone to make sure they pick it up. The car was beautiful, ADM was great, and GMHTP did they're usual excellent technical writing.

Excellent job, and thanks very much for the information.