Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Classic Design Concepts Sportbar
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Forced Induction - V6

Forced Induction - V6 V6 Supercharger, turbo, nitrous discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-27-2010, 05:47 PM   #1
Maurdib

 
Maurdib's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Black Camaro 2LT/RS Auto
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 749
What do you think was the problem with STS?

The car Dyno'd at 500hp, Do you think it was a lag issue, or tune issue. It seemed ready to go, but the burnout vid seem to be slowly burning out rather then a fast burn out
__________________
BackInBlack
Performance:Vararam cold air intake
Maurdib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 07:25 PM   #2
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurdib View Post
The car Dyno'd at 500hp, Do you think it was a lag issue, or tune issue. It seemed ready to go, but the burnout vid seem to be slowly burning out rather then a fast burn out
hard to say... first it's the oversized wheels, then it was driver error, then it was the tune... now the tune was fine, it was the wheels and the turbo housing was to large...

Even with larger wheels and a bit of lag, i still would have expected to trap better then 90 MPH....

Wish STS would have their own test mule, with normal wheels and tires.. and run that at the track...
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 07:29 PM   #3
GQ4Life


 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS LS3
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fishkill, NY
Posts: 5,151
with 500HP at drag strip it should of trapped over 110mph..
lag doesnt hurt u much on a drag strip..
__________________
C7 Stingray ordered 6-7-13 (RCHT2P) 3300 status
GQ4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 08:00 PM   #4
ROD1
Back to the hunt....
 
ROD1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro RS V6 #1301 DOB 3/23/09
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ithaca NY
Posts: 2,561
So is Leno,s car still just eye candy?
ROD1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 08:06 PM   #5
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 1SS M6
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 708


Why don't you call or e-mail STS and ask? I did.

Some of you need to figure out the difference between actual dyno comparison numbers and actually using those dyno numbers.

The car picked up 160 peak rear-wheel horsepower. Look at the dyno chart. No matter what happened in any video of anyone driving the car, the car still has an additional 160 rear-wheel horsepower.

Whether or not real world conditions proved to be a MAJOR change from the dyno conditions is a different topic and one that's worthy of (intelligent) discussion, not how much the car did or didn't burn out or how fast it didn't go in the 1/4 mile.
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 08:46 PM   #6
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLTRBO View Post


Why don't you call or e-mail STS and ask? I did.

Some of you need to figure out the difference between actual dyno comparison numbers and actually using those dyno numbers.

The car picked up 160 peak rear-wheel horsepower. Look at the dyno chart. No matter what happened in any video of anyone driving the car, the car still has an additional 160 rear-wheel horsepower.

Whether or not real world conditions proved to be a MAJOR change from the dyno conditions is a different topic and one that's worthy of (intelligent) discussion, not how much the car did or didn't burn out or how fast it didn't go in the 1/4 mile.
Dyno sheets don't win races..... It what you run on the street and the strip that matters....

Trap speed is an indication of HP. My car will trap between 97 and 99 mph.... The sts/acc car trapped at 90....
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 05:33 AM   #7
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 1SS M6
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 708
One time my 11-second Talon trapped at 87mph. Stock 15-second Talon's trap at 89-90mph. I guess, then, I lost HP with all those mods and all that boost?
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 05:36 AM   #8
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLTRBO View Post
One time my 11-second Talon trapped at 87mph. Stock 15-second Talon's trap at 89-90mph. I guess, then, I lost HP with all those mods and all that boost?
The key here is ONE TIME... the STS/AAC car made at least 3 passes... ALL of them at 90 MPH...
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 06:00 AM   #9
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 1SS M6
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 708
So the real question is why a car with a measured 66% increase in power would LOSE mph?

If I wanted to, I could test my car's launch and 1-2 shift then leisurely accelerate the rest of the way. In fact, I've done that too (a few times in a row). I bet there were a few people in the stands laughing at slow my car was trapping, heh.

Of course he wasn't doing quite that from what we know.
Completely aside from the fact but something to also keep in mind, I bet his car is one heavy mother with all that extra bling (and boom?) equipment on it.

Someone mentioned that at that point, at least for the ambient temperature (I hear it was pretty warm that day) and through a whole 1/4 mile run, he was leaning out a good bit at the last half of the track and so eased up each time (even if he didn't let up, severe detonation will kill all the power you would have otherwise made by way of the ECU trying to save your engine). I also heard that the car was further tuned after that, and the issues were ironed out.

Dyno numbers on the same dyno at the same time time after any given mod will give you a consistent indicator of an actual percentage of power increase, especially when the percentage of increase is that great. The dyno inconsistencies will NOT affect the readings by more than a couple percent at most. This car made repeated runs (after cooldown) and the results were consistent. They even dyno'd a stock LS3 SS right afterward and it made 53 HP less.

So at least during dyno conditions through one gear (with cooldowns between), this car really does have about a 66% increase in peak HP, and the additional area under the curve looks very nice as well.

Do you really think this car actually lost power with the STS kit on it? Seriously?
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 06:53 AM   #10
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLTRBO View Post
So the real question is why a car with a measured 66% increase in power would LOSE mph?

If I wanted to, I could test my car's launch and 1-2 shift then leisurely accelerate the rest of the way. In fact, I've done that too (a few times in a row). I bet there were a few people in the stands laughing at slow my car was trapping, heh.

Of course he wasn't doing quite that from what we know.
Completely aside from the fact but something to also keep in mind, I bet his car is one heavy mother with all that extra bling (and boom?) equipment on it.

Someone mentioned that at that point, at least for the ambient temperature (I hear it was pretty warm that day) and through a whole 1/4 mile run, he was leaning out a good bit at the last half of the track and so eased up each time (even if he didn't let up, severe detonation will kill all the power you would have otherwise made by way of the ECU trying to save your engine). I also heard that the car was further tuned after that, and the issues were ironed out.

Dyno numbers on the same dyno at the same time time after any given mod will give you a consistent indicator of an actual percentage of power increase, especially when the percentage of increase is that great. The dyno inconsistencies will NOT affect the readings by more than a couple percent at most. This car made repeated runs (after cooldown) and the results were consistent. They even dyno'd a stock LS3 SS right afterward and it made 53 HP less.

So at least during dyno conditions through one gear (with cooldowns between), this car really does have about a 66% increase in peak HP, and the additional area under the curve looks very nice as well.

Do you really think this car actually lost power with the STS kit on it? Seriously?
Do you really think a 500HP car, even with a few extra pounds and over sized tires can't break out of the 15's? Or only trap at 90 MPH? Seriously?

I was there... I ran my car at about the same time as the STS/AAC car. Car went 14.39 @ 97.38 MPH.... Car was trapping 96 to 97 all day long...

Personally, I don't care about dyno sheets... I don't race on a dyno, I race on a track... Time slips are a much more accurate reflection of real world performance...

Oh, and you mention he was leaning out? STS just said the tune wasn't the issue??? And I don't know where you heard the car was tuned after that... because I pretty much know that it wasn't..

You keep believing in dyno sheets... I'll keep my trust in my time slips..
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 09:18 AM   #11
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 1SS M6
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 708
Nope, I don't think a '500 hp' car (and I don't take stock in any aftermarket CHP numbers unless the engine was dyno'd at the crank), or even a properly running and driven 400whp car of that (personally estimated) weight should break out of the 15's. Of course, as you mentioned, forget the ET here, the trap speed is a better indicator of HP. So, again, even a properly running and driven 400whp car of that weight with that power curve should trap higher than 90mph. Yep.

I offered up my suggestions as to why it didn't in this thread and the other, according to the information posted. You are right, dyno numbers don't always translate into track times. A million variables come into play, but you can't flat-out say that a single given dyno, properly operating and operated, under the same conditions, is worthy of ignoring altogether. It is a good indicator of a given modification's increase in percentage of power, and then to back that up, they ran a stock LS3 Camaro at the same time.
I've been in this game for a while with multiple different types of cars and setups and speeds, on the streets, on the strips, and on the dynos, all over the country and in highly varying altitudes and conditions, I do have at least a little bit of a clue.

If you won't agree with or believe the above posted reasons for three slow 1/4 mile runs that I theorized about or came up with based on posts here or the previously posted excuses (valid or not), then are you saying that STS is flat out lying? Granted, I'm only going by what I've heard and read about STS, but from that I wouldn't think they'd go there. I admit openly that could be quite wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
Oh, and you mention he was leaning out? STS just said the tune wasn't the issue??? And I don't know where you heard the car was tuned after that... because I pretty much know that it wasn't...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AACstyle View Post
I am not making excuses, but we did have to lift due to AF leaning out. With a bit more tuning, stock wheels and tires, and the right driver this can post some better times for sure.
(Oh, and yes he is making excuses, whether they are valid ones or not. )
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=350


Quote:
Originally Posted by AACstyle View Post

<<<Originally Posted by ALLTRBO
AACstyle,

Any updates? How's the car been running now that you've had it complete for awhile (or did I miss a mention of it going back to STS maybe?) Have they gotten closer to nailing down a tune?>>>


Yes, actually the new tune is sitting here on my desk. Unfortunately, the car will be out of our possession for a couple of weeks so we will not be able to test it right away.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=447

Now to be completely honest, I don't him from Adam and I don't know the guys at STS (other than the sales rep I communicated with, sorta) so they could all be completely full of BS, this is the internet afterall, and I've been through that number too many times already.
I just kind of find it a hard pill to swallow that 6.5psi of boost out of a kit from a reputable vendor would just flat out make the car LOSE power unless some factor or a combination thereof was SERIOUSLY wrong with the way it ran vs. a fully optimized and driven setup, which is obviously the case. There were many excuses made, and if they're all valid, they make sense. The tune was one, and later claimed by AAC and STS both that the tune was further dialed in after that day.

You didn't answer my question...
Do you really think this car actually lost power with the STS kit on it? Seriously?

I'm with you on all the skepticism, and I'm not going to buy this kit (yet) either, but try to be as factual, mature, and unbiased as possible please. You have made lots of valid points, but try to take other educated comments into consideration as well.
We all want the same thing afterall... badarse spooling LLT Camaros.
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 09:38 AM   #12
FC_GIBB
 
FC_GIBB's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Impala LTZ
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Greenbackville, VA
Posts: 346
Thumbs up

keep going you two, this is like a political argument, one of you will get my vote in the end. haha:fighting0040:
__________________


A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "'The United States of America", for an amount "up to, and including my life". That is honor, and there are way to many people in this country who no longer understand it.
FC_GIBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 09:40 AM   #13
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLTRBO View Post
Nope, I don't think a '500 hp' car (and I don't take stock in any aftermarket CHP numbers unless the engine was dyno'd at the crank), or even a properly running and driven 400whp car of that (personally estimated) weight should break out of the 15's. Of course, as you mentioned, forget the ET here, the trap speed is a better indicator of HP. So, again, even a properly running and driven 400whp car of that weight with that power curve should trap higher than 90mph. Yep.

I offered up my suggestions as to why it didn't in this thread and the other, according to the information posted. You are right, dyno numbers don't always translate into track times. A million variables come into play, but you can't flat-out say that a single given dyno, properly operating and operated, under the same conditions, is worthy of ignoring altogether. It is a good indicator of a given modification's increase in percentage of power, and then to back that up, they ran a stock LS3 Camaro at the same time.
I've been in this game for a while with multiple different types of cars and setups and speeds, on the streets, on the strips, and on the dynos, all over the country and in highly varying altitudes and conditions, I do have at least a little bit of a clue.

If you won't agree with or believe the above posted reasons for three slow 1/4 mile runs that I theorized about or came up with based on posts here or the previously posted excuses (valid or not), then are you saying that STS is flat out lying? Granted, I'm only going by what I've heard and read about STS, but from that I wouldn't think they'd go there. I admit openly that could be quite wrong.





(Oh, and yes he is making excuses, whether they are valid ones or not. )
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=350



http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=447

Now to be completely honest, I don't him from Adam and I don't know the guys at STS (other than the sales rep I communicated with, sorta) so they could all be completely full of BS, this is the internet afterall, and I've been through that number too many times already.
I just kind of find it a hard pill to swallow that 6.5psi of boost out of a kit from a reputable vendor would just flat out make the car LOSE power unless some factor or a combination thereof was SERIOUSLY wrong with the way it ran vs. a fully optimized and driven setup, which is obviously the case. There were many excuses made, and if they're all valid, they make sense. The tune was one, and later claimed by AAC and STS both that the tune was further dialed in after that day.

You didn't answer my question...
Do you really think this car actually lost power with the STS kit on it? Seriously?

I'm with you on all the skepticism, and I'm not going to buy this kit (yet) either, but try to be as factual, mature, and unbiased as possible please. You have made lots of valid points, but try to take other educated comments into consideration as well.
We all want the same thing afterall... badarse spooling LLT Camaros.


Ok... I must apologize... I thought the "Seriously?" had a more of a sarcastic tone to it.... so my bad... sorry...

Couple of things... they tuned this car on a DynoJet, IIRC... which means the car didn't have a "REAL" load on it... My experience with DynoJet tuning is you use the DynoJet to get you close but then you always to some real "load" testing at the track (or the empty streets behind the shop... LOL). Found this time and time again... Car ran great on the dyno but then once on the street would ping like crazy, etc. So the final tune ended up being dialed back quite a bit from the dyno in some cases..

Could this have happened with the STS/AAC car... Certainly could have...

The real issue I have is we simply are not getting any kind of straight story what so ever... First it was the wheels, then the driver, then the tune, had to lift because it was lean.... No, STS, says the tune was spot on and Vince has has basically confirmed he has done no further tuning... so which is it?

Heck, I'm seeing some interesting things on my car right now... Makes me think perhaps the car does behave incredibly different on the dyno than it does on the street...
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 12:29 PM   #14
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 1SS M6
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 708
Gah, just noticed some typos in my last post. I'm OCD but I think you all know what I meant and since it's quoted, I'll just leave it as is, heh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FC_GIBB View Post
keep going you two, this is like a political argument, one of you will get my vote in the end. haha:fighting0040:
LOL, but no, no, we're trying to accomplish the same goal, just discussing it from our own viewpoints or whatever. PLEASE leave politics out of it! Those guys have different agendas altogether, heh...

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
Ok... I must apologize... I thought the "Seriously?" had a more of a sarcastic tone to it.... so my bad... sorry...

Couple of things... they tuned this car on a DynoJet, IIRC... which means the car didn't have a "REAL" load on it... My experience with DynoJet tuning is you use the DynoJet to get you close but then you always to some real "load" testing at the track (or the empty streets behind the shop... LOL). Found this time and time again... Car ran great on the dyno but then once on the street would ping like crazy, etc. So the final tune ended up being dialed back quite a bit from the dyno in some cases..

Could this have happened with the STS/AAC car... Certainly could have...

The real issue I have is we simply are not getting any kind of straight story what so ever... First it was the wheels, then the driver, then the tune, had to lift because it was lean.... No, STS, says the tune was spot on and Vince has has basically confirmed he has done no further tuning... so which is it?

Heck, I'm seeing some interesting things on my car right now... Makes me think perhaps the car does behave incredibly different on the dyno than it does on the street...
See, the dyno is a funny thing, I agree.
[storytime]Somewhere in the middle of my modding on my AWD Talon a couple few years ago, I headed up to a free AWD dyno day some 90 miles away from where I lived. During that trip I had my laptop fired up with DSMlink and was doing highway pulls in third and fourth to tune as best I could before I got there.
I had it dialed in nicely... 21psi, 93 octane, stock timing and no KR and a slightly rich(er than needed) AFR, and it just generally pulled like crazy in both gears.
I got to the Dynojet AWD dyno, strapped in and warmed up but not too hot with their fan blowing on the IC/radiator with the hood open. The conditions were about as comparable as it could get while stationary. Same boost, ambient temp, baro, altitude, etc. Of course the only difference was actual load, and true airflow.
First pull, only 290awhp with around 7 degrees of KR (a LOT when total max advance is 16 degrees!). I gave it a bit more fuel and the second (and last) pull was 293awhp with still 7 degrees of KR! I've had that kind of timing retard on the highway before in other conditions, and the car falls flat on its face. I'm thinking it should have been around 350awhp at the time.[/storytime]

So, in that case, due to the conditions, the car made much LESS hp on the Dynojet than on the street. It was a turbo car tuned to the edge, similar to the AAC car, but an opposite effect occured, and also in contrast from what you've experienced.
Air to air IC'd turbo cars tuned to the edge of knock really need that airflow, so you can't compare the N/A dyno vs. street results to these cars. This also shows that you can't always assume the car will produce better dyno results on a Dynojet (of which there are many models) than on the street.
My only guess is that the 6.5 psi STS dyno'd the car at was at a lower ambient temp than the runs at the track (excluding the variables about driver skill, traction, blah blah blah) and/or better (and cooler) fuel was used on the dyno.
Again, I know that random dyno to dyno numbers vary considerably, but on the same dyno in the same conditions, it is a fair enough comparison for actual power gained.

It's very reasonable that you're issue is the lack of a straight story. However, I didn't see anything out of order if it was all true, from what I've read it was "this this this and also this" and not "this, but I mean that, I mean, then something else"... and it could make sense, but now you said that 'the' Trifecta guy, Vince (right?) basically said that he didn't tune it further after those runs.
What does 'basically' mean, what did he say exactly?
I'm just trying to get the full truth as well, that's why I've wasted so much time on this already.

Funny that you mention your ECU acting 'interesting'; Just a couple weeks ago I dyno'd my bone stock LLT M6 Camaro (RS, but with the 1LT aluminum 18's installed), also on an AWD Dynojet (in 2WD mode, of course). 243whp best. He did say his dyno reads on the low end according to other customers.
He did four alternating third gear pulls and fourth gear pulls (3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, all with traction and stabi control off). Both times, the 3rd gear charts showed a square wave of a hp curve, but the 4th gear pulls were normal. We've both seen that square wave before, and it's indicative of KR. So much for GM's BS about the tune being optimized on 87! Mine gets only 93 now. Anyway...
Fourth puts more of a load on the car than third, why would it have knock in third but not fourth? Funky un-optimized gear-based tuning is my only guess, and that's possible (my ZX-10R had factory gear-based tuning). So yes, we both think these ECU's act funky compared to the 'norm'. Hmm...
Everything I've been able to gather has told me this ECU is definitely something else... Nothing impossible, just new and more advanced. Again.

I'd like to talk to an STS engineer or tech or whoever designs and builds these kits, as well as the Trifecta tuner. Anyone have any contact info?
I'm still waiting on clarification by the STS sales rep for the questions I've yet to be answered (I'm not holding my breath until Tuesday... Practically everyone's off work today anyway).

Good gosh, I need to finish/test this cable so I can get out of here sometime today...

Last edited by ALLTRBO; 05-28-2010 at 12:43 PM.
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 01:08 PM   #15
Abygale


 
Abygale's Avatar
 
Drives: .
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 2,763
Thank you for all your time on this Alltrbo......I know many of us appreciate your insight here.
Abygale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 01:50 PM   #16
Venom40k
No... not the SS...
 
Venom40k's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1LT/RS *Red*
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Springfield, Ohio
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
Heck, I'm seeing some interesting things on my car right now... Makes me think perhaps the car does behave incredibly different on the dyno than it does on the street...
Do tell!
__________________
(((INGEN CAI)))
Venom40k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 02:00 PM   #17
Blade


 
Blade's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2SS SIM RS
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,635
Send a message via AIM to Blade
Yo....ALLTRBO here's Vince's site:

http://trifectaperformance.com/

He loves talking tunes. Talked to him last night, he just picked up a Buick Lacrosse with one of those new 6spd automatic transmissions. He was going on and on about seeing some major improvements in his tunes in the coming weeks, since he has the transmission to play with now.

BTW.......where is this vide of the STS doing burnouts? I looked through that Turbo thread and couldn't find one.
__________________

Last edited by Blade; 05-28-2010 at 02:18 PM.
Blade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 02:08 PM   #18
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLTRBO View Post
Gah, just noticed some typos in my last post. I'm OCD but I think you all know what I meant and since it's quoted, I'll just leave it as is, heh.


LOL, but no, no, we're trying to accomplish the same goal, just discussing it from our own viewpoints or whatever. PLEASE leave politics out of it! Those guys have different agendas altogether, heh...



See, the dyno is a funny thing, I agree.
[storytime]Somewhere in the middle of my modding on my AWD Talon a couple few years ago, I headed up to a free AWD dyno day some 90 miles away from where I lived. During that trip I had my laptop fired up with DSMlink and was doing highway pulls in third and fourth to tune as best I could before I got there.
I had it dialed in nicely... 21psi, 93 octane, stock timing and no KR and a slightly rich(er than needed) AFR, and it just generally pulled like crazy in both gears.
I got to the Dynojet AWD dyno, strapped in and warmed up but not too hot with their fan blowing on the IC/radiator with the hood open. The conditions were about as comparable as it could get while stationary. Same boost, ambient temp, baro, altitude, etc. Of course the only difference was actual load, and true airflow.
First pull, only 290awhp with around 7 degrees of KR (a LOT when total max advance is 16 degrees!). I gave it a bit more fuel and the second (and last) pull was 293awhp with still 7 degrees of KR! I've had that kind of timing retard on the highway before in other conditions, and the car falls flat on its face. I'm thinking it should have been around 350awhp at the time.[/storytime]

So, in that case, due to the conditions, the car made much LESS hp on the Dynojet than on the street. It was a turbo car tuned to the edge, similar to the AAC car, but an opposite effect occured, and also in contrast from what you've experienced.
Air to air IC'd turbo cars tuned to the edge of knock really need that airflow, so you can't compare the N/A dyno vs. street results to these cars. This also shows that you can't always assume the car will produce better dyno results on a Dynojet (of which there are many models) than on the street.
My only guess is that the 6.5 psi STS dyno'd the car at was at a lower ambient temp than the runs at the track (excluding the variables about driver skill, traction, blah blah blah) and/or better (and cooler) fuel was used on the dyno.
Again, I know that random dyno to dyno numbers vary considerably, but on the same dyno in the same conditions, it is a fair enough comparison for actual power gained.

It's very reasonable that you're issue is the lack of a straight story. However, I didn't see anything out of order if it was all true, from what I've read it was "this this this and also this" and not "this, but I mean that, I mean, then something else"... and it could make sense, but now you said that 'the' Trifecta guy, Vince (right?) basically said that he didn't tune it further after those runs.
What does 'basically' mean, what did he say exactly?
I'm just trying to get the full truth as well, that's why I've wasted so much time on this already.

Funny that you mention your ECU acting 'interesting'; Just a couple weeks ago I dyno'd my bone stock LLT M6 Camaro (RS, but with the 1LT aluminum 18's installed), also on an AWD Dynojet (in 2WD mode, of course). 243whp best. He did say his dyno reads on the low end according to other customers.
He did four alternating third gear pulls and fourth gear pulls (3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, all with traction and stabi control off). Both times, the 3rd gear charts showed a square wave of a hp curve, but the 4th gear pulls were normal. We've both seen that square wave before, and it's indicative of KR. So much for GM's BS about the tune being optimized on 87! Mine gets only 93 now. Anyway...
Fourth puts more of a load on the car than third, why would it have knock in third but not fourth? Funky un-optimized gear-based tuning is my only guess, and that's possible (my ZX-10R had factory gear-based tuning). So yes, we both think these ECU's act funky compared to the 'norm'. Hmm...
Everything I've been able to gather has told me this ECU is definitely something else... Nothing impossible, just new and more advanced. Again.

I'd like to talk to an STS engineer or tech or whoever designs and builds these kits, as well as the Trifecta tuner. Anyone have any contact info?
I'm still waiting on clarification by the STS sales rep for the questions I've yet to be answered (I'm not holding my breath until Tuesday... Practically everyone's off work today anyway).

Good gosh, I need to finish/test this cable so I can get out of here sometime today...
Again... Forget about the dyno results... The dyno could have shown 1000 RWHP, it wouldn't have mattered! It's the real world that matters! I was running the same track, at the same time, same conditions and was consistently 14.3 to 14.5 (when I really hot lapped it) and trapping 96 to 97 MPH...

Now lets look at the time slip from an SS i lined up against... Ok, STS/AAC car pulled a 2.4 60'. A bit slower than my 2.1... The SS however pulled a 2.498. So even though the STS/AAC got off to a slow start it's still in line with the SS.. SS ended up with a 14.025 at 104 MPH! So the whole theory of big wheels, and gearing seems to be a bit of a stretch.... So if it's a tune issue, which what AAC said it was, then why is STS saying the tune is spot on and Vince says he has not made any tune adjustments since the car came off the dyno... Maybe it really was driver error... I mean I watched the guy make at least 3 passes (I was standing right there in the staging lanes)... looked like he was running it all out to me...

Bottom line is there are some serious inconsistency with the story.... I'm guessing we'll never know what the deal is with the AAC car.... Best hope is that STS actually gets a plain old V6 and puts it on and runs it...
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 02:11 PM   #19
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom40k View Post
Do tell!
Not yet... got back to your popcorn! LOL
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 02:13 PM   #20
Venom40k
No... not the SS...
 
Venom40k's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1LT/RS *Red*
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Springfield, Ohio
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
Not yet... got back to your popcorn! LOL
Doh!

and Blade.... page 14. (7 post down)

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...=71749&page=14
__________________
(((INGEN CAI)))
Venom40k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 02:17 PM   #21
Blade


 
Blade's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2SS SIM RS
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,635
Send a message via AIM to Blade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom40k View Post
Doh!

and Blade.... page 14. (7 post down)

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...=71749&page=14
Thanks bub!!
__________________
Blade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 02:52 PM   #22
ducted
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS/LS3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 21
I've been watching this video:


I don't know if you're referring to this, but even without knowledge about forced induction, I can see the problem it's not the turbo.

At minute 1:10 I can see a moderated or normal launch, I can hear the turbo spinning but the engine didn't raised the top RPM, so I assume the driver didn't pressed fully the accelerator nor fast. Call it a "Driving Miss Daisy" start.

At minute 1:36 the things change radically, hear how the turbo starts spinning, the wheels also start spinning fast and when the driver release the brake... someone stopped recording. Call it "The Fast & The Furious: Director's Cut". (Everybody knows in a director's cut edition, the best scenes are removed...)

At minute 1:46 everything goes really bad, notice the sound of the turbo and the engine trying to spinning up slowly, but something is retaining from spinning fast.

I think the most probably can be the brake by itself due a overheating or a half hooked piston in the caliper. Maybe the driver didn't disabled the TC/StabiliTrack controls or whatelse. But after watching the minute 1:36 I have no doubts about the STS turbo system is working as expected.

Consider also the asphalt and the tires, both look giving a good grip. Nobody tried to do the same with his stock (or mostly bolts-on tuned) V6 over a good asphalt with the tires warmed? I tried, and mine can't do that.

Just to mention if someone watched the Lingenfelter supercharger video for the Camaro V6 (
), look the technique used by the driver. He doesn't start accelerating with the car completely stopped. He releases the wheels a bit, then he brake & accelerate at the same time.

Obviously a supercharger it's totally different than a twin turbo, but it's not the same start accelerating with the brakes fully pressed like in the STS video, or do it like as seen on the Lingenfelter video.

Well... that's all. And please, excuse my english.

Cheers,
ducted.
ducted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 04:05 PM   #23
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 1SS M6
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
Again... Forget about the dyno results... The dyno could have shown 1000 RWHP, it wouldn't have mattered! It's the real world that matters! I was running the same track, at the same time, same conditions and was consistently 14.3 to 14.5 (when I really hot lapped it) and trapping 96 to 97 MPH...

Now lets look at the time slip from an SS i lined up against... Ok, STS/AAC car pulled a 2.4 60'. A bit slower than my 2.1... The SS however pulled a 2.498. So even though the STS/AAC got off to a slow start it's still in line with the SS.. SS ended up with a 14.025 at 104 MPH! So the whole theory of big wheels, and gearing seems to be a bit of a stretch.... So if it's a tune issue, which what AAC said it was, then why is STS saying the tune is spot on and Vince says he has not made any tune adjustments since the car came off the dyno... Maybe it really was driver error... I mean I watched the guy make at least 3 passes (I was standing right there in the staging lanes)... looked like he was running it all out to me...

Bottom line is there are some serious inconsistency with the story.... I'm guessing we'll never know what the deal is with the AAC car.... Best hope is that STS actually gets a plain old V6 and puts it on and runs it...
Again, stop ignoring the dyno entirely!

If not fudged, the dyno numbers prove what the car should be able to do, the trap proves what it did do. To get the full picture of what is going on, you have to take BOTH into account as well as everything else.
I take no stock in some random dyno chart showing 400whp. I take note of a dyno chart showing a baseline of 240whp (peak) and then shows 400whp (peak, with a nice curve to match). There is a direct correlation, and it does matter.
...if not fudged.
Yes, the car needs to repeat the same additional physical driving force to the tires in real life for the car to go faster, but part of my point above was to show that it can. If it didn't (because the trap speed also matters!), then why is the question. I'm just repeating myself now, but that sums it up.

Okay, your car ran 7mph faster. Your point is that your N/A car was faster than his turbocharged car. All that you're pointing out is that something wasn't quite working right for a "400whp" car (whether driver, or tune, or engine, or turbo setup, or whatever). We already know that! Same thing for your SS comparo. Let's move on then...

Big wheels and gearing causing all of the issues? Very very big stretch for sure. Those combined with every other mentioned issue? Yep, it all adds up. It's possible...

I have no idea why the apparent tuner's story doesn't match up with the apparent turbo kit vendor's story about the tune, but obviously someone, somewhere is wrong, or lying (or both) about that.
Maybe is was driver error. Well, the driver himself said that! Of course it is pretty hard to screw up a slow starting slushbox car dragstrip pass. Again... add up all of the excuses (if they're valid, or even most of them).

I agree with your bottom line, there are some inconsistencies. Ah well, the internet strikes again, what's new? It's not the end of my world. (Heck, 12's feel slow to me now, let alone mid-14's so it doesn't matter anyway. Maybe I'll get a Corsa catback and call it a day. It is only my DD afterall, the fast car is coming soon! )

I received another reply from STS, I'll post it up after I get home, I'm out of this Memorial-Weekend Friday ghost-town called NASA.
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 05:39 PM   #24
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 1SS M6
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 708
As just posted in the other thread (to follow up on the first reply that I posted there)...

I'm getting burned out on this so sorry if I haven't answered some questions that I know the answers to or added more cents (I'm way past my $.02), but here's what I have for now...

I asked the sales rep a little more about the STS kit, mainly about how the tune is installed (I'm used to OBD1 GM tuning, I do it all myself), here was the reply.

Quote:
The ECU will ship with a cable, which you will download the factory tune from, and send the tune off to our tuning department. The tuning department will write the tune for your vehicle and send the tune back to you. Typically we have you download the tune and send it off before you do the install. That way, when you’re done, you’ll have the modified tune in hand to start the vehicle and go.

We use our STS turbos for these systems. We’ve been developing our turbos for quite a while, and have them flowing better than their Garrett equivalents at this point. On the V6 Camaro, we use a 60-1 P-Trim Turbo with a .68 A/R. It’s gated with an STS/Turbosmart Ultragate 38, and we are running an STS/Turbosmart Raceport 52mm BOV. Hope this helps!
Still doesn't clear up some things for me and adds some more confusion (is that the new turbine housing or old? I did ask for both... The ECU will ship with a cable? Tuning department? I thought Trifecta did the tunes? Must bang head now ) :bangdesk:
I'm too tired and have to much to do to worry about this anymore for a while. Good luck sorting it out.

Last edited by ALLTRBO; 05-28-2010 at 06:42 PM.
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 10:14 PM   #25
usa1camaro1969
Back on the dino-juice
 
usa1camaro1969's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 LS + a few more
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,640
I really can't believe there's this much crap still being talked about the showing of a brand new untested set-up on a car that isn't optimized or even designed for the strip. It's no wonder AAC has stepped away from these posts. If I were them I'd stay away from some of this crap too. Instead of waiting for them to get it all sorted you beat them with a stick and I think it sucks. I just hope if a regular shmo finally does install the STS they aren't afraid to post results due to the attitudes shown by the same few that want to bust everyone's balls.
And no, I'm not addressing this at you, ALLTRBO. You have been helpful in trying to bring to light some of the variables and questions that need to be addressed.
We really, really, REALLY need to remember that this, as far as anyone knows, was the first STS install on this V6. We also should remember they were in a time crunch due to a deadline and shipping issues so I have no doubt it wasn't sorted out, yet. If you've ever driven a car down the quarter whose suspension(I do believe they mentioned having to do the slower launch because of this)/tires(I do remember them offering it up) are way off it sucks. Slower launch means less initial boost built up. Finally, remember it was put on a show-car for a company that has no interest in blowing it up with less than 1K miles on it. We still don't know if the tranny/diff can take this much load. The masses asked for videos, they were provided.

Last edited by usa1camaro1969; 05-30-2010 at 07:22 AM.
usa1camaro1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is this an electrical/Engine/? problem im having? xpanda305x Audio, Video, Bluetooth, Navigation, Radar, Electronics Forum 7 05-22-2010 10:49 PM
Electrical problem or engine i dont know. please help me! xpanda305x Audio, Video, Bluetooth, Navigation, Radar, Electronics Forum 1 05-22-2010 02:50 PM
Found a problem with my camaro Agostino13 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 19 04-27-2010 11:59 AM
pm problem drivingincamaro Site Related Announcements / Suggestions / Feedback / Questions 4 06-23-2009 10:20 PM
Somewhat Annoying Back Seat Problem! ZNOLMT 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 5 06-21-2009 09:22 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.