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
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
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
<<<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.
