minimum hp gains from gmpp headers/A.I./catback?

[Speedy1975]

Originally Posted by CWIweldace

I will be moving to Alabama before I get my Camaro. I may have to drive up for a visit next spring

C'mon up. I'm waiting on purchasing the Camaro for HUD and the 3.73 gears, so I may or may not have one next spring depending on what Chevy does on those two items.

[duder4thgen]

Originally Posted by Mblock66

We didn't tune ONLY subarus. We specialized in them but everything from camaros to audis to supras to mustangs came through. The scale isn't the same due to the output of a 4 vs 8 but the priciples of tuning are the same. If you dont account for how the AFRs deal with the increased flow you could have a negative result using the stock tuning on an NA car as well. Seen it happen. Then post tune +7hp ish. So yes it is apples to apples. And you are wrong if you don't think a proper tune will be the best bang for the buck on these cars. There is no bolt on that will give you more (other then a FI kit) then a tune.

Just to clairify for everyone, ls1 fbodys are known to gain from 30-40 rwhp with a lid, longtubes, and ory on a stock motor, and stock tune. The ls3 in the 5th gen will gain hp with bolt on's and no tune. The shorties might not do much, but to say there is no gain from bolt ons on a stock tune is just plain wrong.

Like someone else said, if you want to see what your 5th gen will get from bolt ons, look at a ls3 c6. LG Motorsports baselined a m6 c6 ls3 vette at 387rwhp and 377rwtq. The same car, untuned, with a k&n cai, lg longtubes and no cats put down 423rwhp and 426rwtq. Thats +36rwhp and +49rwtq with no tune. I agree if you say you need a tune for best results, but gen3/4 motors have been proven to take to bolt ons extremely well untuned.

The same c6 above put down 484rwhp 440 rwtq untuned with an lg cam.

Originally Posted by matt55

Bolting on parts with no tune is not the best idea in the world .

"SOME" bolts ons are made to work with stock stuff (I think *some* K&N intakes are desinged like this) .

When you a take a intake + cam + headers or what every parts with no tune to the track(or street) an get blasted by a stock car(or less moded) maybe you understand then .
Ive been there and done it before , both sides dumb mods and smart mods with tune .
MY 96 Z/28 with Intake/BBK T.B./Flowmaster/3.73's/ = same ET/MPH as a STOCK = not smart $ spent .

If you had went with longtubes, borla catback, and a cai you would have seen a much better improvement. But, then again, lt1s suck until you port the heads.

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by duder4thgen

If you had went with longtubes, borla catback, and a cai you would have seen a much better improvement. But, then again, lt1s suck until you port the heads.

not really, the bolt-on record for LT1s is in the 11s.

[duder4thgen]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

not really, the bolt-on record for LT1s is in the 11s.

I know if its Shon Herron it took slicks, 4.33 gears, and ~3100lbs race weight. Of course with the same type of mods there are bolt on ls1's running 10.6's. I'm probably just spitefull cause my lt1 sucked so bad.

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by duder4thgen

I know if its Shon Herron it took slicks, 4.33 gears, and ~3100lbs race weight. Of course with the same type of mods there are bolt on ls1's running 10.6's. I'm probably just spitefull cause my lt1 sucked so bad.

and that was with all of 346 hp to boot...

whats up with ur LT1? im the quote-unquote LT1 guru around here.... either start a thread in the 4th gen section or pm me whats going on with it.

[Wm Holden]

Shortie headers on a 05 05 gto LS2 are a waste of money stock f/i or otherwise. Gm engineered a decent thin walled hi flow ex mani for them. and included it stock.

The LS3 in the camaro remains to be seen.