What do you think was the problem with STS?

[Maurdib]

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

[scrming]

Originally Posted by Maurdib

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...

[GQ4Life]

with 500HP at drag strip it should of trapped over 110mph..
lag doesnt hurt u much on a drag strip..

[ROD1]

So is Leno,s car still just eye candy?

[ALLTRBO]

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.

[scrming]

Originally Posted by ALLTRBO

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....

[ALLTRBO]

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?

[scrming]

Originally Posted by ALLTRBO

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...

[ALLTRBO]

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?

[scrming]

Originally Posted by ALLTRBO

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..

[ALLTRBO]

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.

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...

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

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.

[FC_GIBB]

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

[scrming]

Originally Posted by ALLTRBO

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...

[ALLTRBO]

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.

Originally Posted by FC_GIBB

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...

Originally Posted by scrming

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...