[IndyZrider]

Originally Posted by Z OH 6

Yes, but you said you would rather one read low so that it shows a greater gain after the mods. That wouldn't be true, you you're going to gain the same, just the baseline number is different.

That's not what I was implying...I was saying i would rather have the "pessimistic" dyno instead of the generous dyno so I wouldnt be fooled into thinking I was making more power than I actually am...

[Winemedineme69me]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

All dynos should read the same gains from baseline. It's the baseline number that varies from dyno to dyno.

Side note, The OP's torque is low imo...the tuner likely yanked a ton of timing out of it midrange and put all the timing in up top. That setup should make the same if not more torque than horsepower.

I turned this car myself, you are saying I need to add more timing between 3000 and 4000 rpm?

[Z OH 6]

Originally Posted by IndyZrider

That's not what I was implying...I was saying i would rather have the "pessimistic" dyno instead of the generous dyno so I wouldnt be fooled into thinking I was making more power than I actually am...

It's the same power either way, just a number on paper.

[Winemedineme69me]

Originally Posted by Megahurtz

What gear was it dyno'd in?

I'm 5th gear

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by Winemedineme69me

I turned this car myself, you are saying I need to add more timing between 3000 and 4000 rpm?

I would think so. Most stock blower stuff makes as much torque as horsepower. I mean they are rated 650/650 stock and you are down 80ft lbs in relation to HP, that should tell you something.

[RHD ZL1]

Originally Posted by Winemedineme69me

What's up y'all,

I have a 2022 Camaro ZL1 10 speed with 2" speed engineering long tubes, off road x pipe and factory NPP exhaust, flex fuel running E49 blend and standard rotofab cold air intake and aem wideband for tuning.

I got it Dynod and it put down the following numbers, temp was 46 degrees outside, MAT temp was 138 on the data log, no knock and timing at 26.5 up top.

For you to have something to compare to, I’ve got similar mods however smaller Harrop 1 7/8” headers into twin 3” system, standard RotoFab however higher E content at E55. 100% stock on a Mainline hub dyno it went 522 rwhp, after mods/Trans/Engine tune went 635rwhp. To back it up the car went 10.18 @ 137 on a 28 deg C (84 F) day. On the weigh bridge during scrutineering the car weighed in at 4,195 Lbs with me in it.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by RHD ZL1

For you to have something to compare to, I’ve got similar mods however smaller Harrop 1 7/8” headers into twin 3” system, standard RotoFab however higher E content at E55. 100% stock on a Mainline hub dyno it went 522 rwhp, after mods/Trans/Engine tune went 635rwhp. To back it up the car went 10.18 @ 137 on a 28 deg C (84 F) day. On the weigh bridge during scrutineering the car weighed in at 4,195 Lbs with me in it.

Based on your trap speed, I think you are closer to 700whp at that weight. So here is an example of a lower reading dyno from baseline.

[Dynamical]

Originally Posted by RHD ZL1

For you to have something to compare to, I’ve got similar mods however smaller Harrop 1 7/8” headers into twin 3” system, standard RotoFab however higher E content at E55. 100% stock on a Mainline hub dyno it went 522 rwhp, after mods/Trans/Engine tune went 635rwhp. To back it up the car went 10.18 @ 137 on a 28 deg C (84 F) day. On the weigh bridge during scrutineering the car weighed in at 4,195 Lbs with me in it.

Great example and numbers. 84F do you happen to know the DA that day?
Do you have a high stall torque converter? If that’s the stock torque converter, I did not know they were capable of that!

[Z OH 6]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Based on your trap speed, I think you are closer to 700whp at that weight. So here is an example of a lower reading dyno from baseline.

I think its probably just a bit lower because without fueling mods, I don't see any way to get to 700whp using an E blend. However, this may be a case of an exceptional run with exceptional track conditions that may be a little misleading. I would normally agree the trap speed looks like around 700whp but I don't see any way for him to get to that number without additional fueling unless he did it on 93 octane. Most people E50 end up around 630-650whp before they run out of fuel.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by Z OH 6

I think its probably just a bit lower because without feuling mods, I don't see any way to get to 700whp using an E blend. However, this may be a case of an exceptional run with exceptional track conditions that may be a little misleading. I would normally agree the trap speed looks like around 700whp but I don't see any way for him to get to that number without additional fueling unless he did it on 93 octane. Most people E50 end up around 630-650whp before they run out of fuel.

Yeah I agree, but where could you have "exceptional" track conditions when it's 84 degrees outside? Good conditions yes, hero air no. It could be run leaner allowing it to squeak by on fuel system. You can get away with stuff like that on 1/4mi pulls cooled down. Hub dynos tend to read a little low compared to SAE dynojets also. So yeah it could be 650ish and a quicker track.

Originally Posted by Dynamical

Great example and numbers. 84F do you happen to know the DA that day?
Do you have a high stall torque converter? If that’s the stock torque converter, I did not know they were capable of that!

PD stuff does pretty well with stock converters. Pretty sure they have been 1.3 60ft.

[RHD ZL1]

Sorry OP, I didn’t mean for this to get off topic from your results, I will answer a few questions and will add some info at the same time that may be of interest to you.

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Based on your trap speed, I think you are closer to 700whp at that weight. So here is an example of a lower reading dyno from baseline.

@ King,
Over here in Australia we don’t have any US based dyno’s, 95% of workshops use Mainline which from what I understand reads lower than say Dyno Jets for example. Personally I’m not too fused about dyno results and am more interested in how the car performs at the track. There is a particular workshop here in Aus that is notorious for crazy dyno numbers yet their cars at the track don’t perform as the dyno results indicate. Perfect example a VF commodore (Chevy SS over there) that they claimed made 900rwhp yet ran 10.3 @ 133.

Originally Posted by Dynamical

Great example and numbers. 84F do you happen to know the DA that day?
Do you have a high stall torque converter? If that’s the stock torque converter, I did not know they were capable of that!

@ Dynamical,
Thank you. Unfortunately I don’t remember the DA for the day, I dug up the time slip to see the date, I raced in October 2023 (time slip attached, its faded a bit due to age) so would have raced in autumn, date in top left hand corner (I think you guys call Autumn “fall”). Over here our seasons are the opposite to over there. We are in Summer here now with temps as high as 40 Deg C (105 F). The converter is stock. Once you unlocked the trans the 60ft times drop. Pic attached from the event. The car also runs Weld rear wheels and ET Street R 305’s. It was a fully prepped track so I was able to run higher pressure (22psi) in the tires.

Originally Posted by Z OH 6

I think its probably just a bit lower because without fueling mods, I don't see any way to get to 700whp using an E blend. However, this may be a case of an exceptional run with exceptional track conditions that may be a little misleading. I would normally agree the trap speed looks like around 700whp but I don't see any way for him to get to that number without additional fueling unless he did it on 93 octane. Most people E50 end up around 630-650whp before they run out of fuel.

@ Z OH 6,
As mention to King, I’m not fussed at all about the dyno numbers. To clear up any doubts about fueling, one thing I did forget to mention is the car runs a JMS, other than that the fuel system is 100% stock. Also, our 93 over here has zero ethanol, it is E0/93. The petrol station (gas station) that I buy fuel from is a top tier station. Their E85 is actually E82-83 year round including Winter and their E85 is diluted with their 93. The E85 is rated at 105 at this station. So when I fill up I use a App on my phone to work out the target Ethanol content and fill up with a blend of E82/93, there is no low quality petrol/gas (87 for example) in the mix. Also, I run lambda 0.88 at E55 and 0.84 at E0. This is done via the PE Gas/Ethanol tables in HPT as you can have independent targets based on the blend from E0 to E85 (or E55 in my case). The common suggestion (on the internet) says you need to target lambda 0.82 - 0.83 for the LT4 however what people don’t take into account is that is based on lower quality fuels that don’t have good knock resistance therefor requiring a richer mixture to quench (cool) combustion temps to aid in knock suppression, when you use a quality fuel that has better knock resistance there is no need to run “as rich” on a DI engine hence targeting 0.88 on the E55/93 mix. I have done multiple passed down the track at 0.88 (at E55) with nil issues. Also, the LT4 runs a 0.020” top ring end gap therefor there isn’t a concern about needing to run richer to prevent end gap butting (compared to the high comp LT1 for example). It also goes without saying that having the SOI/EOI in the sweet spot helps as well as dialing in the VCT as the OEM setting made less power on the dyno vs the changed VCT numbers at WOT. To add on top of this, being it was a 28 Deg C (84F) day there was even less strain on the fuel system so it is possible to run E55 on a stock LT4 fuel system with a JMS with nil pressure drop issues on both the high/low sides as well as not maxing the high side pumps 130 deg limit.






If it’s of any interest to anyone, the other mod the car has that may or may not be helping its performance at the track is the under tray I made to fill the void under the rear of the car once the OEM rear muffler is removed. You can read about it in this thread….. https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showt...=585799&page=3



I have recently done this mod to the underside of the OEM blowers lid, again doubtful that there is any real gains but the fact that I can do it I did. Post #15827.
https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showt...6559&page=1131

I am going to change the lower to increase boost a little. I know I will be sacrificing the level of E I can run however it isn’t difficult to change the lower pulley size again to reduce boost / increase E levels. I will be experimenting with pulley sizes vs Ethanol levels to find the sweet spot and planning on racing again in Winter.

Again, Sorry OP, I didn’t mean for this to go off topic from your results. Hopefully my post was of some help to you

[Winemedineme69me]

Originally Posted by RHD ZL1

Sorry OP, I didn’t mean for this to get off topic from your results, I will answer a few questions and will add some info at the same time that may be of interest to you.



@ King,
Over here in Australia we don’t have any US based dyno’s, 95% of workshops use Mainline which from what I understand reads lower than say Dyno Jets for example. Personally I’m not too fused about dyno results and am more interested in how the car performs at the track. There is a particular workshop here in Aus that is notorious for crazy dyno numbers yet their cars at the track don’t perform as the dyno results indicate. Perfect example a VF commodore (Chevy SS over there) that they claimed made 900rwhp yet ran 10.3 @ 133.



@ Dynamical,
Thank you. Unfortunately I don’t remember the DA for the day, I dug up the time slip to see the date, I raced in October 2023 (time slip attached, its faded a bit due to age) so would have raced in autumn, date in top left hand corner (I think you guys call Autumn “fall”). Over here our seasons are the opposite to over there. We are in Summer here now with temps as high as 40 Deg C (105 F). The converter is stock. Once you unlocked the trans the 60ft times drop. Pic attached from the event. The car also runs Weld rear wheels and ET Street R 305’s. It was a fully prepped track so I was able to run higher pressure (22psi) in the tires.




@ Z OH 6,
As mention to King, I’m not fussed at all about the dyno numbers. To clear up any doubts about fueling, one thing I did forget to mention is the car runs a JMS, other than that the fuel system is 100% stock. Also, our 93 over here has zero ethanol, it is E0/93. The petrol station (gas station) that I buy fuel from is a top tier station. Their E85 is actually E82-83 year round including Winter and their E85 is diluted with their 93. The E85 is rated at 105 at this station. So when I fill up I use a App on my phone to work out the target Ethanol content and fill up with a blend of E82/93, there is no low quality petrol/gas (87 for example) in the mix. Also, I run lambda 0.88 at E55 and 0.84 at E0. This is done via the PE Gas/Ethanol tables in HPT as you can have independent targets based on the blend from E0 to E85 (or E55 in my case). The common suggestion (on the internet) says you need to target lambda 0.82 - 0.83 for the LT4 however what people don’t take into account is that is based on lower quality fuels that don’t have good knock resistance therefor requiring a richer mixture to quench (cool) combustion temps to aid in knock suppression, when you use a quality fuel that has better knock resistance there is no need to run “as rich” on a DI engine hence targeting 0.88 on the E55/93 mix. I have done multiple passed down the track at 0.88 (at E55) with nil issues. Also, the LT4 runs a 0.020” top ring end gap therefor there isn’t a concern about needing to run richer to prevent end gap butting (compared to the high comp LT1 for example). It also goes without saying that having the SOI/EOI in the sweet spot helps as well as dialing in the VCT as the OEM setting made less power on the dyno vs the changed VCT numbers at WOT. To add on top of this, being it was a 28 Deg C (84F) day there was even less strain on the fuel system so it is possible to run E55 on a stock LT4 fuel system with a JMS with nil pressure drop issues on both the high/low sides as well as not maxing the high side pumps 130 deg limit.






If it’s of any interest to anyone, the other mod the car has that may or may not be helping its performance at the track is the under tray I made to fill the void under the rear of the car once the OEM rear muffler is removed. You can read about it in this thread….. https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showt...=585799&page=3



I have recently done this mod to the underside of the OEM blowers lid, again doubtful that there is any real gains but the fact that I can do it I did. Post #15827.
https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showt...6559&page=1131

I am going to change the lower to increase boost a little. I know I will be sacrificing the level of E I can run however it isn’t difficult to change the lower pulley size again to reduce boost / increase E levels. I will be experimenting with pulley sizes vs Ethanol levels to find the sweet spot and planning on racing again in Winter.

Again, Sorry OP, I didn’t mean for this to go off topic from your results. Hopefully my post was of some help to you

What are your VCT WOT settings? What are your SOI targets and what are you hitting at WOT and what is your injector pulse width on the ethanol blends.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by RHD ZL1

Sorry OP, I didn’t mean for this to get off topic from your results, I will answer a few questions and will add some info at the same time that may be of interest to you.



@ King,
Over here in Australia we don’t have any US based dyno’s, 95% of workshops use Mainline which from what I understand reads lower than say Dyno Jets for example. Personally I’m not too fused about dyno results and am more interested in how the car performs at the track. There is a particular workshop here in Aus that is notorious for crazy dyno numbers yet their cars at the track don’t perform as the dyno results indicate. Perfect example a VF commodore (Chevy SS over there) that they claimed made 900rwhp yet ran 10.3 @ 133



@ Z OH 6,
As mention to King, I’m not fussed at all about the dyno numbers. To clear up any doubts about fueling, one thing I did forget to mention is the car runs a JMS, other than that the fuel system is 100% stock. Also, our 93 over here has zero ethanol, it is E0/93. The petrol station (gas station) that I buy fuel from is a top tier station. Their E85 is actually E82-83 year round including Winter and their E85 is diluted with their 93. The E85 is rated at 105 at this station. So when I fill up I use a App on my phone to work out the target Ethanol content and fill up with a blend of E82/93, there is no low quality petrol/gas (87 for example) in the mix. Also, I run lambda 0.88 at E55 and 0.84 at E0. This is done via the PE Gas/Ethanol tables in HPT as you can have independent targets based on the blend from E0 to E85 (or E55 in my case). The common suggestion (on the internet) says you need to target lambda 0.82 - 0.83 for the LT4 however what people don’t take into account is that is based on lower quality fuels that don’t have good knock resistance therefor requiring a richer mixture to quench (cool) combustion temps to aid in knock suppression, when you use a quality fuel that has better knock resistance there is no need to run “as rich” on a DI engine hence targeting 0.88 on the E55/93 mix. I have done multiple passed down the track at 0.88 (at E55) with nil issues. Also, the LT4 runs a 0.020” top ring end gap therefor there isn’t a concern about needing to run richer to prevent end gap butting (compared to the high comp LT1 for example). It also goes without saying that having the SOI/EOI in the sweet spot helps as well as dialing in the VCT as the OEM setting made less power on the dyno vs the changed VCT numbers at WOT. To add on top of this, being it was a 28 Deg C (84F) day there was even less strain on the fuel system so it is possible to run E55 on a stock LT4 fuel system with a JMS with nil pressure drop issues on both the high/low sides as well as not maxing the high side pumps 130 deg limit.






If it’s of any interest to anyone, the other mod the car has that may or may not be helping its performance at the track is the under tray I made to fill the void under the rear of the car once the OEM rear muffler is removed. You can read about it in this thread….. https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showt...=585799&page=3



I have recently done this mod to the underside of the OEM blowers lid, again doubtful that there is any real gains but the fact that I can do it I did. Post #15827.
https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showt...6559&page=1131

I am going to change the lower to increase boost a little. I know I will be sacrificing the level of E I can run however it isn’t difficult to change the lower pulley size again to reduce boost / increase E levels. I will be experimenting with pulley sizes vs Ethanol levels to find the sweet spot and planning on racing again in Winter.

Again, Sorry OP, I didn’t mean for this to go off topic from your results. Hopefully my post was of some help to you

I figured you were running it leaner to stretch the fuel system out. I target .84-.85 on ethanol and .82 on pump gas. This ensures the car is safe under all conditions. .88 is too lean imo for roadcourse or long pulls with a hot engine imo. It's also one thing when it's your personal car that you consistently monitor, it's another to tune on the edge and send the customer down the road not knowing if they are going to pay attention to things. I agree dyno numbers are the least of my concern; I was just saying your car is performing better than the dyno number suggested. Good stuff either way!!

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by Winemedineme69me

What's up y'all,

I have a 2022 Camaro ZL1 10 speed with 2" speed engineering long tubes, off road x pipe and factory NPP exhaust, flex fuel running E49 blend and standard rotofab cold air intake and aem wideband for tuning.

I got it Dynod and it put down the following numbers, temp was 46 degrees outside, MAT temp was 138 on the data log, no knock and timing at 26.5 up top.

Typically Dynojet reads within 10% of My superflow and usually slightly higher than my superflow.

10 speed cars should be tested in 7th gear which is 1:1

As you gear down, 6th will make less power, around 10-15 RWHP

5th will make even less power 20-25 RWHP.

I have tested this many times.

My 125 package consists of Rotofab, 95 mm TB, 1 7/8 Long tubes with cats, Flex fuel sensor plugs and wires along with a JMS fuel system voltage booster.

We can run E60 at .84 Lambda and maintain commanded low side pressure, high side pressure and not exceed about 5.8 ms injector opening time.

This combination puts down 670 RWTQ 670 RWHP on E60 consistently across many many cars.

So in my opinion you have some work to do.

Ted.