[PRAY]

Link to my track test.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517532

[vararam industries]

I liked your test, I didn’t see any data log info posted up though ,unless I missed it.
FYI. Quick answer, add about 15-18HP to the modified OEM Box test on that car, on that day that you tested.
So how would it run in that same test? 1.5-1.8 tenths quicker and about 1.5-1.8 MPH more trap speed. You’re not into exponential speed yet, almost, but not yet on that car. The old formula should still be close, but I would have to look up GM’s CD numbers on the 6th Gen Camaro LT-1 car. They aren’t great I do know that.
Yes, you can absolutely tune it to make more power. For production We must factor in DA changes from deep negative sea level numbers to over thousands of feet above sea level. We also factor in 91 Octane fuels with different mixes. We cannot put them on full kill in production. There is plenty of room to tune for more power.
It’s designed with the Tuner / Engine builder in mind.
It is capable of supplying 1,200HP+ worth of airflow if needed. ZL-1 guys will use this!
The MAF is set in what we call a “neutral position” This means it does not have huge swings and is very “Calm”. This allows a builder/tuner to run a far more aggressive camshaft /engine combination and yet have great throttle response, tip in ,1/4 throttle and overall drivability. This is because the ECM is getting more sample time on each trim cell. Makes it Far easier to tune the radical stuff.
The neck is also Removable/ Replaceable with “OTHER” size and shape necks. Some extreme N/A cars will want it, but it’s for the ZL-1 guys.
YES, when the system is in production, we would send one.
Bottom line, if someone is being 100%, they are going to go faster, Period.
We may even send you some test items to optimize your combination. We do this for Pro Racers in NHRA and NMCA all over the country. Since you are an EFI Liver You could send us your ¼ mile Log runs as well to verify their function.
Who knows, some special production parts may just come out of it.
Drop us an email at vararamindustries@gmail.com
OK THAT WASN’T A QUICK ANSWER.

Expanded reply version to some questions/ comments:
I have been doing this for OEMs and Racing Teams for almost 32yrs now. The only thing that has changed is the software and how it is integrated into the vehicles. Ok, that made me feel Old!
Ok, here we go:
Quote: “Trust me, a degree of cam timing here or spark timing there or tenth of AFR everywhere doesn't make a difference large enough to effect anything where it matters. In a real race. So saying that dyno testing and track testing don't mean anything is a little silly.”
What I was referring to is far beyond 1% What usually happens is a 1.2-2.3% reduction in throttle position and because of this the following occurs: Cam timing advance pulls back from 9.8 to 6.8,7.6-8.7 take your pick (10-30% change), ignition timing advance pulls back 3.2-4.8 degrees (20% change or more) and sometimes even farther than that dep.
MV on the O2’s will rise from 895-907MV to 922-944MV (3-4%change) in AFR ratio.
ALL the above “WILL” absolutely show up in a race.
Here is the Kicker: If the Cam timing and ignition timing pull back from factory, you stand to lose more than a few HP or even the numbers I stated and here is why.
Break out the Popcorn! Just kidding I will make it super quick.
GM is on the 6th Pressure wave Traversal in the intake manifold with the stock cam and commanded timing numbers. This is a weak pressure wave, it generates about .24-.40 Lbs. of pressure behind the valve dep on the cylinder. Once they back off, the pressure wave misses its optimal point, the valve is already open, and you lose the small amount of Ram tuning GM engineered into the engines stock manifold using 5.5inch long runners @ the ideal VE point. Costs you another 4.6-7.68HP on a stock car. Softening the windup under peak Power. The existing aftermarket manifolds are not even close. Normally you would use the ideal Wave Traversal and that would generate 1.5-2.0lbs of Boost@your desired VE point. Porting helps but in the end the wave timing isn’t ideal.
So, it’s not a 2-4Hp loss, usually about 8-12 sometimes more with a STOCK car dep on how the ECM is reacting to a system. I have seen some 2017+ cars lose more. On the road it will be worse because the load is totally different no matter who or what type of dyno someone is using.
In the end they are all tools, The data logging, The dyno, the flow bench, CFD testing, The track and the road. We use them all, but we always DYNO last because to be honest, we almost don’t care what it does on a Dyno, we only care about how it performs on the road and on the track. How it drives in everyday use is priority one.
One Example from our testing files: Stock Auto Camaro- on the Dyno it was great, on the road in similar higher gear pulls it was great. All great, BUT…. what about that 8 degrees of timing it pulled in 2nd gear from 4,500RPM to 6,000 RPM carrying it into 3rd gear as the ECM tried to put it back in ,but came up 4 degrees shy before it hit 4th only to continue carrying a timing loss deep into 4th?
It did this Pass after pass, run after run, all on a 2,500Ft DA day on 93 Oct fuel from the same station we use 24/7 for testing. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN ON THE DYNO!
In order to correct this with a stock tune you must do something to the airbox that will cost power on the dyno. We even switched test cars and years, only to have the same thing happen. (again, stock tune)
Now I haven’t even touched the actual COLD AIR part yet! That alone in real world conditions can be a game changer for some. That’s for another time.
You mentioned that in one test with a stock car with a tune, it made more power with the simulated hood cover. That has several answers and since I was not there, I could not pinpoint each one or really comment one way or the other.
I can say, in general, your cover simulator could have – accelerated airflow, manipulated the MAF velocity, altered what the MAF sees leaning the AFR slightly or a small amount of all the above.
I am not sure how much more it made but my guess would be about 1-2HP.
In the end what that shows is that you may have been getting close to the “EDGE OF THE FLOW ENVELOP” of your intake system. “CHOKING IT” may have worked on that car because of its low power figure at the time but it will most likely cost you power from that point on.
Add headers = need more air
Add a cam = need more air
You get the idea.
If I had been standing there holding nothing but a roll of Blk Gorilla tape, YES tape! And some washers. I prob could have made another 8-10hp out of the stocker and prob 4 maybe 5hp out of the R/F. All on that car on that day, on that fuel.
For us, the question becomes: Run smoother and faster on the road or feel warm and fuzzy at Coffee and Cars with a Dyno sheet instead of record setting ¼ timeslip?
Dynamic Real-World environments are how and where we design our systems.
We ,Nor have I , ever seen a professional racing team go from the dyno to the track and not make ECM or engine tuning adjustments (as well as aerodynamic, Gearing, shock settings etc.)
Why? Because no matter how good anybody’s simulation software is or how much dyno time they put in, it’s not the Track, Road-coarse or Street where the vehicle is being used.
VR tech

[danhr]

I <3 this thread now... just throwing that out there

Getting muh education on

[PRAY]

Let me get my glasses, a beer and my lap top and I will read all of that. Not doing it on my phone.

[PRAY]

VR Tech,

I will keep this one short for sure. I agree with your above analysis. I didn't go in depth enough with my original response to convey the depth of all of my analysis or at what degree of variances you will see actual changes on the track. Sounds like we are on the same page with everything.

One consideration you seem to have addressed up top is that most of us are now running 95mm TB's. Not sure the stock LT elbow will adjust up to fit. It for sure won't with a 103mm TB. Sounds like you have a plan for that.

I love duct tape. That is how I designed my "Ram-Air" for this car.

EFI Live took a crap on us 6th Gen guys so I moved on to HPT. If you need EFI Live logs I can see what I can do.

Hit me on the side if you want to line something up. I don't have any real intentions of getting on the dyno unless you need me to. This will all be track testing since that is all that matters to me and my guys.

[vararam industries]

I have BOTH! So I can read them.
The New EFI live is different ,better worse, not sure what to call it yet. I Liked the old one.
Kind of Like my G mail, I liked the old one better.

VR tech

[Hard Parker]

Kinda like the manifold you guys were developing for fifth gens.....

[Buckscamaro]

Originally Posted by danhr

I <3 this thread now... just throwing that out there

Getting muh education on

Same here!

[waterman]

Originally Posted by vararam industries

I liked your test, I didn’t see any data log info posted up though ,unless I missed it.
FYI. Quick answer, add about 15-18HP to the modified OEM Box test on that car, on that day that you tested.
So how would it run in that same test? 1.5-1.8 tenths quicker and about 1.5-1.8 MPH more trap speed. You’re not into exponential speed yet, almost, but not yet on that car. The old formula should still be close, but I would have to look up GM’s CD numbers on the 6th Gen Camaro LT-1 car. They aren’t great I do know that.
Yes, you can absolutely tune it to make more power. For production We must factor in DA changes from deep negative sea level numbers to over thousands of feet above sea level. We also factor in 91 Octane fuels with different mixes. We cannot put them on full kill in production. There is plenty of room to tune for more power.
It’s designed with the Tuner / Engine builder in mind.
It is capable of supplying 1,200HP+ worth of airflow if needed. ZL-1 guys will use this!
The MAF is set in what we call a “neutral position” This means it does not have huge swings and is very “Calm”. This allows a builder/tuner to run a far more aggressive camshaft /engine combination and yet have great throttle response, tip in ,1/4 throttle and overall drivability. This is because the ECM is getting more sample time on each trim cell. Makes it Far easier to tune the radical stuff.
The neck is also Removable/ Replaceable with “OTHER” size and shape necks. Some extreme N/A cars will want it, but it’s for the ZL-1 guys.
YES, when the system is in production, we would send one.
Bottom line, if someone is being 100%, they are going to go faster, Period.
We may even send you some test items to optimize your combination. We do this for Pro Racers in NHRA and NMCA all over the country. Since you are an EFI Liver You could send us your ¼ mile Log runs as well to verify their function.
Who knows, some special production parts may just come out of it.
Drop us an email at vararamindustries@gmail.com
OK THAT WASN’T A QUICK ANSWER.

Expanded reply version to some questions/ comments:
I have been doing this for OEMs and Racing Teams for almost 32yrs now. The only thing that has changed is the software and how it is integrated into the vehicles. Ok, that made me feel Old!
Ok, here we go:
Quote: “Trust me, a degree of cam timing here or spark timing there or tenth of AFR everywhere doesn't make a difference large enough to effect anything where it matters. In a real race. So saying that dyno testing and track testing don't mean anything is a little silly.”
What I was referring to is far beyond 1% What usually happens is a 1.2-2.3% reduction in throttle position and because of this the following occurs: Cam timing advance pulls back from 9.8 to 6.8,7.6-8.7 take your pick (10-30% change), ignition timing advance pulls back 3.2-4.8 degrees (20% change or more) and sometimes even farther than that dep.
MV on the O2’s will rise from 895-907MV to 922-944MV (3-4%change) in AFR ratio.
ALL the above “WILL” absolutely show up in a race.
Here is the Kicker: If the Cam timing and ignition timing pull back from factory, you stand to lose more than a few HP or even the numbers I stated and here is why.
Break out the Popcorn! Just kidding I will make it super quick.
GM is on the 6th Pressure wave Traversal in the intake manifold with the stock cam and commanded timing numbers. This is a weak pressure wave, it generates about .24-.40 Lbs. of pressure behind the valve dep on the cylinder. Once they back off, the pressure wave misses its optimal point, the valve is already open, and you lose the small amount of Ram tuning GM engineered into the engines stock manifold using 5.5inch long runners @ the ideal VE point. Costs you another 4.6-7.68HP on a stock car. Softening the windup under peak Power. The existing aftermarket manifolds are not even close. Normally you would use the ideal Wave Traversal and that would generate 1.5-2.0lbs of Boost@your desired VE point. Porting helps but in the end the wave timing isn’t ideal.
So, it’s not a 2-4Hp loss, usually about 8-12 sometimes more with a STOCK car dep on how the ECM is reacting to a system. I have seen some 2017+ cars lose more. On the road it will be worse because the load is totally different no matter who or what type of dyno someone is using.
In the end they are all tools, The data logging, The dyno, the flow bench, CFD testing, The track and the road. We use them all, but we always DYNO last because to be honest, we almost don’t care what it does on a Dyno, we only care about how it performs on the road and on the track. How it drives in everyday use is priority one.
One Example from our testing files: Stock Auto Camaro- on the Dyno it was great, on the road in similar higher gear pulls it was great. All great, BUT…. what about that 8 degrees of timing it pulled in 2nd gear from 4,500RPM to 6,000 RPM carrying it into 3rd gear as the ECM tried to put it back in ,but came up 4 degrees shy before it hit 4th only to continue carrying a timing loss deep into 4th?
It did this Pass after pass, run after run, all on a 2,500Ft DA day on 93 Oct fuel from the same station we use 24/7 for testing. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN ON THE DYNO!
In order to correct this with a stock tune you must do something to the airbox that will cost power on the dyno. We even switched test cars and years, only to have the same thing happen. (again, stock tune)
Now I haven’t even touched the actual COLD AIR part yet! That alone in real world conditions can be a game changer for some. That’s for another time.
You mentioned that in one test with a stock car with a tune, it made more power with the simulated hood cover. That has several answers and since I was not there, I could not pinpoint each one or really comment one way or the other.
I can say, in general, your cover simulator could have – accelerated airflow, manipulated the MAF velocity, altered what the MAF sees leaning the AFR slightly or a small amount of all the above.
I am not sure how much more it made but my guess would be about 1-2HP.
In the end what that shows is that you may have been getting close to the “EDGE OF THE FLOW ENVELOP” of your intake system. “CHOKING IT” may have worked on that car because of its low power figure at the time but it will most likely cost you power from that point on.
Add headers = need more air
Add a cam = need more air
You get the idea.
If I had been standing there holding nothing but a roll of Blk Gorilla tape, YES tape! And some washers. I prob could have made another 8-10hp out of the stocker and prob 4 maybe 5hp out of the R/F. All on that car on that day, on that fuel.
For us, the question becomes: Run smoother and faster on the road or feel warm and fuzzy at Coffee and Cars with a Dyno sheet instead of record setting ¼ timeslip?
Dynamic Real-World environments are how and where we design our systems.
We ,Nor have I , ever seen a professional racing team go from the dyno to the track and not make ECM or engine tuning adjustments (as well as aerodynamic, Gearing, shock settings etc.)
Why? Because no matter how good anybody’s simulation software is or how much dyno time they put in, it’s not the Track, Road-coarse or Street where the vehicle is being used.
VR tech

Continuing to follow.

So; please confirm that the posted gains with your CAI, without a tune will compensate for the rich factory (air/fuel) feed, without pulling timing?

Not a hater: Just exploring my options.

Thanks in advance for your response.

[PRAY]

What we really need is a plastic manifold that takes up all the available space in the engine bay and has a 6.5" or so runner. Make one of those and you will make a killing.

[vararam industries]

That's to Short ! ( unless your going to turn to 8,000RPM)
We have you covered !

Be patient , you have to have the intake to feed the manifold first .
You don't want your stock/built motors trying to suck through a straw!
Racers do it all of the time . They have something on already, they build the motor thinking what they have flows enough air and don't think they need to upgrade to anything else . They find out later that what they had could barely feed the stock motor. They finally break down ,upgrade and find another 20-30HP for a fraction of what some of the motor parts cost that were not worth that much of a power increase dollar for dollar.

WE are doing it now for a CRC COPO car that has our COPO part already and he needs another tenth of a second . So we are customizing the part to his stock class DR525 crate motor. We have one on our engine dyno for Manifold testing and have mountains of data to help him achieve that goal. We will prob boost him up another 10-12 Rear wheel HP @ 5,300RPM . That is his shift recovery point using a TH400 Trans .

VR tech

[PRAY]

Originally Posted by vararam industries

That's to Short ! ( unless your going to turn to 8,000RPM)
We have you covered !

Be patient , you have to have the intake to feed the manifold first .
You don't want your stock/built motors trying to suck through a straw!
Racers do it all of the time . They have something on already, they build the motor thinking what they have flows enough air and don't think they need to upgrade to anything else . They find out later that what they had could barely feed the stock motor. They finally break down ,upgrade and find another 20-30HP for a fraction of what some of the motor parts cost that were not worth that much of a power increase dollar for dollar.

WE are doing it now for a CRC COPO car that has our COPO part already and he needs another tenth of a second . So we are customizing the part to his stock class DR525 crate motor. We have one on our engine dyno for Manifold testing and have mountains of data to help him achieve that goal. We will prob boost him up another 10-12 Rear wheel HP @ 5,300RPM . That is his shift recovery point using a TH400 Trans .

VR tech

The math says I need a 10.5" runner total for the needs of my cam/motor with my average cross section of 2.75". The LT head runner is right around 5.5" so a 6.5" IM runner puts me on the long end of that. I cut my MSD runners down to 6.5" and had the same 60ft and E.T. with a bit more mph on the limited runs I got. That was also on the same tune as before shifting at 7K. I need the most power I can make on both sides of 7K for 500rpm. So I need a peak power rpm of 7K with out losing much at 5K and above with the goal of 7,500rpm shift point. My finalized converter will have right around 1K shift extensions except for the 3/4 which is simply a shorter gear split in the trans. I am executing 4 shifts in the quarter and going through the traps at 7K+ right now at around 138mph in 5th. I can feel the car nosing over the last 100ft or so. The days of needing converter slip for shift extension are over with the modern 8 and 10 sp transmissions.

The current MSD runner is around 7.5" IIRC, it could be 8.5". But no matter how much porting I do to the heads or IM, or what cam I put in it the peak of power is 6,500-6,600 with about a 30rw loss at 7K. The MSD simply needs more plenum volume. By cutting as much of the runners out as I did I created a bit more plenum volume but not nearly enough. I wonder what the actual cubic inches of the MSD plenum is. I would like to see it match the ci of the motor but even taking up every inch of available space under the hood you only end up around 360ci of plenum with 6.5" runners if done properly. I will not cut my cowl or cut a hole in my hood. So for now I have to get creative and work around what is available.

When I flowed the RF dry filter I think I came up with 850cfm which matches others testing. I am honestly not sure how much flow I actually need though. With my original ported MSD on my ported heads all sealed up through my ported stock TB I say around 350cfm. That should support my hp goals. I guess I could take a customer head and MSD with the RF attached and see what that flows.

I will also be stepping up to a larger motor soon. A 4.185"x4" 440ci short seems about right. Then dropping some 2.200" LS7 valves in it with the chamber to match.

[vararam industries]

I can't go into much detail on a public Forum but let me see if I can help you on this one without giving away the Farm.

I would need to know your head flow data and your Cam info to give you the correct information.
You can PM it if you wish to keep it secret or just email me
vararamindustries@gmail.com

I think you will find come shortly after the new year the LT-1's will have an all new operating window.

VR tech

[USAFS197]

Originally Posted by vararam industries

[B]

I think you will find come shortly after the new year the LT-1's will have an all new operating window.

VR tech

Eh? Stand alone ECU or am I misinterpreting?