[Kevin_S17]

Originally Posted by Jason@JacFab

So I'll leave it up to you, send it back for a full refund if you're not happy, or send it back for inspection and a potential adjustment or replacement. Typically I've found if I put it on and the car feels slower, I've done something wrong. Remove and replace. Generally fixed.

That's a good customer service/quality response. Nicely done.

[rayruner]

I don't know why your trying to make a production out of this. If i'm the only one that doesn't like your valve, i say thats a pretty good average, you should be happy, there's a saying you can't make everybody happy all the time. I'll drive the car some more, if i don't like , i'll send it back for a refund. End of story.

[Evil-Bee-NH]

Originally Posted by rayruner

I don't know why your trying to make a production out of this. If i'm the only one that doesn't like your valve, i say thats a pretty good average, you should be happy, there's a saying you can't make everybody happy all the time. I'll drive the car some more, if i don't like , i'll send it back for a refund. End of story.

I wouldn't say he made a production out of it he politely and literately gave you options and addressed your issues. If you want i can make a production out of it for you?

[SSShark]

Dave "The Hammer" Schultz is in the house.

[Evil-Bee-NH]

Originally Posted by nyfl2004

Dave "The Hammer" Schultz is in the house.

Don't get me going. He just hit a nerve and i was waiting for jason to reply before i said anything. Dunno why you would feel the need to air your issues over a company's launch product openly before even contacting the company for a solution.

[SSShark]

Originally Posted by Evil-Bee-NH

Don't get me going. He just hit a nerve and i was waiting for jason to reply before i said anything. Dunno why you would feel the need to air your issues over a company's launch product openly before even contacting the company for a solution.

You're absolutely 100% right, but I just couldn't resist.

[cooper1965]

@ rayruner , one thing that should be noted about the valve:
It seemed to take the PCM a bit of time too fully adjust to the valve. OFC this is true for any bolt-on performance parts, but the valve seemed to require more time. I assume its because actual boost is changing in so many areas of the power band, it has a harder time adjusting and re-learning as quickly. Put at least a few hundred "mixed" driving miles on, and see what ya think after that.

[geoffchad]

Jason-

By chance have you guys tried this on a 2013-2015 LTG engine with the older ECU?

[Evil-Bee-NH]

That may he where the problem is small changes between the ATS and Camaro that are so small it's not noticeable to the naked eye.

[geoffchad]

Originally Posted by Evil-Bee-NH

That may he where the problem is small changes between the ATS and Camaro that are so small it's not noticeable to the naked eye.

I want to say that shouldn't be the case... I mean it's the same engine part number, same manifolds, turbo... the IC pipes are the same, intercooler is the same part. Really the only difference between a stock ATS LTG and Camaro LTG (of the same year) is the airbox and airfilter and then the downpipe has a different bracket, and after the downpipe the exhausts are different. And the engine cover.

Otherwise they're identical, right? I assume the engine & transmissions calibrations are slightly different, just due to expected driving habits of the different vehicle and weight.

[whiskeyfed]

Did an unboxing of one of Jason & Jesse's Boost-o-lators. This may cheer you guys up a bit! Have a watch!

https://youtu.be/afAyrkk2RMU

[Evil-Bee-NH]

Originally Posted by geoffchad

I want to say that shouldn't be the case... I mean it's the same engine part number, same manifolds, turbo... the IC pipes are the same, intercooler is the same part. Really the only difference between a stock ATS LTG and Camaro LTG (of the same year) is the airbox and airfilter and then the downpipe has a different bracket, and after the downpipe the exhausts are different. And the engine cover.

Otherwise they're identical, right? I assume the engine & transmissions calibrations are slightly different, just due to expected driving habits of the different vehicle and weight.

I'm not saying your incorrect or I am, but this same argument was made back in the 3.6 LLT days between the caddy and camaro same engine same transmission options and the caddy was on the lighter platform and still got destroyed by the camaro. I haven't yet delved to deep into the ECU of these cars but knowing GM they probably have a lot more diversity then you think.

[Jason@JacFab]

Originally Posted by geoffchad

Jason-

By chance have you guys tried this on a 2013-2015 LTG engine with the older ECU?

Got one going on a 2013 today! Has a Vermont tuning turbo, and the zzp stage 2 cams, probably some other bolt ons also. Unfortunately, not a stock tune car, but it should be fun

*edit* well that was fast. Heard from the tuner that's been tuning the car. His exact words to me were:

So far says boost in way faster. Jumps to 18 very quick on part throttle, said feels awesome now. In town so can't bear down on it yet but so far way more torque. I'll have the log tonight.

Check engine light as not been disabled, but so far no check engine light.

[dekes1]

Originally Posted by Evil-Bee-NH

I'm not saying your incorrect or I am, but this same argument was made back in the 3.6 LLT days between the caddy and camaro same engine same transmission options and the caddy was on the lighter platform and still got destroyed by the camaro. I haven't yet delved to deep into the ECU of these cars but knowing GM they probably have a lot more diversity then you think.

There are a number of tunes available for comparison between ATS and Camaro LTGs on HPT Repository. Drumroll.... Exactly the same. Down to the same mistakes made in some tables.

But, we do have to acknowledge that not all tables are exposed via HPT, so there may be some tables that are different down deep. But at the 99% level, they are identical.