ACS55

UPDATED: SEE BELOW FOR UPDATED PERFORMANCE NUMBERS: (as of 12/10/2016)

I have owned my 2016 C7 Z06 for about a month now, and have had it to the dragstrip 3 times. I have read on this forum countless disagreements about the Halltech CAI, so I decided that I would conduct an experiment myself on this product.

My car is completely stock, with the exception of Hoosier 315/30-18 DR's (and skinnies).

I have no personal stake in this product whatsoever. I am not on here to "bash anything", nor am I on here to post "unbelievable numbers", what you will find here is my personal experiences which I hope will help you decide if this is a mod that you may want to consider... or not. I welcome any of your comments, as well as questions regarding my experiences with this product.


INSTALLATION AND FITMENT NOTES:
I was very disappointed in the “fit and finish” of this product for the following reasons.
1. The modification they recommend to the small hard line looked terrible and didn’t fit well. I ended up removing ALL of the hard line, purchasing 6’ of 5/16 reinforced fuel line, and rerunning and rerouting the entire line. It is now routed under the air box, and is covered with convoluted plastic 3/8” tubing, to make it appear sanitary and as oem as possible.
2. The air duct has no flexible portion to allow movement of the engine in relationship to the chassis. The designer instead allows the air filter to flex inside of the air cleaner housing which IMO is not ideal. The weather seal used to seal the air duct to the air box does not fit snugly, and has a unsealed seam where it meets itself (it’s a straight piece of weather seal instead of a ring).
3. No instructions in the box. I found an installation video online , and also found an installation booklet online http://www.zora-corvette.com/CKNZ_Installation.pdf … these did not agree and were not clear on many points about the installation. I ended up reviewing both sets of directions, and then having to attempt different installation procedures (trial and error) to see which one worked the best.
4. The radiator hose COULD NOT be twisted, contorted, tweaked sideways on the water neck ENOUGH (even with zip-ties provided) to provide clearance between the hose and the air box/duct. I ended up going to Vato-Zone and purchasing some DEI Insulation hose covers that Velcro together, and covered the hose completely to try and isolate the hose from the airbox/hose assembly. YES, I am OCD and a perfectionist…if you haven’t figured that out already. I actually doubled up on the insulation where the hose rests on the box/duct assembly. I also installed the “sock” that Halltech sells to cover and insulate the air duct.
5. The way that the air box meets and seals to the apron is terrible. This was one of my biggest disappointments. First of all, the air box housing is about 1/8” thick, and this is also the width of the “flange” that “seals” to the apron (the apron is the part of the car that the air box bolts to). The OEM air box has a stepped flange that is 3/8” wide and mounts flush to the apron, and seals well with a felt seal.
When I test-fitted the air box to the apron, some areas of the box were touching the apron, and others were 3/16” away (gap). The weather strip provided by halltech was not thick enough to fill the gap. The instructions were not clear on whether to install the weather strip to the box or to the apron. I did not see a good result from attempting to get the weather strip to bond to the 1/8” wide “flange” of the box, so I installed the box and used a pen to mark the perimeter of the box on the apron, and then I removed the box and installed the weather strip on the apron. As mentioned before, the weather strip was not thick enough to seal the air out from the engine compartment. I then went back to Vato-Zone and purchased some “vynil foal-weather strip tape” which was about ½” wide, and ¼” thick, and was adhesive on one side. I then carefully attached the weather strip to the apron along the previously drawn perimeter lines, and carefully reattached the box. This was an effective solution and sealed the box to the apron as to prevent any warm air from the engine compartment from entering the air cleaner box.
6. Hood Clearance: After I was “finished” with the installation, the hood would not close as easily as it did before. I would latch on the driv. side, but not the pass side, without going over and pushing down on the back corner pass side of the hood. It was clear the box was interfering with the hood. After backing the mount bolts out, and pushing down on the box, and tightening the bolts back down, this has improved, but is not perfect.

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY:
(RAW DATA)
First trip to the track: 11/11/2016 (no CAI) (+900-+950DA)
I was getting used to the car, making mistakes, etc… but ended up running a best of 10.74@129.31mph
My other runs this night were significantly slower, due to traction issues, and running the car hot. Best run came after cooling the car for 1hr plus.
My other 3 fastest MPH’s on the first trip were 125, 126 and 127. So you can definitely see the 10.74@129.31 was significantly faster than my other runs on this trip.

Second trip to the track: 11/18/2016 (no CAI) (NEGATIVE 89DA)
Much more used to the car, I had the burnout routine down, and dead hooked consistently.
Best run of the night: 10.69@128.7mph. Also ran 10.72@127.55, 10.73@128.02, 10.74@128.35 all the same night.

Third trip to the track: 11/25/2016 (WITH HALLTECH CAI), (+1141DA to +863 for last run) (ALL OF THESE PASSES WERE RUN INTO A CONSISTENT 7-8 MPH “HEADWIND”)
All were consistent burnouts, and all dead-hooks… I am getting pretty well practiced on a consistent launch technique.
First pass of the night 10.61@133.06mph, 1.63 60’.
Second pass ran immediately after the first, car was hotter.. 10.68@132.20mph, 1.64 60’(1084DA).
Third pass, ran after a full 2 hr cooldown, 10.62@133.97mph, 1.62 60’(1141DA).
Fourth pass, ran 50 minutes later after a decent cool down period, 10.63@132.12mph, 1.600 60’(863DA).
went home.

*NOTES* ALL runs listed above were run in Tour Mode with T/C off, and launching from idle. One 32oz can or Torco was mixed with each 10gal of 93 octane unleaded pump gas. The Halltech assembly came with a K&N Filter inside, part number B040D6.

Here’s my performance summary:
1. IN COMPARABLE AIR, the car went a best of 0.15 seconds faster in the ¼ mile, and 4.66mph faster (with the Halltech).
2. When comparing NEGATIVE DA 89 air versus POSITIVE 1000 DA air, the Halltech went a best of 0.08 seconds faster in the ¼ mile, and 5.18mph faster (with the Halltech).
3. Will I be keeping the Halltech? HELL YES, due to the performance.
4. Was I completely happy with it, NO. I actually feel that the “fit and finish” of the product is not on par with what is appropriate for this car.

My results show that it makes more power, but why?
I have read it helps partially due to allowing a better air flow. I have also read that it "leans out" the AFR somewhat, and that also helps it to make more power.

Again, I welcome any comments or questions and I sincerely hope that this helps you to make a decision for your car.



Andy

************************UPDATED INFORMATION ON PERFORMANCE COMPARISON**(12/11/2016)*****************************
Reason: My before and after numbers before were at two different tracks, so here I deleted my different track's data, and added my most current tests at the same track as my first two visits, where the car was running the stock air cleaner.

UPDATED PERFORMANCE SUMMARY:

First trip to the track: 11/11/2016 (no CAI) (+900-+950DA)(Temple Academy Raceway)
I was getting used to the car, making mistakes, etc… but ended up running a best of 10.74@129.31mph
My other runs this night were significantly slower, due to traction issues, and running the car hot. Best run came after cooling the car for 1hr plus.
My other 3 fastest MPH’s on the first trip were 125, 126 and 127. So you can definitely see the 10.74@129.31 was significantly faster than my other runs on this trip.

Second trip to the track: 11/18/2016 (no CAI) (NEGATIVE 89DA)(Temple Academy Raceway)
Much more used to the car, I had the burnout routine down, and dead hooked consistently.
Best run of the night: 10.69@128.7mph. Also ran 10.72@127.55, 10.73@128.02, 10.74@128.35 all the same night.

Third trip to the track: (I am going to hide these results as it was a different track than track visit #1 and #2)(San Antonio Raceway)
Fourth trip to the track: 12/10/2016 (WITH Halltech CAI), (NEG. 300’s DA)(Temple Academy Raceway)
Best run of the day: 10.47@132.24 mph, also ran 10.50@133.69, 10.52@133.14, and broke loose on this run but still ran a 10.58@132.28mph.

*NOTES* ALL runs listed above were run in Tour Mode with T/C off, and launching from idle. One 32oz can or Torco was mixed with each 10gal of 93 octane unleaded pump gas. All runs listed above (trips 1, 2, and 3 were at Temple Academy Raceway) The Halltech assembly came with a K&N Filter inside, part number B040D6.

Here’s my performance summary:
1. IN “300DA better air”, the car went a best of 0.22 seconds faster in the ¼ mile, and my best MPH’s (from the before and after CAI) my car went 5.34 MPH FASTER (with the Halltech).

My results show that it makes more power, but why?
I did another dyno run yesterday, mainly for fun as several of my friends were also going. Same Dyno that I Dyno'd my car on about 4-5 weeks ago, when the car had 500 miles, and before I installed the Halltech CAI. To be clear, the only mod between yesterday and my original run was the HT CAI... (both of these Dyno's were on a stock tune)
The Air/Fuel ratio on my original Dyno (without CAI) was a consistent 11.6-11.7 up to 5750, where it gradually richened up to 10.1 by 6200 rpm.
The Air/Fuel ratio on yesterday's Dyno (with HT CAI) was a consistent 12.5-12.7 until 4800 RPM, then it gradually richened up to 11.1 by about 5750 then it held at 11.1 from 5750 and up..

So basically, the HT CAI leans the car out approximately one full point on the A/R Ratio.

This will be my final round of “test times” posted for this specific mod, as I plan on adding the RAM AIR “TRIC” next, and doing an analysis on it as well. Jim was every so kind to send one to me for testing, but I wanted to finalize the details on this CAI “before and after” first.
Andy

Blvdbrawler

Thanks for your feedback Andy. I too found my car ran faster when I first installed my Halltech and found as time went on the car ran even faster. Some say the car LEARNS how to adjust itself. Im no tech so I cant say this is true or not. I ran similar times as you in the beginning perhaps slightly higher or lower depending on day, heat ect...But I found that this year I was running consecutive 10.55, 10.53 with a best of 10.49 @ 136. I recently installed the TRIC which I like a lot on the highway. I do feel a difference in pull at the 70+ MPH but I cant say for certain that its my mind or if its really adding power. I plan to take it back out to the track in the spring to test again and see if in fact it makes a difference. Oh and I've have yet to dyno the car. I dont take this stuff too seriously like the other guys on the forum do...Its just a toy for me that I like to beat on. I do have some experience drag racing but dont do it nearly like I used to when I was a youngster.

So...I agree. Its does make power and for the $ you cant beat it! Also Jim is a great guy to work with! Hope this help also!

cvp33

Kind of hard to argue with the MPH gain. Great times btw.

tail_lights

Nice results! Was this all done at the same track?

Bob U

Great write up.
It is clearly making more power, just look at the MPH.

ZoratZ06

Very impressive...134mph with just a CAI in +1000 DA is insane! Can't imagine what it'll do in negative DA with the same setup...We've already seen 137mph and 10.21 bone stock with DR's in great air...

Well done!

BooSSted

Great review! As stated you can't argue MPH.

Speedforhire

I agree with your rhetoric about the fit & finish (total garbage). However, I'm still not convinced with the power gains. No one has taken a completely stock car, dyno it, then install this CAI and dyno again? The manufacturer themselves don't even test their product.

BTW! I have a new Stage-1 kit for sale if anyone want it.

ACS55

I would disagree with your term "Rhetoric", as this insinuates that my description was lacking in sincerity and content.
My descriptions and experiences were very sincere and also included very meaningful content.

It is your choice what you want to believe, of course... I am simply relaying my personal experiences with this product.

Sk8Man_

ACS55, I fully agree with your problematic installation experience of the Halltech CAI. It is in my opinion an unfinished product with great possibilities.
I view mine more-or-less as a prototype and I am awaiting the final product version....which isn't coming and it's a shame, too!

jbsblownc5

Very nice review, and congrats on the MPH pick up!!

ZoratZ06

I'm too lazy to search for the thread, but I'm pretty sure someone recently did this and they saw an increase. I forget how much though. They dyno'ed the car bone stock, then installed then CAI, then dyno'ed it again...I think within 1-2 hours. Do a search perhaps it'll come up.

Speedforhire

Nope! No one has done a completely stock test on this product. Not even the vender that sells it.

BearZ06

You wouldn't believe him if he did. You won't even believe unbiased results. Dynos aren't the all in all anyway, track results are a much better indicator.

ajrothm

ACS55, thank you for a very complete, descriptive and honest review of the Halltech. Its really a shame that a product that shows so much potential has such shoddy finishing elements and requires such "rigging" to make it work, especially for a $600 part....(not a $50 Spectre CAI from VatoZone you would expect to "rig up").

I'm not crazy about the appearance of the Halltech by any stretch, nor am I enthusiastic about installing a dirty sock on the inlet pipe as I am also a perfectionist and do frequent car shows etc.

However, I can not argue with your comprehensive and methodical 1/4 mile testing which is the most important kind, and the results you provided. I don't care much for dyno tests, I'm more of a "show me the money" type and for me, thats trap speed...

All of this being said, I'll likely be ordering a Halltech based on your report and our similar driving style and testing methodology.

I guess I'll buy some hose and duct tape and make it work as well...

C7/Z06 Man

One of the reasons some have said that the Halltech produces 50 hp more on the dyno then stock is that more air goes by the MAF sensor then it reads which causes a lean condition that makes more hp; then over time the ecm cuts back the timing due to seeing knock and the car starts going slower than stock on "just" 93 octane .

That is what I have read.

I would recommend using 93 octane all the time like "most" would do in the real world.

Torco, which I have tried "once" is very good IMO at reducing/killing knock. Per Torco's label a 32 oz. can of Torco to 10 gals. of 93 octane will increase the octane 11 points to 104 octane.

Bottom Line for me: Like I said, I tried Torco once and after it's use I pulled a spark plug and did not like what I saw on the plug, so that second can of Torco that I still have on the shelf will remain there. "I" don't think the residue left on the plug from this product can be good for an engine if used on a regular bases.

If I ever up the octane again it will be by mixing or running unleaded race gas.

Edit: My best ET's have not had the most MPH and as we know ET or getting there first is what really counts (at lease in my book). Here we have a good gain from the 10.69 best stock to 10.61 using the "Torco"

cvp33

1) Vendor dynos with 3rd party verification would be a good start.
2) Before and after track runs by an impartial racer would also help.

Why would a vendor not want definitive proof of performance?

ACS55

Thanks for your input and information on Torco.

I did a lot of reading on Torco before I purchased it. I had originally planned on running a 50/50 mix of 93 unleaded pump gas and 100/101? race gas. My first trip to the track was a friday night "street drag" night and there was no race gas being sold, so I defaulted back to the Torco... It had been emphasized to me that these cars needed more octane than 93, or timing would be pulled.
Since then, I have chosen to stick with Torco due to consistency. I am a big believer in the scientific method and I "try my best" not to change any variables when making changes and analyzing results.

I forgot to mention before, that my fuel level was at 3/4 at the beginning of my first trip to the track, probably was down around 1/2 by my last run of the night, which was my best run (guessing).
My fuel level for my 2nd and 3rd trips to the track both started just below 1/2 tank.

Nobody seemed to mention the HEADWIND that I mentioned in the original post. There was a steady 7-8 mph headwind at the track friday night (my 3rd trip), it seems this should have slowed the car somewhat IMO.

I am still trying to "find" those elusive 1.5X 60 foot times that others have spoken of... can anyone provide me some tips here? My tires are dead hooking, and i am launching from idle....T/C off and all other nannies on.

I realize some folks will never be convinced, and I am OK with that. As for myself, I am convinced.

ACS55

I am not sure if your below comment was about my times or yours...
but just to clarify... ALL of my quarter mile runs have been with the same fuel... 93 octane unleaded pump gas, PLUS running one 32oz can of Torco per 10 gallons of fuel.


Here we have a good gain from the 10.69 best stock to 10.61 using the "Torco" [/QUOTE]

ACS55

This may be the dyno that you are referring to: (see post #6 on this thread)

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...r-on-sale.html