[Z06] American Heritage Heads 625hp 505tq on 91 pump
11-22-2017, 09:47 PM
#22
Team Owner
11-23-2017, 03:21 AM
#23
Supporting Vendor
Member Since: Sep 2013
Location: Harbor City California
Posts: 2,815
Received 1,012 Likes
on
533 Posts
Great build with great pics and documentation.
625rwhp daily driver, just awesome!!!!
Your car is an absolute beast. Enjoy your racing and putting others in their place.
For those questioning the dyno....
The dyno the customer used is Izzy performance's dyno. This particular dyno is EXTREMELY well knows in the California area and is know to read way low on SAE so Tom puts it on STD to keep it on par with the other local dynojet Dyno's.
For example a bone stock c6z06 on Tom's dyno reads 433rwhp STD or 413rwhp SAE. A bone stock C6z06 at another well known local dynojet shop has most bone stock C6z's @ 430rwhp SAE and something like 455rwhp STD.
My point is Tom puts his dyno on STD so his number are apples to apples with other well know dynojet dyno's in the southern California area. This is well know about Izzy's/Tom's dyno here in Socal which has a HUGE racing scene. It should also be know that Tom is hands down one of the best if not the BEST tuner in the country. Tom is the tuner good tuners call for help/advise, plus he is an all around great guy.
Anyone doubting The Power this car makes.... I would recommend you take the OP up on his offer and line up with him. I know for a fact he is ready to go and looking for challengers/victims.
Again Great thread and thank you for your business RedblownZ06
http://www.americanheritageperformance.com/
310-326-2399
Last edited by American Heritage; 11-23-2017 at 03:45 AM.
11-23-2017, 03:50 AM
#24
Your more than welcome Sir! Thank you for your business!!!
Great build with great pics and documentation.
625rwhp daily driver, just awesome!!!!
Your car is an absolute beast. Enjoy your racing and putting others in their place.
For those questioning the dyno....
The dyno the customer used is Izzy performance's dyno. This particular dyno is EXTREMELY well knows in the California area and is know to read way low on SAE so Tom puts it on STD to keep it on par with the other local dynojet Dyno's.
For example a bone stock c6z06 on Tom's dyno reads 433rwhp STD or 413rwhp SAE. A bone stock C6z06 at another well known local dynojet shop has most bone stock C6z's @ 430rwhp SAE and something like 455rwhp STD.
My point is Tom puts his dyno on STD so his number are apples to apples with other well know dynojet dyno's in the southern California area. This is well know about Izzy's/Tom's dyno here in Socal which has a HUGE racing scene. It should also be know that Tom is hands down one of the best if not the BEST tuner in the country. Tom is the tuner good tuners call for help/advise, plus he is an all around great guy.
Anyone doubting The Power this car makes.... I would recommend you take the OP up on his offer and line up with him. I know for a fact he is ready to go and looking for challengers/victims.
Again Great thread and thank you for your business RedblownZ06
http://www.americanheritageperformance.com/
310-326-2399
Great build with great pics and documentation.
625rwhp daily driver, just awesome!!!!
Your car is an absolute beast. Enjoy your racing and putting others in their place.
For those questioning the dyno....
The dyno the customer used is Izzy performance's dyno. This particular dyno is EXTREMELY well knows in the California area and is know to read way low on SAE so Tom puts it on STD to keep it on par with the other local dynojet Dyno's.
For example a bone stock c6z06 on Tom's dyno reads 433rwhp STD or 413rwhp SAE. A bone stock C6z06 at another well known local dynojet shop has most bone stock C6z's @ 430rwhp SAE and something like 455rwhp STD.
My point is Tom puts his dyno on STD so his number are apples to apples with other well know dynojet dyno's in the southern California area. This is well know about Izzy's/Tom's dyno here in Socal which has a HUGE racing scene. It should also be know that Tom is hands down one of the best if not the BEST tuner in the country. Tom is the tuner good tuners call for help/advise, plus he is an all around great guy.
Anyone doubting The Power this car makes.... I would recommend you take the OP up on his offer and line up with him. I know for a fact he is ready to go and looking for challengers/victims.
Again Great thread and thank you for your business RedblownZ06
http://www.americanheritageperformance.com/
310-326-2399
11-23-2017, 08:01 AM
#25
I'd say just questioning the dyno. You're not the first to do Kohle's heads with a BTR 3 cam, but you're the first with that combo to get low 600 rwhp. In any case, it's a step to know that those are STD numbers.
11-23-2017, 08:45 AM
#26
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere at all
Posts: 15,357
Received 1,679 Likes
on
1,135 Posts
I say great job.... No hatin here...
11-23-2017, 09:52 AM
#27
Drifting
650rwhp should be easy with a 20 percent correction factor. Just get them to adjust it and save some money.
Happy Thanksgiving!
The following users liked this post:
FSTFRC (11-27-2017)
11-23-2017, 10:50 AM
#29
Today I’m thankful for those who don’t understand calculations, physics, or engineering - for without you I wouldn’t get humored about 630rwhp on 91 octane and stock injectors.
650rwhp should be easy with a 20 percent correction factor. Just get them to adjust it and save some money.
Happy Thanksgiving!
650rwhp should be easy with a 20 percent correction factor. Just get them to adjust it and save some money.
Happy Thanksgiving!
11-23-2017, 11:02 AM
#30
Race Director
From my build and dyno run data, the stock injectors are at 100% duty cycle at 628 rwhp. Usually tuners will not want the injectors to run close to 100% duty cycle. That is why I switched to ID725 injectors when I replaced my Pfadt headers with ARH 2"
11-23-2017, 01:33 PM
#31
11-23-2017, 01:34 PM
#32
Yeah we’re switching to e85 here shortly, injectors, pump and flex fuel sensor will be addressed.
11-23-2017, 02:17 PM
#35
What does it trap?
11-23-2017, 02:46 PM
#36
Pro Mechanic
Pro Mechanic
Admittedly, I skimmed through this thread pretty fast as I gotta get back into the kitchen to check the turkey in the oven but I think I read the engine had headers.
Are they long tubes or shortys and does the engine have cats?
On the std-corrected vs. SAE-corrected, the executive summary is SAE is about 96% of std. Yeah, engine builders and aftermarket parts makers like std-corrected because the numbers are bigger but real engineers use SAE-corrected as do car companies.
If we're talking Std then that engine made the 625-hp but the stock engine made 526. If we're talking SAE, the engine made 600 or 95-hp over the stock 505-SAE.
That's quite an accomplishment on 91-oct fuel. I sense there is some reluctance to post the chassis dyno numbers and other details, but what the heck...I'd like to know what the WOT spark advance was, what was the intake air temperature and humidity and what was the ECT when the car made the 625?
Lastly, has the car passed the Smog Check?
Are they long tubes or shortys and does the engine have cats?
On the std-corrected vs. SAE-corrected, the executive summary is SAE is about 96% of std. Yeah, engine builders and aftermarket parts makers like std-corrected because the numbers are bigger but real engineers use SAE-corrected as do car companies.
If we're talking Std then that engine made the 625-hp but the stock engine made 526. If we're talking SAE, the engine made 600 or 95-hp over the stock 505-SAE.
That's quite an accomplishment on 91-oct fuel. I sense there is some reluctance to post the chassis dyno numbers and other details, but what the heck...I'd like to know what the WOT spark advance was, what was the intake air temperature and humidity and what was the ECT when the car made the 625?
Lastly, has the car passed the Smog Check?
11-23-2017, 03:00 PM
#37
Race Director
Hib, I think we were all presuming the 625 STD was RWHP not compared to the OEM Crank rating, so the gain is much more.
On a chassis dyno with similar components (not exact) I went from 469 SAE S-0 stock to 602 SAE S-0 on a 91 tune, don't expect it is CARB legal, but not in CA anyway. On a different dyno that 602 SAE S-0 went to 581 SAE S-5 and then to 605 SAE S-5 changing from Pfadt 1 7/8" to ARH 2" headers, both with catted x-pipes and still on 91.
On a chassis dyno with similar components (not exact) I went from 469 SAE S-0 stock to 602 SAE S-0 on a 91 tune, don't expect it is CARB legal, but not in CA anyway. On a different dyno that 602 SAE S-0 went to 581 SAE S-5 and then to 605 SAE S-5 changing from Pfadt 1 7/8" to ARH 2" headers, both with catted x-pipes and still on 91.
Admittedly, I skimmed through this thread pretty fast as I gotta get back into the kitchen to check the turkey in the oven but I think I read the engine had headers.
Are they long tubes or shortys and does the engine have cats?
On the std-corrected vs. SAE-corrected, the executive summary is SAE is about 96% of std. Yeah, engine builders and aftermarket parts makers like std-corrected because the numbers are bigger but real engineers use SAE-corrected as do car companies.
If we're talking Std then that engine made the 625-hp but the stock engine made 526. If we're talking SAE, the engine made 600 or 95-hp over the stock 505-SAE.
That's quite an accomplishment on 91-oct fuel. I sense there is some reluctance to post the chassis dyno numbers and other details, but what the heck...I'd like to know what the WOT spark advance was, what was the intake air temperature and humidity and what was the ECT when the car made the 625?
Lastly, has the car passed the Smog Check?
Are they long tubes or shortys and does the engine have cats?
On the std-corrected vs. SAE-corrected, the executive summary is SAE is about 96% of std. Yeah, engine builders and aftermarket parts makers like std-corrected because the numbers are bigger but real engineers use SAE-corrected as do car companies.
If we're talking Std then that engine made the 625-hp but the stock engine made 526. If we're talking SAE, the engine made 600 or 95-hp over the stock 505-SAE.
That's quite an accomplishment on 91-oct fuel. I sense there is some reluctance to post the chassis dyno numbers and other details, but what the heck...I'd like to know what the WOT spark advance was, what was the intake air temperature and humidity and what was the ECT when the car made the 625?
Lastly, has the car passed the Smog Check?
11-23-2017, 04:15 PM
#38
Pro Mechanic
Pro Mechanic
What had me thinking the 625 was an at-the-flywheel estimate, was both the picture of the car on the chassis dyno and the fact that 625-std corrected at the wheels would be 735-std-corrected at the motor...which I believe is unlikely with the set-up listed in the OP.
Well, ok...I'll walk-back the "unlikely" and say I'd have to see it (as in run the chassis dyno test myself) to believe it.
As for 602-SAE at the wheels, I have no opinion until I could learn more about the engine set-up.
A post above says that some dyno reads "way low" SAE-corrected so the dyno operator quotes std.-corrected numbers.
Nothing like a smoke-and-mirrors response, people. A dyno couldn't be "way low" in the sense that some dynos read SAE-corrected numbers high and some read them way low and all engine builders and makers of aftermarket parts love std-corrected because it always produces bigger numbers. Problem is the engineering world and car companies use SAE-corrected. What's even worse is some engine builders and aftermarket parts makers will quote std-corrected full-knowing that customers will inadvertently compare a stock SAE power rating to what the engine shop or parts maker quotes as std. corrected. Example: GM says the LS7 makes 505-hp SAE. Joe Schmo Engines, Inc. says their slightly-modified LS7s make 575-hp, not saying that's std-corrected. You think you've gained 70-hp when, in fact, you've only gained 47-hp in the real world. You either have to quote the stock hp as 526 or quote the modified hp as 552.
The difference between SAE-corrected and std-corrected has nothing to do with the dyno hardware. It has to do with correcting for temperature and pressure, so a dyno test in, say, Leadville Co (10,152 ft) can be compared to one in, say, Goleta, California which is at sea level. The corrections are derived mathamatically by the computer connected to the dyno. "Standard-corrected" is corrected to a "standard day" which is the old SAE Standard J607. It corrects the torque number as if that engine was run on a 60°F day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg. SAE-corrected, the newer SAE Standard J1349, corrects the torque data as if the engine was run on a 77°F day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa). "SAE-corrected" is not "way low", it's 96% of standard-corrected, so if a dyno read 625-hp with a standard correction, the SAE-hp would be 600-hp. I like SAE-corrected because it's a little more realistic then standard-corrected, like...how often are you going to run your engine with IAT of 60°F? Almost never. Actually, you're not going to see 77°F IAT very often, either, but at least, SAE-corrected is more real world. What we need is a "NBSRW*-corrected where the temperature correction is 85° which is closer to what your IAT might be during driving in cool outside air temperatures.
*no bullshit real world corrected.
But, heck, if you want really big numbers, run the motor early on a cold morning–say, 45°F at sea level, and quite the uncorrected power number.
Lastly, in re: "CARB legal" means stock exhaust manifolds, stock cats, an intake manifold with an E.O. number and cam and a cal which will pass the CA Smog Check.
I have an engine just like that going together at Katech. It was run on the chassis dyno last week and made 625-std-corrected with dyno headers, so it will take an 8-10-hp hit when they put stock exhaust manifolds on it, so it will be 615 or so std-corrected with a set of port-matched and coated LS7 manifolds.
Admittedly that won't be as cool as the 625-650 I'd get with headers, a Torquer 110 or the K501 cam, higher CR and burning 93-oct gas, but it still will be fun to drive, especially because what a Katech "Street-Attack" LS7 has for a torque curve.
Well, ok...I'll walk-back the "unlikely" and say I'd have to see it (as in run the chassis dyno test myself) to believe it.
As for 602-SAE at the wheels, I have no opinion until I could learn more about the engine set-up.
A post above says that some dyno reads "way low" SAE-corrected so the dyno operator quotes std.-corrected numbers.
Nothing like a smoke-and-mirrors response, people. A dyno couldn't be "way low" in the sense that some dynos read SAE-corrected numbers high and some read them way low and all engine builders and makers of aftermarket parts love std-corrected because it always produces bigger numbers. Problem is the engineering world and car companies use SAE-corrected. What's even worse is some engine builders and aftermarket parts makers will quote std-corrected full-knowing that customers will inadvertently compare a stock SAE power rating to what the engine shop or parts maker quotes as std. corrected. Example: GM says the LS7 makes 505-hp SAE. Joe Schmo Engines, Inc. says their slightly-modified LS7s make 575-hp, not saying that's std-corrected. You think you've gained 70-hp when, in fact, you've only gained 47-hp in the real world. You either have to quote the stock hp as 526 or quote the modified hp as 552.
The difference between SAE-corrected and std-corrected has nothing to do with the dyno hardware. It has to do with correcting for temperature and pressure, so a dyno test in, say, Leadville Co (10,152 ft) can be compared to one in, say, Goleta, California which is at sea level. The corrections are derived mathamatically by the computer connected to the dyno. "Standard-corrected" is corrected to a "standard day" which is the old SAE Standard J607. It corrects the torque number as if that engine was run on a 60°F day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg. SAE-corrected, the newer SAE Standard J1349, corrects the torque data as if the engine was run on a 77°F day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa). "SAE-corrected" is not "way low", it's 96% of standard-corrected, so if a dyno read 625-hp with a standard correction, the SAE-hp would be 600-hp. I like SAE-corrected because it's a little more realistic then standard-corrected, like...how often are you going to run your engine with IAT of 60°F? Almost never. Actually, you're not going to see 77°F IAT very often, either, but at least, SAE-corrected is more real world. What we need is a "NBSRW*-corrected where the temperature correction is 85° which is closer to what your IAT might be during driving in cool outside air temperatures.
*no bullshit real world corrected.
But, heck, if you want really big numbers, run the motor early on a cold morning–say, 45°F at sea level, and quite the uncorrected power number.
Lastly, in re: "CARB legal" means stock exhaust manifolds, stock cats, an intake manifold with an E.O. number and cam and a cal which will pass the CA Smog Check.
I have an engine just like that going together at Katech. It was run on the chassis dyno last week and made 625-std-corrected with dyno headers, so it will take an 8-10-hp hit when they put stock exhaust manifolds on it, so it will be 615 or so std-corrected with a set of port-matched and coated LS7 manifolds.
Admittedly that won't be as cool as the 625-650 I'd get with headers, a Torquer 110 or the K501 cam, higher CR and burning 93-oct gas, but it still will be fun to drive, especially because what a Katech "Street-Attack" LS7 has for a torque curve.
Last edited by Hib Halverson; 11-23-2017 at 05:03 PM.
11-23-2017, 08:28 PM
#39
Race Director
Hib, PM sent on my build threads so as not to clutter this thread.
Dave
Dave
