It was done with the hood open. Water temps were 198 to start, air temps around 50 degrees. The correction factor was way low .90 or less due to the cold weather.

The actual RWHP was 360+ for the stock and about 356 for our system. 10.8 a/f ratio was the sole reason for the horrible pulls.

I am convinced beyond a doubt that LS2 Edit would provide another 20 RWHP if we could get to 13.2:1 as is available on the stock setup.

As I said, that is not our typical market, and makes no sense to produce a product that has practical application only to owners of LS2 Edit, which is in Beta form right now, and costs $3000.

I wrote or called our distributors to see if any of them were interested in testing our product (knowing they all have LS2 Edit) and none were interested except Norris Motorsports. Mike Norris will write a program, which I'm sure will make big numbers, but unless we can sell the system to the general C6 owner, it makes no sense to continue the product.

Jim

 

Sorry to hear that Jim I was hoping I was wrong but my dyno test came out the same. Here is the post again. That's why I'm such a pain in the you know what on this testing thing. I was at A&A today and he got some great numbers with LS2 edit, 20 plus hp on a stock C6 with a increase in torque across the entire range.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...3&forum_id=101

 

Programming is the key, and our system would respond favorably to programming, but how many folks with C6s have access to shops that do programming.

Believe it or not I offered an EVAL system to one of our distributors on two separate occasions and never heard back from them.

Since Halltech no longer sells directly to the retail customer, our distributors are our only resource for R&D with LS2 Edit. If they are not interested, why should we be?

I am discouraged by this, but as you know, I don't give up easily. I beat advanced, incurable prostate cancer this year, heart surgery, picked up my son in Salt Lake City to drive him to get help with a 3 year heroin addiction, so this is a mear pimple on my *** in comparison.

 

in that case, i wonder what is set in the computer as the maximum cfm before going into "cat. protect mode" and going super rich.


there have been other reports that folks are getting those types of results when the only mod is a retune, hopefully the better intake would produce bigger numbers or flatten it out.

thanks, i really don't feel comfortable with getting into computer, just yet. maybe after some more goodies hit the market, are proven, etc. etc.

i wonder if they would be willing to help find out the cfm for cat. protect mode ?

hopefully you will be able to design a perf. filter setup that would flow just shy of the cat. protect mode, and it produce rwhp.

i agree that the flow characteristics of the stock setup don't seem like they are the most efficient, which leads us to the natural assumption that a more efficient intake should result in better performance.

i'm actually working on a design right now that will hopefully produce some results. only testing will tell for sure. pm me if you'd be willing to share your thoughts on it.
-zig

 

My guess is the location that Halltech places the MAF. These MAFs are very sensitive to airflow changes, and my guess is that putting the MAF in that location, right after that big, odd sized filter, with no velocity stack and no piping before the MAF, causes a shearing of the air as it transitions into the MAF. The MAF is probably reading the turbulant air and sending a false airflow signal to the PCM.

A perfect examle is a Mustang with an ATI blower I worked on a few months back. The car ran fine before I pulled it apart to install a built 306. After installation the car had major issues, backfiring, poor running, etc., that I chased down for days. Finally, I simply rotated the MAF about 45 degrees and the problem cleared itself up. The location of the MAF caused it to see some turbulent air and the sensor location and clocking was critical for a good run condition. And that was on a far less sensitive Ford MAF.

The Vortex works, IMO, because the location of the MAF after the piping allows the airflow to congeal into a stream more easily readable by the MAF. I would be willing to bet that if Halltech either 1) Moved the MAF back into the stock location, 2) put a velocity stack between the filter and the MAF, or maybe 3) used a smaller, conical filter, that he would see a significant gain like the Vortex.

-Chris

 

There is an idea. Also on another site they had the idea of blocking off part of the flow and seeing if there is a point where it can work without going into the cat protection. If that worked then you could have a piece that could be removed by someone who was going to do tuning so they could get max benefit. Hopefully, Jim is just a little frustrated as we all would be and he will not totally set it aside but rather keep tinkering with it.

 

Chris is an incredible fabricator and knows his stuff. He custom built a turbo set up for his 95 Camaro and on pump has at just 9lbs of boost made just over 720 horsepower.......I am imagining what kind of set up he could build for the C6

He has some ideas for an intake for the C6 and is actually picking up some parts to fabricate one for my car.....one of us will keep you posted on the results.

 

Chris, very interesting suggestions and also cements my thoughts on why an airbox such as the Callaway Honker does make proven power

Callaway Cars picked up on MAF Sensor locations and in the case of their C5 Honker, they actually moved it to in front of the throttle body - GM must have paid attention because within a coule years, we see the MAF moved on the Corvette (C6) to a similar spot

When I first saw the discontinued airfilter in question, my first thought was in fact, "why did they move the MAF down there..." :

Enjoy!

 

When they are out and get installed on real world cars, and they get the claimed real world hp increase, then they will be proven. No insult to this product and it may be the best intake money can buy but it aint proven till then.

 

Update, The Halltech site now shows the system at 600 from their authorized dealer/installers and includes tuning. Sounds like he hasnt abandoned ship yet. Go Jim!

 

Andy from A&A removed the Stock filter assembly completely and didn't move the MAF and no gain. Can't see any magic with some other form of filter box. When I did mine, granted time lag and another 4000 miles, I opened the box and it just had the K&N's in the air flow and no change.

 

All good points, and appreciated from my position, but we had our system flowbenched vs. stock and it flows 30% more air than stock according to AAR with their Superflow Flowbench.

Ken Kelly of LS2 Edit (We ordered the beta this morning) tells me that GM has now set up timing code to reduce timing immediately when excess airflow is seen, and additional fuel is added instantaneously to protect the cats (COTP circuit) I made everyone aware of that circuit years ago, and now it reacts instantly to new air.

So the combination of reduced timing and 10:1 air fuel, prevented any real numbers from our system.

The MAF forward was the way we flowbenched the unit, and putting the MAF back in the stock location is of no value.

The real challenge, in my opinion is the massive airbridge. It's design is very nice except for the twin flow design at the bottom.

We'll see if programming makes a difference. If I'm right, it will make a giant difference on the dyno.

This is pretty much just to prove a point, since the C6 market out there does not have access right now to programmers.

Jim

 

I'll address the flowbench question first. I certainly don't question that your intake will flow far better than stock. You make a good product. But a flowbench only shows airflow, not turbulence or pressure changes. As you can certainly explain more succinctly than I can, as we trade off air volume, air pressure is increased (just like blowing air through a straw trades off volume for pressure compared to simply exhaling). Your intake positions the MAF right where volume (outside air) is transitioning into pressure (limited volume inside the pipe). The factory MAF is located farther back in the intake system where the volume-to-pressure transition has already taken place, and the tuning is set up to recognize that pressure. I think the MAF is seeing less pressure and more volume (that excess airflow you were talking about) and telling the computer that there is a problem with the intake system. For safety it pegs the fuel trims rich.

I took note of that when you said it earlier, but I let it in one ear and out the other. Maybe you can educate me since I'm more of a fabricator and mechanic and certainly not a tuner, but the general consensus is that other bolt on modifications, like headers and intake manifolds, are not causing the pig-rich condition that you're seeing with your air intake. Even other air intakes are not seeing this change. This tells me it's something with your intake specifically. The only major difference I see is the MAF location. In addition, other bolt-ons increase airflow through the MAF, but don't cause the computer to freak out, which tells me that the problem must be in front of the MAF. Your intake only has a filter in front of the MAF. Deduction and experience tell me there must be an airflow issue into or through the MAF.

If this is decidedly not the case please explain it to me as simply as possible. I just build 'em. I don't tune 'em.

-Chris

 

Thanks for the effort/updates Jim. Who knows, maybe you'll get this thing licked yet! Standing by....

 

chrisbequick,
I believe a better way to describe your approach is that for constant flow, as cross sectional area decreases, velocity must increase. Also, I believe you may be on to something with the description of turbulent flow at the MAF. But Jim knows that because that was one of the strong points of the Haltec TRIC. The straightening effect of that long tubular intake is what was credited for the TRIC being able to function well with the factory screens removed. However, I believe you may be on to something. Straightening the flow out upstream of the MAF on Jim's C6 system seems worthy of consideration.

 

My stock vs K&N plus GM exhaust dyno runs. Seems like the mystery of closed loop when it was stock to rich with the modification is now explained.

 

Question and comment:]

Is it possible your intake is better when under actual road conditions where it can take advantage of a ram air effect?

Your position on this will cause me to go to your site first for performance parts I'm looking for. My Z51 is due in August.

 

Yes, and like we REALLY believe them and.........you.............Honker...... ..what a joke!

 

There is an interesting question. Did Jim remove the screen from the factory MAF? On my Camaro after I built the turbo kit the car freaked out until I put a screened MAF back into it. The location of the MAF after the front-mount intercooler and a couple of compound bends disprupted airflow to the point where the car would not run well warm. I just assumed Jim left the screen in since the 85mm MAF flows well to begin with, but it's a question worth asking. If the screen is out I'll give 100:1 odds that the intake will see at least a marginal gain with a stock, screened MAF.

-Chris

 

Given all the discussions, would you still order something like the Honker at this point?