When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
So "not interested" in a $5000 tune/flexfuel setup but you somehow are interested in $5000+ in bolt-on junk that will deliver LESS power over a narrower range than the flexfuel? Makes sense.
The one issue here is that no one has run their C8 at the track with just the E85 flex/fuel alone to make any comparison. Once that is done, it would be much easier for members to make their own choice. Dyno numbers are about the same between E85 FLEX/FUEL and a complete $5000 bolt-ons. ...take your pick with the dyno numbers. But I do believe E85 Flex/Fuel may have a slight edge. Time will tell.
Peak numbers might be close but I promise you a C8 running E will stomp a basic bolt-on car becuase it is going to come down to the area 'under the curve' as it were. No bolt-on can give you gains all across the rev range from timing advance everywhere.
Peak numbers might be close but I promise you a C8 running E will stomp a basic bolt-on car becuase it is going to come down to the area 'under the curve' as it were. No bolt-on can give you gains all across the rev range from timing advance everywhere.
Well…. There are bolt on cars running mid to bottom 10’s. Bolt- onS can all come together.
Peak numbers might be close but I promise you a C8 running E will stomp a basic bolt-on car becuase it is going to come down to the area 'under the curve' as it were. No bolt-on can give you gains all across the rev range from timing advance everywhere.
I believe 123sugey is familiar with the C8s that are running at our track in Bradenton. When I say bolt-ons, that includes higher octane or a mixture of E85. So add $5 to that $5000 bolt-ons 😃 Furthermore, I don't think many would just do E85 without adding bolt-ons.
I don't think many would just do E85 without adding bolt-ons.
I think that certainly was the case in the C8 world before tuning became available. The first round of tuned C8s really were all those guys who had been modding their cars just waiting for the ECM to get unlocked. You're seeing those guys now adding FlexFuel. But now with so many tuners offering FlexFuel setups, I have to think a lot of folks will see the value proposition it offers. Nothing out there can touch it for horsepower per dollar and easy reversibility. Take out one sensor and redo some lines, flash the ECM back to stock and you're done. You could just port the kit to a new C8 (granted, you'd have to pay to have the ECM unlocked again).
That's what I've been hoping but I don't think it is likely. We're basically 6 model years in and the TCU has not even been cracked. I'm not even sure if anyone is actively working on it. The ability for these cars to rev higher would give a lot of awesome options for NA builds. You'd probably see 650hp NA cars if they could just let them rev. On ethanol, you might see 675. That alone would be great but the real game changer would be physical changes to gears. All we need is a simple 1:1 4th gear and then the old 0.88 4th could be the new 5th and so on. We're talking one cog change and the ability to tune it. You'd see NA C8s in the 9s.
Why don't you get a shorter rear axle ratio? 1-3, for the price, match or exceed any car within $50k. And, for me, off the line is fun, or kicking it down to 2nd or 3rd. My M-4 Comp would beat any Corvette--including the Z06, at a 60 punch. That was great fun, too. But, for $82 K, the handling, performance and style are worth it. I won't go to a strip--and you are dead on about them, but a car that runs stock 2.8-9 0-60 is a quick car. Even falling off 80-115, it still is a low 11 quarter mile car. For the price, what is better? Do enjoy your comments.
There is no 'shorter' rear axle ratio. Remember this engine is in the rear so the diff and the whole thing is one unit (transaxle). Every C8 Tremec gearbox uses the same gears and final drive (3.55) The only change is the transfer gear (the bit that sits between the output shafts and the rear end as it were).
The only viable option would be the Z06 transfer gear that would give you an effective final drive of 5.56 as opposed to the 5.17 in a Z51 or 4.89 in a base Stingray. Not sure anyone is going to have their gearbox opened up for that experiment. Might be simpler to simply swap in a Z06 trans but without the TCU being accessible, that's another huge gamble. Would the car be able to run the TCU from a Z06 when the ECMs are completely different? I have my doubts. Then you'd have the potential issues of the aggressive rear end maybe overwhelming the traction/launch control of the Stingray because it has so much more low end torque than the Z06. You might well end up with a car that suddenly can't launch as fast as stock. This ain't 1965 anymore. You can't just swap in a new rear end on a Saturday and everything works because it is just straight mechanical systems.
