My "Mamofied" 2009 Corvette Z06 Build

The C6 Z06 has always been one of those dream cars for me — raw, lightweight, and powered by the legendary naturally aspirated LS7. I searched for years to find the right one. I didn’t want just any Z06; I wanted something clean, original, and worth the wait.
Finally, in December 2022, I struck gold. In Georgia, I came across a 2009 Corvette Z06, bone stock, with just 12,000 miles. Even more incredible — it was still riding on its original tires. This car was a time capsule, untouched, just waiting for me to bring it home.

Step One: Bringing It Back to Life

The first priority was obvious: new rubber. I swapped the 14-year-old factory tires for a fresh set of Michelin Pilot Sport 4S. Next, I scheduled the infamous LS7 “head fix” for peace of mind and reliability. While waiting for that, I treated the car to a paint correction and ceramic coat, bringing out a showroom shine that matched its low miles.
I ended up speaking with a handful of people when doing homework regarding the head fix situation. Tony Mamo's approach to the LS7 valvetrain issues made the most sense to me .I recommend anyone thinking about addressing these concerns to speak with him. More on this . Keep reading.

Early Mods for Fun

Before diving into anything major, I wanted to give the car a little more personality. I added:

• Corsa Extreme Exhaust – the sound this car deserves, aggressive but refined.
  MGW Short Throw Shifter – a crisp, mechanical upgrade that transformed every gear change.

These changes alone made the car a joy to drive and gave it that visceral connection between man and machine.

The Big Step, 10,000 Miles Later: Going “Mamofied”

Eventually, it was time for more. I wanted to unlock the LS7’s true potential — but keep it streetable. That’s when I reached out to Tony Mamo, whose name in the LS world speaks for itself.
Together we built a package that balanced drivability with serious performance gains. I discussed with Tony that my goals were more power naturally but none of it at the expense of drivability. I was really wanting to keep it close to stock in terms of how the car drove.

He shared with me most of the drivability issues are based on cam choice and wanted to keep mine conservative to accomplish what I was after. We went with a mild custom grind that he referred to as his Stg 1.5 cam based on how much overlap it had.
He said the idle would have a little bit of personality but the overall drivability would be very much stock like. When the smoke cleared Tony really delivered on exactly that.

I also shared with him that I planned on keeping the OEM manifolds as well and I know he took that into consideration with his cam design. I may do headers down the road but for now I kept the stock exhaust manifolds and added the Corsa Extreme cat back for the sound I was after.
Here is an overview of what went into my Stage 1.5 “Mamofied” setup:

• Mamo MMS 265 LS7 heads CNC-ported and hand finished for even more airflow and velocity.
• Custom MMS Stg 1.5 Camshaft, spec’d for a broad, street-friendly powerband. I know it only has a 227 intake lobe (Tony might have more details to share)
• Ported MSD with Tony's Stealth top upgrade (Looks so much cleaner under the hood that way)
• Ported OEM Throttle Body (Tony suggested that for more stock like drivability versus the larger 103
• Yella Terra Rockers with the 10mm upgrade (torqued to 40 ft-lbs)
• Johnson Lifters
• PAC 1222X Valve Springs
• Upgraded Timing Chain & Gear Set
• Mamo's custom ATI Harmonic Damper (10% Underdrive) with the taller belt guides so we don't throw A/C belts
• Mamo's Ram Air Cold Air Intake

This combination was built not just for numbers, but for balance — throttle response, reliability, and that addictive LS7 character.

Dyno Results: From Stock to Strong

When I first put the car on the rollers (stock "fixed & ported heads" with stock cam), it made:
497 WHP / 461 WTQ
After Tony’s porting magic and a proper tune, it now lays down:

• 564 WHP / 471 WTQ
  

Now, here’s the thing about dynos — they’re like bathroom scales. Step on three different ones and you’ll get three different numbers. Stephen’s dyno at SS LSX in Concord, NC is known to be a little “stingy,” which is actually a good thing. If it shows 564 WHP there, you know the car is making every bit of it (and maybe more) on the street.

And let’s be real — dyno charts are great for wall art and bragging at car meets, but they don’t win races. What really counts is the grin plastered across your face when the cam comes alive at 3,500 RPM and pulls cleanly all the way to 7,000. By that measure, this Z06 is undefeated. Tuned to Perfection at SS LSX
All the hardware in the world won’t shine without the right tune. That’s where Stephen Shoaph at SS LSX came in. Stephen originally did the head work on my car, so it was only natural to trust him with the dyno and street tune.
He absolutely nailed it. The idle is crisp, the throttle response is instant, and the drivability is OEM-like — except way more fun. Whether I’m cruising in sixth gear or ripping through backroads, the car feels refined, balanced, and downright addictive.

How It Drives Now

This is the part that matters most. The car isn’t just faster — it’s more alive. The cam lope at idle has that perfect mix of attitude without being obnoxious. Around town, it’s smooth and easy to live with. On the highway, it settles down and cruises effortlessly.
But when you drop a gear and open it up, it transforms — the powerband is strong everywhere, and the combination of the Corsa Extreme and camshaft note makes every tunnel feel like a private concert.
Even better, I recently had a good reality check. My buddy owns a built C6 ZR1 making over 800 horsepower on E85 — a car that will absolutely rearrange your perspective on acceleration.
After taking my Z06 for a spin, even he was impressed. His words? "You've got your self one hell of a race car". He loved the “explosive power” and commented on the long, linear pull my car has, while being amazed at how well it drives for such a mild street package. Coming from someone used to four-digit fuel flow, that’s a compliment I’ll take all day.

Final Thoughts

Owning this car has been a fun journey — from finding it stock on its original tires to building it into a finely tuned, 560+ whp street machine. I may have a couple more things left for it in the near future. Meantime, I will enjoy it.
Hope you all enjoyed my post and didn't get too tired from reading it

If you’re in the Concord, NC area, I can’t recommend SS LSX (Stephen) [ [url]https://www.sslsxtuning.com ] enough for tuning and LS builds. And of course, a huge thanks to Tony Mamo for his porting and expertise — the man’s craftsmanship speaks for itself. [ [url]https://www.mamomotorsports.com/ ]

This Z06 was worth every second of the search. Now, every time I fire it up, I’m reminded that chasing your dream car is one thing — but building it into your perfect car is something else entirely.




I meant to add this photo on the initial post. However, for inquiring minds. I mentioned stealth set-up. Here it is.

 

That torque curve or should I say LINE- damn now thats a street car, 400+ lb ft everywhere lol...good job man and with NO Headers ! awesome

 

Killer street build… still on a stock clutch as well?

 

yes sir

 

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment..!

 

Dynojet is a standardize roller mass and calculation. If you have 3 dynojets parked next to each other they should all give the same fairly exact numbers on the same day at the same time when set the same way.

No other dyno can make that claim that I'm aware of. Dynojet is what I always use to compare vehicles because of that inherent standardization.
Dyno numbers between any other dynos cannot be compared at all

 

^^^^^^^^^^THIS 100%^^^^^^^^^^
Dyno's are good for 1 thing only, and that is to take a hp/tq reading. Then you have a baseline. Now that you have that baseline, you can use the dyno to measure any hp/tq gains or losses. I can't speak with any knowledge about whether or not all Dynojet dyno's read the same, or not. I have had my car dyno'd on the same Mustang dyno, and by the same tuner, for 20 years now. Yes, it seems a bit stingy. But I don't care. What it does do, and do very well, is measure changes like different cams, intakes, etc. I have it done at Motor City Speed/Billy Briggs Racing Engines in Wixom, Michigan. Billy (the engine builder) and Rich Gala (the tuner) were a big part of Wheel to Wheel Powertrain. When W2W closed in the 2008 great recession, these guys bought the Mustang dyno W2W used, and went out on their own. I am 100% for using the same dyno and tuner whenever possible. It's a 65 mile one way trip for me to drive down to Wixom. But to me, it's worth it. My .02......

 

No problem....Quick Question - do you still have the cats in place or deleted ?

 

Stock exhaust manifolds, stock cats, stock h-pipe and cat back is Corsa Extreme. I still have the OEM NPP in storage in case I go with headers in the near future I will probably swap the Corsa Extreme back to the stock as it will be too loud.

p.s. I have the stock Throttle body I may sell. Also stock rockers as well. I already sold the "fixed" stock heads.

 

ah wow thats pretty amazing ! I have collected so far Tonys 265 trickflows, his MSd with stealth mod, he ported my stock TB and I have the ram air SS cold air. Katech johnsons link bar lifters, katech C5R chain, cometic head gaskets....I still need to get back with tony on the rockers, cam, push-rods and balancer- he originally was talking about a 229 int cam, I, like you want to keep the driveability- I kind of stalled out a bit on it but I'm getting back to it soon- I just finished a LT1/10 Speed swap for a 81 camaro and I picked up a 22Lt1 camaro to play with- so the vette has been idle mostly but its time to get back at it, your thread has me wanting to get it back on the hoist soon :-)

 

Just a comment on Dyno readings. They are real good at measuring your horsepower vs your friends when done on the same day on the same dyno by the same operator with the same settings. Otherwise it is just a ball park number regardless of the type of dyno. A couple of examples. My stock 2009 JSB Z was tuned and a Callaway Honker CAI added by the original owner when it was a year in service and 1000 miles (2011) on a Dynojet dyno. The baseline run was 445 rwp. The next day it produced 485 rwp. My engineer friend calls the car an aberration to gain that much with just a tune and a CAI. I bought the car from him in 2016, added B & B Fusion mufflers, nothing else and dynoed it with our club on a conservative Mustang Dyno. All my friends said the first results were not normal and I would get much lower numbers after 6 years, 6,000 more miles, and the more conservative dyno. I got a result of 487 rwp to every ones amazement.

Example two: I bought my RPM stage three 2008 Z06 in 2021. It had produced 630 rwp on their dyno in Delaware the previous year. I had a Tony Mamo ported MSD, Nick Williams 103 TB and LS9 stock injectors on the shelf, all the parts needed to upgrade to Stage four. The next July I towed this car to Delaware for the upgrade. A year and a half had gone by since the previous results with no changes at all yet the baseline done on the same Dyno by the same people only yielded 585 rwp. My upgrade to Stage four yielded 625 rwp the next day. When I questioned the low numbers they checked their records. Turns out the 630 rwp result was done on a cool late October day. The baseline of 585 rwp was done late in the day on a very humid and 90 plus degree July day. Weather can make a huge difference. All the settings were the same. Also Fran told me they usually only get about 30 to 35 rwp improvements for the upgrade on a good dyno day. I got 40 on one of the worst days you could dyno a car.

What's my conclusion? Being a big fan of Tony's porting skill I am inclined to believe his skill added close to 10 rwp in my case over someone else's porting work. Soon I will be buying another Tony Mamo ported MSD from him as well as a streetable Stage 2 or less cam for a 2010 CR Z06 I bought on BaT. Also have no plans to add headers since my goal. like the OP's, is good street manners. My Race Proven motorsport Z06, which I conservatively rate at 635 rwp (after adjusting for more normal weather) just did the standing half mile at Marion, IN at 164 MPH which I believe was the second fastest Corvette in the N/A class for the whole weekend though I turned that time too late in the day to collect a trophy.

I pass this information along not as the final word on Dyno's but only as my personal experience after witnessing over a 100 plus Dyno runs on different Corvettes in the past 8 years. Hope the information is useful to some one.
Keith

 

When using dynojet to make comparisons, both graphs need to be smoothed the same, and use the same correction factor. You can select from 'uncorrected' , 'std' , and some other factors, they are within 3% or so of each other I think, most people use std because its the highest one. But without knowing whether uncorrected or std was selected, numbers cannot be compared.

Smoothing is another issue. We cannot simply report '485rwhp' for example, because the highest number recorded is based on the highest peak which is higher when there is less smoothing.
The smoothing feature is nice but it can obscure diagnostically relevant information. Whenever diagnosing a problem or when tuning the vehicle, smoothing=0 should be selected for the most part.
Smoothing is useful when displaying a graph online, such as the one in this thread, notice smoothing=5 gives us a nice smooth curve that looks visually appealing. This makes the graph look nice but it also reduced/lowers the maximum HP/Torque recorded, which would be (~much) higher with smoothing=0 because smoothing=0 creates higher peaks along the curve, as it becomes more jagged/spikey.

Smoothing is partly affected by EMI and spark pickup technical(technique), for example if the spark pickup is poor the graph can become quite crazy bananas.
Smoothing is also affected by the rate of change of roller acceleration, for example pushing too much timing that creates torque oscillations and combustion peak pressures that rapidly escalate from event to event, creates a jagged power curve, even without any spark pickup attached (which the dynojet does not need to generate a power curve).
Therefore, the same engine/vehicle from session to session can vary because of it's tuning that influences the peak jagged nature of the smoothing=0 curvature.
Smoothing is also influenced by drivetrain oscillations for the same reason, rubber banding of force between the suspension and driveshaft for example, can show up as a wavy curve.
smoothing is also influenced by dynojet rate of recording, or sampling rate.

All together it depends how the smoothing=0 graph looks firstly before you can decide how to use the dynojet curve for tuning and diagnostic information, and ultimately a smoothing=3 or =5 graph is more ideal for showing off the shape of the curve rather than some peak hp/tq numbers.
Again smoothing=5 gives the lowest peak numbers and smoothest curvature and contains the least diagnostically useful information, but it looks the best.

Dynojet numbers should not be compared as 'peak' but rather the curve itself, the shape of the curve, telling us how the engine is feeling and how the drivetrain is handling the transmission of force, rather than how much power it is producing, other than within some ballpark to be easily compared.

 

I am sure you are very knowledgeable about Dynojets however when I ask someone what time it is I don't need to be told how to build a clock. I gave my example based on the dyno sheets produced. I chose not to get into every detail of those settings but merely gave an example of results I have enjoyed. You are free to disagree with my comparison but please don't dispute my exact results or tell me how to read a curve since you were not a party to those results. It is not appropriate for the very light explanation I was trying to give.

Personally I place much more value on actual track results than on anything a particular dyno says.

 

Its important to realize that changing suspension settings and tires can change dynojet results by 3 to 5%. Things you do not even consider have an influence. If you want to report the dynojet results, a graph should be published here. Words are not an acceptable way of comparing the curves, numbers here in text are not helpful or meaningful. If I perform an experiment but I don't collect and analyze the data correctly then I am wasting everyones time and don't even realize it. Another scientist has to call it and explain why otherwise the internet continues to fills with guesses

Its my job to filter scientific method to prevent guessing and misinformation from spreading

 

I see why you are asking . As I have essentially the same parts for the most part. As I have listed all the parts in my "story". And yes the driveability to me was top concern. Also if I want to rev it to the moon I can do that as well. I understand this is chunk of financial investment. But you can't take it with you. Have fun while above ground ;-)

 

Kingtal0n, This post is about the OP's results after working with Tony Mamo, not on all the ins and outs of understanding Dyno results. YOU hyjacked that topic and in trying to give another example of Tony's expertise I also took issue with your comment on Dynojets. I guess I fell into your trap. You are clearly knowledgeable on the operation of Dyno's though I can't agree with your Dyno to Dyno statements due to all the variables you accurately point out. Nonetheless until you create your own post on using Dyno's I will refrain from any other Dyno only comment on this thread.

I also want to apologize to everyone who is far more interested in Tony's outstanding results than in how Dyno's operate for my contributing to the misuse of this thread.

 

My Z is completely stock with the exception of long tubes and hi-flow cats. When I bought the car, it had Bullets on it. I couldn't handle the drone so I put the NPP"s on. Within one weak I purchased Corsa Extremes and the sound is intoxicating. No need to quiet it down. IMO it sounds exactly like these cars should!

 

Haha right , dont take the bait- BUT the fact remains we all know that he made 564 HP (maybe more) on that day, with that dyno, in that DA, with those parts, with manifolds, with cats etc,etc,etc....

 

I only desire to clear up misconceptions and myths on the internet. It is important when discussing data to understand how to analyze that data. Otherwise, the data is meaningless.

As a scientist I write
A dynojet is similar in principle and operation to a mass spectrometer, a UV microscope, and a scientific scale.
These devices all collect publishable data because they contain what is known as a 'standard' unit of calibration.
For example, a Mass Spec TOF can measure precise mass down to a single atomic unit for a sample, because its been calibrated to know exactly how far 1AMU will 'fly' inside an electric field over time. The standard is the Atomic mass unit.
A UV microscopic contains a light filter cube, which has been calibrated to specific wavelengths of light, standard in the nanometer of electromagnetic radiation being allowed to pass the filter glass precisely calibrated.
And a scale, something everyone should be familiar with, which has been calibrated to the gram, which is kept as a solid metal object in a vacuum under a glass dome in many labs around the world, precisely 1gram is a calibrated unit of mass with which all scales around the world are calibrated to that unit of measure.
Likewise, the dynojet is calibrated to grams, or kilograms as it were, as each specific dynojet carries a roller of exactly the same kg(mass) for its calibration.

These are all scientific equipment with publishable data when interpreted correctly.

Nevertheless, people find a way to mis-interpret results, and often without realizing it.
For example, In my lab some PhD Students were using the UV microscope with the wrong filter cubes to capture florescence of fluorophores that should have been blocked. They collected data, made results they think are publishable, without realizing the data they collected was simply bleed through of the fluorphore because the wrong filter standard was inside the microscope. Nobody had checked the necessary wavelengths for the experiment, they just used whatever was in there and assumed it worked because they saw color.

The data depends on knowledge of instrumentation. If you don't know how the dyno/scale/microscope/equipment functions, mistakes are made when interpreting data.

In the case of dynojet, if go on the internet and say 'my dynojet says 500rwhp', this is a example of bad data which is meaningless. For several reasons.
1. Was the data collected in STD, Uncorected, or SAE? Without this first bit of information, dynojet results are useless from sample to sample.


Most curves are set to STD because its the highest output curve, without understanding the differences.
If you goto the dynojet and use "SAE" and then go back and use "STD" It is a completely different curve, even if the power was the same being measured. It will have inadvertently sown chaos and made it impossible to tell whether the engine gained or lost some % of power.

2. Smoothing changes peak numbers reported. If you take the same exact dyno result, one single run, and go from smoothing=0 to smoothing=5, the peak number changes.
Since smoothing depends on so many factors it can even change from run to run. Despite the dynojet being calibrated like a quality scale, the data changes based on settings.

This information is necessary to interpret dynojet results and make valid comparisons, as with any measurement utilizing a standard one must understand how that unit is measured in order to validate and interpret data correctly for publishing. Even if publishing to a non scientific community such as car forums; Without this knowledge, the myth that dynojets read differently or cannot be trusted or used to make comparisons will spread and continue to spread. And this is simply not the case; a dynojet is a scientific piece of equipment and when cared for maintained and utilized correctly no different than any other standardized unit of calibration from any other scientific equipment one would find in any doctors lab. It is possible to obtain dynojet results and publish them into a scientific journal, for example, citing the dynojet standard roller mass and acceleration mathematics as its source, which is what makes the results reproducible which is a qualification for published data.

That is, Everybody gets the same results when experiment performed the same way, differences are measured precisely.

Other dynos can be calibrated to some random specific set of variables, but those only apply to that exact dyno/settings because there is no standard involved, its based on what the owner/operator does with the numbers in the software and equipment.

 

For anyone interested - I posted the "stealth" setup picture that I had initially mentioned in my initial post. The pic is on post #1.
thanks