Can someone explain this???
04-11-2005, 09:58 AM
#21
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you good at driving a stick. How good you drive makes all the difference. I have a exhaust and thats it with a auto and 19 volks and beat my brothers gutted Intergra LS with cams and headers and exhausts. I also raced a 5.0 with a auto that was rebuilt with higher comp. and everything and was neck and neck with him.
04-11-2005, 08:15 PM
#22
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got similar mods to most of you guys. I was just on the dyno this weekend. Made 260hp at the wheels, which I thought was very healthy.
Another Z (convertible) with Kinetix plenum, injen intake, Borla exhaust, Kinetix cats and stock 17 inch wheels made only 240. He was really bummed since he was 5hp LESS than before he put the cats on. He figures the ECU had time to compensate and he lost power.
I agree that anyone running 19's is hurting performance. And there are no serious race tires yet available in 19 inch (that should tell you something).
Another Z (convertible) with Kinetix plenum, injen intake, Borla exhaust, Kinetix cats and stock 17 inch wheels made only 240. He was really bummed since he was 5hp LESS than before he put the cats on. He figures the ECU had time to compensate and he lost power.
I agree that anyone running 19's is hurting performance. And there are no serious race tires yet available in 19 inch (that should tell you something).
04-12-2005, 05:15 AM
#24
Originally Posted by knight_white99
I've got similar mods to most of you guys. I was just on the dyno this weekend. Made 260hp at the wheels, which I thought was very healthy.
Another Z (convertible) with Kinetix plenum, injen intake, Borla exhaust, Kinetix cats and stock 17 inch wheels made only 240. He was really bummed since he was 5hp LESS than before he put the cats on. He figures the ECU had time to compensate and he lost power.
I agree that anyone running 19's is hurting performance. And there are no serious race tires yet available in 19 inch (that should tell you something).
Another Z (convertible) with Kinetix plenum, injen intake, Borla exhaust, Kinetix cats and stock 17 inch wheels made only 240. He was really bummed since he was 5hp LESS than before he put the cats on. He figures the ECU had time to compensate and he lost power.
I agree that anyone running 19's is hurting performance. And there are no serious race tires yet available in 19 inch (that should tell you something).
The reason I ask is my first pull was in the 230 range, then the next two were 255 and 254. The dyno guy said all the Z's he did acted the same way - first pull weak (when cold) and second two consistently stronger.
I know my mustang would get hot and pull timing like a **** which robbed me of all my power, but why would the Z get more powerful when hot? There would be no reason to pull timing or run it rich until it were hot would there?
04-12-2005, 08:52 AM
#25
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oviedo, FL
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maximum,
Just a thought... try ditching the injen CAI. IMO, that is your problem. Air from behind the bumper is much less restricted, thus making you LOSE horsepower. Last year at the dyno day OMI (mike) had the Greddy SP2 exhaust and the Injen CAI and he LOST hp over the stock set up.
BTW, for our dyno day I'll be running my stock 18's to try to make a better comparison to last years results.
Also, at the track last Friday I ran a 14.214 @ 99.02 with a 60' of 2.227 sec with my G. That was with my very heavy 19's so take that for what it's worth...
Just a thought... try ditching the injen CAI. IMO, that is your problem. Air from behind the bumper is much less restricted, thus making you LOSE horsepower. Last year at the dyno day OMI (mike) had the Greddy SP2 exhaust and the Injen CAI and he LOST hp over the stock set up.
BTW, for our dyno day I'll be running my stock 18's to try to make a better comparison to last years results.
Also, at the track last Friday I ran a 14.214 @ 99.02 with a 60' of 2.227 sec with my G. That was with my very heavy 19's so take that for what it's worth...
04-12-2005, 12:34 PM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by neffster
maximum,
Just a thought... try ditching the injen CAI. IMO, that is your problem. Air from behind the bumper is much less restricted, thus making you LOSE horsepower. Last year at the dyno day OMI (mike) had the Greddy SP2 exhaust and the Injen CAI and he LOST hp over the stock set up.
BTW, for our dyno day I'll be running my stock 18's to try to make a better comparison to last years results.
Also, at the track last Friday I ran a 14.214 @ 99.02 with a 60' of 2.227 sec with my G. That was with my very heavy 19's so take that for what it's worth...
Just a thought... try ditching the injen CAI. IMO, that is your problem. Air from behind the bumper is much less restricted, thus making you LOSE horsepower. Last year at the dyno day OMI (mike) had the Greddy SP2 exhaust and the Injen CAI and he LOST hp over the stock set up.
BTW, for our dyno day I'll be running my stock 18's to try to make a better comparison to last years results.
Also, at the track last Friday I ran a 14.214 @ 99.02 with a 60' of 2.227 sec with my G. That was with my very heavy 19's so take that for what it's worth...
Can't wait for dyno day when all truth is said.
04-12-2005, 08:26 PM
#27
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you guys do best of 3? see any siginifigant difference between the pulls?
Next time, I'll do all the pulls in 5th gear.
04-13-2005, 05:30 AM
#28
SFZCC
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lake Worth, FL
Posts: 7,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The INJEN CAI is in the middle of the grill so it gets more air than any of the other CAI's.
On one of our dyno days we did a back to back stock intake vs INJEN and got 5 RWHP increase.
Also realize that intakes are hard to measure on the dyno as you do not replicate the flow of air at speed unless you have a ton of fans on super high speed, on the road in 5th gear you are going 100+ MPH.
On one of our dyno days we did a back to back stock intake vs INJEN and got 5 RWHP increase.
Also realize that intakes are hard to measure on the dyno as you do not replicate the flow of air at speed unless you have a ton of fans on super high speed, on the road in 5th gear you are going 100+ MPH.
04-14-2005, 07:57 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: central ny
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my Z feel ridiculously slow sometimes. And i'm unmodded. It pisses me off...
I slam the gas peddle down, or sometimes modulate to get more traction, and the car just feels slow. I feel like a Hyundai could beat me.
I slam the gas peddle down, or sometimes modulate to get more traction, and the car just feels slow. I feel like a Hyundai could beat me.
04-14-2005, 08:10 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: texas
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by westpak
The INJEN CAI is in the middle of the grill so it gets more air than any of the other CAI's.
On one of our dyno days we did a back to back stock intake vs INJEN and got 5 RWHP increase.
Also realize that intakes are hard to measure on the dyno as you do not replicate the flow of air at speed unless you have a ton of fans on super high speed, on the road in 5th gear you are going 100+ MPH.
On one of our dyno days we did a back to back stock intake vs INJEN and got 5 RWHP increase.
Also realize that intakes are hard to measure on the dyno as you do not replicate the flow of air at speed unless you have a ton of fans on super high speed, on the road in 5th gear you are going 100+ MPH.
04-17-2005, 05:54 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Another dimension
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To digress for a moment . . .
Originally Posted by axxizzer
also, they will slow acceleration no matter how light they are, they act, basically, like having a lower gear set.
axxizzer, You must mean a "higher" gear set, for lower gears make you go faster which is why 350evo sells ring & pinion gear sets with a LOWER ratio. Higher numbers = Lower ratios; Lower numbers = Higher ratios. It's bass-ackwards I know but hey I didn't make the rules . . .
jckolnturn, your first statement is not entirely true as you yourself proceed to point out in your second statement concerning rotating mass and where the weight is concentrated, center vs. outer edge. So, tire height is indeed important, but no more than the angular momentum of where the rotating mass is located and for that matter, the weight of the tires. For example, the Goodyear Eagle F1's I've got on order are ten pounds lighter than these OEM Bridgestones even though they are wider, and we're talking about weight which is spinning farthest away from the hub which accentuates the whole effect to the max.
Therefore ALL of the following figure into the equasion: Tire height, tire weight, wheel height, wheel weight, & where the wheel & tire weight is concentrated.
Originally Posted by axxizzer
also, they will slow acceleration no matter how light they are, they act, basically, like having a lower gear set.
axxizzer, You must mean a "higher" gear set, for lower gears make you go faster which is why 350evo sells ring & pinion gear sets with a LOWER ratio. Higher numbers = Lower ratios; Lower numbers = Higher ratios. It's bass-ackwards I know but hey I didn't make the rules . . .
Originally Posted by jckolnturn
This is only true if you change the height of your tires, most people keep the tire height the same by using a lower profile.
On another note if you have a set of 19's and a set of 17's that weigh exactly the same, you will be faster with the 17's, due to the fact that the weight is further away from the hub on 19's. When i went from my stock 18's to the 19's i have now, my gas mileage dropped by about 3 or 4 MPG. Look at cars that get tracked, no one serious about it uses 19's. The difference is significant but i still love my 19's.
On another note if you have a set of 19's and a set of 17's that weigh exactly the same, you will be faster with the 17's, due to the fact that the weight is further away from the hub on 19's. When i went from my stock 18's to the 19's i have now, my gas mileage dropped by about 3 or 4 MPG. Look at cars that get tracked, no one serious about it uses 19's. The difference is significant but i still love my 19's.
Therefore ALL of the following figure into the equasion: Tire height, tire weight, wheel height, wheel weight, & where the wheel & tire weight is concentrated.
04-17-2005, 06:29 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Another dimension
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by westpak
Just add more power and you wont care about the 10 pounds 
Yeah, that's one way to do it ! But as one die-hard drag racer pointed out (can't remember the name) in another thread, not only are hp & weight directly interchangeable, but more importantly, 10 lbs of rotating mass reduction is roughly equal to 100 lbs of "static" weight reduction, and he had the track times to prove it.
Before I go FI (considering the Procharger), one of two things need to happen: I get filthy rich, or the 3/36 warranty runs out.
Meanwhile, I'm looking for little things that go a long way.
PS- Re: the TS reflash mentioned in adjacent posts: IMHO the TS ecu reflash while not cheap was well worth every penny. The mod's alone helped, but the reflash made it all come together.
04-17-2005, 07:03 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Another dimension
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The Plastic vs. Aluminum plenum/spacer debate, two things to consider:
As someone else pointed out in another thread on this, the weight reduction is more significant because it is at the top of the motor and therefore higher center of gravity and that makes a little more difference than the same amount of lower center of gravity weight reductions (especially considering how the engine moves around thanks to the z's soft motor mounts which is one of the many reasons why i'm getting an engine dampener).
Secondly, no one so far has pointed out the fact that HEAT RISES so more heat is concentrated just under the hood (right where the plenum/spacers are) and so even though it's true that the air is moving through there very quickly which minimizes the heat-soak problem, there's still some heat soaking going on and any time you reduce heat soak you're better off.
As someone else pointed out in another thread on this, the weight reduction is more significant because it is at the top of the motor and therefore higher center of gravity and that makes a little more difference than the same amount of lower center of gravity weight reductions (especially considering how the engine moves around thanks to the z's soft motor mounts which is one of the many reasons why i'm getting an engine dampener).
Secondly, no one so far has pointed out the fact that HEAT RISES so more heat is concentrated just under the hood (right where the plenum/spacers are) and so even though it's true that the air is moving through there very quickly which minimizes the heat-soak problem, there's still some heat soaking going on and any time you reduce heat soak you're better off.
04-17-2005, 10:18 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Another dimension
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of 3.917's . . .
I can't WAIT until mine are in !!! Why? Because when it comes to experiencing the difference in lower gears, I have a story or two on that subject 4sure . . .
Starting with of all things a (P.O.S.) 1974 Vega GT which i did all kinds of mod's to from head, to header, cam, ignition, you name it, all with minimal effects. Then i changed the 3:23 ring & pinion to (just) a 3:73 and my GOD what a difference ! I remember racing a Grand Torino with a 351 Clevland and having him by a half a car length all the way up until mid-4th gear ! (Only came with 4 gears!)
Next, I got a '75 Trans AM with SMOG gears of an absurd ratio of 2:53 !!!
It only had 180 hp but decent torque however both were competely stiffled by the ridiculous rear end r&p ratio. I remember going down the highway at 80 to 90 mph and only be turning rpm's just above idle !!! It was nuts.
All I did was change that turd out to a mere 3:23 ratio, and you would've thought I'd put a bottle on that som' *****!
Too low of a gearing presents other setbacks like having to shift sooner than your competition which can hurt you, but used appropriately it can do wonders I'm here to tell you!
It's a conservative change from the Track's OEM 3:51's to the 350evo's
3:917's but no more so than the previous examples and so therefore I am confident it will result in the same amazing improvements as it has in the last two cars I have done this with.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that I have some AMAZING top end, which I'm about to transfer into more of the lower end where I need it but . . .
As a good example, not too long ago, even BEFORE the 350evo TB & TS reflash, I raced a notorious Supra Turbo with "boosted boost" which was of the older variety like '86 which was lighter than my current 350 and had pulled on virtually everything in town from late model mustangs SC's to Ferrari Modenas and he had no problem waxing my ever-luvin' white Azz' on a roll from anywhere from around 40 up to around 90 because of the enourmous TORQUE generated by the over-boosted turbo (speaking from experience, see my sig.), but he made the mistake of staying in it and by 120 or so I caught up with him and passed him! Got to try out the Track suspension too because we then had to deal with a long left-hand sweeper at about 90 degrees . . . (can you say "White Nuckles??? !!!")
No, it wasn't a fluke and here's why: about a half a mile later down the separated 4-lane road he tried me again from around 70 on up, and was trying to get around me and wave goodby to me as he went by (as he did the first time!) but instead he couldn't quite make it and had to file in behind me and he dogged my *** for a second or two but then started faaaaaaaaaaaaaading away in my rear view mirror . . .
He pulled ME over when he saw me a week or so later and said he had been on the 'net and trying to find out what in the HELL kind of Z he just raced that whupped his everlovin' *** on top end !
So here again . . .
I can't WAIT to get the 3:917's IN !!!
So MANY thanks to BJ @ 350evo for not only helping me out with resolving the minor problem I had with the (first) TB but also for going to the trouble of finding me a pumpkin and building it there w/ the 3:917's in his shop and then shipping it to "Hot-Lanta" to be installed at a recommended shop!!!
Kudos to BJ !!! (and excuse the excessive drooling over what's to come!)
(OK, I'm through rambling now . . . 
I can't WAIT until mine are in !!! Why? Because when it comes to experiencing the difference in lower gears, I have a story or two on that subject 4sure . . .
Starting with of all things a (P.O.S.) 1974 Vega GT which i did all kinds of mod's to from head, to header, cam, ignition, you name it, all with minimal effects. Then i changed the 3:23 ring & pinion to (just) a 3:73 and my GOD what a difference ! I remember racing a Grand Torino with a 351 Clevland and having him by a half a car length all the way up until mid-4th gear ! (Only came with 4 gears!)
Next, I got a '75 Trans AM with SMOG gears of an absurd ratio of 2:53 !!!
It only had 180 hp but decent torque however both were competely stiffled by the ridiculous rear end r&p ratio. I remember going down the highway at 80 to 90 mph and only be turning rpm's just above idle !!! It was nuts.
All I did was change that turd out to a mere 3:23 ratio, and you would've thought I'd put a bottle on that som' *****!
Too low of a gearing presents other setbacks like having to shift sooner than your competition which can hurt you, but used appropriately it can do wonders I'm here to tell you!
It's a conservative change from the Track's OEM 3:51's to the 350evo's
3:917's but no more so than the previous examples and so therefore I am confident it will result in the same amazing improvements as it has in the last two cars I have done this with.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that I have some AMAZING top end, which I'm about to transfer into more of the lower end where I need it but . . .
As a good example, not too long ago, even BEFORE the 350evo TB & TS reflash, I raced a notorious Supra Turbo with "boosted boost" which was of the older variety like '86 which was lighter than my current 350 and had pulled on virtually everything in town from late model mustangs SC's to Ferrari Modenas and he had no problem waxing my ever-luvin' white Azz' on a roll from anywhere from around 40 up to around 90 because of the enourmous TORQUE generated by the over-boosted turbo (speaking from experience, see my sig.), but he made the mistake of staying in it and by 120 or so I caught up with him and passed him! Got to try out the Track suspension too because we then had to deal with a long left-hand sweeper at about 90 degrees . . . (can you say "White Nuckles??? !!!")
No, it wasn't a fluke and here's why: about a half a mile later down the separated 4-lane road he tried me again from around 70 on up, and was trying to get around me and wave goodby to me as he went by (as he did the first time!) but instead he couldn't quite make it and had to file in behind me and he dogged my *** for a second or two but then started faaaaaaaaaaaaaading away in my rear view mirror . . .
He pulled ME over when he saw me a week or so later and said he had been on the 'net and trying to find out what in the HELL kind of Z he just raced that whupped his everlovin' *** on top end !
So here again . . .
I can't WAIT to get the 3:917's IN !!!
So MANY thanks to BJ @ 350evo for not only helping me out with resolving the minor problem I had with the (first) TB but also for going to the trouble of finding me a pumpkin and building it there w/ the 3:917's in his shop and then shipping it to "Hot-Lanta" to be installed at a recommended shop!!!
Kudos to BJ !!! (and excuse the excessive drooling over what's to come!)
(OK, I'm through rambling now . . .
Last edited by Shamblin; 04-17-2005 at 10:54 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
