Welcome back. I see you still have nothing worthwhile to say.

 

I understand where the OP is coming from. He just want's to see before and after graphs of what potentially can be gained. I don't think that is unreasonable in any way.

 

Look at what MPX did in comparison with their new crank pulley! They posted the product, gave a price and then had a customer review the product. A dyno graph was even provided to show the gains. It wasn't that difficult and nobody is claiming that they falsified any information either.

 

Judging by how Edelbrock runs their company it wouldn't be necessary. Here's a great example of their new E-Force Supercharger for the Camaro. Notice the dyno graph posted.

Edelbrock.com - E-Force Superchargers - 2010-11 Camaro SS - Street Legal Kits

And here is the page with all the writeups in the magazines as well as testimonials. Now you can see how it performed under real world conditions.

Edelbrock.com - E-Force Superchargers - 2010-11 Camaro SS - Introduction

That brings up another point. ZZP made the claim that they release their products ahead of time to a select group of customers to test. Not one of them has joined the conversation to offer a testimonial (at the least) or present their dyno results.

So keep on comparing ZZP to Edelbrock or whomever. At least do the research before coming in here to flap your gums.

 

This is amusing. You posted a link to a company that has exactly 1 dyno graph representing their product. There is no stock dyno chart, no dyno charts with other possible combinations of mods. There is nothing of the sort. Yet, you are using this as an example of why we need to post more graphs than we already have, otherwise we are obviously misleading people. Keep digging that hole...

 

That's one more than you have if I'm not mistaken but if you bothered to click on the magazine writeups you'll find the information you're looking for. I guess Edelbrock didn't feel the need to repeat it.

Let me help you with that:

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e..._warrenty.html

Nope...just pointing out that they have one at least. And they have testimonials. And they have writeups in magazines about the product.

I haven't even picked up the shovel yet.

 

Yeah, they bolted a crank pulley and ran the car on the dyno again. That's easy and needs what, 0.5-1 hour of work? At least admit that it's a bit more complex for cams, and that the final numbers or gain will vary according to a lot of parameters.

 

You are obviously mistaken since you have already complained about multiple graphs that we posted. You can't argue about how one was 2 hp off what it should have been and how another showed gas/E85 but didn't have a stock chart, and then come in here today and claim that there aren't any graphs.

Only because you are driving the excavator.

 

Missed the point of this thread. The work has already been done and claims have been made. We're just asking for the graphs that showed what the gains were over stock.

 

It's much more than that, anyway. We have clearly provided dyno charts for ALL of the mods we offer at one time or another. Scarab just wants us to put together a specific combination. He wants a dyno pull done on a completely stock LNF and then ported head and cam swap only with the stock charge tubes, downpipe, intercooler, turbo intake, etc... This would take days to put together, yet he claims that it is simple and that he would be satisfied if we quickly did this for him. It's ridiculous, to say the least. If a potential customer emailed me and said he wanted to run this package on an otherwise stock LNF, I would recommend that he purchase the typical mods first. Therefore, I don't feel the need to spend days on end building a specific setup based on the request of a person who obviously has his mind made up before-hand.

 

I need some more snacks

 

I'm pretty sure the graphs will be up sometime soon rather then later, so in the meantime just let it be and move on untill the graphs come out.

 

I think the only person who is not conscious of what he is asking for is himself. I think the 25-30 whp gains from cams only is the proof they will perform and that the claim for a 50 bhp gain is not unreasonable for a complete package with ported heads etc. Anyway this is getting ridiculous.

 

I don't get what a "stock" chart would show in the case of an LNF. You can have every bolt-on made for it installed, and even a turbo swap, and it would make pretty much the same power (or potentially less, for that matter) unless it's tuned correctly for them. You can also have a tune and be completely stock hardware-wise and have 100whp more. Then you can be stock tune with stock hardware, and still be completely different, due to the boost the ECU is pushing that day/keyturn.

And then there's the performance with respect to the tune... which for the LNF will be different day-to-day, for every tuner, and for every car for every tuner. Even my friend and I, who had the same tuner and same mods had very different results. Some cars respond to tuning and modifications differently. So, your car, for instance, may benefit from a mod/tune very differently than the one on the paper did.

This isn't even taking into account dyno corrections either. You can make a dyno say anything you want, and even when calibrated well, can read differently day-to-day and run-to-run. Turbo applications compound this.

The 2HP part is a bit rediculous. I understand the point, but heatsoak or a slight temp/pressure change while at the dyno/track alone can cause a difference like that.

OP, I guess overall I'm saying that in the case of the LNF/E69, the stock dyno chart wouldn't really tell you anything worthwhile anyway.

 

I did? I never said anything about setting up a specific combination of parts to show the comparison. You made claims of HP gained over stock by using the combo. How did you come up with the numbers If you didn't have two plots to compare? Was it just a guess? It's that simple. Let's not keep overcomplicating things here. Besides, I think everyone would be surprised if you didn't have a graph of a stock Cobalt already on file. If you tested the combination and reached a certain HP level, you would have that graph on file too. How hard is it to call up the two graphs and overlay them, export the file as a JPG and post it?

None of the multiple graphs were representative of anything we're talking about, are they?

 

I don't disagree with you, but how do you reconcile that with this:

"This varies drastically based on your existing mods and combo. If you’re car is not far from stock and you have a stock tune, this combo will net you approximately 100 horsepower. Much of this comes from the tune where we can increase turbo output."

That's taken from the product page. It's advertising the product to someone that has a vehicle in that condition. The amount being charged for the product is $2000. Pay attention to the last line. So if what you are saying is true, the cams and head offer no gain above and beyond the tune.

That could be problematic for ZZP then since they are tuning everyone's car that has this installed. I'd hate to be them if it happens and someone gets pissed.

It wasn't what he's referring to. He made a claim of 362whp but then posted a graph of 360whp. Although the difference is minimal and could be chalked up to misspeaking, he instead says that the number on the computer screen was 362 but the smoothing dropped the number on the final graph. My only point was to just stick to the numbers on the graph if you're gonna talk about them. It may only be 2hp but where do you draw the line?

 

Unfortunately the message gets lost the further in to the thread we go. When misinformation is continuously repeated it makes it worse. I'd recommend going back to the first post to see my point.

 

You are right. When people make dyno videos, the pull gets done and they look at the number on the screen and shout out, "594! No, wait, we better check the smoothing on the graph before claiming a number. Hang on, sorry it's 591! Alright! 591! Woo HOO!"

 

Most do talk about the final number whether it's smoothed, SAE corrected, or whatever. You've done the same thing actually. You note when it's uncorrected or not and the reason why.

 

I know, I just agreed with you. People love to shout out the smoothing factor at the end of a dyno pull video.

 

I'm not gonna judge what you like to do at the end of your dyno videos. It's not being called into question here.

 

You make it seem like ZZP has some sort of control over GM production variability. They are attempting to take as many variables out as possible, allowing for greater rates of success. I see no fault with that. Sometimes people have a factory freak or a lemon though, and there's nothing ZZP or anybody can do about that. That's just life.

There isn't another car in existance that will have the same curve as the one Edelbrock advertised for their product above, after it's installed.

 

I didn't make the original statement about variability of the tune, did I?

 

The tune is a canned tune from the sound of it, so the tune doesn't change in this case.

The tuning I was speaking of earlier was custom tuning and the variability of those tunes due to factory variability. For instance, my car was happy with much more timing than others. If this isn't a canned tune that ZZP is speaking of, then this once again goes back to GM production variability, which they have no control over.

 

I was under the impression it's not a canned tune actually. I'm sure Matt can elaborate.