wow i dont know i maybe wrong but the way i read the artical was like this that at wot the silverados computer sets on closed loop to cut emissions and cut fuel consuption. but this is elimated when the vehical was towing. they also experince a i belive i read 40hp gain when they got the fuel loop to stay open.

i think on the 07 silverado it would be safe to say with a tune they would get 40 more peak hp on the dyno.

i also dont know about most of you guys but i dont drive around flooring my trucks so i dont see how the 4 second delay will affect me and i rarly put the accelerate to the floor when towing either so i would see this effecting me or many other people but i could be wrong


i could be wrong and feel free to correct me

 

If you almost never floor it, it will almost never affect you. When merging onto freeways or high speed arterials, I often use full or nearly full throttle, but there are a lot of very short merges where I live.

I don't think you'd gain 40 peak hp, but you'd gain much more responsiveness with a different program. The peak hp would probably be about the same, but you'd get to it 4 seconds sooner.

 

I wonder how much of a difference it would make if you just roll onto the gas from a stop? Is this only up to a certain RPM or from a stop only? It would suck to be cruising along and need to pass a double-loaded 18-wheeler, but when you punch the gas very little happens. I haven't had any bad throttle responce problems with my 05.

 

Getting 50 horsepower gains at the flywheel are pretty easy with just a tune (and maybe a CAI) on an LS2.

http://www.motownmuscle.com/forums/s...87&postcount=1

http://forums.trailvoy.com/showthrea...594#post260594 Just a CAI!

I don't have a ton of links offhand, but they are very easy to get more power out of with just a tune. Hell, my 2WD, ~46XXlb TBSS has just a tune and a CAI and I pulled a 13.62 with it.

 

Obviously you completed missed the point of my post. It's not that the gains are worthless, it's that saying "50hp on just a tune" is deceiving because you're saying "but only if its under these conditions including an out of tune modded vehicle". It's like when K&N tells me their drop in replacement filter will give my car 10 extra horsepower. OK compared to what? An OEM filter that hasn't been changed in 100,000 miles? Maybe. A clean stock OEM filter? Hell no.

I never have and probably never will buy a Toyota or Lexus product as a performance car. I might buy a C6 or C7 Corvette soon enough here, but when I do I sure as hell won't be expecting to plug a programmer into the car and instantly gain 50 horsepower.
If it was my Audi, then yeah that'd be possible, but only because it's turbocharged... and that's definitely a very different scenario.

 

Dumb question: what is a CAI?
And does this also apply to the Corvette and GTO LS2?

 

I mean, think of this way.. How would you feel if your Cobalt, Camaro, or even your bike had a 4 second delay every time you pinned the throttle? You wouldn't mind?

 

You get 90% for 4 seconds and then 100%. It's probably not that bad, but it isn't that good either.

 

CAI = Cold Air Induction, and there are CAIs available for both the GTO and Vette.

Bob

 

the 01 f4i do have a 2second delay in the throttle response on them through the whole rpm range and all throttle positions not just when the throttle is pinned. it was corrected for 02 being it was the first fuel injected F series bikes Honda made a simple change in the computer fixes the problem but i don’t notice the 2 second delay so I have never fixed it.

if it was in the camaro i would agree i would be mad. but we are talking about a truck and in an ss model i could see your point. i have driven an 06 z71 off road and didn’t need to floor it to get it to go although i wasn’t towing. i believe if i read correctly though this 4 second delay doesn’t happen when in tow. i think people on here are a bunch of speed freaks and pin the accelerator on there camaro all the time and feel that people will do this in there trucks as well. i just don’t see it being as big of a deal as people are making it out to be that’s all.your talking about a 4 second delay when flooring the truck not in any other part of the throttle position. i am willing to bet most people will never notice the difference if you didn’t tell them

 

No you completely missed the point of this thread Threxx. It's not about LS2s or about tuning them. I guess its because anyone who one-ups a Toyota will get you defensive real quick.

For your information (and expert Bob's), normally, my comments wouldn't raise an eyebrow when I say 50 hp gains with a tune... it's lucky I didn't say 50 rwhp or 50 rwkw as these gains are often made here in Australian LS1s - some make more some less. Let me explain (and it is a technical explanation Threxx so maybe it's waaay beyond your comprehension )...

We have DynoDynamics dynos that are the standard equipment here in Australia. Our US friends seem to use the ubiquitous Dynojets. On our DynoDynamics dynos we tend to quote 25-30% driveline loss (no I don't just use that figure because it suits my argument... it's just the way we quote figures as the link I provided uses 30% driveline loss for the A4 Monaro). For example, a stock VY SS might make 180 rwkw but Holden quote 250 fwkw. That accounts for a 25-30% driveline loss. However, it's common to quote only 15-20% driveline loss for the Dynojets. But the US Dynojets figures are waaay higher than our DynoDynamic dynos.

The only comment I made that was incorrect was when I mis-interpreted the graph of the link I provided of the GTO. That figure was in fact a gain 27 rwhp (not 27 fwhp, as I indicated). I thought the dyno figures were unusually high for them to read rwhp. But then I realised (as ironic as it sounds) that Dynojets actually read about 11-15% higher than our DynoDynamics dynos.

There is no way that a stock or unopened LS1/2 will pull 360 rwhp on a DD dyno unless it's above average but it seems to be the norm on a Dynojet dyno. As I said, around 30rwhp is the common gain for a tune even though Bob Cosby thought I was fudging figures to suit my argument, we seem to be talking the same language but we have culturally diverse figures which skew our arguments somewhat.

Anyway, I hope that clears up the confusion. Apologies to the good folks here to digress but I became somewhat a 'soft target', having to continually explain myself... Hope that Bob Cosby has learned something new and Mr Threxx isn't so quick next time to jump out of his mini-league.

 

This disagreement started on a technical issue. In forums such as these, and in general, with email, we need to cut people some slack on technical discussions and question as to what is really meant. Flame wars can get started way too easily when one person states something in an imprescise way, but another takes it as a precise statement. Of course, that's just one way for a flame war to start...

These things date back to the early days of email, and I've let myself get sucked into too many....

 

Glad I'm an expert now. But I don't my own tuning.

Anyway....

You are the first, and only person that I have ever heard to claim anything near 25-30% driveline loss. The type of dyno has NOTHING to do with how much power gets from the flywheel to the rear wheels. I'm sure you know that.

The dyno's you use may indeed read significantly lower than a dynojet, or even a load-bearing dyno. But it doesn't alter the driveline power loss.

But giving the benefit of the doubt....perhaps your 30% is a correction from what your "DD" dyno reads, back to flywheel, and isn't really driveline loss at all - more like "driveline plus dyno that read less".

Ok. Irrelevant, but ok.

And glad to hear you only made one (maybe two) mistakes.

Not an LS1, but an LS2 will get close. 360 is still a bit high (unless the numbers are uncorrected, cold air).

I still think you're "fudging."

Yup. I learned about new L98s and L76s. And I had some fun. For that I thank you.

And friend....a couple of us were quite soft on you.

Bob

 

here is a graph of the dyno. I'm going to have to say that the 6.0 is pretty damn week! I mean, I almost never go WOT in my truck for 4 secs. And that pretty much confirms my thoughts that my '98 Z71 felt like it had as much power as my '06.

 

I have been thinking about this 4 second issue while I've been driving my truck over the past few days. I almost wonder if for some reason the traction control came on when they hit it on the dyno? I cannot go WOT from a stop in my truck without the "TRACTION ACTIVE" flashing on the DIC. With the very cold weather and poor road conditions that we've had here, I have had traction control come on many times unexpectedly. I blame my stock POS 245/70R17 tires on this mostly, but it looks like that is the standard tire now. My truck only has 3.23 gears, and the 6.0 is only available with 3.73s and 4.10s which would make it more likely to spin the tires activating traction control.

Could the people who did this test not have known about turning the traction control off or activated it without mentioning it in the article?