All the talk about the new cam profile and lower hp numbers for the 2001 cars had me concerned.
Well, I finally broke in my engine (it took almost 5 months!) and off it went to the dyno at Apex in Santa Clara, CA
After 3 runs (all were within 2 hp of each other), it put down 399.8 hp and 444.8 ft./lbs SAE corrected. These were almost identical to my 98 GTS (I had filters and smooth tubes on it) with the same mileage. So I was able to confirm the peak nubmers were the same.
Now I wanted to see the rest of the curves and determine if there were any other variances since I have heard that the new cam causes a loss on the low end. Anyway, long story short, from 2000 rpms to 5800 rpms the curves are practically identical. In fact, I don't think there is even more than a 4hp/4tq difference anywhere!
So, I am happy with the power. It seems that, in my case, the new cam did not effect anything negatively.
On a side note, for some reason, I had a VERY high correction factor for my runs today and it brought my numbers today DOWN big
time! The strange thing is that the temperature, barometric pressure, and altitude for the runs in my 98 GTS were very similar to my runs today yet the correction factor was 4% more today. Here are the numbers:
98 GTS: 64degrees, 29.92 bar. pressure, and 0ft.= .98 correction factor.
ACTUAL HP= 405.6, ACTUAL TQ= 448.9
2001 ACR: 59 degrees, 30.2 bar. pressure and 10ft.=.94 correction factor (4% less with similar conditions???).
ACTUAL HP= 426.6, ACTUAL TQ= 474.6
I have Apex checking into why the correction factors are so different when the runs were all done on the same style dynojet. They are calling Dynojet. I would think they should all be pre-programmed.
So, if anything my 2001 ACR is making at least the same numbers, and most likely HIGHER NUMBERS than my 98 GTS w/filters and tubes.
Hope this helps!
Well, I finally broke in my engine (it took almost 5 months!) and off it went to the dyno at Apex in Santa Clara, CA
After 3 runs (all were within 2 hp of each other), it put down 399.8 hp and 444.8 ft./lbs SAE corrected. These were almost identical to my 98 GTS (I had filters and smooth tubes on it) with the same mileage. So I was able to confirm the peak nubmers were the same.
Now I wanted to see the rest of the curves and determine if there were any other variances since I have heard that the new cam causes a loss on the low end. Anyway, long story short, from 2000 rpms to 5800 rpms the curves are practically identical. In fact, I don't think there is even more than a 4hp/4tq difference anywhere!
So, I am happy with the power. It seems that, in my case, the new cam did not effect anything negatively.
On a side note, for some reason, I had a VERY high correction factor for my runs today and it brought my numbers today DOWN big
time! The strange thing is that the temperature, barometric pressure, and altitude for the runs in my 98 GTS were very similar to my runs today yet the correction factor was 4% more today. Here are the numbers:
98 GTS: 64degrees, 29.92 bar. pressure, and 0ft.= .98 correction factor.
ACTUAL HP= 405.6, ACTUAL TQ= 448.9
2001 ACR: 59 degrees, 30.2 bar. pressure and 10ft.=.94 correction factor (4% less with similar conditions???).
ACTUAL HP= 426.6, ACTUAL TQ= 474.6
I have Apex checking into why the correction factors are so different when the runs were all done on the same style dynojet. They are calling Dynojet. I would think they should all be pre-programmed.
So, if anything my 2001 ACR is making at least the same numbers, and most likely HIGHER NUMBERS than my 98 GTS w/filters and tubes.
Hope this helps!
