Mods and custom tune - 101

[wait4me]

The pulley kit does not change the other components. ONLY the blower. We have ours setup to be VERY lightweight, spin all other components exactly the same speeds, and you can swap pulley sizes in about 10 minutes once you have the balancer put on. So you dont always have to run a 9.5. You can swap to a 8.5, or even go up in sizes in the future if you like. You need the idler pulley because a 9.5 inch ring will hit the stock one.

[Short-Throw]

Originally Posted by Vrocks

I haven't heard of any serious failures for what I'd consider a mild tune (50 - 75HP boost), so I'm planning on modding my V when I get it.

Thanks in advance for any anwsers.

Originally Posted by Luna.

Am I reading that correctly? 50-75 HP from a (mild) tune? Wow. I've never heard of anyone getting more than 50 from a tune, to say nothing about 75.

Originally Posted by Luna.

I'd be shocked if a tune alone doesn't get you 20-30rwhp, especially in the Vs. If memory serves, GM engineers were saying that 50 was possible and some on this forum have achieved 50rwhp from a tune alone.

Gang,

Here is what was said from the GM engineers:

"We've run engines in development with ~10% more power"

What was also mentioned is that hardware changes were required as well if you wanted to maintain strength and reliability.

It's extremely important to note that this did not mean by calibration only. If that's all it would have taken, do you honestly believe GM would not have given us that extra tweak?

We were delivered 556hp because the cylinder pressure, connecting rod loads, crank loads, block loads, etc...were what the current hardware was found to handle and still deliver a 100K get out of jail free card. Think about it, guess how they knew hardware changes were needed?

Extrapolate more hp guys, but do your homework and spend the extra bucks to make it bulletproof.



Mike

[Luna.]

Originally Posted by Short-Throw

It's extremely important to note that this did not mean by calibration only. If that's all it would have taken, do you honestly believe GM would not have given us that extra tweak?

In all honesty, yeah.

It seems fairly reasonable to me that GM would set the car up, then purposesly use a (overly?) conservative tune for reliability purposes.

At the end of the day, GM is in the business of making money. And while it is true that increased HP might draw more people to purchase the car, I also believe that the decrease in expected warranty work from such a conservative tune would trump all. As such, yeah, it seemed fairly reasonable to me that GM would leave HP on the table to save possible expense (reimbursing dealerships) for warranty work.

Perhaps I'm missing something though---I'm am very tired as I type this...

[Vrocks]

Originally Posted by Short-Throw

Gang,

Here is what was said from the GM engineers:

"We've run engines in development with ~10% more power"

What was also mentioned is that hardware changes were required as well if you wanted to maintain strength and reliability.

It's extremely important to note that this did not mean by calibration only. If that's all it would have taken, do you honestly believe GM would not have given us that extra tweak?

We were delivered 556hp because the cylinder pressure, connecting rod loads, crank loads, block loads, etc...were what the current hardware was found to handle and still deliver a 100K get out of jail free card. Think about it, guess how they knew hardware changes were needed?

Extrapolate more hp guys, but do your homework and spend the extra bucks to make it bulletproof.



Mike

Thanks, Mike.
I never heard that before but it's good to know. I think the way a car's going to be used has a bigger effect on it's life than anything, and my V won't see any hard days. I don't track it (road course, auto x, 1/4) I just like to give it some gas once in a while. If I was planning on running it hard I'd be looking at mods on the other end of the spectrum i.e. diff cooler, bigger radiator, etc... Basically, my car will very rarely be above 50% of its power capabilities (300hp @ 50% will be nice).

I've made up my mind on what I'm going to do, I just need to make a few phone calls in the next month or 2.

Thanks again to the supporting vendors and forum members for your advice and services.

[Short-Throw]

Originally Posted by Luna.

As such, yeah, it seemed fairly reasonable to me that GM would leave HP on the table to save possible expense (reimbursing dealerships) for warranty work.

Perhaps I'm missing something though---I'm am very tired as I type this...

Luna,

I know you get it!

I love the fact that there is so much hype for this car and the goal of 'you can never have too much hp' is being sought. D3's pulley looks like an awesome piece, nice work!

The term 'conservative tune' is a fallacy and misunderstood.
You'd be very surprised at how strung these factory motors are. GM Performance isn't leaving HP on the table given the current hardware make up and yes, of course warranty is a consideration.

GM has tested these engines for years before the public knew there was going to be a V2. I'd love to hear the actual definition of a 'light or safe tune.' Where has such testing taken place and over how long a period to make such a claim? Where is the data backing it up proving the ripple effect? I will concede benefits can be had, but at what cost? I've had engines built for my race cars and believe me I understand what stretching the envelope means. We are constantly reminded by the after-market world, (with every car brand, not just here) how the factory stuff is crap. Please ...... for the 4 cylinder teenage crowd I would expect such fish tales to be believed. I think the V owners are a tad more astute. If we're going to void our warranty on such an expensive car, shouldn't we know an expected time line of risk/reward?


Mike

[Short-Throw]

Originally Posted by Vrocks

Thanks, Mike.
I never heard that before but it's good to know. I think the way a car's going to be used has a bigger effect on it's life than anything,

You are absolutely correct. For example, even on a bone stock car, many people repeatedly do not wait for the fluids to warm up and stomp on the gas while it's still cold. Then weeks later when they're driving to church on Sunday and the engine fails they claim it's factory junk.

Originally Posted by Vrocks

Basically, my car will very rarely be above 50% of its power capabilities

Vrocks,

If you move the seat up you'll be able to push the accelerator all the way down!



Mike

[SlvrBullIT]

^^^
lmao!!!!!

[Luna.]

Originally Posted by Short-Throw

The term 'conservative tune' is a fallacy and misunderstood.
You'd be very surprised at how strung these factory motors are. GM Performance isn't leaving HP on the table given the current hardware make up and yes, of course warranty is a consideration.

GM has tested these engines for years before the public knew there was going to be a V2. I'd love to hear the actual definition of a 'light or safe tune.' Where has such testing taken place and over how long a period to make such a claim? Where is the data backing it up proving the ripple effect? I will concede benefits can be had, but at what cost? I've had engines built for my race cars and believe me I understand what stretching the envelope means. We are constantly reminded by the after-market world, (with every car brand, not just here) how the factory stuff is crap. Please ...... for the 4 cylinder teenage crowd I would expect such fish tales to be believed. I think the V owners are a tad more astute. If we're going to void our warranty on such an expensive car, shouldn't we know an expected time line of risk/reward?


Mike

You're the man, Mike.

I guess, in my mind, I defined a "conservative" tune as one in which "too much" (an ambiguos term, yes) timing may have been pulled out/the A/F ratios might heavily favor fuel, thereby losing power, but being safe.

And, to a certain extent, I just have to believe that the bean-counters have their say in operations/production for the sake of profit.

Anyways, while logical, I could be totally offbase. I simply rationalized this based on what I've read, was told, experience, etc. but that doesn't mean much from an ignorant guy like me.

That's why this forum is so cool to me--I have learned and continue to learn quite a bit from simply keeping up to date with many threads here!

[Hawkeye2]

I think that Mike's last line hit the nail on the head. There is a risk/reward factor if you start to play with
the factory setup. Are you willing to take that risk for a possible reward? How much faster do you want
your car to be? I'm all for making your car "your own". However, the car has way more power than
most drivers can actually use. I suspect very few of us - me included - can even come close to getting
the potential from this car even in it's stock trim. And, yes, I have been through level one and two at
Spring Mountain in Corvettes. Just showed me how little I really know about driving fast!

Mod on!

[Vrocks]

Originally Posted by Short-Throw

Vrocks,
If you move the seat up you'll be able to push the accelerator all the way down!
Mike

Thanks, Mike.

I didn't know I could move the seats, I thought they were there for sitting. I'll have to go for another test drive and ask the sales person to move it up for me - maybe that's why it didn't feel very fast the first time?

[anonfrank]

Originally Posted by Short-Throw

You are absolutely correct. For example, even on a bone stock car, many people repeatedly do not wait for the fluids to warm up and stomp on the gas while it's still cold. Then weeks later when they're driving to church on Sunday and the engine fails they claim it's factory junk.

It's funny you mention that. When I start the car in the morning, it takes me about a minute to walk to the end of the driveway, pick up the newspaper, hand it to the wife, and give her a kiss. By then, the fluids are circulating and I can take off. By the time I get to the freeway, about 8/10 mile, the engine's just getting to operating temp and....full throttle!

The point being, I don't drive hard when the engine's not at operating temperature.

On the topic at hand....have you tuned YOUR V, ST? I'm assuming not given your comments and that your V is (IIRC) your daily driver.

I only ask as I'm one of those considering a w4m tune (no more mods for me outside of my Corsas, thanks!) mostly for the tranny benefits; keeping it in "D" does cause a bit of sluggishness. I'm 95% in Sport Mode already when driving and the aggressive automatic shifting in this mode gives me the type of acceleration (and engine noise ) I expect. I keep going back and forth about the issue, asking questions and doing due diligence, as I'd like to do this "safely" for the sake of my engine and tranny.

[radix]

Originally Posted by anonfrank

It's funny you mention that. When I start the car in the morning, it takes me about a minute to walk to the end of the driveway, pick up the newspaper, hand it to the wife, and give her a kiss. By then, the fluids are circulating and I can take off. By the time I get to the freeway, about 8/10 mile, the engine's just getting to operating temp and....full throttle!

The point being, I don't drive hard when the engine's not at operating temperature.

On the topic at hand....have you tuned YOUR V, ST? I'm assuming not given your comments and that your V is (IIRC) your daily driver.

I only ask as I'm one of those considering a w4m tune (no more mods for me outside of my Corsas, thanks!) mostly for the tranny benefits; keeping it in "D" does cause a bit of sluggishness. I'm 95% in Sport Mode already when driving and the aggressive automatic shifting in this mode gives me the type of acceleration (and engine noise ) I expect. I keep going back and forth about the issue, asking questions and doing due diligence, as I'd like to do this "safely" for the sake of my engine and tranny.

I'll be interested to see what you decide. Driving a V2 auto put me off of jumping into one, but it would be interesting to know if W4Ms tranny tune would bridge the gap to a stick. So far I have convinced myself that I would wait for a manual, but the right auto...?

Know anyone who has the W4M tune that you could try out ?

[SRT8/BMW]

I tend to agree with ST. I spoke with the V engineers in person at Monticello. The lead engineer said "we left 10% on the table for the tuner crowd" To me--thats 50 more HP/Tq give or take. He also said that in his opinion, the exhaust was very good--there was little to be gained there.

The beauty of this car is the balance--so smooth at cruising speeds, so linear at hard acceleration, so amazing in the curves.

I had mine tuned privately--but wasn't looking for huge gains. As Vrocks asked--this car will already walk an M5--before any mods. I was just looking for a tweak--the "low hanging fruit" if you will. As a result, the transmission-which contrary to many opinions on here--is excellent in my view after having tracked it at Monticello--is just as crisp in drive as it used to be in S mode. It did pick up somewhere around 33 hp/ 30 Tq on the dyno.

But as it stands now--I think I am good with this car--it is the finest car I have ever owned -and by far the best sedan I have ever driven-and I want to keep it balanced. If I feel the desire to get more straight line power--I will do some more stuff to my other cars. This CTS-V is so much more than that for me personally.