: Northstar heads(all) and ECU Chip(93-95). Real power!



1badcaddy
10-27-06, 06:50 PM
Okay so I am pretty new the the caddy game but I am already finding ways to make them better.

In my search for more power I ran across 2 places that can make our caddys blaze down the track and street.

First up is Westers Garagehttp://westersgarage.eidnet.org Based in Alberta Canada these guys have found a way to chip the ECUs' in the 93-95 Northstars and make some real power. I believe the Topspeed limiter is removed. It says it is a Custom Dual Memcal ecu chip. I will try to get in contact with them and find out more info.

Next up is Extreme Motor Sports http://www.x-m-s.com/ based in California. They said that they have custom ported heads that will add over 90hp to a stock Northstar engine. the best thing is, they work on any year Northstar. Now for the bad part. They cost $3200 shipped and you must reuse your current cams. The heads are complete and assembled other then that. Not bad huh? Now imagine a 94' STS with these heads, a full exhaust, modified intake and that chip programmed for all of that. You would have a 400+ hp caddy rolling around looking for vettes and camaros. I could just imagine how loud it would be at full throttle.:bighead: :worship:

I hope this helps you guys out some.

Later
"J"

eldorado1
10-27-06, 09:26 PM
1) Head porting alone will not get you 90hp on a northstar
2) CHRFab's head porting and cam package is $2500 and is in the US (the shipping you save would be huge)... Their comments are 75hp with a cleanup and their middle cams...
3) Wester's garage's chip is a "general chip"... it is NOT tuned to your specific engine. Anytime you change your engine drastically like that, you would need it tuned or you risk turning it into scrap.

ELDOminator
10-27-06, 10:15 PM
Actually I've read on the CHRFab's website that they will put out an extra 100 HP for a port/polish, new cams and their valve springs. (Is that the correct termanology?)


Head work with our cams will really wake up this engine. Figure an increase of 50 cfm will produce 100 HP.

Although I've never seen it happen on a N* of my year, that's running on a stock computer. Think it'll still run?

davesdeville
10-28-06, 08:22 AM
I'd venture a guess that cams and head work wouldn't play well with the stock computer. I'd also like to point out that it would send the powerband up even higher and sacrifice low end torque, which is the last thing these cars need. A stall might make up for it pretty well though.

dp102288
10-28-06, 09:34 AM
What about FASTchip??

http://www.fastchip.com/Index.htm

1badcaddy
10-28-06, 04:21 PM
I talked to the owner of Fastchip and he said he is unable to get the proper chips for the northstar anymore and he didn't like programming them either. So they don't do it anymore. Looks like WestersGarage is the last hope. I think he probably does a good job with the tune. They also said that they will keep customizing your tune until it is perfect. All you have to do is pay for shipping. I would go for the $2500 heads/cams along with a extrude hone of the factory intake manifold and a ported Throttle Body along with the properly tuned chip and a stall converter.

1badcaddy
10-30-06, 12:26 PM
Lynden from Westers Garage is a kool guy and he gave me the following info.
The Generic out of the box chip will gain around 30hp on a bone stock North* and can gain even more if a before and after dyno are supplied. The top speed limiter is also removed to make the car more fun. The Shifts are supposedly firmer and faster. The ECU can be located behind the glove box and he needs the 4 digit code from it. The chip is a removable Memcal Eprom type chip that installs very quickly and easily.

I will be ordering one as soon as I get back to houston. I will probably dyno it before and after to prove the results.

danbuc
10-30-06, 07:52 PM
The problem with ported/polished head, cams,..ect is that they make the car more or less completely useless on the street. The lack of low end torque would drive you nuts. That and the fact that you'd need a much higher stall speed converter to even begin to make use of what little power you actually gained.


The one thing people never seem to realize when they read claims like, "Our ported and polished heads have been shown to produce an additional 75hp, and 68 lb/ft o torque", is that on the street, you'll never see any of that power. CHRFab's Head and Cam packages are designed for use in hotrods and sandrails. Along with their heavy duty valve springs, their motors can safely spin up further than 6500rpm, and that is where they make their power. That 75 peak hp rating is most likely up near 70-7200 rpm. The peak torque is probably pushed closer to 5200 or so rpm, where it would be almost completely unusable in a big heavy car like ours. There's really only two (well, maybe three or four) things that will get us the power we need, where we need it. The two main things are forced induction, and nitrous oxide. Short of that, there really isn't much else. Increasing the engine displacement isn't an option, since the cast iron sleeves allow a maximum overbore of about .40 which would net about 6-7 extra ci.....basically useless. A stroker kit is not completely out of the realm of possibility, but would most likely be impossible due to the N* relatively short block (height wise I mean). The clearances needed for a larger crank, and rods might not be there. granted you could probably cut down on the clearance issue using some short pistons to take up the space. Of course, there are no companies presently making a stroker kit of the N*, which means all the pieces needed would have to be customer made. At that price, your better off just buying a used ZO6 and calling it quits.

Hmmmm...seems my post has gone on so long, I've forgotten my original point. Oh yeah, ported heads and bigger cams....useless. Anything that forces more air in, or simply provides it (e.g. NOx) is what you need, provided you can pull it off without turning the pistons into a molten blob of metal at the bottom of the oil pan. that is all...

1badcaddy
10-31-06, 08:17 AM
Soo, whats your opinion on the ECU tuning with a Dyno tune. Think that will wake the car up alittle? I think the removal of the Topspeed limiter is worth it. The guy seemed pretty knowledageble and said that they will be workin on the 96+ OBDII North*'s this winter. They will try to get a test vehicle in and go through the programming.

eldorado1
10-31-06, 09:31 AM
The one thing people never seem to realize when they read claims like, "Our ported and polished heads have been shown to produce an additional 75hp, and 68 lb/ft o torque", is that on the street, you'll never see any of that power. CHRFab's Head and Cam packages are designed for use in hotrods and sandrails. Along with their heavy duty valve springs, their motors can safely spin up further than 6500rpm, and that is where they make their power. That 75 peak hp rating is most likely up near 70-7200 rpm. The peak torque is probably pushed closer to 5200 or so rpm, where it would be almost completely unusable in a big heavy car like ours.


More power is always "usable". So it will pull a little slower to 30mph, and pull a LOT faster 30-60mph... Who cares if you make it to 60mph faster than you did before?

Or like you said, drop in a higher stall torque converter and your only problem will be traction, because you'll always be in the powerband.

(And people were questioning why I said "Typical americans want stump pulling off-idle torque... not actual HP"... give them an 240hp L98 over a 1000hp turbocharged ecotec anyday)

dp102288
10-31-06, 09:48 AM
I am interested in a chip for my Eldo. But the $$ seem like a lot. Hopefully they will be cheaper by the time I get around to ordering one.

eldorado1
10-31-06, 11:19 AM
But the $$ seem like a lot.

I remember watching one of the car shows a while back, and they installed a catback and intake on a mustang and put it on the dyno... They got an extra 15 horsepower over stock, for a cost of $700+...

$50/hp... Now that is a ripoff.

I spent $3000+ for an extra 190hp. $15/hp... That's a bargain. :thumbsup:

dkozloski
10-31-06, 03:41 PM
If you make mods that run the HP and torque peaks to a higher RPM you install a higher final drive ratio(bigger numbers) gear set. Your milage goes to hell but who cares about that. You have the right gear set when your RPM in the top gear is about 10% above the peak HP RPM as you cross the finish line in the quarter mile.

1badcaddy
11-01-06, 05:05 PM
I think $400 is about right for a properly tuned Chip that will increase Hp, Tq and raise the top speed. I pay'd about that for tuning an all of my cars. My SHO has a $400 custom SCT chip, my Bullitt Mustang has a $320 Diablo predator hand held programmer and then a $200 Dyno tune on top of that. My 320hp 2.0L Turbo Fiat Coupe has a custom programmed Ecu chip that cost me 250 euro. My Old Alfa Romeo 155 Q4 AWD 2.0L turbo cost me 350 euro for it's chip. All of them were worth it.

So this is all standard practice for me. I know Caddies aren't cars that people usually modify for speed(except the CTS owners) but I want mine to do all things well. You have to overcome the 3800# weight of the cars. If it's not for you then don't do it. I will personally have a custom exhaust made and work on the intake side too. The chip will be ordered as soon as the car gets a clean bill of health and a full tune up along all new fluids.

If you want to play you have to pay.

danbuc
11-02-06, 08:35 PM
If you make mods that run the HP and torque peaks to a higher RPM you install a higher final drive ratio(bigger numbers) gear set. Your milage goes to hell but who cares about that. You have the right gear set when your RPM in the top gear is about 10% above the peak HP RPM as you cross the finish line in the quarter mile.


That's great if you never want to drive the car on the road, and can find a company who makes different gear sets for the 4T80E.

eldorado1, the power is not always usable. When it made beyond the transmission capability, it's not usable. Making peak torque at 5400rpm, in a 4000lb car is not what you want for performance. Sure, it'll pull like a champ at 120mph in 3rd gear, but that's about it. None of that power is made where the engine spends more of it's time. These cars have more than enough top end. They NEED low end torque, and that's about it. If the N* (let's say L37) made it's peak torque down in the 3000rpm area (around pushrod territory) it would suck so much off the line. Grated your top end would suffer a little, but it the car would get up and go a hell of alot faster. The other problem is that the N*'s torque curve is not the flattest. Off the line, theres not much power, than you get to around 32-3500rpm and the short runners oven up in the intake, and the thing takes off like a bad out of hell. It's powerband is not much different from a motor with a relatively small turbo. Sure there's a little lag, but it disappears quickly. What this engine really needs, but can never have is VVT like the new N* has. That in conjunction with the variable intake runners, is what give it a broader power band, and a much flatter torque curve.

Having said all that, I there's really no physical modifications you can make to an LD8/L37 N* that will make lots of power, and still be streetable. It's a catch 22 if you will. It's a double edges sword if you will. You can make lots of power all motor, but at a cost. That cost is driveability on the street which goes out the window.

A perfect example would be the average pro-street car running cam with lifts in the .600 area, and duration well over 300 degrees. They don't idle for crap, and make they're peak power well of 6500rpm. High lift, long duration cams are designed to be spun up to a much higher rpm, where the massive overlap no longer wreaks havoc on the intake velocity, or mixture for that matter. You can compromise with a high lift cam using a lower duration, but you'll loose top end. Same goes for a cam with a lower lift, but a longer duration. You'll loose low end torque, but gain more top end power. In the world of camshafts, it not that easy to have your cake AND eat it too, that is unless you make the appropriate modifications to the rest of the engine. bigger cams, means more air flow and fuel needed. It also means less restrictions (like a free flowing intake manifold, and ported/polished head-or head with bigger valves will compensate). In the N*'s case, it uses the long intake runners to build more air velocity, help force the air in, to make up for the relative large lift and duration of the intake cam. Once you hit 3400rpm or so, the overlap which had been slowing the velocity of the intake charge down before, it gone due to sufficient rpm, and the short intake runner opens up to reduce restriction and allow a larger volume of air to enter.

In theory, if you could find a way to design an intake manifold with just the right length short and long runners, you could make up for the bigger cams, and have your increased low end torque, and increased top end power, without sacrificing much in the middle. Without that, it's just not gonna work right.


Again, I seem to have lost myself in the post. I don't know why always have to explain the cam issue, but it just seems to happen whenever the issue is brought up. Anyway enough of this nonsense, this thread bores me.:rolleyes: :highfive:

1badcaddy
11-03-06, 07:15 PM
I agree with you danbuc. I will be getting the chip to get some extra power and raise the top speed limiter on the car. I don't expect this 3800# car to be hauling azz but I do want it to be fun and loud and not cut off my fun when and if I decide to give it a full on run. I have multiple other GO-FAST cars to play with I just want this to be fun to drive and not get walked away from by little ricers and 80' camaros. Lol! This is my cruiser. Custom painted dropped rolling on some sporty 20's with a custom system in it and Navigation. That is the goal and it will all com together in the next 2 months.

Later
"J"

eldorado1
11-03-06, 09:36 PM
eldorado1, the power is not always usable. When it made beyond the transmission capability, it's not usable. Making peak torque at 5400rpm, in a 4000lb car is not what you want for performance. Sure, it'll pull like a champ at 120mph in 3rd gear, but that's about it. None of that power is made where the engine spends more of it's time. These cars have more than enough top end. They NEED low end torque, and that's about it.

at 120mph in 3rd gear? This reminds me of a discussion on another forum, where someone said you need to be going 150mph before a turbo 4 cylinder engine would start pulling...

It's just not true. More torque at the wheels means more acceleration. More high rpm torque (hp) can take advantage of gearing. It's as simple as that.

The STS has 25 more horsepower. The SLS has "major pushrod uber torque", and beats it in the torque department all the way to 4500 rpm...

http://www.caddyinfo.com/46_tc.jpg

which one wins the 0-60? By a FULL second no less!

Take a look at the specs here:
http://www.caddyinfo.com/performancereports.htm


2001 Seville STS 0-60: 6.7 sec 300 hp 4,001 lbs 13.3 lb/hp

2001 Seville SLS 0-60: 7.7 sec 275 hp 3,970 lbs 14.4 lb/hp

Why? Why does it win the 0-60? Because it has a higher stall torque converter, higher gears, and 25 more hp! All of that equals more torque to the wheels for a longer amount of time. Torque integral always wins.

I think a 375hp northstar would be perfectly streetable... Install a 3000rpm stall torque converter, some 282 degree cams, and 4.11 gears and you'd be a monster at the strip... There's a company working on 4.11 gears as well, the rest can already be purchased.

dkozloski
11-03-06, 10:13 PM
at 120mph in 3rd gear? This reminds me of a discussion on another forum, where someone said you need to be going 150mph before a turbo 4 cylinder engine would start pulling...

It's just not true. More torque at the wheels means more acceleration. More high rpm torque (hp) can take advantage of gearing. It's as simple as that.

The STS has 25 more horsepower. The SLS has "major pushrod uber torque", and beats it in the torque department all the way to 4500 rpm...

http://www.caddyinfo.com/46_tc.jpg

which one wins the 0-60? By a FULL second no less!

Take a look at the specs here:
http://www.caddyinfo.com/performancereports.htm


2001 Seville STS 0-60: 6.7 sec 300 hp 4,001 lbs 13.3 lb/hp

2001 Seville SLS 0-60: 7.7 sec 275 hp 3,970 lbs 14.4 lb/hp

Why? Why does it win the 0-60? Because it has a higher stall torque converter, higher gears, and 25 more hp! All of that equals more torque to the wheels for a longer amount of time. Torque integral always wins.

I think a 375hp northstar would be perfectly streetable... Install a 3000rpm stall torque converter, some 282 degree cams, and 4.11 gears and you'd be a monster at the strip... There's a company working on 4.11 gears as well, the rest can already be purchased.

That's what I said earlier. Back in the day, my daily driver had 4.56 gears. My buddy had a Plymouth with a Golden Commando V8. He drove on street gears and carried another rear end in the trunk with 5.14's. When it came time to race it was out and under with a swap. What has the world come to. Nobody wants to put out the effort to excell anymore.

therodman
11-06-06, 02:15 AM
1badcaddydaddy, you said,

Now imagine a 94' STS with these heads, a full exhaust, modified intake and that chip programmed for all of that. You would have a 400+ hp caddy rolling around looking for vettes and camaros. I could just imagine how loud it would be at full throttle (http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/#).

Why did you say 94' STS and not a 97 or a 99. Is there something special about a 94, more horsepower, no speed or fuel limiter, or is it just coincidence that you mentioned a 94?

clarkz71
11-06-06, 05:57 AM
Why did you say 94' STS and not a 97 or a 99. Is there something special about a 94, more horsepower, no speed or fuel limiter, or is it just coincidence that you mentioned a 94?

If you look under his screen name where it says "cadillac(s)" you'll see he owns a 94 STS

1badcaddy
11-06-06, 11:19 AM
That's what I said earlier. Back in the day, my daily driver had 4.56 gears. My buddy had a Plymouth with a Golden Commando V8. He drove on street gears and carried another rear end in the trunk with 5.14's. When it came time to race it was out and under with a swap. What has the world come to. Nobody wants to put out the effort to excell anymore.

A gear swap would be awesome for lots of FWD cars but they are almost impossible to finde aftermarket gears for due to packaging and installation. Remember the ring gear on the diff is kinda similar but the teeth face in a different direction on FWD's. FWD's ring gears teeth face up and not to the side like RWD ring gears. The final drive gear on the FWD is part of the output shaft gear and would be more difficult to swap out then a Pinion gear on a FWD. I have changed gears and diffs in RWD cars before.matter of fact I just put an Auburn Pro diff, 4.10's and 31 spline axles in my Bullitt mustang. That made a huge difference. Those aren't really fun to install either but dropping a FWD trans especially an auto and cracking the case open and removing the output shaft and diff would be difficult and expensive. I have a Quaife ATB diff in my FWD 5spd SHO and I installed it my self. The final drive ratio is the same but would've been nice to change. I don't see that being a popular swap but it could be done.

1badcaddy
11-06-06, 11:28 AM
Originally Posted by therodman



Why did you say 94' STS and not a 97 or a 99. Is there something special about a 94, more horsepower, no speed or fuel limiter, or is it just coincidence that you mentioned a 94?


If you look under his screen name where it says "cadillac(s)" you'll see he owns a 94 STS

Yeah I was day dreaming about my own caddy 4 aminute. Sorry. Like I said up above the heads will work on all north*'s. Man I wish they would've made these cars RWD. Would have made swapping transmissions and rear gears allot easier. A head swap on a Mustang with tthe same displacement gains some serious hp and tq and I'm talking about the 2v and 4v 4.6's. Thats why I don't understand how they would completly not be useful on these engines. Maybe a propperly executed port and polish with some bigger valves and stiffer valve springs would make it breath better. Not going crazy on the oprts but make them alittle bigger and smoother and smoth the sharp radius'. Okay I'm done dreaming becasue I have 3 other cars to finish modding before the caddy. Just got to get the wheels/tires, brakes, suspension and strereo upgrades finished.

eldorado1
11-07-06, 10:14 AM
You really have to know what you're doing before porting a head. There are features in the intakes to promote fuel mixing when in the cylinder, and grinding just a little bit here and there can easily throw the airflow off - causing misfiring and a stratified charge.

I don't think anybody has even measured the swirl and tumble of the 4.6L heads. If you were to port the intakes, I would ask (demand) that the "after" values equaled the "before" values. The exhaust isn't sensitive like that at all, so I would go to town there.

It would be very easy to get a NA Northstar into the 400+hp range, and still be perfectly streetable. Cams, heads, valve springs, higher stall TC, higher final drive (if desired), aftermarket ECM...

1badcaddy
11-07-06, 07:03 PM
It would be very easy to get a NA Northstar into the 400+hp range, and still be perfectly streetable. Cams, heads, valve springs, higher stall TC, higher final drive (if desired), aftermarket ECM...

Word.

danbuc
11-07-06, 08:23 PM
at 120mph in 3rd gear? This reminds me of a discussion on another forum, where someone said you need to be going 150mph before a turbo 4 cylinder engine would start pulling...

It's just not true. More torque at the wheels means more acceleration. More high rpm torque (hp) can take advantage of gearing. It's as simple as that.

The STS has 25 more horsepower. The SLS has "major pushrod uber torque", and beats it in the torque department all the way to 4500 rpm...

http://www.caddyinfo.com/46_tc.jpg

which one wins the 0-60? By a FULL second no less!

Take a look at the specs here:
http://www.caddyinfo.com/performancereports.htm


2001 Seville STS 0-60: 6.7 sec 300 hp 4,001 lbs 13.3 lb/hp

2001 Seville SLS 0-60: 7.7 sec 275 hp 3,970 lbs 14.4 lb/hp

Why? Why does it win the 0-60? Because it has a higher stall torque converter, higher gears, and 25 more hp! All of that equals more torque to the wheels for a longer amount of time. Torque integral always wins.

I think a 375hp northstar would be perfectly streetable... Install a 3000rpm stall torque converter, some 282 degree cams, and 4.11 gears and you'd be a monster at the strip... There's a company working on 4.11 gears as well, the rest can already be purchased.

You give the SLS 3.71:1 gears and it would eat the STS alive off the line. Engines with more low end torque will ALWAYS pull harder at lower RPM than engines with more high rpm HP. HP is great but you need the torque where it counts. The STS makes up for it's lack of torque by using a higher stall converter and a shorter final drive.




"It would be very easy to get a NA Northstar into the 400+hp range, and still be perfectly streetable. Cams, heads, valve springs, higher stall TC, higher final drive (if desired), aftermarket ECM..."

I missed the part where this could be done in in a stock Cadillac, and still be a daily driver.

The ideal 1/4 mile setup would be the LD8 engine, and the 3.71:1 final drive ratio like what was used in the '05 Bonneville GXP. You get the low end torque for the powerful launch, and the short final drive, to quickly wind the motor up. The ideal Autobahn cruiser (we don't have roads here that could make use of this) would be the L37 motor, and the 3.11:1 final drive. With the L37's bigger top end power, it would be able to push the car further than the LD8 would, with less power. Of course in the long run, both cars would suffer as well. The LD8 wouldn't be able to reach and sustain as high a speed since it would simply run out of gear quicker. The L37 wouldn't accelerate as quickly since it has to work harder to turn the taller gear ratio.

Even with power, you have to be able to make use of it. It's not just a matter of a higher stall speed converter, or a shorter final drive. Even with them, you would still run out of gear at higher speeds, and last time I checked, nobody was making a 5 or 6 spd FWD tranny that could fit our cars.

You have to build the engine around what we have to use, which is a heavy 4spd auto, in a big heavy car. Just like the days of the 442, and the Chevelle, it requires lots of low end torque to move these beasts. We don't have the luxury of being able to wind the engine up to 5k rpm, and dumping the clutch, and then having 6spds to keep us right in the power band. We have to make due with what we have. That's why a high-winding V8, making it's peak torque higher than 5k rpm is really of no use to us. We don't have the short final drive ratios to wind it up quickly, and even if we did, we don't have the added gears to keep it going. Sure you could get a 4krpm stall converter and launch like a bat out of hell, but what happens when 2nd gear hit, and you've suddenly dropped 2500rpm.......where's all the power now? The engine now has to claw it's way back up to it's power band, just so it can shift into 3rd and bog down again.


There's a reason my old '66 mustang that made maybe 270hp and had the stock 2.82:1 gears in it pulled harder than my car. It was just a 3spd, and redlined at a mere 5500rpm, yet it still would outrun the STS off the line...with crappy half bald tires.. It didn't have any fancy high stall speed converter, or short final drive-ratio.....it just made most of it's torque below 3krpm. That was enough to compensate for the taller gears.

It all comes down to whether or not the power is usable. Even if you can make it usable with a different converter or shorter gears, you still have to find a way to shift through the gears without dropping too far out of the power band, other wise you slow down. Anyone who's ever floored their STS at around 40-45mph knows that it will shift right to the bottom of second gear which is a total dead spot. These cars really could benefit from more gears. If we had 6spd transmissions like the new ones, we could make of for the shorter gears, higher stall speed converters, big cams,...ect. We don't though, we've got 4. and four speed transmission's aren't know for playing well with high winding engines. There are designed to work with engine that produce lots of low end power and a broad torque curve, which can deal with the big jumps in rpm that come with only having four speeds. You don't see any Four speed transmissions in cars like the WRX/STi or Lancer Evolution. They all have 6spds, to help keep the drop in rpm's between shifts to a minimal amout to keep them in the power band. A vehicle like the '06 GTO with it's LS2 and it's 4L65E 4spd doesn't need all those gears, because it has a broad enough power band to make efficient use of of longer gears.

I would love to build and all motor N* that made 400+hp and stick it in my car, but you can't do it, and still have it be as efficient as a stock motor at higher speed due to the lack of gearing. It's a simple fact. We lack the gears for a high winding- high top end hp V8. If someone really wanted to find the easy way out, the would engineer a way to swap the N* for an LS1. It's got the low end torque we need, and with the 3.11:1 final drive, it would probably be pretty efficient at cruising speed as well. Show me someone who can do that, an I'll buy the kit from them. Pull the N* and throw it in an old Camaro, with an T56 behind it........now that sounds like it could be fun...and streetable.

1badcaddy
11-07-06, 09:14 PM
Again, WORD.

eldorado1
11-07-06, 11:44 PM
The ideal 1/4 mile setup would be the LD8 engine, and the 3.71:1 final drive ratio like what was used in the '05 Bonneville GXP. You get the low end torque for the powerful launch, and the short final drive, to quickly wind the motor up.

Lets take that example. 2 identical cars. 4500lbs, 4t80e, one L37 w/3.71 final, one LD8 w/3.71 final.

HP numbers used are as follows:

L37 HP
2000 100
3000 160
4000 225
5000 270
6000 300
6500 290

LD8 HP
2000 105
3000 175
4000 235
5000 275
6000 270
6500 260

Simulation results:
LD8:
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3573/ld8gc8.jpg

L37:
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4732/l37pw4.jpg

Specifically pay attention to the 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times... The L37 wins by about 0.2 sec.... Now this is with both of them shifting at 6500... but I can run it however you want... I don't know what a stock computer shifts at for either engine.

1badcaddy
11-07-06, 11:57 PM
4500Lbs! Holy cow how much do these cars weigh stock? I thought the 300c's weight alot at about 4000lbs.

N0DIH
11-08-06, 01:19 AM
Anyone just ditch the factory PCM and go with a LS1 PCM from a Corvette and call it done? The Corvette PCM likely can be adapted to a N* Cad easier than most any others.

eldorado1
11-08-06, 09:12 AM
4500Lbs! Holy cow how much do these cars weigh stock? I thought the 300c's weight alot at about 4000lbs.

Depends on the year/model, but about 4000...

eldorado1
11-08-06, 09:13 AM
The Corvette PCM likely can be adapted to a N* Cad easier than most any others.

Not likely. You'd need an external trigger ring for starters....

dp102288
11-08-06, 10:51 AM
My 95 Eldo is about 3850 lbs.

eldorado1, very interesting table. How did you put that together?

eldorado1
11-08-06, 11:07 AM
That's the output table from Performance Trend's "Drag Racing Analyzer":

http://www.performancetrends.com/drag_racing_analyzer.htm

It's a cool program. You can see the effects of what swapping to higher (numerically) gears do, reducing weight, adding power, etc...

danbuc
11-08-06, 06:17 PM
I don't believe in bench racing...never have, and never will.

I'm gonna have to disagree on that graph there. The LD8 with the same short gearing as the L37 is going to pull harder off the line. More torque available at a lower rpm, and for a longer period of time equals faster acceleration.

The final 1/4 miles times on there are pretty slow as well. Something isn't calculating right there. The STS has been known to dip into the 14.7 range routinely, and even hit 14.6 in rare cases. I run a 15.1 on a BAD day. In order to get a half decent readout, you really have to have every bit of drive train info on both cars. It's not easy to find a lot of this stuff either. Just plugging in basic numbers doesn't work, hence the result in times that table shows.

1badcaddy
11-08-06, 07:31 PM
I'm going to get my car over to HPE in Houston for a couple dyno runs after the power tune-up is finished. I will run it before and after the chip is installed to see what it gains. I will email a copy of the dyno graph to Lynden at Westers Garage for a final tune to get the most out of it. The heads will be left alone for now.

eldorado1
11-08-06, 07:48 PM
whoops, it changed the torque converter on me...

Changing that back to 2200 on both, with a 4000lb vehicle, LD8 shifting at 6500, L37 shifting at 6700, (impossible, I know) the results were:

L37:
0-60: 6.17
1/4: 14.64@95.40mph

LD8:
0-60: 6.06
1/4: 14.63 @94.01mph

What this shows, is the area under the curve is exactly the same for both.

The LD8 gets a 1/10th jump on the 0-60, and the L37 catches up by the 1/4 mile mark. I'm surprised it's as close as it is. I guess 25hp doesn't make a difference if you can't hold the gears much longer.

danbuc
11-08-06, 11:03 PM
The estimated trap speed still shows the L37 pulling much harder at the end as to be expected, since the LD8 is running out of gear toward the end of the track.

It's kinda like a Camaro that runs a 13.1 at 112mph and a STi that runs a 13.1 at 104. One's got the low end torque to jump right off the line, while the other's got the top end power to pull hard down the second half of the track. In this case, time isn't so much a factor as speed is. In a stop light to stop light situation though, low end power always comes out on top though. There's no need for high rpm power since you never get to run all the gears out that far. That top end power though, is what make the L37 an animal from 65-80+mph. Talk about a sweet spot...I've been in fast cars before, but few pull as much weight, as quickly, with this much power than the STS (or ETC for that matter). It's just ridiculous sometimes....but somehow strangely addictive too. Again, in this situation, the STS is perfectly adapted to such driving.

dp102288
11-09-06, 09:22 AM
:yeah: The Northstars can really move the near 4000 lb cars pretty well.

Interesting comparison between the Camaro and the STi 1/4 specs. That's a decent difference between speeds, but the times are the same. Shows the point very well.

Your new sig is very cool! :)

danbuc
11-09-06, 05:45 PM
:yeah: The Northstars can really move the near 4000 lb cars pretty well.

Interesting comparison between the Camaro and the STi 1/4 specs. That's a decent difference between speeds, but the times are the same. Shows the point very well.

Your new sig is very cool! :)


Thanks, made it a while back...just never got around to putting it up.

That comparison also helps show the difference between quick, and fast. Alot of the time loss on vehicle like the Camaro are also due in part to traction issues. The STi has AWD but....it's a double edged sword. All that extra mass spinning around, transferring power form one gear set to another produces alot of friction, and eats up power. That's why they were never designed as drag cars.

lbwd
04-17-07, 03:10 PM
This is a nice thread.
But I don't want to tune my STS because I keep thinking to myself "When I take it to the shop for repair, WTF are they going to think? How are they going to work on my 'Cadillac' and how will they know what all the stuff is?" lol it would confuse them like hell. I can just imaging them calling me up and asking what all this stuff is and what brands. This isn't in their books. That's why I can't tune mine. I drive my Lac for looks, the feel, and the performance. My Yamaha Blaster ATV is for shitting around :) Amen.

N0DIH
04-18-07, 05:01 PM
What is wrong with the N* trigger ring? IIRC the LS1 and N* use the same crank triggering.


Not likely. You'd need an external trigger ring for starters....

eldorado1
04-18-07, 08:49 PM
The LS1 uses a 24x reluctor

The northstar has even and odd notches for faster ignition sync.

Won't happen without a new trigger wheel.

N0DIH
04-18-07, 11:51 PM
Where is the trigger wheel on a N*? Front? Inside? Is it replaceable? The LS1 wheels are like $15. Not fun to change, but replaceable.

LS1's use 24x and 58x, depending on which PCM is used. IIRC the E38 uses 58x and E40's use 24x.

eldorado1
04-19-07, 09:12 AM
Where is the trigger wheel on a N*? Front? Inside? Is it replaceable? The LS1 wheels are like $15. Not fun to change, but replaceable.

LS1's use 24x and 58x, depending on which PCM is used. IIRC the E38 uses 58x and E40's use 24x.

Inside. It's part of the crank. You could probably turn it down and press on a new reluctor ring... It would be easier to bolt something on the crank pulley.

N0DIH
04-19-07, 09:17 AM
Bummer. Yup, probably one up on the crankshaft would work. Or just translate the N* sensor to something the LS1 PCM would accept. Key is not to disturb accuracy. They are combining the crankshaft sensor and the #1 orientation now on one ring so the PCM knows where #1 is for fast starting.

Does the N* have a sep camshaft sensor still?

I need to get a N* FSM and just read up on how it handles it. I have the LT1 and Vortec V8's (96-02) and LS V8's for 1999.

msta293412
05-01-07, 10:14 AM
I guess by now you realize Im just trying to get enough posts to contact someone....got it.....bye.

MonzaRacer
05-05-07, 05:57 PM
As for the LS pcms you might look a little farther back and use something without the dual rings.BUT the DIS puts out a 24X signal and can be kept on the engine. i am developing a swappable N* DIS conversion for use on older cars.
I seems that GM uses same signal information accross the board so moding the set up isnt hard.
I need to locate a cheap N* crank to getthe shutter wheel cut from it and then reverse the metalurgy of the cranks material too.
I have made several out of differnt materials and they all dont play well with the dual crank sensors.
My machinist says it has to do with the hardness and after getting one made from a cut away crank the setup will work fine so far as testing goes.
I used and old computer from an 87 S10 to run the ignition, heck I am thinkng of adding in an adjustable TBI for fun too, but time will tell.
Lee Abel
AFTERMARKET PERFORMANCE

urbanski
05-05-07, 06:11 PM
I guess by now you realize Im just trying to get enough posts to contact someone....got it.....bye.

and i just disabled your PMs for spamming