Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

What are the main differences between the 2? I looked up and found the vette and it shows 450hp vs our 420, is it all tuning? Are there any simple changes to make it match the vette? I know you can do anything with aftermarket parts and tunes, but I think itd be cool to do it with factory parts. I intend to put the vette vaule covers on just as a convo piece (if possible, yet another ? Lol)

  • Like 1
Posted

Intake manifold is the big one. The trucks have one with longer runners to help low-mid range torque but it hurts top end HP a bit. Obviously cam timing/tuning is probably pretty different as well.

Posted

What are the main differences between the 2? I looked up and found the vette and it shows 450hp vs our 420, is it all tuning? Are there any simple changes to make it match the vette? I know you can do anything with aftermarket parts and tunes, but I think itd be cool to do it with factory parts. I intend to put the vette vaule covers on just as a convo piece (if possible, yet another ? Lol)

I'm sure the C7 exhaust manifolds up the horsepower rating. The C7 fuel rail covers would look sweet if someone can get the gm part numbers for them....of course someone will have to be the guinea pig or someone with a C7 can test fit for us. A few companies make color matching covers which would add that extra flare.
Posted

Cam, tuning, intake manifold, exhaust manifold and exhaust system are where the differences are going to be at.

  • Like 1
Posted

I'm sure the C7 exhaust manifolds up the horsepower rating. The C7 fuel rail covers would look sweet if someone can get the gm part numbers for them....of course someone will have to be the guinea pig or someone with a C7 can test fit for us. A few companies make color matching covers which would add that extra flare.

I wonder if this would fit our 6.2L trucks? It came off a 2013 Camaro.

Posted

I wonder if this would fit our 6.2L trucks? It came off a 2013 Camaro.

I like the look but would rather have just the fuel rail covers. You cover the intake manifold then it holds more heat.
Posted

Intake manifold is the big one. The trucks have one with longer runners to help low-mid range torque but it hurts top end HP a bit. Obviously cam timing/tuning is probably pretty different as well.

 

I would say you are on the money, along with the intake and exhaust manifolds..... Oh and 12" of elevation change.

 

It would be easy to bypass the vets power with a good cam and headers. I can't wait until the aftermarket starts kicking parts out for these things.

Posted

Dont forget about the thousands of pounds of weight difference between the two applications. Its not just about the engines and 30hp won't make a truck feel like a corvette.

Posted

Dont forget about the thousands of pounds of weight difference between the two applications. Its not just about the engines and 30hp won't make a truck feel like a corvette.

 

See, I don't get that... am I the only one that would rather have a Corvette that feels like a truck? I am 3/4 hillbilly though!

Posted
Dont forget about the thousands of pounds of weight difference between the two applications. Its not just about the engines and 30hp won't make a truck feel like a corvette.

 

The 6.2's in the cars vs trucks feel much different. At least my truck feels more torquey, camaro is definitely faster

 

 

Ryan

Posted

I wouldn't count on it. Our intake is much taller than the LT1's.

Posted

Engine covers don't fit between different 6.2 engines

 

 

Ryan

  • Like 1
Posted

I bet there will be lighter valves in the vettes heads and possibly sodium filled or some minor differences in valvetrain. Not sure if ours are hollow stem or what.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • This video may not be the exact content for the joke thread but its a lot of laughs so here it is, I've only watched a portion of it so far but if anyone is looking for some light hearted good soap box driving action, its here. As a note in the upper left of the screen it shows the number out of 100 to refer back to any particular vehicle for comment !.    https://www.facebook.com/reel/1351928276956715
    • Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...