cliff notes: CAI works, always have, ..prob always will....ecu tunning in this motor is the speed bump!
:bash:
cliff notes: CAI works, always have, ..prob always will....ecu tunning in this motor is the speed bump!
awesome results...thanks for all your efforts mike and shaun
cliff notes: CAI works, always have, ..prob always will....ecu tunning in this motor is the speed bump!
:bash:
The 2011-12 GT is just like every other "air pump" in the world, let it breathe easier, and it will reward you with more power. :beer:
As long as the bottleneck is where the improvement is made.
I wish the test had come off without a hitch. The trap light issue is a "woulda, coulda, shoulda" type deal, where we don't 100% know the lights were messed up. If they were, and the 3 mph loss was due to the lights being down, then the JLT did absolutely nothing for you, and you actually ran your best ET with the box.
The fact that the JLT provided such a substantial power increase on the engine dyno means 100% that the issue is still the tune with these cars. It is going to take a perfect tune, and a perfect set of runs to show the .15-.2 gain and the 1-2 mph.
Mike
1/8 ET and mph are same. I think that tells the story.
I wonder if dyno tuning with the hood up vs tuning using track runs is where a difference could be made.
Same gains on an engine dyno as a chassis dyno.1/8 ET and mph are same. I think that tells the story.
I wonder if dyno tuning with the hood up vs tuning using track runs is where a difference could be made.
Cool, again we agree.As long as the bottleneck is where the improvement is made.
They flowed the throttle body at 957 CFM compared to the stock air box at only 772. So it's a restriction
The car had more MPH on BOTH intake runs, oh but wait, the timing lights were run over and all track participants were slower by a whopping 3 mph:rollseyes so that's a null point? huh?
Tucker, not knocking the product, I'm just thinking out loud. I think your CAI should make the car go faster, but if track results don't back up the dyno results I start looking for reasons why.
Restricted inlet, aero around the inlet, whatever.
There you go with your selective reading again. Keep it up, you make yourself look more foolish every time you do it. Are you really that desperate to sell these things?
I'm going to waste more of my time and put your product on my car at the Texas Mile next week. More real world testing which you have totally failed to do before selling these things.
Like I said, the stock box is completely sealed to the inlet. There is a rubber boot that the stock box mates with. The JLT utilizes this inlet as well, but it is not an airtight seal. Also, the JLT "airdam" that surrounds the filter is not airtight. I think while the JLT is obviously able to draw more air into the larger open element air cleaner, and pass it down a larger tube...when the car is at the top of the 1/4, the stocker makes up the difference because there is a ram air effect. Just speculation on my part. Like I said before, the JLT feels more responsive to me driving around town. I even removed the sound tube because I wanted to cut down on some of the noise and focus on the feel (it is still plenty loud). I don't think you would feel a difference at the top of the 1/4 though as you are already at the point where acceleration has just about ceased.
Mike