Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by MoonieGT, Aug 20, 2007.
That must be before Randy Haywood worked on 05+ mustangs then.
I am done being a nice guy. I haven't said anything that is wrong.
I have said that CAI's are eye candy, nothing more. There is no proof in this thread that the previous statement is incorrect. We have a dyno-graph from anticubicle that shows the CAI/tuned VS stock, in which people are led to think that it was a tuned car vs CAI/tuned car. He had to be questioned on this to clarify what was said. If he would have done something half way respectable, he would have done a stock pull, a tuned pull, a tuned/CAI pull and a stock pull to verify the gains and post those results, HE DIDN'T. I would have been happy. He didn't even have the guts to put the tuned pull on there, perhaps was afraid. There is a good possibility that the car made 285+ RWHP on the tuned pull that day, we don't know. He wasn't man enough to show the tuned cars run. The car is going back for more tweaking, Why? Was the tuned pull to close for comfort to the CAI/tuned pull? I am wrong for questioning this...
My questions are trivial to him and just about everybody else. A chassis dyno on the same day can show different results with no changes to the car. I have seen a car tuned during the day that made 501 RWHP, it was put on the dyno again at 11:00 PM with no changes made to the car or tune and it made 542 RWHP. That was on a dynojet. I do not buy into Dyno numbers that are posted without some type of supporting info. That supporting info WAS NOT provided.
I am being told that I am wrong to see .5 improvement from my car with just a tune. Other people are seeing similar things as me with CAI/tunes. I don't see you guys calling BS to them...
Where is it here for this guy?
He is seeing .6 with a CAI, Tune and SLP LMs on different days
Another car that saw .4 with CAI, Tune over stock( Claiming it could have been more do to him going into a head wind )
Another car that saw .3 with CAI, Tune( claiming upto .5 )
I could go on...
As I said a chassis dyno is tuning tool and should not be solely used to show HP gains, 1/4 mile results need to back that up. I will take track improvement numbers over Dyno numbers. I would buy into Dyno claims IF and only IF they are done in a controlled environment and that supporting info is posted.
YOU HEARD THE MAN EVERYONE WITH YOUR $30,000 DOLLAR DYNO JETS THERE TRASH! lol well I guess that tune you got is no good if the numbers are wrong! Are tunes MADE ON A DYNO? No they make them on the drag strip b/c it is and will be the ONLY controlled environment! OH I FORGOT HE DID SAY
Um how good of a tool is it if the numbers are wrong?????
lets keep this thread on topic, or it will be removed. everybody, please take out all the personal issues you may have with anyone. there are no need for personal attacks or insulting behaviors. we have all been around the internet long enough to know the rules. if anyone needs a refresher on the StangNet rules, please use this link: http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=685806
i would hate to see people leave this site over something so petty.
You know you make a lot of ASSUMPTIONS that have no backing to them. You are trying to make things out of something I didn't say. I am not going to play your little game.
OK, bottom line - EVERY CAR WILL REACT DIFFERENTLY. End of story. Also, unless the CAI is poorly designed, there is no way that CAI and tune could be WORSE than just a tune. So its up to you to decide if the extra power is worth the $$, but you will still see extra power. I think most people would say yes, even if its a few hundred dollars for just a few horsepower.
TGJ, you need to chill out with your "scientific testing" stuff, because you don't have the ideas right. We as enthusiasts have two real test settings: track and dyno. You asked all the questions about the dyno testing, which is "good" if you want to get as scientific as possible. But you neglected to answer any of those questions for your own track runs. Also, the track is just less scientific. Weather conditions, atmospheric conditions, and elevation affect both dyno runs and track runs. Refer to my previous post as to how many other variables there are that effect track runs that can't possibly affect dyno runs and also aren't repeatable by a human. A dyno run IS the most controlled setting we will get, ever. Especially considering some dyno shops can have climate controlled settings.
One last tick - corrections for humidity, elevation, etc. are good, but they aren't exact either. Yes, I'm sure they are pretty damn close, but thats as good as you are going to get with a correction number.
Nobody said that tuners are not worth the money, I had one for both my mustangs and would never be without. I also will never not buy a cai because someone doesn't think they make power.
You're exactly right. However, I'm guessing that the majority of modders install their tunes with tuners.
That's a lie. you did un-scientific 'testing' and are using it to bash a much more accurate & repeatable test setup. Next time, don't let up on the stock runs before the finish line & maybe I'll believe you. You didn't let up? Prove it; put the video of every run up online along with tire pressures & whether A/C was on/off. Currently, Your testing has no statistical validity and was not monitored by any certified technician that could validate repeatability or reproduceability. You have no assessment of whether the improvements came from the changes made or other unrecorded factors.
Because they are an assumption of guilt. You're assuming he faking his results while igdignantly claiming your own as 'real' while not providing the same information.
All those links to other dyno plots shows reproducability; take the same basic change, go to a different dyno, operator, temperature, etc. and produce the same results. You could then go to those dynos and see that they made several runs to acsertain repeatability. Even though different dynos show different results for the same product, it's a LOT more valid than your runs.
The dyno results have statistical validity. your track runs do not. Just because they show the results and not the dozens of tuning runs doesn't mean they are dishonest, and it is a flat out insult to assume so.
Here is the link to where I posted my actual times and the NHRA corrected times for my car. The performance mods are in my sig and in the video. There is MY scientific research and proof...
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=716670 post #20
Man, this thread is makin' my brain hurt almost as much as a reality TV show!
Yeah I was pretty much a major factor in this thread and I'm lost now. (or I just stopped caring).
Yeah really! 94 posts in and over 1/2 seems like bickering
I have had a hard time seeing the other side claiming the CAI doesn't do anything. I think if that was the case then CAI vendors wouldn't have to provide no tune options for similarly shaped intakes to the stock ones.
For instance if there wasn't a difference in airflow (and hence power) in a C&L Street compared to stock or a Roush intake versus stock then why do they have sleeves to reduce airflow and thusly make the intakes more like stock?
Tom - ,
bigcat made a specific request a couple days ago that any further content in this thread be presented without personal issue. Did you skip that post?
Although I understand both sides of this debate, we all have sides and opinions. When they cannot be presented with respect to each other then it ceases to be productive and constructive discussion ends, so /end thread.