CAI and tune, gains really from the tune?

[lightblade]

Plain and simple, a cai and a tune makes more power than the stock intake and tune.

 

[kooldawg6]

Plain and simple, a cai and a tune makes more power than the stock intake and tune.

True, but some are having a hard time justifying paying several hundred dollars for it if it is not really needed.
I never had mine dyno'd before or after, but I loaded the Brenspeed 93 octane tune the day before I installed the new CAI(was late in the day). To me, there wasn't much of a difference other than sound after the CAI was installed. I didn't do any drag racing until all of my mods were done(except the mufflers-due to the baffle issue)so I have no clue as to what it really gained for me as well. For me, I chose form and function, so I'm very pleased.

 

[TGJ]

Please post your time slips for each of those 8 passes. Thanks.

My laptop that has the scanner installed isn't here but I have the slips in front of me. It was a Street Legal night, so all it tells me is Reaction Time, 60 FT, E.T. and MPH.

Pass 1 -> 2.170 60 FT, 14.578 @ 96.010( Stock Calibration )
Pass 2 -> 2.210 60 FT, 14.570 @ 96.562( Stock Calibration )
Pass 3 -> 2.303 60 FT, 14.084 @ 98.717( 87 Octane Tune )
Pass 4 -> 2.308 60 FT, 14.004 @ 98.994( 87 Octane Tune )
Pass 5 -> 2.177 60 FT, 13.826 @ 101.788( 91 Octane Tune )
Pass 6 -> 2.131 60 FT, 13.830 @ 100.415( 91 Octane Tune )
Pass 7 -> 2.190 60 FT, 14.570 @ 96.689( Stock Calibration )
Pass 8 -> 2.161 60 FT, 14.378 @ 96.962( Stock Calibration )

Worst 91 Octane run( 13.830 ) - Best Stock Calibration run( 14.378 ) = .548 improvement on the E.T.

Average 91 Octane MPH( 101.102 ) - Average Stock Calibration MPH( 96.556 ) = 4.546 MPH faster.

The times are low for this car. The reason is that it was very hot and humid. The track DA for this day was 6200 feet above sea level.

 

[TGJ]

No crap. But if you put the same car on the same dyno, you'll get a lot more accurate results for gains than a run down the strip. There's too many variables with 1/4 mile. It's great for telling over all speed, but you can't tell what part gained what on anything but a dyno.

I thought you had said you ran a mail order tuning business. Now that I realize you meant you run a mail order tune on your car, you have less credit. You said you didn't see any difference with the CAI? First of all, you don't mention dynoing your car with and without the CAI. Second, you don't mention what CAI you were using along with what size MAF, and third, you don't mention if you used 2 tunes or 1.

What makes you so credible? What have you done to show that CAI's work? If what you are going to say came from a magazine, vendor, tv show, you would be wasting your time. All of these sources are out to sell products, and if they can sell $650 worth of items to $350 worth, what do you think they are going to do?

1/4 mile results are the true test of any product. One of the CAI shootout's that was held, that is partially how they determined which was the best. The one that had the 1/4 results, the WMS kit was the fastest and was considerably faster than the others. As well in that shootout, the JLT was the HP king.

Chassis Dynos are nothing more than a tuning tool. They are easy to manipulate to show gains, especially Mustang Dyno's which most tuning places use. Using a Mustang Dyno, I can show a bone stock 1996 Mustang GT Auto make 300 RWHP, yet the car only made 215 BHP stock. You are kidding yourself if you don't think some of the vendor's out there do that.

Dyno numbers are for people who want to feel good that their $650.00 product is showing an improvement. True performance people run the 1/4 times as the measure of improvement. Which one are you?

 

[TGJ]

After reading the above article, how can you argue that CAI don't offer any gains? I was skeptical at first, but now I am a believer!

1) I question everything that comes out of a magazine, tv show or vendor. In this article the car made 261 RWHP with the carbon trap removed, otherwise stock, 271
RWHP with a MODEST 91 Octane tune. With CAI's and tunes the car made 278 - 289 RWHP. First question that came to my mind. The key word is MODEST. What happens if the car has an aggressive tune?

2) I have seen 2005 Mustang GTs that have been tuned to see 290+ RWHP with a tune but no CAI. Those cars had CMCV Deletes. CMCV Deletes have been found to gain 4 - 11 RWHP. One of those SCT tuned cars make 297 RWHP with CMCV deletes and a 91 aggressive tune. Taking say 11 RWHP away = 286 RWHP. Wait a second, is that not right where the better CAI tuned cars were at in the above article.

3) I know a little bit about tuning cars, hell I have learned a few things from Ken Bjonnes( the tuner in that article ). What if Ken would have gone aggressive in the tune, the cars would have seen 290 - 300 RWHP. Let's say we start at 261 RWHP, we know with an agressive tune we are at 285 - 290 RWHP. That is not leaving a lot for CAI's to gain. The gains are greater with a modest tune, and that is why it was done that way.

4) I don't like the wording of the above article. It tells you that a CAI/tune gains 25 RWHP, but does it?

4.1) Ken had an article on Modular Depot where he first tuned a 2005 Mustang GT. The car made 272 RWHP with a safe 91 Octane tune. Adding a MMR CAI, the car made 280 RWHP when retuned. That was a gain of 8 RWHP in a non scientific setting. If this was done as hard core as above, I think the gains would have been less.

5) 8 RWHP and likely less is not going to gain a lot in a 1/4, ET or MPH. That could be, perhaps why my aggressive 91 Octane tuned car is seeing the same if not better gains than a CAI/tuned car is seeing in the 1/4.

I don't know, maybe I should keep my fingers from typing. I mean you could spend $350.00 - $400.00 for just a tuner. You could spend $580.00 - $700.00 for a tuner and some eye candy. You decide!

 

[PoopDawg]

I did the tune before the CAI and the difference I felt was from the tuner only. It really woke the car up. When I put on my C&L racer, I felt no real difference, just more sound under the hood.

 

[lightblade]

Another thing, it would take about 50rwhp to drop a mid to high 13 sec ET. down 5 tenths... and my cai/tune made 32rwhp...

 

[speed1972]

CAI's don't really introduce any new cold air. If you want to use the less restrictive claim, then i hope you are running some sort of forced induction. If you want to see a cold air improvement, add a functional ram air hood and test it at the track during the day then at night.... this is something that won't show on a dyno.

FWIW - CAI's are just eye candy. Do they look good? sure. Will I eventually get one? sure but not until I've done everything else.

just my .02
LB

 

[PoopDawg]

CAI's don't really introduce any new cold air. If you want to use the less restrictive claim, then i hope you are running some sort of forced induction. If you want to see a cold air improvement, add a functional ram air hood and test it at the track during the day then at night.... this is something that won't show on a dyno.

FWIW - CAI's are just eye candy. Do they look good? sure. Will I eventually get one? sure but not until I've done everything else.

just my .02
LB

I agree. I wouldn't have got my CAI, but I found my C&L Racer on here for 150 shipped. Couldn't pass that up.

Nick

 

[TGJ]

Another thing, it would take about 50rwhp to drop a mid to high 13 sec ET. down 5 tenths... and my cai/tune made 32rwhp...

You don't race a lot do you? This comment leads me to say that...

These cars factory rev limit is around 6000 RPM. The flash tuners raise this to 6500 - 6800 RPM. These cars are still making pretty good power to about 6500 RPM. That said, the car is revving higher and staying up in the powerband for a longer period of time. That alone aids in 1/4 mile improvements. Now you add more HP to the mix, well it improves more. .5 second is not unreasonable of a gain when you factor all of that in.

 

[lightblade]

You don't race a lot do you? This comment leads me to say that...

These cars factory rev limit is around 6000 RPM. The flash tuners raise this to 6500 - 6800 RPM. These cars are still making pretty good power to about 6500 RPM. That said, the car is revving higher and staying up in the powerband for a longer period of time. That alone aids in 1/4 mile improvements. Now you add more HP to the mix, well it improves more. .5 second is not unreasonable of a gain when you factor all of that in.

What? It doesn't matter what rpm you rev to or shift at, the fact is to take a car running a 13.5 to 14.0 flat and and change nothing except add hp, it would take around 50rwhp to drop 5 tenths off that time. Shifting at a slighty higher rpm on a good day might get you 1 tenth, so your looking at 40rwhp gain from that tune alone.

 

[tank_567]

I've done **** load of drag racing in my time. In my car I have added about 50 plus hp on my 98 gt. I can let you know right now I gain about .5-7 of a sec from these mods, going from a 2.73 to a 3.73, good tires and a good driver. I've made up about a sec off my time slip. I've gone down the strip well over 100 times and I think theres no way in hell you can get .5 from just from a tune on a stock 3v on stock tires and stock intake no way! I went for my first time at the track running a 15.1@91mph with a 2.40 60ft 189wrhp to 13.8@101 1.90 60ft 241wrhp(non pi). My first 60 is soo ****ty for my first run ever on 2.73 gears, I got it down and ran a 14.8 @ 2.09 60th stock. so I can show time slips and dyno sheets if needed. I have about 100 time slips and about 10 dyno sheets! :Zip2:

 

[tank_567]

the car is revving higher and staying up in the powerband for a longer period of time. That alone aids in 1/4 mile improvements.

LOL its going to take .1 to get to 500 more rpm, The engine has to work harder higher you go! the 3v is not a high rev engine! It may go up there but its not build too. You'll see maybe .1 doing so.

 

[speed1972]

I think the whole point of this thread wasn't if other mods, gears, etc were going to make a difference. It was based on tune with and without a CAI. I would love to see someone do this under controlled conditions. What this means? Perform a dyno session with the car at a predetermined operating temperature with defined cool down periods in between to reduce heat soak. Run the test first with only the tune then install the CAI and perform the test again with the same parameters only adjusting for the CAI. Next, take the car out to the track and run it with just the tune then switch to the CAI. Oh yea, and while you are at it, run it in an auto tranny so there is no discrepancy with the shifting etc. Run each test at least 5 times and compare the results. Now if someone is willing to perform this and I don't mean the mags or manufacturers, it would be well worth seeing but I really doubt you are going to see any difference if much at all. Then again, when it comes to this stuff, noone really wants to spend the time or money so it is all just bench racing as far as I'm concerned.

my .02
LB

 

[TGJ]

I have done my share of drag racing. The other car I have is a 1996 Ford Thunderbird. Bone Stock it ran 15.7 @ 88 MPH. The best pass it has run to date is 14.1 @ 95 MPH. I seriously doubt I added 50 RWHP to that car from that 15.7 to 14.1. The best pass to date had the spare/jack removed. It ran on Hoosier QT Pros on the back, a 3800 RPM Stall TC, Rebuilt 4R70W, Aluminum driveshaft, 3.73 TL rear end, custom built 2.5" Catback, Mail Order SCT Tune from Ken Bjonnes, PI Cams, PI Intake, Removed Air Silencer, 80 mm LMAF, 91 Octane fuel and Steeda UD pullies. Like I said, I seriously doubt that car gained 50 RWHP, but it gained 1.6 seconds and 7 MPH. Obviously the runs were not the same day, and were run years apart.

Now back to the Mustang. I have never ran the stock tires at the 1/4 on this car. I have a set of 255/50/16 M/T ET Street Drag Radials on 05 16" V6 Mustang rims. Those have always been used when this car goes to the track. For this test, I kept those at a constant 18 PSI throughout.

As well when I run the Mustang, I do not shift into 4th, I ride out 3rd. On the stock calibration, the car crossing the traps was below 6000 RPM. On the the 87 tune, the car was very close to 6000 RPM actually a little over. The 91 tune was above 6000 RPM. This was on the stock Tach. It was gaining the MPH from somewhere.

You guys are saying that this can't be a factor in the MPH increase and E.T. decrease. You guys are also saying that the MPH increase from running 1st and 2nd longer do not have a say in that either right.

Off a pretty good calculator I have, the car at 6000 RPM in 1st gear with my racing tires is 39 MPH, at 6500 RPM in 1st gear, 42 MPH. 2nd gear at 6000 RPM is 65 MPH, 6500 RPM is 71 MPH. 3rd gear at 5750 RPM is 95 MPH, 6000 RPM is 99 MPH, 6500 RPM is 107 MPH.

It is only a difference of 3 MPH in 1st, 6 MPH in 2nd, and 8 MPH 3rd. I don't care what it was, but something caused that car to go through the traps at 300+ RPM and caused the car to go .5 seconds faster and whatever it was lost when the car was returned to the stock tune.

This is my last post in this thread. I am going to argue this further. It is not worth my time.

 

[93GrunT]

LOL its going to take .1 to get to 500 more rpm, The engine has to work harder higher you go! the 3v is not a high rev engine! It may go up there but its not build too. You'll see maybe .1 doing so.

It's also higher when you shift to the next gear and making more horsepower after each shift. fox body mustangs aren't exactly rpm machines either, but I still managed better quarter mile times wringing it out to 5700 rpms before shifting instead of shifting at 5200. About .2 full tenths in that case. Of course that means jack because it is a different animal than a 3V 4.6, but with the same 60 foot times shift point past peak horsepower can still improve times under certain circumstances.

That being said I don't think the 50 horsepower = .5 in the quarter mile is as law of nature like it is being refered to in the thread although it can be used as a rule of thumb. :Track:

 

[lightblade]

I said, adding HP ONLY would take 50rwhp to shed 5 tenths on a mid to high 13sec car( the faster the car the more power it takes to make quicker and vice versa). Not on a 15 sec tbird that your adding a bunch of other mods to as well, so that statement had no relation, I am aware that suspension mods, weight reduction, traction, can also lower et's. Im not saying it is a law, i like the rule of thumb thing though, i agree that shifting later(as long as your making power can shed some et time) what i dont agree with or believe is just doing a tune to a 3v will yeild enough hp to shed 5 tenths.

 

[TGJ]

I said, adding HP ONLY would take 50rwhp to shed 5 tenths on a mid to high 13sec car( the faster the car the more power it takes to make quicker and vice versa). Not on a 15 sec tbird that your adding a bunch of other mods to as well, so that statement had no relation, I am aware that suspension mods, weight reduction, traction, can also lower et's. Im not saying it is a law, i like the rule of thumb thing though, i agree that shifting later(as long as your making power can shed some et time) what i dont agree with or believe is just doing a tune to a 3v will yeild enough hp to shed 5 tenths.

I said I wasn't going to do this but...

What you are not seeing. Part of the tune is raising the rev limiter, in my cars case from 6000 RPM to 6800 RPM. I shift it at approx. 6500 when racing. You can't achieve 6500 RPM on the stock calibration, the limiter kicks in. Everything I gained was from the tune, part of it was raising the limiter. I am positive if I *Could* take the stock calibration to 6500 RPM, the gain wouldn't be .5 in the 1/4. Another way to do this would be to restrict the tune to 6000 RPM, but why? CAI WITH tunes raise the limiter to 6500 RPM as well so that is something that those cars see as well.

 

[TGJ]

It's also higher when you shift to the next gear and making more horsepower after each shift. fox body mustangs aren't exactly rpm machines either, but I still managed better quarter mile times wringing it out to 5700 rpms before shifting instead of shifting at 5200. About .2 full tenths in that case. Of course that means jack because it is a different animal than a 3V 4.6, but with the same 60 foot times shift point past peak horsepower can still improve times under certain circumstances.

That being said I don't think the 50 horsepower = .5 in the quarter mile is as law of nature like it is being refered to in the thread although it can be used as a rule of thumb. :Track:

Exactly my point.:Word:

 

[speed1972]

I haven't played with a tuner but can't you adjust rev limiter only without having to load a different tune? That in itself would help with laying this issue to rest.