eci

It would be nice if we had these 300 RWHP GMS CAI engines though wouldn't it?

m05fastbackGT

If they really existed? sure it would and until Doug or any other 3rd party tuner can confirm it, I'll continue to be skeptic until proven otherwise... As I said in an earlier post !! if anyone is interested in checking my dyno results, I've said time and time again, they are more than welcome to check out the Steeda high inlet elbow thread... So, I don't think it's asking too much for the same in return from the GMS CAI customers

eci

msully has posted he's getting 283RWHP on a *Mustang* dyno, which is easily far in excess of 300RWHP on a dynojet, and is crediting the GMS CAI and exhaust ( no HP ) to the gain. I'll be the 1st to say if someone can post a dynojet chart showing stock base with the 265ish RWHP it should be and 300 RWHP after just a GMS CAI, I'll throw my C&L CAI in the trash and "upgrade". So, ball is in your court GMS guys!

05GTRedfire

ROFL, you guys are hilarious. I'll try to see if I can find a dynojet, since that's what you used...and yes, on a Mustang Dyno, the numbers are lower, and since it simulates a load it is generally regarded as a more accurate measure. Only time people use dynojets is because they have to inflate their numbers so they don't feel so bad about spending the money on a CAI and a tune and extensive exhaust work, to get 17HP.

And I love the way you guys keep disputing msully's numbers because his baseline had fluctuations or whatever. Why do you guys totally ignore his "after" run, which showed a smooth curve? 283RWHP on a MUSTANG DYNO. Even if it wasn't a total of 33 HP gained, I'm sure his peak HP is still higher than both of yours.

eci

His sheet is posted on GMS website, and GMS did the dyno run. Is that not suspect to you? Do you think I am going to consider a GMS dyno run LEGIT? LOL! Again, keep talking ****, with no dyno #'s. It's amusing.

The BEST tuner in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA has a dynojet, which is why I use it.

What are your mods Mr. **** Talker who can't back anything up? You are a GMS fanboy. I don't give a **** about GMS or C&L. There's a difference between me and you.

283 RWHP on a Mustang Dyno equates to around 315 RWHP HP on a Dynojet. A stock GT gets 265 RWHP on a Dynojet. So, you believe a GMS CAI and some exhaust tubing adds 50 RWHP? ROFLMFAO. You haven't modded cars for long have you...

So lets see, GMS copies C&L plumbing and they have more or less the same CFM, no difference there, so I guess the SUPER-HITACHI-MAF adds the 33 extra RWHP over my REAL WORLD 17. You're smart. You are losing this argument badly, just quit while you're behind.

m05fastbackGT

So, let me get this straight Redfire, how in the world am I inflating my dyno numbers at 277.2 max HP? My numbers are lower than anyone else who's posted so far on here.... As for using a dynojet, well first off, I'm no expert nor do I know the technical differences between the two, and second, I chose a tuner who's close to my local area, not because of the type of dyno is in their show... Like if I was going to ask anyway, gees... You talk about hilarious, here's what's really hilarious, when a little electronic device known as a maf sensor is magically capable of producing 30+HP all by itself which doesn't even re-map any of the timing and spark curves, now that's what I call hilarious or is it the jumper harness? not only is this hilarious, but confusing as all hell... Who really knows which of these devices actually does what???

eci

He's a GMS shill just don't bother...

SilverHorse-----Racing

As was briefly stated, but bears repeating due to the train wreck that this is turning into....

Modification A = +12Hp
Modification B = +7 Hp
Modification C = +6 Hp

Now, A+B+C on paper = 25Hp, but in reality, A+B+C might only = 16 Hp max. This is because every change made is not additive to the total Hp, since what is freed up in one modification negates some of the increase from another, since there are only so many variables in play when all is said and done. And unless you are willing to really uncork the motor ala cams, head work, and increasing the CR / displacement, you will real quickly maximize the gains from the bolt-ons, since the engine can only support Hp for what it can draw in on the intake stroke. Any excess capacity to inhale or exhale air is wasted until changes to the engine internals are made. Now when those changes do get made, you reset to a new airflow level, and all the go-fast goodies again will work to get closer to the advertised numbers, although they still won't get all the way there.

So next time anyone wants to say I have A,B,C, and D modifications and I'm getting 356Hp at the flywheel because of them, just challenge them to a straight-up drag race, and let the timeslip tell the story. It has never worked that way, and never will. I wish it did, trust me I was a naive customer for a number of my early years, until the fog was lifted.

Oh, and BTW - ask anyone familiar with dynos, they will pretty much tell you that within reason, you can make them say whatever you want to prove or disprove whatever you are trying to do that day.

Finally, as a magazine contributor / writer, I will tell you that while we do try and cast products in a positive light, I have never, ever lied or covered up facts to misrepresent a product. My name is worth more than that, and I would venture to guess many of the guys writing for the rags feel the same way. (not all, but most). And I know that my editors have just deep-sixed articles (much to my dismay because then I don't get paid...) rather than asking for them to be re-written if the product failed miserably - many of the magazines do not want to be known as just puppets for the advertisers, because without credibility, they really don't have a reader base.

Of course, not everyone adheres to those standards, so as always, just because it is on paper does not make it true. As the consumer, you have to be willing to do some legwork and homework if you want to maximize your investment in your car. That's why I personally answer our tech line, so that those that want to really talk cars can, with pretty much an unbiased opinion on what works and what doesn't.

eci

Yep, ricer math at its finest. Someone has already told me my parts are broken since I "only" got 17 RWHP from them when it should be 50 RWHP had I bought the GMS CAI instead.

eci

At this point I think I am going to remove my C&L, buy a GMS, and install it. I will then take the car to the same dyno, and you will see the same HP.

This still won't prove anything to the GMS shills though, they'll just say my muffler bearings must be bad.

05GTRedfire

Wow, just wow. Where are you pulling these numbers from? (I think I know) Where did you get that msully's sheet is posted on the GMS site? I don't see it. And it doesn't say anywhere on his sheet that it was done at GMS, am I missing something? Or is this the way things are done in the "real world"?

Yes, you're right, I am a GMS fanboy. Well, at least with regards to their CAI and MAF, I am extremely happy with it The T-body looks nice, but not worth it to me for a daily driver. As far as my mods currently, I have the GMS CAI, with their "Secret Squirrel" MAF, and Corsa axle-backs, and that's it. Like I said, I'll start looking into a dynorun, because, I don't want my car to blow up.

eci

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/attach...4&d=1162448110

Look familiar?

I just want to see your 315 RWHP from Corsa + GMS CAI!! That's 30 more than me so I'll gladly pay the $400 for the SUPERMAF!

Where am I pulling my numbers from? You are implying from my ***?

Hm, well you can divide 283/.9 to get Dynojet #s from Mustang Dyno numbers, approx of course. 265 RWHP is the accepted norm for these cars STOCK on dynojets. All of my numbers are actually legit, you just don't know S197's very well apparently. Let me try and break it down slower for you:

283/9 = 314.44 Dynojet, let's say 315 for ease.

Stock GT Dynojet = 265

So, 315 - 265 = 50 RWHP, the difference between msully's car stock and after GMS CAI + " H-back exhaust <--- lol )

Understand?

05GTRedfire

Yes, that looks familiar. That looks like one of the dyno runs posted on the GMS website, I still don't get it. This is sully's dyno sheet http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...8&postcount=98

Look familiar?

eci

It's the SAME FREAKING GRAPH. GMS edited the details. Duh?

Are you saying BOTH CARS had the same weird "poop" at 5300 RPM that NO ONE ELSE has ever had? GMS's graphs are hand made.

Dude seriously, **** this. I'll *PAY YOU* $1,000 cash if you can show me 315 RWHP on a dynojet with a verifiable OTHERWISE STOCK Mustang with JUST a GMS CAI and some "H-back exhaust".


STEP UP?

05GTRedfire

Uhm, OK. I will have to try and really concentrate and channel all my energy, so I can breach across dimensions of time and space, and hopefully I can get to you in the real world. OK, msully's dyno, 2007 Mustang GT Convertible. GMS dyno example, 2006 Mustang GT Coupe. I'm really trying to focus here, are you getting it?

eci

I can edit my Dynojet graph to say 1985 Turbo Diesel Rabbit.

Can you answer a yes/no question? I will if you will. Here's mine:

Does the GMS CAI + "H-back exhaust" add 50 RWHP?

msully's "results" say yes. What say you?

05GTRedfire

OMG! ROFLMAO

I'm going to bed, my sides are hurting

eci

It's hilarious watching you squirm, unable to represent your claims.

One of us has real facts, real numbers, and the other is a fanboy talking ****. WTF man?

m05fastbackGT

Redfire! The phrases ECI referred to about your car blowing up, was just meant as a figure of speech... So why not just let Doug settle this when he gets back, then you'll have all your questions answered...

eci

My main point isn't about A/F, or whether the GMS CAI makes power. It's that it DOESN'T make twice the power of the C&L as they are basically the SAME THING, only C&L designed it two years earlier.

The bottom line here is msully has implied his GMS CAI and "h-back exhaust" has him at the equivalent of 315 RWHP on a Dynojet, which works to around 370 crank HP. This is a crock of ****.