No I was instructed by doug to take out there MAF and harness and put the stock maf in the gms cai, and load the tune. Thats it. Drove on it for about a week, no CEL's/ Then came dyno day. I think we ran it with the gms cai and stock maf with c&l tune first, made adj etc. Then we converted back to the harness etc. so doug could see what it was doing etc. I have not recieved any dyno sheets from anyone yet. I only had the sheet that I printed out on that day. We made several runs and he even through an experimental piece on with a C&L CAI and made runs with it. So I am sure there is plenty of info available, just waiting on someone to pm me or email them too me. Like I said when I recieve them I will post them. Or maybe they will post them all, so there will be no naysayers. It seems like some people here have a hard time believing all of us here in st. louis. I guess we are all liars or something. There were at least 10 plus witnesses to most of the runs. We are telling people the information we saw only to help people make there own judgement call on wether they think they should get a tune or not. Thats it!!!!!!! I can't believe how many posts keep going and going, like its an energizer bunny CAI or something. It is getting quite amusing to listen to these people about this topic.

 

This was the C&L tune I was told to use for his intake. He was instructed that it maybe off before we went to to the dyno for tuning. Still, once it was corrected you see that no hp was gained, even though that isn't always the case it does happen quite a bit on cars.

I now have all of the dynoruns on my PC, thanks Andy, and I will start an entirly new post with everyone results and with details about them. I'm still answering my emails and phone calls though so it maybe later today.

Thanks, Doug.

 

So if I interpret this correctly the GMS intake tube with the stock MAF and a STD C&L tune file, ran lean.

Wouldn't that mean the GMS intake is flowing more air than the STD C&L intake tune expected?

I don't think that at all. Just that so far the data that's been posted has been somewhat confusing. It will be great when all the data gets posted. No only the charts but exactly what parts were used for each run.

 

Trust me, I know how you feel, as a GMS CAI user

 

That's a possibility, but if you go by what Doug has stated with regards to how each intake flows, if it was in fact a C&L intake tube that was being used instead of the GMS, it would have run even leaner, even more dangerous.

 

Here is my sheet from the dyno day, the first one is stock and was done in August at another dyno. There were no adjustments done just dynoed.
The second one is the final one that Doug did. It also has the FRPP stingers and K&N intake on it.

The first guy inflated the HP by running the dyno in STD mode and not in SAE.

Thanks Doug from the other Doug.

 

Wow, looks good, nice outcome there, that first graph was scary.

 

Define Lean.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Granatelli

Define Lean.

Where is the dyno sheet that shows the GMS CAI installed with the supplied parts we sent? All I see is more conjecture and one sided confusion. Perhaps I read this wrong. Did anyone dyno a GMS intake out of the box with 91 octane on a manual trans - or for that matter did anyone do a back to back test like before and after?

I may have missed it here - if I did then sorry.

 

I think they mean lean within the parameters that are acceptable or it would throw a code.
I don't think that your CAI will hurt most cars, but every car is different and without running it on a dyno or datalogging you can't tell for sure.
The average Joe () will not run a dyno tune and you are trying to provide a product for them.
It would help to never let a faulty harness leave the shop.

 

YEA! I agree, that is what we all get out of Detroit , total stock. That is why so many of us think a tune is almost required Even more if we have mods. ( and not the ones that are stolen from others.) sorry my shot.

 

Can someone define "lean within the parameters that are acceptable" ?

What is the acceptable range versus the optimal range?

Also can someone explain to me what the end (real world) result would be of running lean or rich for that matter within acceptable parameters? Can it cause problems down the road? Does it have an adverse effect on performance?

 

OK, well see, thats what you get for being nice, you mean most of YOU not most of US. The only reason I can think of so far that I might ever need a tune is to switch my gears if and when I come to that decision, but if I do, I can guarantee it is going to be a long time in the future. Other than that, no, you don't NEED a tune. My dyno proves it. Why is it only the tuners that insist a tune is needed? Would it have been better if JR had said his MAF and harness were TUNED instead, would that have made more sense? I think it's the calibrated term that's making it hard to comprehend. OK, here we go, guys, it is a TUNED MAF and harness, see, we're tuners too, yeah, we tune too, of course not as good as you guys do

And since we're on the subject, no, that is not a normal looking first dyno pull. If that dyno page had been used with regard to a GMS intake everyone would have been screaming bloody murder, but when it comes to someone else's no one says anything, so I'll say it. There was something wrong with either their setup or your car, that is not what we "all get out of Detroit".

Oh, and for the umpteenth time, here is my dyno, GMS CAI, installed as directed, using their TUNED MAF. /wink

 

sounds like there might be some relatives on here, lol, again ten people plus witnesses saw these conditions,, if you dont want a tune good for you. But please dont try to make us out to be liars. Seems like there is a consensus here, that no matter what anyway says or shows it will still be in doubt, so why are we still talking about this if no one is going to believe it anyway, if you want your car, and care for your car to last a long time, it is in your best interest to get any CAI ran on a dyno to see if you are within safe paramaters, Thats it, and if his so called tuned maf, actually was tuned then there would not need to be a harness period. they just found a maf that would work within specs with his harness. So sound mechanical explanations should tell you they are fooling the computer instead of the maf adj for the new air. I don't know about you, but that sure sounds risky too me for a 30,000 dollar car thats new. Just my .02 cents. Again I love my granatelli so I am not saying anything bad about it, just that any 30,000 car that is getting a cai should invest the 100 bucks or whatever. Lot cheaper than possible outcomes over time. good luck all

 

LOL, ok first off what happened? Two weeks ago you were going on about how your GMS was a nice setup, now that you've got a tune you turn into the exorcist. There's only two things you know about how GMS is actually using their MAF and harness, and that's jack and s__t. That happens to be what everyone else knows about how it works too, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to look at my dyno and tell, that after it senses the initial WOT and that extra air incoming, it ADJUSTS the fuel for an optimal a/f of 12.5. So if the extra air it sensed, was compensated for by adding more fuel to even out the mixture, and not just even out the mixture, but at 12.5, then how can you even suggest that it is fooling the computer. My graph looks almost exactly like Dougxcox, I'd say that's got to be as close to being calibrated to the intake as you can get.

 

No JR, no one has posted a GMS CAI dyno sheet yet, but this is the first time I have seen you mention a fuel type, and interestingly enough I had been wondering about this recently. I have been using 88 octance, and I think most of the GMS guys have been using the lower octane as well, would we see some horsepower gains by switching up to like 90-91 octane? Is this the gas you used when you did this tune?

 

Now listen redfire, Yes I was talking very good things about the gms cai, I still am if you hadnt noticed. I think it is a nice cai. But I do know a little something about cars, after being a certified mechanic for 8 years. You dont have to call people names to make your self feel intelligent. I do know what a maf sensor does. If it is designed for the car or specific cai it will be just that designed for that car or intake, and you wont see any extra harnesses. If gms was in bed with hitachi, dont you think hitachi would have designed them a correct maf sensor for the intake, with out adding jumper harnesses to it. Maybe they have a contact with hitachi that is giving them enough information to design there harness etc. I am not saying the harness doesnt work. If you read my posts all I am saying is that you should check out all cai's not just gms, when it comes to your $30,000 car. If you dont want to, dont hate people that do and did. Sounds too me the way you are taking this is very personal, are you JR, under another name coming from the same IP address or something! Get over it. We tested, we saw, we posted, know need to start calling people things, or claiming what they know. Every CAI should be tested period. Now can we get on with just the facts, I believe someone is going to post all of the runs made that whole weekend. So why dont you just wait and see what comes of it. Instead of trying to dispute everything anyone posts that doesnt coincide with your dyno sheet. Good luck with your car!!!

Oh by the way I am using 93 octane I didn't know if I mentioned that, since I would like to deal in facts I figured I would post that.

 

Ok first off, I haven't called you anything, and as far as me being JR, wow, where did that come from? If you see my avatar, it shows where I'm from. If you see my dyno sheet, it shows where I'm from. So yes! You found me out, dammit, I'm actually JR and I drive back and forth between states to make posts. Now, back to reality, I'm not trying to start a ****ing contest with you, but come on man, you say "if his so called tuned maf, actually was tuned then there would not need to be a harness period. they just found a maf that would work within specs with his harness" when you don't know a thing about how it works. You say can we get on with just the facts, and yes please, I agree, let's stick to facts, not conjecture.

 

How do you know I dont know anything about the maf set up hes got going? Facts lets stick with facts, you dont have a clue of what I know. That is a fact. Secondly anyone anywhere can make up what they want, if you were jr you could make 10 different names, saying different states, different names etc. So don't think people dont know that sort of stuff goes on. IP addresses signify where your located, not a forum name or what you typed in. But beyond that. Again I state a fact, MAF sensors are designed for the air flow, if his needs a harness, then it is not calibrated to the proper air flow period. that is a fact, otherwise you dont need it, like every other car in america or anywhere that has a maf on it. You dont see the shelby has a jumper on it for it to work do you. You dont see one on the corvette, do you! Why you ask, because there maf is designed for that air flow. If the gms intake maf was designed for that air flow it wouldnt have a harness I state once again. Instead they have a MAF sensor that has the numbers grinded off, so that people cant detect the maf they are using attached to a harness that many people have looked at and have fallen apart. That include resistors or whatever to change the signal to the maf. Anyway this is my last post in regards to JR, jr. As always stating again so people dont get confused, I like my GMS cai, just recommend people spend a little money to protect there big investment. I dont understand why this is an arguing point at all. So I will be the bigger person and just stop posting about it. good luck as always.

 

I don't think anyone is calling you all liars it's just that nobody has posted what a lot of us were looking for:
Dyno of a GMS CAI with GMS MAF and no tune! Correct me if I am wrong but you say you arrived in St. Louis with the GMS CAI and a C&L tune and then you are making statements about the GMS needing a tune.

How is it risky? If the car is running dangerously lean or rich won't it throw up a CEL?

So I ask again (not sarcastically, I want to learn something):

Can someone define "lean within the parameters that are acceptable" ?

What is the acceptable range versus the optimal range?

Also can someone explain to me what the end (real world) result would be of running lean or rich for that matter within acceptable parameters? Can it cause problems down the road? Does it have an adverse effect on performance?