I guess everyone is getting the same #'s. Everyone can claim 40 hp gain when going from stock 87 to tuned 93.
Right now AM was the only one to do it right, dyno with each piece and dyno from 93 to 93. They look to be the honest bunch right now.

 

I think C&L also tried very hard to be truthful and accurate. Their own development mirrors AM/Bama results.

http://www.cnlperformance.com/2011GT.html

 

You've never taken a marketing class, have you?

They're being honest. They're just embellishing the facts.

 

Now that's a company I'd do business with.
Straight up, no sugar coating, ho hiding details in the fine print and embellishing in other areas.

Thanks for that link Gene

 

Here we go again. I've said it before in other posts and I'll say it again. WHY would you want to publish 93 vs 93 numbers when over 90% of the cars we get in here and from customers we talk to on the phone that have yet to have modified their car are running 87 octane. ITS NOT A FAIR COMPARISON and it does not show most customers what they are really going to gain. PERIOD

BTW, since I last posted that statement months ago we've had dozens of 5.0's come though our south Florida shop. Almost all of them showed up here on 87 OCTANE. So far they are proving me right and I still stand behind that statement.

We've got a dyno coming out in a few months in a magazine thats 93 vs 93 and also in 5th gear that will hopefully set the conspiracy theorists straight. I'm sure they will still find something to complain about. But enough is enough already.

We are not the only ones getting 40+ horsepower with cold air and tune. We've done and published back to back drag strip passes showing a 1/2 second and 3mph gain in trap speed on stock wheels and tires on the same day (which was 93oct vs 93oct BTW at the track). How much more proof do people need? A CAI and custom tuning works. No doubt about it.

 

THANK YOU !!

Everyone wants to beat a dead dog. IT IS WHAT IT IS !!!

I plan driving down to your shop in the near future for a CAI - tune and springs.

 

Gus, I think you are missing the point.
The Steeda CAI and tune is also one I'd consider, and am considering.

But the point of dynoing an aftermarket part or tune or whatever is to know what THAT PART has done for the car.

Testing on 87 Octane as a baseline and then with a CAI and tune and 93 Octane and advertising that leads one to believe, "buy our CAI and tune" and you'll gain 45 hp is misleading, though it's true....but the CAI and the tune was not the complete and sole reasons for the gain.

It's silly for anyone to come into a shop on 87 Octane and desiring more power only to feel they'll get 45 hp more by adding the intake and tune, IF they are going to continue to run 87 Octane.
They have to know up front they will HAVE to run 93 Octane or they will destroy their engines!


Your comparison is on the exact same level as this below:

A shop has a 2011 GT 5.0 with the stock 18" wheels and all season tires.
This shop specializes in suspension.

They take their base 2011 GT 5.0 and via instrumented testing tests:
skidpad
slalom
braking
and auto x
and records the times they get on 87 Octane.

Then the shop installs the suspension they are selling on the car.
They also then put 93 Octane on the car and put on a set of Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tires.
They go back to the exact same location and retest the same tests above.
They record the results and then on their website market the improvements in handling and performance the car did with their suspension set up.
But in the fine print below (that the average customer won't read) they note that the car with the suspension also had improved tires and higher octane gas.
Those two facts would by themselves give the car better handling and braking numbers and faster slalom times as well as auto x times (from improved tires and more power from the higher octane).
Even without the PS2's the results would be skewed as the car with the suspension now makes 10-15 more hp so you'd get faster times and vice versa, even on 87 Octane, the addition of just PS2 would great improve performance numbers over all season tires.

That would NOT be an apples to apples comparison. Though a valid comparison, it just requires the additional facts of the PS2 tires and higher octane gas to be added to the "package description" in the large print.

I'm not saying a CAI and tune does NOT increase power by 40-45 hp when added AND going from 87 Octane to 93 Octane. Your gains, like other companies who have done the same are true and accurate, but it does NOT answer the question, "how much power did the CAI and tune" give the car? It does answer the question, "how much power did the CAI, the tune, and higher octane gas give the car?

The point that all of us are making is simple:
To know EXACTLY what the CAI and tune by THEMSELVES are making you MUST have a baseline with the same octane gas as you had when you do the test with the CAI and tune. It's that simple, it's that straight forward.

It's not a conspiracy theory or anything else so I'm not sure why you'd feel that way or get upset at potential customers who just want as fair and accurate apples to apples comparo of a product they can get.

If doing it any other way is considered acceptable as long as it's in the fine print, a company that sells an exhaust systems can advertise, "we got 120 more hp after adding our exhaust system to our car, you can buy it here..."
Then in small print note that a 100 shot of NOS was used, cuz most people who come into an exhaust shop to have exhaust put on their car don't run NOS either. Though I still believe "most" people who buy a performance car like a 5.0 liter V8 Mustang are going to run the recommended octane gas for it, which in this case is 91 Octane. Doubtful even 20% of people who own this car (and especially if they desire a bit more power) will be running around on the crap 87 Octane, when they can get 10 hp simply by adding 91 (or probably 12-14 hp if their state sells 93).

 

I'd make sure it had 93 in it before taking it in for a tune or mods. (The dealer said they put 93 in it, maybe they did, but who wants to believe a dealer? ha)

Most dyno tuners around here tell you to make sure that you have 93 in your car before they tune it, so you can get the most power.

If a customer is smart enough to know he/she wants more power and actually knows a little bit about cars, they should know to put the premium in.. But, can't always assume that..ha

 

I understand your point but I do not agree with it. We will have to just agree to disagree.

The point of dynoing the car is to know what the modifications you do to the car end up giving you. These should be presented in the same manner they will be used.

In this case, its not just the cold air and tune, but the fact that you MUST use 93 octane after you are modified with the tune. That HAS to be included as a modification. Because you have now modified the capability of the car to run on 87 octane and essentially eliminated it.

The 2011 Mustang GT is designed to run just fine 87 octane, and plenty of owners are running it. The fact that you are now forced to run 93 octane is in and of itself a modification, making it relevant to be included in the total results of the modifications being dyno'd, which for the dyno results we published which caused such a stir were 87 octane, stock airbox, stock tune vs 93 octane, cold air, and custom tune.

This is exactly what most of our customers are doing when stepping up from stock to the cold air kit, therefore for most customers it is valid and accurate representation of what they can expect. They are taking the stock airbox off, putting in the cold air and tune, AND changing the fuel octane that they would normally use.

You are right, the CAI and tune was not the complete reason for the gain, and we've been pretty transparent about that in previous discussions we have made on the subject. That does not make it any less relevant. In our opinion it is a accurate representation for the majority of our customers because they will be making the changes exactly as we did in our testing.

And yes, as we have said before people starting out with 93 octane on the stock airbox will gain less, but we've got a magazine article in a few months that will put that baby to bed.

 

In WA, we are limited to 92 octane, in Cal it's 91. I'd prefer to continue allowing car to adjust between 87 - 91, as from factory. I want a tune to improve throttle response, raise shift points (auto trans), sharpen the shifts. Just get rid of the low RPM shift bias of the stock auto trans.

However, if I were to get a CAI, then I'd get a tune for that setup that does all the above. I'm not interested in a tune that pushes the envelope and REQUIRES running premium gas, even though I fully intend to always use premium. I also need to be able to easily revert to full factory stock tune for emissions testing &/or dealer warranty claims.

 

So ... what were we talking about again? Apples, gas, or tunes? Sounds like a pitstop at a service station selling iPods...

Anyone (hopefully) who buys a tune/CAI combo should already understand the impact of 87 vs 93 gas. If they don't, they need the Big Lots tune (one you just buy off the shelf at a discount and hope it works.)

This is just marketing. Savvy owners will read between the lines. Less savvy ones will learn pretty quickly.

 

Gus I'm not disagreeing with you.
Your points are all valid too.
My point is Steeda did not test a car on 93 Octane first too and then with the CAI and tune so customers who DO run 93 Octane know what they are getting by adding the CAI and tune.

As you pointed out, Steeda at first was a bit transparent about the fact the baseline was on 87 octane. Clearly that was for marketing reasons. A fact, it's clear, you all knew but chose to not disclose that in the large print. I feel that was the mistake, and I'm sure you've "learned" by this whole brew-haha, that was the case. And I'm also quite sure you all knew that was going to be the case going into it. Otherwise you'd of clearly put, CAI, tune and 93 Octane gained xx hp.

It's all good. But also keep in mind many states, including the most populated one in the country that buys more cars than any other state gets only 91 octane.
So it may be wise to do a CAI and tune for 91 octane cars.
And trust me when I say, here in So Cal, 90% of any owner of a performance car that is even moderately thinking of modding the car for more power, will NOT be running 87 octane in their car, so best to do your baseline on 91 octane.

 

I agree. I voted with my wallet for AM/Bama. I will be loading Bama tune tonight, and will make AM the first site I go to in the future for mods. But I'm just one person...

 

I'm just curious why all these shops are doing a baseline on 87 octane as opposed to 91 where the 5.0 makes its advertised power. If these gains where reported going from 91 - 93 with a CAI then i would be much happier. That's my only gripe though.

 

"If doing it any other way is considered acceptable as long as it's in the fine print, a company that sells an exhaust systems can advertise, "we got 120 more hp after adding our exhaust system to our car, you can buy it here..."
Then in small print note that a 100 shot of NOS was used, cuz most people who come into an exhaust shop to have exhaust put on their car don't run NOS either."






LMAO!
Fine print is a b!tch eh?

 

We don't eliminate the octane sensing feature of the car with our tunes. A 93 octane tune will run just fine on 91 and the car will adjust by itself, but in the quest for performance, there is not enough room with all the extra timing in the car for the tune to bring itself all the way back to 87 octane.

We would have to make a completely different tune for that, which we can easily do. However power gains will obviously be reduced.

 

Kind of odd. My car is going to be used to design some LT's and this is part of the email I received from their engineering dept.

""I wanted to touch base with you on a couple of things. 1st thing is the
gasket, is it going to be in today? If so I will make arrangements to get it
picked up from you today. Secondly is I have tried to get a hold of you
several times yesterday to discuss the dyno session I have scheduled for
next Wednesday at Wxxxy's. The question I have is what grade of fuel do you
run in the car? It would be best if it had premium fuel in it to optimize
the horsepower numbers before and after the header installation.""

Why would anyone want to know what the car puts out with 87 octane fuel. That make absolutey no sense to anyone that wants to make more power. I tlaked to him on the phone after this email, and he said there company wants to know what power the LT's make, not other random variables...

 

Usually Im interested in separating the gains you can provide as opposed to BP. I thought that was the whole point of before and after dynos.

Bottom line guys just add 11 rwhp and 12 rwt to the baseline to approximate what the car was actually capable of before the CAI / Tune and hope they dont feel the same way about oil, water, and intake temps.

 

Because you're trying to take credit for something that has NOTHING to do with your tune! You'll gain XX amount of power going from 87 to 93 without doing a **** thing. I want to see 93 on the stock tune vs 93 on your tune. That is a fair comparison, period.

Maybe I should start selling a tune of my own - send me $50 and I'll tell you how to easily gain 10-15 horsepower without voiding your warranty! I'll send people a piece of paper that says "Next time you put gas in your car, use 91 octane instead of 87." After all, I can take credit for that gain, right?

Gus, we're not as dumb as we may look. We know marketing and we know why you are doing it this way. Every tuner wants the HUGE numbers to generate business. If you want our respect, publish both numbers (87 to 93 and 93 to 93). Clearly there is a demand for it. If you stand behind your product, there is no reason not to. But don't worry, if you don't post these numbers your customers will.

 

What is your PayPal account? Payment will be sent ASAP.