Quote: Originally posted by eric17422001 Well said! I completely agree. Good post on this emabarrasing thread. -Tom

There was a 2-part thread on PFF that went into extreme details on the problems with the stock intake manifold, and what one owner did about it. It's an excellent read, and it lacks the venom and nastiness found here.

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Archives/A...-2-031564.html

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Archives/A...-2-047158.html

There's also several porting-the-stock-manifold threads; here's one of them:

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/066086.html

Lots of other good reading on v6 stuff at PFF btw.

What I haven't seen done yet is a collection of the results in one place, so that the airflow, dyno and track tests on stock, ported, and other intakes can be compared. It looks like even the most custom upper intake doen't improve the airflow by much more than 7 to 12% for the valve lifts (and flows) of the stock 2.8/3.4 cams, so the gains aren't huge..... and probably not as much gain as on altering the exhaust (a theme that should be familiar by now).

It looks like the bottleneck for the 2.8/3.4 v6 is:

1. exhaust
2. lower intake
3. upper intake, and heads

and in that order. The runners seem to have been designed to be excessively long to assist in torque production, a useful thing in a car with a small engine.

The other problem not addressed by any of the intakes, but will be obvious to TPI owners, is that the v6 lower base runners are still small diameter, and so the flow limitation will always be controlled by them. That's why I ordered the list above as I did. So even if you port the heads and replace the upper intake, you still have small area runners in the lower intake, and they will restrict airflow in a gradual but persistent way. I suspect that's why the flow numbers for the intakes tested at Trueleo's web site show the same behavior at high lifts/flows.

The flow limitation by the lower manifold probably has more of a reduction of performance than the aluminum vs steel pissing contest from the previous 7 pages. And it would still be helpful to see actual intake temps, both metal and inlet air temp, along with the ECT. HTH.

the base portion of the stock manifold is a piece of cake to port. there is plenty of material there to make it big. i have looked through that section with it bolted to the heads with them bolted on my motor. I have ported all of it...they line up, fine. i would order that list like this:

1 heads
2 exhaust
3 top section of intake manifold

What follows is discussion.

From www.trueleo.com

flow data in cfm:

Valve lift -----------------.100"- .200" - .300" - .400" - .500"
===========================================
stock intake -------------56.0 - 106.9 - 124.4 - 131.9 - 139.4
Trueleo Long runner -- 59.8 - 111.1 - 130.3 - 144.5 - 146.1
Trueleo Short runner - 62.6 - 114.4 - 133.6 - 147.0 - 147.0

head (no intake) ------ 64.3 - 116.9 - 133.6 - 147.0 - 147.0


The intake manifold data was obtained with the stock lower+middle plus one of three upper intake choices: stock, or Trueleo short, or Trueloe long. Notice that the gain over stock of either Trueleo intake isn't really that much at the highest lift, and that both the short and long Trueleo intakes reach the same final values. In looking at the intake pixs, and based on these #s, it looks like the bottle neck is the lower/middle base because the upper intake (ANY upper intake) isn't affecting the flow results by that much.

I also find it odd that the highest lifts for the Trueleo tests reached the exact same values that were obtained for the head (no intake).... suggesting that there was either a problem with the testing, or that the head was tested with the lower intake connected and erroneously reported. To me, it's too coincidental that all four sets of numbers above max out at 147 cfm. And my comment is a discussion comment, I'm not stating this because I suspect anything sinister by the sellers.

It's also not obvious (again, to me) that the intake tests had 5 of the 6 runners closed off so that the flow data reflects the intake per runner. More test details might help clear up the questions on the test numbers.

As far as airflow is concerned: The biggest v6 that could be used with any of the above intakes is 3.4 liter (207 cid) which is 59% of 350. The Vortec 350 (L31), reputed to be a very good flowing stock iron head, flows in the 215 to 230 cfm range on the intake side with no porting. With the GM HOT cam and a good aftermkt exhaust on the L31 can make 420+ fwhp.

So using the head flow of the L31 and taking 60% of the stock intake airflow of the Vortec heads (to equate it to the needs for a 3.4 liter engine) would be 133.5 cfm. The flow numbers (in the table) above are in that range, so the airflow is certainly adequate to make the 3.4 engine (and any smaller 60 deg v6) move enough air to make good power. With that argument, since the HOT CAM made 420+ on the Vortec engine, then a similar cam (for a v6) used in a 3.4 should make up to 249 fwhp (assuming good tune, intake, exhaust), or approx 200 rwhp.

What's missing in the above is the data for the exhaust side. GM usually choked the hell of of their engines in passenger cars, so thats why I put the exhaust first in the problem list, followed by the lower intake. If there is plenty of meat in the middle/lower intake, then that's really good news. FWIW.

You can go to supersix.com and get the head flow numbers off their site. It shows stock in/out, and ported in/out.

the post above just tells me several things...

In earlier posts, francis stated that he had to do a chip because the engine was running lean... 7 more (PEAK) CFM makes the engine run lean? I think not.

Then knowing what I know about burning and tuning chips, coupled with the above flow numbers... I am still insistant to know the "gains" with the intake with a stock 3.1 CAMARO engine/ RWD setup ECU chip.
I will be willing to bet dollars to cookies it is nowhere near what it is with that chip...

There are just too many holes here, too many untruths in what francis has said...

Thanks.

7 cfm gain out of approx 140 cfm (max flow capability) is roughly 5% gain.

If that percentage holds for the rest of the rpm range and for WOT, it means that the mixture should go from 12.5:1 at stock WOT air/fuel (A/F) to 1.05*12.5, or 13.1:1. That's obviously getting lean. If you instead start with 12.7:1 for stock WOT A/F, then you go up to 13.3. That's not hugely lean, but it is lean nevertheless... it's not optimum and making things richer should result in more power.

Based on the airflow gain (7 cfm of 140), then the power gain would optimally be 5% over stock assuming proper A/F. So I do think it's reasonable to say that the engine ran lean, but it's also reasonable to cap the power gain at 5 to 12% (different values for different rpms) over stock... because the power increase can only mimic the increase in airflow.

well the 7 CFM was peak gain, at WOT/red line.

So you can probly quess that at lower RPM's it is nowhere near that. I was stating that at WOT (at which point the ECM goes into PE mode), that an additional whopping 7 CFM will not do too much to lean things out.

So in the lower band, you could see the same, much lower CFM gain, meaning less additional air, even a lesser chance of going lean.

My point was that, given what he has said, what the CFM gain says, most of, if not all the power actually comes from a tuned chip. The bolt on HP gain factor of just the intake is minimal at best.

14.7:1 is the perferct mix. 13.1 isn't lean?



"Here is a general idea at what the O2 sensor voltage output looks like. As you can see, the slope around 400mv, which is 14.7:1, or perfect combustion, is very steep. This is why only computerized fuel injection systems can really hold anything close to 400mv. If you're wondering about how a sensor can read oxygen content in rich mixtures where there is no extra oxygen, the sensor begins to act as a temperature sensor above 400mv. "

14.7 is stoic metric wich is the theoretical idea fuel to air ratio, which assumes all the fuel and air is used in combustion. You can achieve this under steady state, low load conditions, but under load a richer mixture is needed to ensure a complete burn. Not all the fuel is burned in the combustion chamber so you make up for it with a rich mixture. Other wise you go lean and bad things happen. V6 sucker and Kdrolt are DIY prom guys so they know all about how our ecm's work. Most guys tune for high to mid 12's, and richer for forced induction.

The factory NB sensor is uselss for anything other than 14.7, if you ever get to play with a WB sensor you'll see very quickly that .9 volts can be anything beween 11-1 and 13-1. So you can't use it as an indicatior for anything but greater than or less than 14.7

It's amazing the kind of tech you get when you remove the attitude and personal attacks from a conversation, keep up the good work guys.

Agreed. Much better, guys.
I have no idea regarding the flow numbers, though I do believe that the upper is far greater a restriction (based solely on my experiences, not any hard data) than the base. Our base has been opened up, and I can't say that there was any real gain from it. We're planning to rework the heads and do more porting to them and the base after the intake is tested, so we'll see what happens then.
None of our testing (at least for now) will be with a Trueleo chip; all of our numbers will be with the stock 87 2.8 chip (which is far from optimized for our combination), so no one will be able to say the chip made all the difference. We do not even have a Trueleo chip at this time. We are using a 65mm throttle body, though, so what gains are from that alone will be impossible to determine. Either way, I'm expecting a very worthwhile gain. We have always made our numbers available, both good and bad, and in this situation it will be no different. Please be patient though as Shannon and I have had a lot of stuff going on lately that have kept us from moving as quickly on this as we would like.

We are going to do some testing with some custom chips we obtained from a local source afterwards, and possibly with some of Trueleo's chips if they want.

yes depending on engine type, power output, and several other factors yes 14.7 IS ideal. But reality then slaps you upside the head and brings you down from the clouds.

I have dealt with tuning the 3.1, and several 4G63 turbo motors. Yeah, you would not want to mess with the 4G63's I have dealt with. They lit up 450 Hp dyno queen LS1's... and went better than 12's at the track.

But the systems are different, and you cannot burn a chip for them. With them you are using a MAF signal enhancer, or a SAFC, SAFC2, MAF/T or DSM link. I mention them because while the systems maybe different, the proceedure and everything else is the same. Hell those motors REQUIRED at least 12.5:1, most the time I went much richer, sometimes getting into the 11-11.3:1 range depending on the boost levels.

I would like to know how francis "tuned" the chip, and what he did/changed in it. I would also like to see the logs and software he used to do so. I have seen some really poorly done chips in my time, yes even from big manufactures' too.

I am not doubting he put some effort into it, after all he claims say gained power. Of which I am not doubting, but even a good solid and full day on a dyno will not complete a "tuned" chip. It is just not gonna happen. To perform on a dyno is one thing, on the street another. A dyno can give you broad areas to tweak and look at while on the street.
Dyno conditions are nowhere near street driving conditions.

Like I said before, I personally would not call a chip purely created on a dyno a real "tuned" chip. Tuning requires real street seat time, seeing real conditions and temps. I am not saying that it cannot be done, I am saying that without spending several days on the dyno varing the conditions widely that I personally would not trust it.

You mean air to fuel <g>, not the other way around, and I know you know that...

For economy during cruise, the A/F is often numerically higher than 14.7:1 (fourteen point seven, to one). For best power during WOT, the A/F needs to be in the 12.5 to 12.7 range; it can also make nearly the same power at 12:1 or less.... but it's wasteful. So a rich mixture doesn't really hurt and you can't really break anything that way --- but a lean mixture during WOT can cause damage. That's why people try to avoid going lean at WOT.

Correction: I'm a DIY PROM newbie. I know a little about them.

As for why we did not have all the runners open, at first we did because we forgot to close off the other 3 runners and could not pull any vacuum through the runner whereas you put only one head on the flow bench. In addition, since you don't want possible leaky valves messing up your numbers we blocked off the other two runners at the head. Perhaps the reason that the short runner intake matched the open head (147) is due to the fact that inside our plenum we have nice velocity stocks on each runner, whereas the open head can cause vortexes etc. That's why they put velocity stacks on open carbs at the drag strip, it helps with the flow. One other thing, I'm getting a little tired of people saying we doctored or altered etc results, that's pure BS. If you doubt the numbers, come over with a head, pay the flow bench time and we'll lend you an intake.

I have read nowhere where someone has said that?

And on the stock heads...
Ever onder why they have that middle ridge in the base of the intake runner in the head? it is a vortex generator. Yes it was actually put there by the head designers to INCREASE flow.

I cannot count the threads about people porting their heads then they see that and have no idea what the hell it is and if they should not have ground it down.

And we put carb stacks on open carbs to smooth over the flow of the intake of air.
Again I am pointing out a design flaw, and the general lack of knowlage you have about this and this engine.

Velocity stacks are used to increase flow rates in vacuum drawn heads. They work best in off boost applications/situations. They do this by creating a pressure wall at, or near the intake tube opening forcing more air in than would normally be drawn in.

However, you either ignored or did not know what the risier was in the stock there for this very purpose. To increase flow at the point of the valve shroud. This also helps atomize the fuel much better as well.

So by tring to use velocity stacks, and an intake tract that already in pretty much equiped with them, you are pretty much shooting yourself in the foot, from a performance standpoint. You are cutting the stock heads vortex generators effectivness.

Man just imagine if the Fiero guys asked about this stuff...

Velocity stacks are used to prevent a vena contracta from forming in the inlet of a pipe, because the flow contraction has a cross section area that is smaller than the area of the pipe. So not using one means you are throwing away flow; using one means you retain most of the theoretical flow capability. No one posted that info above, based on fluid mechanics, so it's premature to be casting stones based on the presumed ignorance of the previous posts.

Using velocity stacks inside a plenum is a good idea IF you have room in the plenum for them. Some of the higher-end engines use the same method. TPI v8 engines would benefit from using them except there is little room for them in the factory TPI upper plenum. So it's not a waste of time to use them on any v6 intake -- provided you have the room for them.

There are at least two reasons for using a velocity stack on a carbed engine, or using a shorty stub stack on a carb (if height is a problem). The first is the reason provided above. The second is to make sure the flow doesn't impede the booster (vacuum) signal for the carb.

I doubt the vane's intent is the Vortex generator you suggest it is -- it's more likely that it adds volume in a place where the airflow is poor, and that in turn forces the airflow to be higher elsewhere in the inlet port AND it also helps establish what the airflow will be before it reaches the valve stem. Both of these concepts are right out of Vizard's book(s) btw. A Karman vortex street (not something found in Vizard) would be established on the downstream side of the valve guide anyway with or without the vane, and it's not really as helpful to airflow (cylinder filling) or as helpful to the turbulence needed for fast combustion as the port bias and vane placement would be to enhance swirl.

There has been much discussion a while back about the ridge in the head intake port.
By someones flow test of a head with Vs without one, the one with flowed much better. Off hand I think it was in the 15 or so CFM, but I am not positive.
It is there to create a swirl path before the valve opening. A sideways vortex...

And, reading the website discriptions... I read nowhere where it says they are equiped with velocity stacks... So this above about velocity stacks may be all mute anyway... I should also say that the type of stack both varies in design, and effectiveness.

And while I do have a 350 TPI intake, I will add that there is plenty of room to add stub velocity stacks, if you are willing to cut the sides, and or top off the intake...
And it should also be added that when you do include velocity stacks you need to increase space availible for airflow. Meaning if you have the stacks on-top of each other, they fight each other for the same air.

[quote]Originally posted by V6sucker


And, reading the website discriptions... I read nowhere where it says they are equiped with velocity stacks... So this above about velocity stacks may be all mute anyway... I should also say that the type of stack both varies in design, and effectiveness.


Our intakes have velocity stacks. The first two or three prototypes did not, but since we had the room we added them before we started to them. You have never dealt with us and have totally ignored what has been said about us and our ethics on the PFF Fiero forum, yet you continue to suggest that we make false claims etc. The stacks are not a mute point they are there and help with the flow. While they cannot be seen do to the turn in the Fiero TB to plenum pipe, I think LT1 should be able to see them on his F-bod intake.

The velocity stacks are visible, I'll check with Shannon to see if she has any pics where they are visible. If not we'll take some. Unfortunately I have to finish putting a rearend in my SS first...

Did you make it to the shootout LT1 guy? I know I didn't see Shannon's car.

Yep the intake has them and I have pics... just have to resize them to more resonable size. Had tons of pics of the intake install and am still wading thru them. Since I now have a hurt foot to add to my hurt arm (much better btw) I should be able to make some progress in the next few days on the pic resizing!

Unfortunately not...the rearend in my SS was about to let go (I could grab the pinion yoke and move it up and down, back and forth...over an inch of play!), so I wound up spending Saturday going to Hawks to get another one, and most of Sunday cleaning/painting and installing it. Shannon's car still isn't quite finished; I have a couple fuel leaks to fix (one from a braided line, another from the cold start injector) and just haven't had time. It seems like we've been busy constantly lately, yet still never seem to get it all done!

That very rearend was the one that busted up my toe! I was copilot to the whole rearend fiasco. FUN FUN FUN!

Going to be working on the car tonight to illiminate the cold start injector. GM discoed the O-ring that goes on the line to the injector to seal it. NAPA, Advance, Autozone, and the like have been unable to get a o-ring that will work! This is the very o-ring that the dealer installed wrong that caused my engine fire 2-3 years ago. So I'm not risking it. It would not seal well enough as is and leaked, so w/o a new o-ring to fix the leak, we are left getting a 3.1 fuel rail to elliminate the sucker all together! Not going to have that fire hazzard take out my car!

shannon, joe. Could one of you send me a pm, I am looking for some info, not sure which one of you would be best to get it from.

Thanks

Well here are some temp numbers that were sent to me by redfaif@yahoo.com. These were taken with the engine warmed up. Like we said, they just don't get hot enough to be an issue.

Neck: 82
Back of intake: 90
Runners Top: 96
Runners middle: 117
Base intake to the lower: 170
Valve covers: 137

how many guys/gurls on here actually have that intake installed on there car also any dyno numbers yet?

on and running, still got to put the afpr on to get the fuel mixture where it needs to be, and work out some bugs with the ford throttlebody, but rest assured that it will be done by the time that my baby is born.

the camaro had/has to go to the backburner til i get things ready for the baby to get here..... but it runs(barely), not drivable but i still got clutch issues from the fire that i need to take care of too....

note to everyone car sounds like S**T with dual 2" side exits with glasspacks.... sounded better with no muffler at all, but i couldn't hear the radio turned the whole way up while the engine was at idle........

Side outlets usually don't sound good, to me anyway, since you tend to hear one side (the one your nearest) more than the other. Thus our little V6s will sound like 3 cylinder engines.
If you go to Pennock's Fiero Forum you'll find dyno charts etc on these intakes. It really don't mater which car the engine is in. There's one thread on there where they got 200+ HP and lots more rpm without any type of boost.

yep, with the 6 you gotta go single side pipe unless you want the r!cer sound.

[single side pipe]
http://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/show...hreadid=296432

figured that i would try it. it sounded really good til the tach gets above 3,000 and then it sounds like my bike more than a car.....

For anyone wanting the look real bad, you can put an X cross-over pipe under the car (do it an angle like a header runner) between the two sides. That would get the pulses and the sound from all 6 to each side.

The only thing missing in this list would be the engine coolant temp (probably around 185 deg F based on the intake base).

So much for the oven thermometer measurements pictured at the 80% point of page 4 this thread:

and explained & refuted by me on p. 6:

So v6#20's (DeanE) measurements are useful only in confirming that exhaust heat rises and nothing more. And it also shows why engineering judgement is useful to explain measurements that might be otherwise mis-interpreted.

Steel doesn't get hotter than aluminum.
Aluminum doesn't get hotter than steel.

The temps they get to are driven (forced) by the block temp; the only thing that differs between them is how quicky they heat or cool --- and that is determined by the balance between conduction and convection heat transfer.... and all that was also already discussed by many in this thread.

Those numbers are after the car did steady driving for 45 min to the dyno. Hwy (70mph) and surface street running (35mph).

Sorry been out of the loop... had a loved one that had to go in the hospital for some neck surgery. Been trying to help out by offering my house during the recovery period. This has made my time a bit scattered as of late!

PIcs...

old...





and new...

Dyno #'s?

SOP #'s?

and where did you get that air cleaner?

K... well on the performance... the car has woken up big time.

SOP#....
I was driving it back from the dyno and was on a surface street and had this guy in a SUV want to rev up at me. So I played at the light a bit. With Joe in the back seat, and another friend in the passenger seat. So the car was quite weighted down. Now I was expecting it to break the tires loose, being lowered and on street tires, so i feathered the throttle. Heck I never got over half throttle before the car was sideways. Yes...my car actually got sideways taking off. Its pulls really, really strong in the lower RPMS...

Still having issues with the higher RPMS... well I got the Air Fuel Ratio tested and found out why... car is supposed to be around 13 to 13.5. Well before we backed the fuel pressure down it was at 10.5 at the lower RPMs and about 5000 it had dropped to more like 10. So we took the FP as low as we could and still keep the car idling and this put me in the 11.7 to 11.5 (2500-3500) and 11 @ 4500 and up. Any lower with the pressure and the fuel would not be atomizing properly and the car would run even worse. SO I have a MAJOR A/F ratio problem, right now. What sux is I never tested the A/F ratio prior to this intake. The scarey part is the intake definately increased my air intake volume. This is so evident by the sucking sound from the air filter. If you stand at the front of the car @ idle you can't hear the exhaust over the air being sucked in the filter. (and the exhaust is loud seeing as how its a 3in system with the cut out open... So this shows that the cars A/F ration must have improved with the new intake since it allows for more air, but how bad was it??? I hate to know. The exhaust does not smell nearly as rich anymore sither. I used to tear up in a few secs before the intake. Now its to stand behind it for a bit.

Now A/F always most significantly effects the HP #s the dyno guy said. So now I finally know what my HP problem has been from the get go! BUT this also puts me in a pickle to get any numbers posted.... W/O correct A/F numbers you all are not going to see what the intake is capable of doing. Everything willl be tainted by my bad tune.... Granted you might see what gains mine got with no tune correction (stock chip: no intake vs stock chip: w/ intake), but the hp #s will not reflect the true benifit due to the bad A/F numbers. W/O a tune the car is not going to put out any decent numbers...

So for now... no dyno numbers... Want to get some pulls in with the A/F corrected so you all can compare the whole thing, not just numbers w/ an uncorrected A/F ratio. If the A/F was close, but its bad, bad off! I don't want anyone to get misconceptions about what this intake is capable of.

Anyone had any luck with the stand alone A/F ratio measurer. Its like $350. Screws into the O2 bung with its own O2 measurer and gives you feedback in numbers like the dyno labs... Figure this would be the cheapest way to get the A/F right. Seeing as how I have to pay $100 per 3 pulls otherwise. (course car must come off dyno and run to put in new chip) Its not like I can pop in a new on on the dyno. Not sure how many chips it will take to get it dialed in, but w/ 3.5 chip tests the tester is paid for, versus the dyno... I would think it would take more then 3 chips to get it perfect, yes/no????

I would take it to the track, but the car will not launch for crap.... the blasted lowering has tweaked up my angles so bad... I really need the Spohn torque arm first. Course that is getting into the cost of the tester again. So I'm thinking buy the tester and fix the tune! Get the car right then torque arm then track.... Cause before the intake the car would spin drag radials off the line. Hate to see it now.

i would definitly buy your own WBO2 and A/F meter . . . if you stand behind the theory most of us go by here(working on our cars as opposed to paying someone else to), just buy the meter. you'd drop several hundred on a full set of tools, i wouldnt sweat the $350 for A/F ratio. although i would probaly just get a nice WBO2 and then a full tuning setup, as that would only run a few hundred more and you could burn your own chips. but thats a whole other area of expertise, so i wouldnt expect most people to do that.

come on shannon....what happened to "i'll post the numbers regardless of what happens"? everyone has been wanting to see what the intake does with the stock chip.

For anyone thinking about this; a wideband is a great tool to have, but do use it with someone that really knows how to. To save the hour ride each way to dyno shop we put a bong for our wideband on my turboed/trueleo intake 2.8 so we could burn some chips. If you're going to burn chips you need to monitor your MAP sensor volts and take readings at specific rpm intervals under verious load conditions. Basically you make a chart. It's a bit of PIN to do on the street compared to just putting it on a dyno, but yeah, you can tune it that way. I may have stated something wrong as Troy is the tuner and not me, but you get the point. BTW: his A/F is still way off.

Get her tuned shannon

Well if everyone here could play nice... I know most of us old timers can... but as we have all seen with this thread it got way out of control before. I just don't want someone running around with the untuned numbers saying this is only what the intake can do! You all know me well enough to know that I hide nothing. Even if it gets everyone on my butt!

Believe me, I'm trying to convince the boss to give me my W2 so I can file taxes already and get a jump on a few items, including the A/F tester.

Yeah, but Shannon, right now you're making it seem like there was almost no gain on the Trueleo intake vs stock.

I know some will say I'm just trying to protect our rep, and they would be right because it really works great, but honestly, anyone that knows anything about tuning and building HP would consider the HP numbers he has now with his currant A/F ratio totally useless.
With so many folks on the web only seeking to trash anything new that comes along with bogus facts, like how our intake would burn the paint off of hoods etc, well, we really appreciate your effort to provide only relevent info. Fact is, he gained over 2K in RPM, that will certainly equate into more HP when the A/F is corrected. We do not have a single unsatisfied customer and redraif will be another.

Well Doward... you know me well enough to know that I'm the last person that would boast things that are untrue or that can't be backed up by hard facts... Right now all I can and will say on the subject is that the gains I got with the new 3in exhaust are nothing compared to what the intake gave me... But the intake has way more potential than my car is showing with the Air/fuel mixture so far off. You by all means know how important tuning is with your turbo project. You also know how people will get info about a partially finished project and run with it saying "oh well this suposed great _____ only gave _____... how is that worth the $" The point is Francis has been given enough crap about this intake... enough to get threads locked and people banned over. I think posting numbers that are not representative of the full potential of such a controversial item is fool hearty and short sighted. Again people like you and some other old timers know better and will not judge till the end, but there are some that are not so mature in their behavior. But the intake impressed the absolute crap out of me, Joe, and the dyno guy! Take it or leave it