Update on Mod that improved mpg's drastically!

[canadian ss]

Wouldn't ram air, super charging or turbo do the same? They all give you more air. I don't understand the gain in mpg's? If you were getting too much air, it would throw a code or even bog on acceleration without a proper tune.
Wierd, but interesting. If someone can scientifically figure it out, let us know. Don't bash.

[VTXrider]

Originally Posted by canadian ss

Wouldn't ram air, super charging or turbo do the same? They all give you more air. I don't understand the gain in mpg's? If you were getting too much air, it would throw a code or even bog on acceleration without a proper tune.
Wierd, but interesting. If someone can scientifically figure it out, let us know. Don't bash.

I'm not sure, but I think that since he was driving for MPGs he would not notice any decline in performance, not that it's not there just the way he was driving it's not noticeable.

[Dexcam1]

Originally Posted by blizzpat

You also have to test it more than 15 miles lol...

I remember resetting my SS once and driving like 10 miles really calmly and my mpg was like 37......

I once got 99 MPG after resetting going down a long hill in neutral.


Sounds like a great idea but, I'm not too sure

[Camarowguy]

Originally Posted by Soloshawn

Don't you think that GM would have done this already? A massive selling point would have been 35 MPG. Don't think the engineers are stupid. And why would adding a "V" section increase MPG? More air? I see nor do I hear any reason of why this would change anything. No independent testing other than a guy making a boast on a blog. I just saw Jesus on my toast. Believe me because I said so.

You can put a cai or headers on a car and put up mileage. Why didn't gm do this from the factory? Gm could have made the car a hundred pounds lighter, but they didn't. I think I have an idea why not tho. In this case, say the op picks up a mpg or two. What's the expense? Prolly $30 or so. Let's translate that into numbers for gm. Say it costs an extra $10 to do this mod (in factory form whatever that may be) and it saves 2mpg. Now say (I'm not sure on an accurate number so this is a guess) that gm makes 100,000 of these cars, now multiply the cost and now look how much more gm had to spend to pick up 2mpg.....they might weigh their options and decide against it. Not flaming you man by any means. I do believe that if you free up the breathing a little bit there could be a slight efficiency increase. To a certain extent tho.

[vtboyarc]

Originally Posted by camaroc5

Well even if the meter is wrong the jump from 340 miles per tank to 490 miles per tank is awesome. I always reset a trip monitor every time I fill up

That is awesome! Can you keep a log over time and report an average mpg over the time of a few fill-ups? If this really works, thats awesome!
What was the total cost of doing this, and can you post links to where/what you bought for this? (I don't know much about these things...)
And maybe silly question...is this something I could do on my 23 mpg Taurus while I wait to buy my Camaro?

[canadian ss]

But to inhale better means you need to exhale better as well. Thats why i'm not seeing the science behind a drastic gain. With gas prices the way they are, i think the OP might be onto something, just I don't understand how it was possible scientifically.

[RSokie]

His findings do make some sense if the car is exhausting at the same rate, I wonder what kind of exhaust this has on it?

[The Ratchet]

Adding a 2nd cone wouldn't lean it out or flow more than adding 6 cones would, or even smply running the car without an air filter at all would. Because if you're using the stock MAF and stock tubing up to where the stock airbox was, THAT is what limits airflow capacity once yu've gone to a less restrictive / non-stock air filter or air box. Once you've improved flow (assuming the stock box is flow restrictive) you've improved it all you're going to without changing to a bigger MAF and bigger tubing or a different intake manifold.

The only way to creat a lean condition that the computer can't compensate for with a stock tune using stock MAF/tubing would be forced induction with either a supercharger or super-sophisticated ram air setup. IMO.

[5GSS]

Originally Posted by canadian ss

Wouldn't ram air, super charging or turbo do the same? They all give you more air. I don't understand the gain in mpg's? If you were getting too much air, it would throw a code or even bog on acceleration without a proper tune.
Wierd, but interesting. If someone can scientifically figure it out, let us know. Don't bash.

The prevailing theory here, if his results are accurate, is that his MAF is reading low, so while more air is being introduced, the PCM does not know to increase fuel delivery. In the examples you mentioned, those systems are very carefully designed to ensure proper readings, and thus compensate by adding fuel.

[Revo1]

Originally Posted by DarkneSS

Lol heres a pic


Plastic should work fine because cold air will still shoot in from where the stock airbox grabs it. This will keep the plastic heat shield from getting too hot and creating head soak. The main problem is the warm air that sneaks in from behind the washer bottle area and filter.

I mean, the stock exhaust manifold is RIGHT there, a mere foot or so away so its going to create a lot of warm air that needs to be sealed off. If you notice all the intakes that have proven themselves on the dyno, roto fab, cai, etc all have a heat shield.

In reality the stock air box isnt that bad, its really just the filter that restricts. The tubing is 3 inch.

[formare]

It's likely a situation very similar to the airaide v1. That was a well documented case of an intake causing a lean condition.

[esperman]

Originally Posted by formare

It's likely a situation very similar to the airaide v1. That was a well documented case of an intake causing a lean condition.

don't think so. Airaid used custom tube & mass sensor housing. In this case, it's all stock tubing from filters back. Completely different situations.