2.02 eq heads
#12
08-29-2010, 09:40 PM
Legend
The Air Gap needs to have a tune written for it, as does just about every piece of performance hardware you put on a Mopar. MAF systems are much more flexible than our speed density systems, which is why Ford and GM vehicles respond better to modifications without all the tuning tweaks we have to do.
Did the guys from Mopar Action do any track tuning, or dyno tuning? Or did they just flat pull and swap the intakes? I'm sorry I can't seem to find the article online to read for myself. Do they have a forum or anything? I'd be interested to see they're testing procedures, otherwise I'm just kind of guessing at what they did, which isn't very helpful to providing insight or educating myself.
Hughes does toot their own horn quite a bit, but they sent that intake out to a independent shop, had them dyno it, and conceded that the keg made more torque using the stock tune. Writing the correct tune for that intake, they were able to pull more torque than the stock keg. What's shady about that?
If you've already bought an air gap, I'd contact the guy writing tunes for you and get some dyno time logged and see if you can't get some better results out of it. There's proof out there that it can be done, just gotta go do it.
Might even be possible to contact Hughes and ask about purchasing a tune for your engine and see if it makes a difference. Dunno if they'd do it, but it can't hurt to ask.
I've heard a lot of smack talked about everyone selling performance parts, Hughes included. But every time I've bought something from them, it's been promptly delivered and quickly replaced if there has ever been an issue. They are also one of the few sellers who actually provide any sort of tangible data to back up their claims. They're also one of the few folks out there still trying to engineer better performance parts for an out-of-production engine.
You are absolutely correct when you stated the longer the runner is the more the torque curve moves downward, but what if the runner isn't big enough to provide the amount of air needed? Or, what if the more direct runners of the air gap flow better than the runners in the keg? Is there not a benefit to better flow, even down low? I don't have all the answers, I just seriously doubt that Chrysler engineers built an intake that would service an engine range of 318CI to 408CI and it perform better than anyone else could come up with. They didn't do it with heads, TB's, exhaust manifolds, rocker arms, etc., why would the intake manifold be their crowning achievement?
Did the guys from Mopar Action do any track tuning, or dyno tuning? Or did they just flat pull and swap the intakes? I'm sorry I can't seem to find the article online to read for myself. Do they have a forum or anything? I'd be interested to see they're testing procedures, otherwise I'm just kind of guessing at what they did, which isn't very helpful to providing insight or educating myself.
Hughes does toot their own horn quite a bit, but they sent that intake out to a independent shop, had them dyno it, and conceded that the keg made more torque using the stock tune. Writing the correct tune for that intake, they were able to pull more torque than the stock keg. What's shady about that?
If you've already bought an air gap, I'd contact the guy writing tunes for you and get some dyno time logged and see if you can't get some better results out of it. There's proof out there that it can be done, just gotta go do it.
Might even be possible to contact Hughes and ask about purchasing a tune for your engine and see if it makes a difference. Dunno if they'd do it, but it can't hurt to ask.
I've heard a lot of smack talked about everyone selling performance parts, Hughes included. But every time I've bought something from them, it's been promptly delivered and quickly replaced if there has ever been an issue. They are also one of the few sellers who actually provide any sort of tangible data to back up their claims. They're also one of the few folks out there still trying to engineer better performance parts for an out-of-production engine.
You are absolutely correct when you stated the longer the runner is the more the torque curve moves downward, but what if the runner isn't big enough to provide the amount of air needed? Or, what if the more direct runners of the air gap flow better than the runners in the keg? Is there not a benefit to better flow, even down low? I don't have all the answers, I just seriously doubt that Chrysler engineers built an intake that would service an engine range of 318CI to 408CI and it perform better than anyone else could come up with. They didn't do it with heads, TB's, exhaust manifolds, rocker arms, etc., why would the intake manifold be their crowning achievement?
Last edited by aim4squirrels; 08-29-2010 at 09:56 PM.
#13
08-30-2010, 12:01 PM
broke my hand last night in a crash so this will be short. kegger did better down low. then after some tuning the airgap did slightly better down low. but i gaurentee you they compared that to the kegger without any tunning, if they spend that much time tuning the kegger it would still be better down low. i had my performance shop send my tune to hughes and hughes dyno guy said my spark was perfeck aas was my fuel and he would not change a thing. soo when i heal i will do the swap and see.