Zimbu's more go to my 3.Slow thread (B6 A4 3.0 V6 mods and tuning)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So while most of my threads have been about my 1.8t, most of you may not know that I also picked up a 2003 6 speed 3.0 A4 about a year and a half ago. I had gotten it with the intent of just keeping it stock as a reliable daily driver. Well, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions lol...

While I did keep it stock for over a year, the fact that my 1.8t is dead in the water at the moment (dropped exhaust valve) means that I've had to turn my performance lust to my 3.0 instead.

So I'll be keeping a running tab on what I've done and what I will do, with the hopes of at least being able to let those of you with the V6 to make some informed decisions as to what you might choose to do to your cars to get a little more out of them.

On thing to note is that I've done the math and I think the 3.0 is a lot better tuning value than most think. If we assume

Stock HP: 220 HP
CAI or Zingo mod: 5-10 HP (free for the Zingo mod and the CAI can be made for $50-$75)
Ran-up additive: 5 HP ($45)
Uni 93 flash: 10-15 HP ($400)
2.5 in Downpipes and 2.25 in catback w x-pipe: 15-20 HP ($280 in components)

This makes for a realistic total of 250-260 HP for about $725 if you DIY the downpipes and $1200 if you buy the JHM ones. Adding a x-pipe catback will also net some gains, but it'll set you back another $500-750.

Still, you're not going to see those numbers on a 1.8t without a $1650 Frankenturbo upgrade package. Just something for you all to think about.

MODS TO DATE
-Zingo/Zimbu airbox mod
-RSR Ran-Up ceramic oil additive
-Unitronic 93 Octane flash
-2.5 in catless downpipes
-2.25 in exhaust with X type crossover
-playing with different fuel varieties (i.e. 94 octane + methanol, toluene, xylene) and Lemmi/Unisettings

MODS PLANNED
-JHM lighweight flywheel *really good expanation of the benefits here:* http://www.uucmotorwerks.com/flywhee...heel_works.htm

-B6 S4 type brakes
-maybe some long tube headers if I have the time and money

ZINGO AIRBOX MOD

Basically, this involves sealing up some openings in the airbox with the intent of better airflow at speed to the engine. I also pulled the Hemholz resonator and fabricated a plug to go into the intake tract that leaves a smooth uninterrupted path for the air to travel through.

I didn't do any before or after logging, so I only have subjective impressions. Nothing huge, but for the price you can't go wrong. Power delivery felt a little more linear and it seemed to pick up a little bit when at highway speeds.

ZIMBU AIRBOX MOD

After experimenting with a CAI setup, I found that while it gave a little more on the very top, the losses at lower RPMs (likely a function of decreased intake air velocity through the larger CAI intake) offset the gains.

However, I did find that running a duct from the foglight to the stock airbox in addition to the stock snorkel provided noticable top end gains from 4000 RPM upwards without sacrificing any bottom end power.

RSR Ran-Up

I decided to test this one out after I saw the write up on Moto-IQ http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticl...-a-Bottle.aspx

Basically, it's a ceramic additive comprised of ceramic balls about 1/10 of a micron. It appears to function by way of reducing internal friction as well as sealing micro scratches in places like the cylinder walls. You may also want to try Liqui Moly Ceratec.

At $45 or so per container, it's not cheap as an additive (although the ceratec is half the price) but in my mind it was totally worth it. Consistent with other reports, my engine ran smoother, revs freer for things like rev-matching, and the engine did seem to pick up a modest HP gain (prob about 5-7 HP). Most importantly, I saw a consistent empirical MPG improvement of about 5-7%.

I think this last point is the most important. Not only was it an objective measure (taken at cruise on long stretches on flat highway), but it logically follows that for mileage to increase, there has to be an improvement in engine efficiency, either through friction reduction, cylinder sealing or both. As well, it would be logical to assume that increased efficiency = more HP/Tq.

I did the math and with a 5-7 % increase in fuel economy, even at $45 per bottle, the stuff pays for itself within 5000-7500 Kilometers. So IMO, adding it to your oil is a no brainer, especially considering the way the car felt afterwards. If Ceratec does the same thing, then you could actually come out ahead at a 5000-7500 km oil change interval.

Unitronic 93 Octane flash

****NOTE: I will add to this section with some more details and logs that I took****

So I'll begin by saying I know a lot of you have been swearing by the JHM flash and I would say you probably have good reason to. It seems like JHM did put a lot of work into it and I imagine it is probably the superior flash between the two.

That said, my budget for mods on this car is pretty tight. The Uni 91 octane flash is $350 and the 93 flash I paid $400 (Can $) for. If I were to get the JHM flash, I would be looking at $500 + $80 USD for a total of about $680 Canadian. As it stands, I managed to piece together the materials for a complete 2.5 in downpipe setup for $280. So in my case and budget: Uni 93 flash + 2.5 in downpipes > JHM flash alone.

As for my impressions of the tune, totally worth it. As others have mentioned, you likely won't pick up a ton of peak power, but that is most likely a function of the restrictive exhaust setup. Where you do make noticeable gains is in the midrange and other transient responses.

Overall I would describe it as the car feeling punchier and more nimble. I find that maneuvers like hitting the throttle to get into a space in traffic are much easier. Given that most of our driving is done at part throttle or using transient throttle applications, this type of reflash makes a substantial real world driving difference.

I should also add that it does feel like a 10-15 HP gain. Which may not seem like much, but when it comes to modding these engines, it's really about additive gains, not big one time power adders like a turbo car.

Where I think this mod will shine is when I add the 2.5 in downpipes. The combination of lower end response and torque from the flash between 3000-5000 RPM and the 5000-7200 RPM gain from the downpipes will be a sweet combo IMO.

2.5 in downpipes

As I just stated, I think this mod will compliment the Uni flash very nicely. With any luck I will have these done and on the car this weekend and will report back with some before and after logs.

NOVEMBER 10, 2014 EDIT

Well, after a combined 20 some hours fitting, checking, cutting welding, finding out I fitted it wrong, inventing new swear words and re-welding I did up my downpipes and all I can say is HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Pulling the cats totally, totally changes how this car feels. I noticed that even with the tune, I made gains in midrange HP/Tq, but it still felt like after about 5000 RPM it just kind of petered out. Well no more, this engine would be happy to bang off the rev limiter now.

Also, throttle response is immensely improved as well, in fact, I found that when I rev matched for my downshifts I actually overshot the RPM on account of how easily and freely it reved.

Unfortunately, we've had a major dump of snow here and the roads are clogged with slow traffic so I haven't got a chance to make a pass through 1-2 and part of 3, however I will get a recording of it as soon as I can. (I do have a shot of 1st gear 2500-6500 RPM that I'll post as soon as I can get it downloaded.

If I had to describe how the engine feels, the words "It's a gem of an engine" comes to mind. For the first time I've actually found myself just wanting to get in it and bomb around town just to have some fun. Now, ask yourself "how many 3.0 drivers actually find the car to be fun:....


SUMMARY

All said, I would call this project a success so far. For around $750-$800 ($1500 if you go all out by replacing the entire exhaust), you can have a car that can hang w modded 1.8t's as well as having the instant torque and a crisp, linear powerband.

One thing I should add: if you're gonna change the downpipes out, you should seriously consider just buying them from JHM. While I did manage to make them for half the price, it was an intensely aggravating and a lot of hours. Plus, JHM's pipes are stainless steel whereas mine were aluminized steel. I would actually think that if I had made my downpipes out of stainless, I would probably be looking at $500-600 in materials alone.

So while there seemed to be a lot of complaining about what JHM charges for their downpipes, take it from me the $700 is actually a hell of a good price for something that will totally change your vehicle.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Here are some timing logs I took

Stock ECU on 94 octane


Stock ECU with 3 deg advance via lemmi with (E10 94 octane + 10% methanol and 5% toluene)
***NOTE: while peak timing is the same as the stage 2 Uni flash, it is much more erratic in actually holding that timing****


Uni stage 2 w no additional lemmi timing advance (E10 94 octane + 10% methanol and 5% toluene)


Uni stage 2 w 3 degrees advance via Lemmi (E10 94 octane + 10% methanol and 5% toluene)


Here's a recent one, 94 octane, 2.5 in downpipes, Uni tune, 1.5 deg timing added via Lemmi, CAI intake -15C ambient temps Jan 8, 2015


Same data set, just with a little more included low RPM points

[ZimbutheMonkey]

And as promised boys and girls, Here's a run though the gears with the Unitronics 93 octane tune and the 2.5 in catless downpipes 6 speed as well as a run with the DP/Tune combo with my CAI

Way faster than when I first started I'd say

actually, I synched the DP/Tune and the stock videos. The DP/Tuned one was at 140 km/hr while the stock one was at 120 km/hr. I can only imagine the gap would have widened quite a bit from there as you can see that the tuned version is still pulling hard when I let off at 140 km/hr

I also clocked them independently with a stopwatch and there's a 1.0-1.4 second difference between the three at 20-100 km/hr (6.80 CAI/DP/Tune vs 7.20 DP/Tune vs 8.20 Stock)

Bone stock 3.0 6 speed


2.5 in DP and 93 octane Uni tune


2.5 in DP, 93 Uni tune and Cold Air Intake


And for another point of reference, here's footage of a 3.2 FSI A4



what's worth noting is the 20-150 time. Mine clocked in at about 14.5 sec and the FSI was about 13.2 sec. Now while the FSI has a faster ET from 20-150, it also has either a 6 speed auto or DSG which shifts seamlessly. So factor in the time lost on the two shifts that I needed to make on my manual trans and the times become quite similar.

Anyway, I realize that the actual time lost on the shits is kind of speculative. However, a stock 3.2 FSI does provide a reference point with known 0-60 and 1/4 mile times to compare.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So, I got a chance to do some more tinkering over the holidays and today I decided that I wanted to make a CAI for my car.

Now, let me get this out of the way: "blah blah blah stock Audi airbox is magic blah blah blah, millions of dollars and hundreds of engineers, blah blah blah your car will explode and kittens will die..."

I know all about the dogma surrounding the stock airbox and I don't buy it. I've proven that a properly built CAI on a 1.8t works better than the stock airbox and I have no reason to believe that the 3.0 is any different.

Here's the simple facts behind the design of the stock airbox. All the money and man-hours spent designing that airbox has resulted in the best possible design within the parameters and constraints that Audi imposed on them. Factors like space, noise, cost, etc... drive the design, not optimal performance.

Now, the stock airbox has a few good design features. Namely, isolation from the engine heat and forced airflow from the leading edge of the hood. So I designed some heat shielding as well as keeping the intake duct. My reasoning is that the air blowing through it and onto the filter would displace any hot air that might get past the heat shielding. As well, I made sure to leave a good 6 inches of straight piping in front of the MAF sensor to ensure that I'm getting accurate readings.










I was quite happy with the end result. My driving impressions are that it makes noticibly more torque from 2500-4000 RPM. Didn't notice much on the top end, but I would take the extra torque any day. It's super useful in day to day driving.

So, my verdict is: do it, you'll be glad you did

[SJorge3442]

keep the updates coming! I will be updating my downpipes this winter (removing the cat) but I will be keeping the same size downpipe. I figure it will be easier than creating a new DP by myself. After that is done, I will be getting a tune. Thats where I will probably call it quits on my mods for this engine. I like where you're going adn I need to pull some timing graphs to compare my stock tune to your Uni tune.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

You may want to consider doing a new 2.5 in downpipe setup.

My concern about gutting the cats is that a) the cat inlet is under 2 in IIRC and b) when you gut the cat, you get an open chamber which allows for expansion of the exhaust pulse before necking it down again. This results in a positive pulse being sent back up the exhaust, which negates a good portion of the scavenging effect created by the elimination of the cat internals.

(just look up 2 stroke engine tuning principals to see what I'm talking about)

EDIT:
Looking over your post, it looks like what you're doing is replacing the cat with a straight section of stock diameter piping. If that's the case, then forget what I said above.

[SJorge3442]

You may want to consider doing a new 2.5 in downpipe setup.

My concern about gutting the cats is that a) the cat inlet is under 2 in IIRC and b) when you gut the cat, you get an open chamber which allows for expansion of the exhaust pulse before necking it down again. This results in a positive pulse being sent back up the exhaust, which negates a good portion of the scavenging effect created by the elimination of the cat internals.

(just look up 2 stroke engine tuning principals to see what I'm talking about)

EDIT:
Looking over your post, it looks like what you're doing is replacing the cat with a straight section of stock diameter piping. If that's the case, then forget what I said above.

Yeah, going to replace the cat with a straight pipe portion, not gutting it. I'd just be afraid of making sure the flanges would fit on the car if I just replaced the whole pipe with bigger piping. If its easy enough, I'll have my cousin just use a larger pipe. Hes the one doing the cutting and welding.

[jakenels]

Subscribed! Keep us posted, I like where this is heading.

[19jdog]

yea + 2

maybe there is hope for us 3.0 guys with out breaking the bank...

[Seerlah]

Didn't know you dropped an exhaust valve head. Nor you picked up a B6. What brand valve?

[xhackerekx]

I pay for unitronic flash on waterfest 2014 $250 .

[seal66]

Nice man. I have a 03 avant 3.0L
Jhm catless piggies, and thermal r&d exhaust. Gonna make her 2.5" all the way out soon. I am split on tunes but gonna grab the jhm one soon

[meisladrs]

definitely checkin back for updates

[19jdog]

This topic may have been discussed before but it is still entertaining and maybe we will learn something new.

[Seerlah]

I haven't seen people play with meth and lemmi on the 3.0. Or maybe I just missed it

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I haven't seen people play with meth and lemmi on the 3.0. Or maybe I just missed it

I've been debating that one Seerlah. Although initially I think the money is better spent on the tune+downpipes, once you have those taken care of, I think there may be some benefit to a W/M system.

[DiertyEuroSpec]

WTF?? Wow with all the mindless shit you post you put this up in here? Ohhhkay

[ZimbutheMonkey]

SUMMARY

All said, I would call this project a smashing success. For around $750-$800, you can have a car that can hang w modded 1.8t's as well as having the instant torque and a crisp, linear powerband.

One thing I should add: if you're gonna change the downpipes out, you should seriously consider just buying them from JHM. While I did manage to make them for half the price, it was an intensely aggravating and a lot of hours. Plus, JHM's pipes are stainless steel whereas mine were aluminized steel. I would actually think that if I had made my downpipes out of stainless, I would probably be looking at $500-600 in materials alone.

So while there seemed to be a lot of complaining about what JHM charges for their downpipes, take it from me the $700 is actually a hell of a good price for something that will totally change your vehicle.

[jaydeff]

Nice thread. Do you plan to dyno your car once you have everything spec'd out? I don't think a fully supported NA 3.0 dyno sheet exists yet it'd be interesting to see how much power is actually gained.

[Bische]

Looks like the ignition timing needs some massaging, all over the place

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Well, after a combined 20 some hours fitting, checking, cutting welding, finding out I fitted it wrong, inventing new swear words and re-welding I did up my downpipes and all I can say is HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Pulling the cats totally, totally changes how this car feels. I noticed that even with the tune, I made gains in midrange HP/Tq, but it still felt like after about 5000 RPM it just kind of petered out. Well no more, this engine would be happy to bang off the rev limiter now.

Also, throttle response is immensely improved as well, in fact, I found that when I rev matched for my downshifts I actually overshot the RPM on account of how easily and freely it reved.

Unfortunately, we've had a major dump of snow here and the roads are clogged with slow traffic so I haven't got a chance to make a pass through 1-2 and part of 3, however I will get a recording of it as soon as I can. (I do have a shot of 1st gear 2500-6500 RPM that I'll post as soon as I can get it downloaded.

[Lornnn]

Good stuff, with the cats gone is the in-cabin exhaust smell tolerable?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Yep

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Posted video to the 1st gear pull in post #1

[DiertyEuroSpec]

Impressive..Very comparable to my old FWD VR6 Jetta w/bolt-ons...Which is great considering the driveline loss of the Audi

[SJorge3442]

That looks like its revving much faster than my 3.0. This really makes me want to get my DPs taken care of sooner than later. I think I will wait until H20 next year and get the Uni tune. $250 is an awesome price and Im sure its worth it.

[seal66]

Moves better than mine it think. Of course alt plays a huge role

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Oh for sure, I happened to see my altitude correction and it was -6.9 IIRC. However I know the difference becomes drastic really fast. I grew up in Calgary which is at 3500 ft and am now in Edmonton which is 2,200 ft and I notice the difference in power when I go to visit my folks. Funny I saw your post when I did as I actually have in my hands a bottle of gatorade which was opened and resealed in Calgary and the sides were actually pulled in on account of the pressure differential. what's the elevation in your neck of the woods?

Also, I see that you have the JHM catless downpipes but I don't see a JHM tune listed. Do you have one or waiting to do it later. Also, do you have a tip or 6 speed. If you have a tip, a TCU tune will be a huge help alongside a tune.

[seal66]

Oh for sure, I happened to see my altitude correction and it was -6.9 IIRC. However I know the difference becomes drastic really fast. I grew up in Calgary which is at 3500 ft and am now in Edmonton which is 2,200 ft and I notice the difference in power when I go to visit my folks. Funny I saw your post when I did as I actually have in my hands a bottle of gatorade which was opened and resealed in Calgary and the sides were actually pulled in on account of the pressure differential. what's the elevation in your neck of the woods?

Also, I see that you have the JHM catless downpipes but I don't see a JHM tune listed. Do you have one or waiting to do it later. Also, do you have a tip or 6 speed. If you have a tip, a TCU tune will be a huge help alongside a tune.

Ya so you see the alt changes for sure man.

I am in Denver, Colorado so I sit around 55-5800ft. I do run a tune(custom one)but I'll be swapping over to jhm tune at the end of the year. My avant is a 6sp.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Ya so you see the alt changes for sure man.

I am in Denver, Colorado so I sit around 55-5800ft. I do run a tune(custom one)but I'll be swapping over to jhm tune at the end of the year. My avant is a 6sp.

any details, logs of the custom tune, also who did it?

[seal66]

any details, logs of the custom tune, also who did it?

Nothing exciting at all man. It was just to code out the o2 sensors from being catless.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Also. to those of you who don't really have the cash for any major mods, I highly, highly advise you to do the Zingo airbox mod and toss a bottle of RSR Ran Up or Lubro-Moly Ceratec in when you next change your oil. Or you could even do it now, I think the Ceratec runs about $20-$25 as opposed to the Ran-Up which is $45 (although I definitely noticed an improvement with the Ran-Up.

Honestly, it makes a noticeable difference and the milage gain basically pays for the additive.

Also, you may consider adding a little timing via Lemmiwinks, 1.5-3 degrees probably won't do much harm if you're running 94 Octane.

Links to both

http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/p...oiladb=web.nsf

http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticl...-a-Bottle.aspx

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how...-oil-additive/

[seanentrust]

good thread! im picking up a 3.0 6spd this week and it will just be my daily road trip car so im not looking to do anything crazy but I like what you've done!

[ZimbutheMonkey]

good thread! im picking up a 3.0 6spd this week and it will just be my daily road trip car so im not looking to do anything crazy but I like what you've done!

Thanks and in your case, if you're going to be putting a lot of miles on it (as I do as well on my car) I would at least toss some Ceratec or Ran Up in the oil. Like I said, the mileage gains pay for themselves.

I also have a feeling that on an older vehicle, the fact that it seals little imperfections in the cylinders that have developed over time, so you also get better cylinder sealing in addition to the friction reducing properties.

Same goes for the tune, I've found that on 2 lane highways, these cars are a little short on passing power. Now, that may be a bit different as you're at sea level, but I fould the extra torque and response quite valuable.

[Charles.waite]

I'm highly skeptical that it is possible for an oil additive can increase engine efficiency 5-7%. Like in the "I don't actually believe it" sense.

Not calling you out at all, just expressing skepticism.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I'm highly skeptical that it is possible for an oil additive can increase engine efficiency 5-7%. Like in the "I don't actually believe it" sense.

Not calling you out at all, just expressing skepticism.

Hey, nothing wrong w skepticism as long it doesn't prejudice your ultimate findings of fact. However, when I was testing, I took considerable effort to eliminate as many variables as I could.

All testing was done on the same 80 km stretch of flat highway, cruise control on, no appreciable winds, ambient temps around 5-10 C the same, same tires at same PSI, same fuel grade from the same company, and I reset my mileage counter if I had to make any passing maneuvers which would have skewed the results. As well, this was done over a period of a few weeks, so it's not like I just cherry picked my results.

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. A consistent 5-7% difference in mileage with those variables accounted for is kinda hard to deny. I knew any discussion of an additive will always prompt a chorus of naysayers. However, unless anyone can point out a fatal flaw in my methodology I'd say the results speak for themselves.

And hey, if all else fails, toss a bottle in and see for yourself. At $25-45 for a 5000 mile timespan, there's absolutely no reason why anyone can't try and provide a counterpoint to my findings.

Also, here's an interesting link http://www.docstoc.com/docs/28074664...SYNTHOIL-5W-40 I can't seem to download it without joining the site, but here's a screen pic for your viewing pleasure

With the millions of $$$ that car companies put into R&D to meet CAFE standards, anything that would increase fuel mileage by 5% would already be in every new car you buy.

I disagree, for one, it doesn't provide a permanent effect, so there's really no incentive on the part of automakers to include something that may ultimately result in a consumer experiencing a decrease in mileage after their first oil change.

Second, in anticipation of the inevitable "well oil companies spend $$$ in R&D, why don't they use it in their oil." my answer is as follows: It is a well known phenomenon that companies with an established market share operate on a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality.

This mentality actually makes a lot of sense if you consider it. The bulk of consumers are loyal to a particular brand, not because of it's inherently superior qualities, but because they are a) familiar with the name b) the product does what it's supposed to, and c) it's similarly priced relative to the competition. Past experience with the product performing satisfactorily means that they will continue to purchase it.

Now, while there may be people who will make a switch, they tend to comprise a small portion of the market overall and present an even smaller chance at a market share gain, as their purchasing power is evenly distributed among all competitors (hence why they're switch consumers)

As well, most consumers can't be bothered to actually put in the time and effort to research and evaluate better alternatives. I would submit that this holds especially true for a product whose price is under $50 and only varies in price point by about +/- $20. As well, consider the fact that additives to a product also cost the manufacturer money, and it doesn't take much of a cost hike before consumers will start considering other similar products. Again this is especially relevant when you are considering that even $1-2 per gallon is a 5-10% increase for a gallon of oil priced between $25-45.

Also, most consumers can't be bothered to actually make the effort to try something new. As a perfect example, how many people who read this thread and have a negative OR positive opinion on the matter will actually go and try some Ceratec or Ran-Up to either conform or disprove my findings? I will wager few to none. Now, also ask yourself this; if people who actually have an opinion (negative OR positive) on the matter won't risk $25-45 to see for themselves, how many people who are neutral will make the effort and pay a cost to try it out? Not very many...

So to summarize my argument to this point. I submit that market share for items with a nominal cost is largely a function of familiarity with a brand name that they know will do the job satisfactorily and it priced about the same as other competing products, as well, most consumers can't be bothered to a) take the time to research alternatives and b) can't be bothered to pay any extra to evaluate a competitors product.

HOWEVER, what will cost an oil company dearly is any instance of their product causing damage, even if it's only a miniscule percentage. It's trite to say that people who are dissatisfied with a product (especially one which may have caused $1000's in engine damage) are FAR, FAR more likely to plaster their opinion all over the internet. It's also trite to say that when consumers have a choice of dozens of similarily priced alternatives which perform roughly the same, that it only takes a few documented failures to result in a substantial loss of market share which is almost impossible to gain back as people have no reason to take a perceived risk by changing back to their original oil when they have multiple, same cost alternatives.

In conclusion, it's my position that large companies who have an established market share have little incentive to depart from what works. Buyers who have bought into a company brand will continue to purchase that brand as long as it performs the same as the competition and it priced the same as the competition. Where a company does stand to take huge losses is if a departure from the norm (i.e. ceramic additives) causes even a miniscule numbers of engine failures or even engine issues.

Now, I'm not suggesting that I think ceramic additives are likely to result in engine issues or failures. However, I would submit that the possible risk (no matter how small) of adding them, likely outweighs the possible gains in market share from having a more efficient product.

[deyrag]

With the millions of $$$ that car companies put into R&D to meet CAFE standards, anything that would increase fuel mileage by 5% would already be in every new car you buy.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Again, deleted as a result of one of the most well written, thoughtful and heartfelt apologies I've ever had the pleasure of receiving. Spike, you're a stand-up mensch

[wampir]

Show some 60-120 movie ....

[imnuts]

I wouldn't be surprised at ~250 HP at the crank, but I would doubt 250 HP at the wheels. From the mods listed, a 15% gain isn't that unreasonable, and I'm sure owners of V8 Mustangs have gotten more (percentage wise) from tuning, catless exhaust, and a changed up intake.