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

[AudiTLC]

Don't waste your time trying to win internet arguments. It's pointless.
Just do some work on your 3.0 and keep your thread alive with updates.

good luck and stay positive!

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Don't waste your time trying to win internet arguments. It's pointless.
Just do some work on your 3.0 and keep your thread alive with updates.

good luck and stay positive!

Lol, true that

What I do try to do however, is to consolidate as much hard and/or relevant data that I can. While it won't sway those who have already formed their opinions, it at least allows individuals searching for good information to make their own informed opinions.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So just a quick update on the CAI. Remember how I had said that there didn't seem to be any real top end gains? Well that may have changed. I did some research and found out that gauze type cone filters get exponentially more restrictive once they trap a certain amount of gunk. Well the filter I had used was an old one that had almost been totally clogged. While I cleaned it out with a K&N recharger kit, it was still kinda dirty.

So I picked up a new cheap $25 Vibrant cone filter, installed it and yeah, noticeable difference. The car now has a very very linear powerband that pulls nice and hard to 7200 RPM. It's kinda neat actually, with everything working right, I can actually feel myself get pushed back into my seat all the way through 2nd now

I gotta admit, this little 3.0 is starting to grow on me I can see why a cadre of devoted supporters continues to try and develop this engine despite it being 10 years old and only made for 3 years.

[Spike00513]

I can see why a cadre of devoted supporters continues to try and develop this engine despite it being 10 years old and only made for 3 years.

^?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

^?

Lol, what's to question...

The 3.0 is actually a great little engine once you uncork it. Sure, it can't make as much power as a 1.8t. But speaking as someone who has had 6 different 1.8t setups (K03, K04-15, K04 hybrid, GT2860, T04e 60-1 and a Comp 5556), I can safely say that $1200-1500 worth of mods makes for a 3.0 that can hang with a lightly modded Hybrid K04 1.8t.

[SJorge3442]

Lol, what's to question...

The 3.0 is actually a great little engine once you uncork it. Sure, it can't make as much power as a 1.8t. But speaking as someone who has had 6 different 1.8t setups (K03, K04-15, K04 hybrid, GT2860, T04e 60-1 and a Comp 5556), I can safely say that $1200-1500 worth of mods makes for a 3.0 that can hang with a lightly modded Hybrid K04 1.8t.

This is what jhm has been preaching since they unleashed their tune

[thaifoodninja]

This is what jhm has been preaching since they unleashed their tune

oh and boy is it worth it ;)

[SJorge3442]

oh and boy is it worth it ;)

You guys are a bad influence! Looks like I will probably be spending some of my tax return on a tune.

[customa4]

They got some good guys over there as well. I spoke with Drew from JHM on Friday and instead of him just trying to force me to buy something he actually suggested trying a couple different things before I take the extreme route. I was having a hard time shifting and he said it sounded like an adjustment problem, which I suspected but wanted to hear it from someone else. Sure enough I adjusted the shifter and it's doing better now. for JHM.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

**Added a 20-150 km/hr pull with the new CAI and a 0-160+ km/hr pull from a 3.2 FSI A4 as a comparison in the summary section on pg 1**

[SJorge3442]

This thing sounds really healthy when you're doing those pulls

[texasboy21]

The 3.0 sounds great!

Post a log with a WOT 3rd gear run.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

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

[ZimbutheMonkey]

The 3.0 sounds great!

Post a log with a WOT 3rd gear run.

This thing sounds really healthy when you're doing those pulls

And thanks very much fellas I'll try and get a decent 3rd gear pull when I get a chance to.

Also, on a good note for those on a budget, that exhaust note is what the 2.5 in downpipes sound like on an otherwise stock exhaust (i.e. resonators onward).

[seal66]

I really need to change my tune out. Your car moves a lot better than my 3L

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I really need to change my tune out. Your car moves a lot better than my 3L

Are you running a stock tune on your 3.0 or are you running a USP tune?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So, I finally had a chance to do some logging with my new CAI setup and here are the before and after plots. The difference is fairly pronounced I'd say. The CAI setup flows about 7-10 g/sec more, which is a 4-6% increase. If we assume that to be a 4-6% increase in power, that would mean it's good for about 9-13 CHP (4-6% of the stock rating of 220 CHP).

Between A4LO's dyno gains posted on page 2 of this thread and my pre-post CAI MAF readings, I think this makes a pretty solid case for a CAI being a worthwhile mod on these engines.

Also bear in mind a few things when looking at these plots.

1) The Pre-CAI is based on 500 data points collected over a month or so. So the readings above 160 g/sec are pretty much outliers. However, I'm including them just to err on the conservative side of my analysis.

2) The Pre-CAI readings are with the Zingo mod.

3) The Post CAI data was collected in ambient temps of about -4C to +8C. If I was to log in lower temps, the max readings may even be higher.

Pre CAI


Post CAI

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Also, I think I may have an idea for a bit of a different approach to building the remainder of my exhaust system.

I think I'm going to see about incorporating some venturi transitions into my exhaust. Basically, what I think I'll do is use a pair of shallow transition (9 degree angle) cones to increase the exhaust velocity before going into the crossover pipe.

It's not going to be a massive neck down, just going from 2.5 inches to 2.25 inches. It's partially driven by cost considerations as I have a bunch of 2.25 in mandrel bends kicking around.

However my theory is that while the neck down will decrease high end flow slightly, increasing the exhaust velocity before the X pipe will aid in mid range torque production.

Basically, it's a bit of a trade off. However, since the stock engine cams, head, intake manifold etc... are set up for mid range power. I think it's best to try and maximize those gains rather than try and maximize top end power. Put otherwise, best to base your power adders around your engine's best volumetric efficiency areas in the powerband.

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

[imnuts]

Your graphs above show that you actually have less air flow in the mid-range, and more erratic air flow post CAI installation. I realize that you don't have as many data points for the post setup, but just looking at the basic graph, you only improved your performance on the very top end, maybe the last 10-15% of the RPM range, and it looks like it is break even or worse over the other 85-90% of the range. I'd also be interested to see how the intake temperatures fluctuate with the new setup compared to the stock box, as that is where a lot of intakes fail from my reading.

[texasboy21]

Higher intake temps = less timing advance

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Your graphs above show that you actually have less air flow in the mid-range, and more erratic air flow post CAI installation. I realize that you don't have as many data points for the post setup, but just looking at the basic graph, you only improved your performance on the very top end, maybe the last 10-15% of the RPM range, and it looks like it is break even or worse over the other 85-90% of the range. I'd also be interested to see how the intake temperatures fluctuate with the new setup compared to the stock box, as that is where a lot of intakes fail from my reading.

I would say the more erratic curve likely stems from the fact that my post CAI logs were all taken as part of urban driving. As a result they're all 1st and 2nd gear pulls, and many of the data points along the midrange come from short pulls which needed to be aborted due to traffic. Whereas most if not all of my pre-CAI logs were taken on the highway where I could get a clean run through the gears.

As you indicated as well, I have more than 3 times the data points for the pre-CAI pulls. I can assure you that once I get some time out on the highways you'd see a much smoother MAF curve.

As for midrange losses, I haven't noticed any, and from the data I presented, there's no way of telling what the midrange looks like between the two as there is only one variable being analyzed (g/sec).

What I mean by that is while there is more fluctuation in from the regression line in the post CAI chart, that doesn't indicate a relative loss. Only that the readings are fluctuating. In other words, it could be that when you scale in RPM, the entire post CAI curve could be higher in the midrange.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from what I put up is the consistency of the MAF readings and the upper end of the readings.

I'll try and re-do them later to include RPM data.


Regarding the air temps, it depends on how the car is moving. When I'm stopped in traffic the intake temps will rise fairly quickly. That's because there is no outside air coming into the filter however area by way of the intake snorkel I left attached.

However, once I start moving they drop fairly quickly (within 10-20 sec) and keep dropping depending on how long i stay moving. There's a quick initial drop-off to about 10C above ambient (that 10 20 sec period) and then a slower drop off over a minute or two until I'm only a couple degrees C above ambient.

So long story short, as long as you're not in rush hour traffic, the air being drawn in is just as cool as anything the stock airbox would be drawing in. Which makes sense given that the CAI filter is being fed by the same snorkel as the stock airbox would be using.

I've also wrapped the entire CAI in heat reflective tape which helps the recovery time significantly. In fact, I can let the car idle for long stretches of time now (10-20 min) and the intake is still cool to the touch. So that has to be making a difference.

One thing I do plan on doing when I get the chance is making a better partition between the intake and exhaust manifold. While it does reflect some heat away, it doesn't form enough of a seal to keep the intake from drawing hot air at idle.

[seal66]

Are you running a stock tune on your 3.0 or are you running a USP tune?

Actually a saw tune. Jhm tune is going to be going on soon

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[ZimbutheMonkey]

saw tune?

Unless that's an acronym for stock, do you have any details on your particular tune?

[imnuts]

So pretty much what you're saying is that the one graph you posted above is completely useless and can't be used for any comparison from pre/post intake modifications? I guess the next question would be, why post it at all then? The data in it is completely irrelevant, you could have just made up numbers and it would be just as useful for comparison purposes.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So pretty much what you're saying is that the one graph you posted above is completely useless and can't be used for any comparison from pre/post intake modifications? I guess the next question would be, why post it at all then? The data in it is completely irrelevant, you could have just made up numbers and it would be just as useful for comparison purposes.

Oh lord.... just get over it man, seriously....

I'm getting kind of irritated that I've actually taken the time to write out some detailed responses to your points.

I should also add that my responses point out BOTH the advantages and areas of improvement for improving on my setup. However, all I've gotten for my efforts to engage you in a constructive discussion have been garbage posts like the one above.

Now, before you get all righteously indignant and defensive, what makes responses like the one above garbage is the fact that all it does is blindly defends your position without adding any evidence or reasoning of any sort to back it up. The reality of it is, when people resort to these types of responses in a debate, it only makes them look like they're grasping at straws in the face of mounting evidence and more persuasive reasoning to the contrary. So you may want to think about how people view that if you're trying to defend a position.

If you honestly feel that a stock airbox is better, then build a CAI like mine, test it back to back with the stock airbox and prove me wrong.

Now, in the interest of keeping things productive for this community, I'm willing to let this slide if you want to get back on board with some constructive feedback.

However, if all you want to do is stubbornly stick to your position without adding ANY evidence of your own to back it up or any compelling reasoning, then do us all a favor and move along, got it?

[Spike00513]

saw tune?

Unless that's an acronym for stock, do you have any details on your particular tune?

Sprint Auto Works

[imnuts]

I said absolutely nothing about your intake, just your data that you posted. I have no idea how well it works compared to the stock intake, nor does anyone else. The data that you posted is statistically and practically useless. How can you convince anyone that it is better or worse than what they have now? The data was not taken in anything close to resembling the same conditions. I didn't realize that I needed to backup my statement that you're data is worthless. Do I think that the stock intake can be made better? Sure I do, but I can't tell if what you've put together is better or not. You want constructive feedback, give useful data.

If you can't take criticism over your presentation, I greatly hope that you are never in any position to back any scientific research and provide similarly arrived at information. If I presented information like yours in college, my professors would have laughed hysterically while failing me. If you want me to take your intake and modifications seriously, provide data gathered under similar conditions (same gear, similar weather conditions, same stretch of road) that you collected the pre-change data. The less stuff that is different, the more likely you'll show that your changes are an improvement. You're trying to claim significance with less than half as many data points and collected in what seems like vastly different driving conditions.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So I thought I'd rip off one of my own posts I made in another thread to explain what I'm trying to do with my exhaust from the downpipes back.

I'm hoping to get my catback portion done around the middle of next month. As indicated, I'm going to use 2.25 in piping from the downpipe back as I have the bends for it already.

However, I think that necking it down may not end up being a bad thing. I'm going to use a gradual cone taper (rather than a stepped transition) right before it goes into the X pipe portion. What I hope to gain from the cone is a venturi effect which in theory, increase the exhaust gas pulse velocity going into the X pipe.

What I'm hoping will happen is that increasing the velocity through a neck down will do is gain me some torque in the middle of the powerband. If you think about it, X pipes work best when the exhaust gas pulses are moving fast enough to hug the side wall as they pass through, therefore creating a proper vacuum in their wake to aid in scavenging. X pipes don't really do much when the exhaust pulses are moving slowly and get deflected into the other bank's exhaust stream. Here's a video detailing what I mean



This may sound a bit counter intuitive as you would expect that the X pipe would work by deflecting the pulse across. You would also expect that the pulse would want to move across, but that's not the case. The reason is that when a fluid moves through a passage, the resistance where it contacts the passage is infinite (this is called a 'boundary layer') and then lessens as you move toward the center of the passage.

So when a pulse moves through an X pipe, the resistance at the boundary layer causes it to stick to the side of the X and move through the same side. When this happens, you get that low pressure region behind the pulse which increases your volumetric efficiency by way of increased scavenging.

Sooooooo, what that means to me is that necking down the piping just a hair will get those exhaust pulses creating a useable vacuum through the X pipe faster than it would with no neck down. I realize that by doing this, I will sacrifice some top end. However, since the engine isn't cammed and doesn't have head work, I feel that I am better off aiming for peak scavenging in the midrange as it will maximize my gains.

Lol, hope this makes sense. It's a lot to try and cram into one post.

[Jake@JHM]

Actually a saw tune. Jhm tune is going to be going on soon

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Right on

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Logs from Feb 18, 2015. Taken from 75%-100% load. So the logs are indicative of tip in to full throttle. Ambient temps registered on my dash: +5C to +7C

Logs taken in 1-2 gear and in moderate-heavy stop and go urban traffic.

MAF readings EDIT: I had missed some data from yesterday, in the new graph, you can see that my readings were hitting up to 168 g/sec, so it's breathing nice and strong. Now I'm really curious to see how high it will read once things cool off in the next day or two .


Timing
Good indicator of what is going on in the combustion chamber. Doesn't appear to be any pull, so obviously my A/F ratios and intake temps aren't causing any issues.


Intake temps
Important to note that according to the average regression line, under load the temps are +13C to +17C. That's only 4C variation on average and an average of only 8C to 12C above ambient if we go with the more conservative estimate of ambient being +5C)


A/F ratios


Overall, I'm pretty darn happy with what I'm seeing. Good narrow average intake temp variation and minimal average increases over ambient, strong and stable MAF numbers, good A/F ratios and healthy timing curves

[Lornnn]

I said absolutely nothing about your intake, just your data that you posted. I have no idea how well it works compared to the stock intake, nor does anyone else. The data that you posted is statistically and practically useless. How can you convince anyone that it is better or worse than what they have now? The data was not taken in anything close to resembling the same conditions. I didn't realize that I needed to backup my statement that you're data is worthless. Do I think that the stock intake can be made better? Sure I do, but I can't tell if what you've put together is better or not. You want constructive feedback, give useful data.

If you can't take criticism over your presentation, I greatly hope that you are never in any position to back any scientific research and provide similarly arrived at information. If I presented information like yours in college, my professors would have laughed hysterically while failing me. If you want me to take your intake and modifications seriously, provide data gathered under similar conditions (same gear, similar weather conditions, same stretch of road) that you collected the pre-change data. The less stuff that is different, the more likely you'll show that your changes are an improvement. You're trying to claim significance with less than half as many data points and collected in what seems like vastly different driving conditions.

Not sure why you're giving Zimbu a hard time about all this - and his intake in particular - when you're using a hacked/glued/plugged airbox and intake elbow... ?

[imnuts]

I don't get it, someone posts no data for the latest performance craze, and everyone is all over them asking for data to prove whatever they're selling. Someone posts irrelevant data to prove something that may work, and no one cares. I'd rather have nothing over useless data, at least nothing is misleading when you have nothing.

Sent from my Moto X

[Lornnn]

I don't get it, someone posts no data for the latest performance craze, and everyone is all over them asking for data to prove whatever they're selling. Someone posts irrelevant data to prove something that may work, and no one cares. I'd rather have nothing over useless data, at least nothing is misleading when you have nothing.

Sent from my Moto X

If Zimbu had a $500 price tag and an Order Now link for a CAI kit with unsupported claims like "increased and improved throttle response, increases in low end torque, and increases top end power" I can see how your skepticism would be warranted. But he doesn't, so what is your beef? He's wrenching on his car, experimenting, posting his findings and you're acting like the guy owes you something. Your unproductive (it doesn't need to be supportive) heckling makes no sense coming from someone who 1) modded their airbox and intake elbow based off of ??? (read the last post for why this isn't a good idea) and also bought a $500 tune with no data and a misleading (DP's & cat-back sold separately, "these 2.5" downpipes are the key") sales pitch.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I don't get it, someone posts no data for the latest performance craze, and everyone is all over them asking for data to prove whatever they're selling. Someone posts irrelevant data to prove something that may work, and no one cares. I'd rather have nothing over useless data, at least nothing is misleading when you have nothing.

Sent from my Moto X

Ummm, not sure I follow 'ya there laddie.

The reasons that I'm posting data is for exactly the reasons you pointed out in your post. Someone comes along with an idea, part etc... claims gains, doesn't post anything to back it up, forum argument ensues with NEITHER party bringing any evidence to the table and at the end of the day, the Audi community gains nothing.

The whole reason I started this thread was because virtually no one has bothered to post any objective data on what bolt on mods do for the 3.0. What I'm attempting to do is actually give people an idea as to what can be done with this engine and what to expect if they spend their hard earned cash on mods such as a tune or exhaust.

I feel that what i've put together on this thread is actually quite informative and objective and I've taken as many steps as I've can to make sure that the results are as unbiased as possible.

At the end of the day, data is just that, data. I've drawn my conclusions from it and my intent is to give other forum members enough info to draw their own conclusions. I'm not selling anything, so I have no reason to misrepresent or mislead anyone. In fact, to do so would effectively destroy what I've set out to do in this thread, which is advance this community.

In regards your conclusions, they are what they are. I'm not going to loose any sleep if our interpretations of what I've presented are different. Quite frankly, peer review of experiment results and the ability of a claim to withstand scrutiny are cornerstones of the experimental method and as you have noted, are often lacking on the forums.

I will say that dredging though logs, graphing the results, writing them up all neat and tidy is a very time consuming process, but one that I am willing to do for the betterment of the platform. All I ask for my time and effort in preparing and presenting this data is that critiques and counterpoints have some thought put into them and/or are accompanied by some objective evidence to back them up. I've seen way too many a perfectly good thread completely wasted by unfounded bickering (not singling you out by the way, it happens all over). However, I've made a conscious effort to take all measures necessary to keep that happening here.

So there you have it, the data is what it is. It's your own prerogative as to how you want to interpret it. All I ask of you or anyone else who comments on my results is that the comments be well reasoned, informed and bring something to the table by doing so

PS: my last set of results are all set against RPM now if that helps better inform your questions on the matter


Cheers

[ZimbutheMonkey]

If Zimbu had a $500 price tag and an Order Now link for a CAI kit with unsupported claims like "increased and improved throttle response, increases in low end torque, and increases top end power" I can see how your skepticism would be warranted. But he doesn't, so what is your beef? He's wrenching on his car, experimenting, posting his findings and you're acting like the guy owes you something. Your unproductive (it doesn't need to be supportive) heckling makes no sense coming from someone who 1) modded their airbox and intake elbow based off of ??? (read the last post for why this isn't a good idea) and also bought a $500 tune with no data and a misleading (DP's & cat-back sold separately, "these 2.5" downpipes are the key") sales pitch.]

Both you and imnuts raise a good point about the lack of good supporting data for many aftermarket products.

You would think that someone investing the time and assume the financial risk of producing and selling a product would back it up with clear and unequivocal data that it does what is claimed.

However, I find that most supporting data is sketchy at best.

I guess for me, my education as a Psych major (huge emphasis on experimental design) and as a Lawyer (logical, evidence based reasoning) has had the effect of drilling into me, the need to support my claims with something more than speculation. Picking out flaws in marketing is second nature to me and it's kind of frustrating when I see designs and ideas that may work, but are supported with no data or clearly flawed and biased data. The reason it frustrates me is that I would like to know if I can take something as fact and build on it. But if the supporting evidence isn't there, I essentially have to start at square one with my own investigation at best, or that I get led down the wrong path, wasting my time and money at worst.

Anyway, it's good to know that there are forum members who have made it known that they want evidence to back a claim up when it comes to aftermarket products.

Vendors, you hearing this....?

[SJorge3442]

I've been following since you started posting this and I'm excited to see what you are able to squeeze out of the motor. My only problem with the so called CAI, is the fact that in the summer time, the engine bay has to be HOT. I was pulling some logs the other day to check the health of my car and even with it being 15 degrees F in Philly, after cruising around the side streets for a few minutes, intake temps were up to 60 degrees. I never really checked intake temps cruising around the city during the summer time, but I have no problem believing they are above 100F. Just the fact that the stock intake pulls from the outside of the engine compartment, SHOULD help drop temps a ton, compared to a CAI.

Now, its cold right now, so the results from the CAI you built are going to favor the temps now, more so than in the summer. I have no idea how hot it gets up in your part of Canada, but here in SE PA, we see plenty of 90+F days. A CAI on an NA engine will largely effect the amount of timing that the ECU will pull. Now, I wouldnt be opposed to running a CAI in the winter time and throwing the stock intake back on in the summer. Just curious, but are you running the JHM intake spacers?

[Spike00513]

My noob-self is reading, and trying to understand (I will eventually). I don't even know what ignition/timing advance is, so yeah.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like even with modifications, improvements are marginal. MPG, power, and so on. With time and parts cost invested, aren't you hungrier for something more? Who cares if it can hang with a stage 2 1.8T - life isn't defined by whether you can hang with a slow inefficient 1.8T...

What about smething with crazy torque, new, fast, efficient, and so on? 2.0 chain-driven TDI swap? 3.0T? Doesn't even have to be a VAG motor. What about converting it into an EV?
What about the possibilities. I mean, the B6 is a very front-heavy car, and I'm not sure if that's good. I can already easily feel the easier turn-in response from swapping to manual because it's lighter - imagine having electric motors in the trunk. Or wherever.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

My noob-self is reading, and trying to understand (I will eventually). I don't even know what ignition/timing advance is, so yeah.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like even with modifications, improvements are marginal. MPG, power, and so on. With time and parts cost invested, aren't you hungrier for something more? Who cares if it can hang with a stage 2 1.8T - life isn't defined by whether you can hang with a slow inefficient 1.8T...

What about smething with crazy torque, new, fast, efficient, and so on? 2.0 chain-driven TDI swap? 3.0T? Doesn't even have to be a VAG motor. What about converting it into an EV?
What about the possibilities. I mean, the B6 is a very front-heavy car, and I'm not sure if that's good. I can already easily feel the easier turn-in response from swapping to manual because it's lighter - imagine having electric motors in the trunk. Or wherever.

In response to this and your PM, I do agree that N/A engines don't have nearly the easy power potential that a turbo has.

My other car is a 1.8t passat that I spent 5 years modding. In it's last incarnation it was a built motor running a Comp turbo 5556 which flows a little more than a GT3076. Given how hard I thrashed that engine, it stood up well. Unfortunately, after 2+ years it popped a valve keeper and dropped an exhaust valve into the #3 cylinder.

I do plan on resurrecting her, but I'm not gonna half ass it, so I'll need to shell out a good $5000+ in parts to do it right.

The reason I've turned my attention to the 3.0 platform is for two reasons.

1) I spent the last 4 years either in law school or as an articling student making 40k a year. I got called to the Alberta bar in Dec and between starting my own firm, student loans and living costs, I don't have a ton of disposable income (yet.... ). However, I do have the means to fabricate bolt on parts for my 3.0 and I can do it on my budget. So for the time being I felt why not focus on improving what is and will be my daily driver.

2) During my time building my 1.8t, I researched the shit out of forced induction tuning and I'm at a point where I thought "why not try my hand at N/A tuning and mods"? It's been fun actually, learning how to tune N/A engines. I've gotten pretty deep into the fluid dynamics end of things (not in terms of the bare mathematics, but conceptually). So I'm quite content to be learning a new set of concepts


Anyway, back to your original point Spike. While I agree that the 3.0 is never going to me a power monster without any forced induction, I do feel that the 3.0 has potential. I know from my own experience so far that what the mods I've done have had a dramatic effect on the car, and i want to see just how much I get out of it without getting into internals. So things like a proper X pipe catback, lightweight flywheel, lightweight crank pulley, maybe some long tube headers and intake manifold insulating, maybe water/meth etc... will make for more gains to come.

I do maintain that for what you would pay for a basic Frankenturbo kit (good for 250-260 CHP w/o other bolt ons) you can get the same level of performance with a tune, downpipes, and an ebay China made exhaust. Not bad for a daily driver I figure

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I've been following since you started posting this and I'm excited to see what you are able to squeeze out of the motor. My only problem with the so called CAI, is the fact that in the summer time, the engine bay has to be HOT. I was pulling some logs the other day to check the health of my car and even with it being 15 degrees F in Philly, after cruising around the side streets for a few minutes, intake temps were up to 60 degrees. I never really checked intake temps cruising around the city during the summer time, but I have no problem believing they are above 100F. Just the fact that the stock intake pulls from the outside of the engine compartment, SHOULD help drop temps a ton, compared to a CAI.

Now, its cold right now, so the results from the CAI you built are going to favor the temps now, more so than in the summer. I have no idea how hot it gets up in your part of Canada, but here in SE PA, we see plenty of 90+F days. A CAI on an NA engine will largely effect the amount of timing that the ECU will pull. Now, I wouldnt be opposed to running a CAI in the winter time and throwing the stock intake back on in the summer. Just curious, but are you running the JHM intake spacers?

I agree, the charge heating may be more pronounced in hotter temps with my CAI. However, I think that I can mitigate a lot of that if I build a sealed partition between the engine and intake. Right now I have a partition that covers about 80% of the opening, but it's still allowing the intake to draw hot air while the car idles. However, if the space is sealed off properly, then the intake will draw from air outside the engine bay as it's the path of least resistance at that point.

Also, no, I don't have the JHM spacers at this point. I'll get to it in springtime when the outside temps start rising. I also plan on thermally insulating the intake manifold as well as blocking off the coolant flow to the throttle body.

[jaydeff]

There's a lot of debate over whether intake spacers actually do anything beneficial. FlyboyS4 has done a few tests and has writeups here and here. Personally, I wouldn't waste $100 on them.