0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
We're basically spoilt in this day & age with all the great YouTube maintenance videos. The days of trying to work out what to do with the help of a Haynes manual - with its dodgy b&w photos - seem an age ago.
That's exactly what I would have thought. My experience with the DNA is that it has no detectable effect except to the noise level. The DNA would only make a difference if the existing filter and cover were a strangle point on the engine, and the evidence we've got suggests it isn't, to any significant extent. In other words, the DNA kit is fixing something that ain't broke.As for ECU fudgers, really all they can do is tweak the mixture slightly, and in theory running richer should give a bit more power, but modern engine management is really pretty good and I would expect the gains to be very slight. Especially when you realise that the FuelX is a horrible kludge that works by lying to the ECU about the engine temperature and the lambda reading. Getting a consistent improvement is going to be quite a challenge when you are relying on fooling the ECU.The proper way to do this would be to dump the existing ECU and start again with a new one. There are several on the market, but you'd need to develop your own maps. You'd probably need several hours on a dyno.And I think it would be another waste of time. From the available evidence, the existing camshaft is the limiting factor, it being strongly biased towards low speed torque. We know the power drops off precipitously at higher revs, so there is clearly plenty to be gained from a more aggressive cam profile.In other words, intake mods and ECU fudgers are tackling the wrong problem. The major limiting factor is the valve timing and lift. Start there for the biggest gains. I do accept that the DNA might help when there's a new cam in the engine because the cam will increase the gas flow considerably, judging by the hike in the power curve. Really the DNA is something to try after the new cam is installed.
But all claims only about the gain of hp. But how about the torque? If this performance cam a loss of torque at low rpm it doesn’t interest me anymore.
Don’t have the time to go through the 9 pages. Saw the vid’ from Tiger Ness yesterday and I’m very tempted.But all claims only about the gain of hp. But how about the torque? If this performance cam a loss of torque at low rpm it doesn’t interest me anymore.
See reply #21 - a dyno chart showing a slight reduction in torque below 3250rpm. Whether or not it's noticeable I wouldn't know.
Topic: Hitchcock's J-350 performance cam (Read 12105 times)