| Message |
Perhaps you are misreading or misunderstanding the nature of the post. I dont recommend a split intake setup which completely seperates the intake air (i.e. Dual-POP) simply because the variation YOU are referring to (i.e. reproducability). The DOOLZ setup doesn't have these variations that the JWT Dual-pop suffers from. In a way, you are correct about it not being an even comparison but that is typically the nature of a product comparison where one is far better than another. I simply cannot support that the JWT product is the best way to do it - the alternative is clearly much better. In addition to this, there was nothing wrong with the car that produced that funky A/F with the JWT dual-pop and their program - that car was completely 'gone through' over a two day period of time to eliminate any boost leaks and fully test every aspect of the powerplant. The A/F results you see which look like a backwards "J" are a JWT program and JWT dual-pop on a car with sport 600's and that run made 493RWHP. With my tuning, we put down 535RWHP. There was nothing wrong with this car other than the fact it had a JWT dual-pop intake on it. It is well known that the dual-pop has this 'leanness' phenomena around 4000-4500RPM (nixit and I had a good conversation about this a while back) and then a richness problem thereafter in the RPM band. The fuelmap variances for the dual-pop is what you have to do in order to stabilize the A/F. All I was intending to demonstrate is the fact that the design is flawed, how it is flawed, and how the DOOLZ design corrects this. Personally, I think I did a good damn job of displaying that.
[ ashleypowers.com ]
[ agpowers@bellsouth.net ] [ Zemulator Information Sheet ] Enthusiasts soon understand each other. --W. Irving.
Are you an enthusiast?
|
 |
