9 replies to this topic

[TNCHARGER]

I posted this a couple weeks ago on the LXF and forgot to post here...

 

Took my car to Arrington a few weeks ago to get an initial dyno tuning for the 6.4 based 426 stoker in my car. AJ (aka Hemituner) dynoed the car and worked on the tune. He managed 468 RWHP and 515 RWTQ at that time. He told me he wanted to do some R&D from the data he took from the dyno runs (my car is the beta test for the 6.4 based 426). I then took the car back home 3 hrs away.

AJ mentioned that he wanted to try a pull with the AFR Shaker unhooked from the throttle body when I returned for final tuning. He felt like there were some air flow restriction at the higher RPMs. When I got home I modified the AFR so I could install the LMI True CAI and still retain the shaker hood scoop on the car.

A few weeks later AJ said he was ready to do the final adjustments and would need the car for several days. I dropped the car off Tuesday and returned home. The next day AJ did a dyno pull before adjusting anything to see if anything had changed. Something had changed...a lot.

The car gained 28 RWHP since the last dyno session. Nothing had been changed except for the LMI CAI being added in place of the AFR Shaker duct to the throttle body.

The red line represents the first dyno and the black line the current dyno with the LMI CAI. The peak torque dropped about 3 points but you will notice the torque line is flatter and doesn't fall off as quick as RPMs increase. The slight decrease in peak torque may be explained by air speed being increased at lower RPMs due to the restricted AFR ducting but choking off air flow at higher RPMS.

This post is not meant to say the AFR Shaker is poorly designed. The duct design of the AFR is probably as good as it gets for the amount of space available. The other brands (Danko, Cervis) may have similar issues with their functional scoops.

I just wanted others to know that they may be leaving 2-3 tenths on the plate at the track. My AFR Shaker is still functional only it cools the engine compartment instead of supplying air for the engine....The LMI is doing a great job at that..
 

Final dyno numbers: 513 RWHP / 517 RWTQ (Video link>> https://www.youtube...._KICA_-afaw#t=8 )...

 

 

 

 

[legmaker]

nice......

[Hemi57]

Photos of the before and after mods to the air intake?

[TNCHARGER]

Photos of the before and after mods to the air intake?

 

This is before I removed the box (circled) that connected to the tube running to the throttle body.

 

 

 

 

...I don't have a picture of after the box was removed but it is in the dyno video..  http://api.viglink.c..._KICA_-afaw#t=8

[Goehner]

Very nice

[sharkcohen]

Very nice! And no surprise. Good call on AJ's part.

[rudedog]

Do you have any pictures of the underside of the shaker?  I see this is the 392 version.  I wonder if there is less, more or the same with the older style.

 

Here are some pictures of mine.

 

[TNCHARGER]

The filter looks the same. The only difference between yours and mine is the throttle body connection. The air flow in the 392 version has to make three 90* turns on it's way to the throttle body. Because of the air turbulence that would result slowing air speed is probably why the big difference in HP in the upper rpms.

[nolimits76]

This post is not meant to say the AFR Shaker is poorly designed. The duct design of the AFR is probably as good as it gets for the amount of space available. The other brands (Danko, Cervis) may have similar issues with their functional scoops.

 

 

 

I know Wes had some issues with his Cervini.  Here is a post from his website about it.  I thought Dale had similar issues and a similar fix.

 

http://rippinit.com/...rvinis-ram-air/

[Hemi57]

The problem with the Cervini is the size of the air filter. I cut the air box to TB tube off and used a 4" S&B air filter and a DIY connecting tube. There is a writeup in the Knowledge base on how I did it.