Vararam-vs-MIT Air Intake & Powerbond UDP G-Tech results on a 6.2
03-08-2012, 08:36 AM
#13
Are you using 1/8 mile times to calculate your 1/4 mile times? Those formulas don't work well on heavy 4x4 trucks with the aerodynamics of a house.
The OP wasn't claiming a 1/4 mile time. He was just using the meter as a tool to directly compare a couple of mods to each other.
Just sayin...
The OP wasn't claiming a 1/4 mile time. He was just using the meter as a tool to directly compare a couple of mods to each other.
Just sayin...
03-08-2012, 09:05 AM
#14
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Alvin,TX
Posts: 4,123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What all was needed to make the UDP work on the 2011? Reason I ask (and I'll have to go back and post dig) but I thought there was an issue with the 08-09? and up models trying to run underdrive pullies. I could be wrong but I thought I remembered there being a little more you had to change out to run the UDP.
I want to eventually run one on my 2012 5.3 liter.
I want to eventually run one on my 2012 5.3 liter.
03-08-2012, 10:49 AM
#15
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to remove my stock "stretch" belt to the AC compressor and replace it with a regular one and add a belt tensioner to it. I got all of the parts I needed (including the pulley install tool) for the swap from SDPC for about $325 shipped. I am not sure if the 5.3 has the same stretch belt as the 6.2??? I had done my research and found that most of the time an overdrive alternator pulley was not needed.
03-08-2012, 11:04 AM
#16
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing that the difference is in the fact that you are tuned compared to my handheld tuner as I really would expect the vararam to improve performance. I'm not sure that I would expect better fuel economy with the additional air being forced into the intake though.
The g tech is pretty accurate when used correctly...I ran this same g-tech about 10 years ago on my 96 tt supra once at the track and was off by about than half a tenth on a high 11 second car. The 1/4 mile trap speed is optimistic though...on that car it was about 5 mph.
I will probably go to the track sometime later this spring...if I get a chance I will run the g-tech at the same time to compare it on this truck.
The g tech is pretty accurate when used correctly...I ran this same g-tech about 10 years ago on my 96 tt supra once at the track and was off by about than half a tenth on a high 11 second car. The 1/4 mile trap speed is optimistic though...on that car it was about 5 mph.
I will probably go to the track sometime later this spring...if I get a chance I will run the g-tech at the same time to compare it on this truck.
The reason I ask is as u can see in my sig my truck is a ccsb and with just a tune I ran a 9.00 (13.99) and that was on a 87 tune. My brother ran a 8.90 (13.83) on denali 20's and his was on 93 tune. Both tuned with HP Tuners. Same gears, nothing different from mine but wheels. I put the vararam CAI on my truck and now I beat him by a truck and a half. So I'm guessing I will run a 8.80 or .85 now which is about a 13.70-.75. Also my truck picked up about 1 mpg with the vararam and my buddy's truck picked up 1.5mpg with it as well. I'm not by any means calling you a liar I was just comparing trucks and locations. I wonder how accurate that G-Tech is...? When will you be able to take it to the track and see what it runs? You need to bring it to Alabama!! Lol
03-08-2012, 11:06 AM
#17
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Alvin,TX
Posts: 4,123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to remove my stock "stretch" belt to the AC compressor and replace it with a regular one and add a belt tensioner to it. I got all of the parts I needed (including the pulley install tool) for the swap from SDPC for about $325 shipped. I am not sure if the 5.3 has the same stretch belt as the 6.2??? I had done my research and found that most of the time an overdrive alternator pulley was not needed.
I never used the alt. pulley on any of my other trucks with the UDP so I doubt I would on this one either.
03-12-2012, 07:57 AM
#18
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel mileage to sacramento to be tuned 16.4 mpg (approx 500 miles)
fuel mileage home from sacramento after tuned 18.4 mpg
(70-75 mph avg)
probably half of the 2 mpg gain is due to the tune...the rest is a result of running 92 on the way home rather than the 89 or so blend on the way there and taking a slightly different route back for 1/3 of the drive
so far I am happy with bb tune results...thanks justin
now waiting for good roads to see what it runs per the g-tech
fuel mileage home from sacramento after tuned 18.4 mpg
(70-75 mph avg)
probably half of the 2 mpg gain is due to the tune...the rest is a result of running 92 on the way home rather than the 89 or so blend on the way there and taking a slightly different route back for 1/3 of the drive
so far I am happy with bb tune results...thanks justin
now waiting for good roads to see what it runs per the g-tech
03-17-2012, 10:39 PM
#20
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard for me to say this, but my preliminary results (6 gtech runs) show that I have slowed about a tenth or so with the BB tune compared to my diablosport 92 cookie cutter tune. I did get one freak run at 13.96 @103.1 but the rest are consitently a few tenths slower than that. I have gone up slightly in mph but off the line (0 to 60) has suffered??? Maybe I just need to learn how to launch the truck better?
fuel mileage to sacramento to be tuned 16.4 mpg (approx 500 miles)
fuel mileage home from sacramento after tuned 18.4 mpg
(70-75 mph avg)
probably half of the 2 mpg gain is due to the tune...the rest is a result of running 92 on the way home rather than the 89 or so blend on the way there and taking a slightly different route back for 1/3 of the drive
so far I am happy with bb tune results...thanks justin
now waiting for good roads to see what it runs per the g-tech
fuel mileage home from sacramento after tuned 18.4 mpg
(70-75 mph avg)
probably half of the 2 mpg gain is due to the tune...the rest is a result of running 92 on the way home rather than the 89 or so blend on the way there and taking a slightly different route back for 1/3 of the drive
so far I am happy with bb tune results...thanks justin
now waiting for good roads to see what it runs per the g-tech