Originally Posted by whiskeymike
I have a very good understanding of engines and modifications, not just on cars. Years of experience don't mean a whole lot, it's what happens in those years. Again I brought up the 6.0 because you and several other people think it's the same for every motor, and it's not. An intake doesn't help every motor, using the 6.0 as an example as a factory intake that's good enough for 500hp-quite a bit more than stock. On the other hand, some aren't adequate for stock. If you're going to be a angel of forums, you have some serious catching up to do. There's a lot of bs way worse than this. If someone comes across the first few posts of this thread and thinks it worthless to get an intake for any vehicle, that's their own damn fault.
194-186 = 8hp for tuning, intake, muffler. If we're being optimisitic, say cat back and throttle body add 10. That's still a far cry from 30, and like said above the heads are the restrictive part. It doesn't matter how much air is in front of them only so much is getting through. Not to mention having to run 91 octane for 8 hp isn't very good bang for buck. Thanks for providing numbers (pretty close to what I would have estimated-i actually was thinking 10hp for the 3) but as far as I'm concerned the answer in post #2 is correct.
-Is it even worth getting a Cai (for the 4.0)- no
-As for the modified question
-Is it worth getting an intake, tuner, exhaust, for the 4.0-meh, I suppose but not great. 8hp for the cost of mods + running 91 octane
-is it worth throttle body, cat back, tune, intake (4.0)-probably not, heads are pretty restrictive from my understanding.
-underdrive pulley might be best bang for buck but don't always work great in the real world.
-last but not least, tq stayed about where it was all along until the underdrive pulley. Torque is more important for a dd than hp, and I'm willing to bet he isn't drag racing his truck more than driving on the road.
As for the political thing, I know who it was meant for, and he's openly republican.
On a side note, I don't know why I'm continuing to waste my time in this thread.
You've taken all this to the extent that I somehow think the 4.0 is going to make absurd numbers. I never said it was an engine of power. As a matter of what I said, and I quote myself from my first post,
"Basic fact here though, we are talking about a 4.0L V6 motor. These motors weren't built to roast tires or set records, they were built to pull a small size truck in this case. In other applications, they are used to power the low end sports cars. (IE Mustang of the era) There is only so much potential without forced induction, and even then there are pretty low limitations on this setup."
If you really want to discuss the workings of the 6.0, which I admittedly have little experience with as I am not a diesel guy, the first things I see every one of them do when doing a "bulletproof" build is change the intake, exhaust and add a tuner. Every single build thread out there starts with those three mods. Again, I am not in the know on them as I don't particularly care for diesels myself....however I do know that they have monstrous torque potentials and I've seen builds that would eat many a sports cars. The basic principal still remains the same, regardless of motor size though. Whether or not it will function as good on one as another, well that is determined by supporting mods, tuning and ability of whatever you put it on. Even the little 250CC four wheeler motors typically start with a little cotton filter intake. While I don't understand how you can argue the principle, at least you have maintained reasonable, debatable text for the most part of the thread.
I have no intent of chasing all the bad information on the net, just the ones that I happen to come across while looking for my own info needs. A small army of people could spend 100 lifetimes and never get 10% of the bad information on the net corrected.
And the improvement with all the adds in the posted page came to 21, granted I didn't post using the underdrives myself they seem to have created the largest increase. I personally don't care for the use of underdrives, I think they cause more issues than they are worth. But of course we go back to the tuning, and I seriously doubt they were very aggressive on the tune. Any tuner worth his salt can pull up to 5% with no mods. That's 10 alone in our application here. Added to the mods mentioned and you're easily in the mid 20's. Again, why anyone would do this on this particular motor I don't know. Perhaps when I was 18 I would have because that's what I had at the time with no big motor in sight in any near future. Years of experience teach you the simple saying, "there is no replacement for displacement." And while many will jump on that with forced induction, I would counter with adding the same forced induction to the larger motor would still pull larger numbers. Hence, the larger you start the higher you go. And of course in the horsepower game, he who has the most money goes the fastest.
But it all goes back to the original post stating the principle of the intake more than the application. Yes, you could get the numbers I posted. No, it's not a great idea nor would it be cost effective on this motor but it is possible. That is the reason that there are so many options out there, because even if the ideology is bad for the application people still do it. That goes back to where I said "increasing air in but not out isn't going to increase performance." You can't plan on spending a few bucks for the intake and stopping there thinking you just got 20hp with just that. It requires all the supporting mods, as I stated.
As for the political comment, no republican would engage in the way that poster did. He (or she for all I know) acted in the manner of an entitled democrat who wants to put forth no effort, claim everyone else is stupid, and then won't even read the information put forth in front of them. That is just about as Hillaryesque as you can get. It didn't work for her (twice mind you) and it won't work for anyone else either.
Originally Posted by Ordinary Biker
Tactile? Did you maybe mean tactful? And I am sure the basketball was aimed at me for my comment on dribble...
Is this all you can do, search through the thread for autocorrected improper grammar? Let me help you with dribble...
Examples Word Origin
verb (used without object), dribbled, dribbling.
to fall or flow in drops or small quantities; trickle.
to drivel; slaver.
Hence why I said Drivel was an accepted derivative of the word. Perhaps you'd like it used in a sentence next? And in fact no, it was not directed at any one poster, it was intended to cover everyone who had nothing to offer other than unsubstantiated opinions.....like I bought one and it was shit. Or they don't do anything but cost money. Or any other combination of opinion with no scientific basis. But if you wish to believe it was directed at you, then that is your choice.
Originally Posted by cowboybilly9mile
Unfortunately, still, no answer is an answer. That, and the outbursts and emotions deeply distract.
See I have this thing called a life, and I don't spend all my free time arguing stupid with people. You can't fix stupid. You've added nothing to the discussion at any point other than mindless "dribble." For the definition of such, as used in that sentence, it means nothing worthy has flowed from your mouth since you started participating.