Where was I addressing your opinion other than the fact that you accused me of putting my personal opinion on it? Where did I insert my personal opinion at all?? Please direct me to the quote in this thread that does this.

I made it a point to actually put your comments and Hydrazine's reply in plain view. Why? Because your logic doesn't make sense. you claim that the subject was "addressed". If that were the case, then why did you feel the need to bash me (when I didn't even post my opinion yet) and thought it necessary to repost all of your personal opinions about it (again)? If you were going to rehash your comments, then I felt it appropiate to repost Tony's clear and definitive thoughts and proof also.

 

Nothing in the post you quoted said anything about your opinion – frankly I couldn’t care less about your opinion and have made that extremely clear.

I mention that the “Tony theory” had been addressed more than once. Most recently in post #18…

The post above is yet another example of your inability to stay focused with what’s being presented and your unwillingness to understand simple statements. As usual this would go around in circles and get farther off topic because you have absolutely nothing better to do. So post your final comments (because lord knows you feel you must have the last word) and be done.

 

children

 

Right Mike. Like you said you wouldn't be posting in this thread but have continued to do so. You also divert from the original topic at hand and resort to childish flaming and accusations. Wonderful logic there. Why? Because you can't actually refute what Tony has concluded.

 

Asked (among other choice flames)

Asked:

Wrong. You clearly posted a comment about my opinion (one that I never gave actually).

 

read post 31 & 32 Jeff. Put your thinking cap on because it’s real clear if you concentrate. Nothing you posted above has anything to do with what was said in post 31 & 32… yet you continue to keep the thread off topic.

Jeff, you really need another hobby.

 

What's the theory? Sounds to me like it's a fact that the TBS didn't do anything when he tested it.

 

He attributed the initial gains to ECU fluctuation… read the history and learn something about what you profess to actually know. Because clearly you don’t have all the facts – even though they have been recited over and over and over again (which is why I said I’m not going into detail AGAIN)…

 

The plain hard fact is you commented on my "opinion" well before I even put anything remotely resembling my opinion in this ENTIRE thread. That was well before post 31 or 32.

It was YOU that dove into a tirade flame fest (violating the TOU at last 2-3 times) that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps you need to adhere to your very own advice about staying on topic and reading comprehension.

Since you have posted here just as much or more than Dave and I combined, it looks like you also need a new hobby. But the thing is, Dave and I aren't need of some basic manners on common courtesy.

 

ibtl

 

Exactly, that's why I'm confused. So initially you start into the thread by saying "the peanut gallery" (read: DaveB) is misinformed about the gains of the TBS and that the TBS does in fact work, by some miracle, on the VQ. Then Jeff posts up links to a prior thread that shows your car's gains with the TBS weren't legitiment and were just a factor of the typical ECU fluctuation we typically see with these cars on the dyno.

Maybe it would have been best just not to have responded to this thread? Basically you've come into the thread to trash talk Jeff and myself, you got called out, changed your story, and then proceeded in with your typical tirades about how we're idiots, can't read, and how I'm not allowed to offer up an opinion because I don't try out a particular modification. Sometimes I wonder if you're just here just to cause trouble.

 

OCG35. You keep saying you addressed Motordyne's position on your dynos. I still am not seeing it. Let me know if we are on the same page.

Dyno 1: No TBS
Dyno 2: TBS installed, +8hp gain over stock
Dyno 3: TBS removed, +8hp gain still over stock

Tony's conclusion: +8hp was due to ECU drift since the gain remained after removal of the spacer

OCG35's conclusion: +8hp was due to TBS because.......

How do you explain the last dyno? I still have yet to see an explanation. Could you be kind enough to please restate your conclusion and the reasoning?

 

He also mentioned it was the spacer with the rifling that worked. Not to mention that most of the air moving though a section won't be affected by any "rifling" on the edges. Might make for a neat boundry layer though. What swirling would do anyway is questionable. As the air has to make it's way around the intake manifold ports, down the port itself, sit an wait for the valve to open and finally flow past the edges of the valve. Not to mention battling the resonance effect (correct term?) of the air hitting a closed valve, bouncing back and then back into the valve port once it opens.....

 

But an extended flange of a revup airbox does wonders
:bowr ofl:

 

Never said it did wonders. Can you quote me on that? Really, I'll wait.

What does your continued odd explainations regarding rifling and length of intake tract (that you keep babbling about) have to do with an extended velocity stack? Especially when mixing/matching of oem parts have documented positive effects? ie.. using a non revup lower intake on a revup motor. You seem to want to equate OEM changes to those on the aftermarket. Which do you think have more research behind a change? A generic TB spacer or an Nissan engineer that has to deal with trying to get back as much throttle response/low end torque with their short runner revup motor. My theory about why the velocity stack is benefical is very different than why you think the TB spacers work.

Besides, I distinctly remember YOU not only asking but purchasing a revup 1/2 airbox.