Hey Sappy, you're wrong again.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:50 pm

SappySE107 wrote: Im not convinced that the 96 intake is the way to go on most automatic cars. Unless you want to shift at higher RPM, its not going to be better around town. Im just guessing on it not being the best for an auto, but I know its great for a 5 speed.

This is talking about the 96 intake swap on a 91-93 motor. He says it isn't the way to go on autos becuase it isn't as good around town. Clearly he means it must make less low end torque since the engine smoothness is going to be the same on autos and 5-speeds. However, I have a dyno here showing my high end modded 3.4 made nearly identical torque numbers than a stock 92 3.4 DOHC. But the stock dyno is bullshit, or so he told me on AIM because the A:F graph is good, which according to him isn't possible or something....

3.4 DOHC with CAI, full exhaust, 30" equal length headers, UD pulley, shitty ass chip, no IAT, 96 intake swap, custom intake arm, and 75mm throttle body. Not a single mod done with low end in mind besides the UD pulley...

Stock 3.4l DOHC (178whp/186wtq)

And I'd post this over at 60*, but it takes too much time to create yet another account (I already have like 4 or 5, and at least 2 are not banned)

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:57 pm

The modded motor overtakes the stock one at about 2800rpm, and is identical below that.

Oh, and here is what Oldskool had to say (Author: "How to spend 5 fucking grand and not crack 220hp")

"I'll drink to that. On anautomatic, unless you have extensive head work done, you won't have any low end."

This is sort of odd, considering the crank power numbers between a 5-speed and auto are nearly identical. And also, I don't see "extensive head work" gaining low end power, that isn't why you port heads.

So if I put the white car's motor in an auto, or even the stock 3.4, it will all the sudden not have any low end? Wow, news to me. And this is really odd considering up to about a year ago GM never produced a N/A 60* V6 with more torque OR horsepower AT ANY RPM than the 3.4l DOHC...

OldschoolGP · Post by **OldschoolGP** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:57 pm

Thank you President Bush for taking everything Ben and I say as the word. Not translatable, not methaphorical, but the word.

I'll drink to that. On anautomatic, unless you have extensive head work done, you won't have any low end.

That's right, if you put a '96 top end on an automatic car, you will have 0 Lb/ft. of torque on the low end. The car will not even move.

Im not convinced that the 96 intake is the way to go on most automatic cars. Unless you want to shift at higher RPM, its not going to be better around town. Im just guessing on it not being the best for an auto, but I know its great for a 5 speed.

What this means is there is absolutely no doubt that the '96 intake is a catastrophe for any automatic car. Words like "guessing" will let you know that. I blame him completely for saying that, becuase he has had tons of exposure to cars that have had the '96 intake on them. There's my car, and...... um......, well, there's my car. I guess that's it. But he was guessing, and you can take that to the bank.

Now it's time to remind you where you rank. Since I've talked to Tony 4 times in the past week about his car and parts, and have come to find out he would like to completely ditch YOUR intake setup and go with a '96 setup to get the car to run better. He just got the intake off a car in a yard, but in Aaron world, that doesn't anything. He just wants to sell it, not replace the awesome work of Aaron.

I just have one question for you. When my car is running high 13s next year, what are you going to say then? When Ben and I have helped Tony get his car running better and possibly in the 13's, what are you gonna say? What BS and useless, thrown together explanations will you have then? Better start working on them now, you're gonna need them.

OldschoolGP · Post by **OldschoolGP** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:05 pm

Oh, the President likes to pick and choose what parts of quotes he uses. Here's my entire quote:

I'll drink to that. On anautomatic, unless you have extensive head work done, you won't have any low end. My buddy's 96 GTP was textbook of this. No power down low till about 3800 them it threw you back from there. aDn because the automatic just like to shift too soon, it's not the best solution. I think a 91-95 would be much better for automatics. My old setup with all my head work had one, and MASSIVE low end. Just flooring it at 2000 RPM in first lit up both tires. But I would still rather have the 96 intake setup because of the top end and the ability to change TBs.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:23 pm

OldschoolGP wrote:What this means is there is absolutely no doubt that the '96 intake is a catastrophe for any automatic car. Words like "guessing" will let you know that. I blame him completely for saying that, becuase he has had tons of exposure to cars that have had the '96 intake on them. There's my car, and...... um......, well, there's my car. I guess that's it. But he was guessing, and you can take that to the bank.

There is doubt. The dyno sheets that you're dumbfuck mind is staring at prove that. Niether of those two engines are using 5-speed pistons, thereofre both engines could very easily be behind an auto. And in that case, the modded one would still match and go on to beat the stock 3.4 in low end torque and high end torque.

Now it's time to remind you where you rank. Since I've talked to Tony 4 times in the past week about his car and parts, and have come to find out he would like to completely ditch YOUR intake setup and go with a '96 setup to get the car to run better. He just got the intake off a car in a yard, but in aaron world, that doesn't anything. He just wants to sell it, not replace the awesome work of aaron.

WOW 4 times??? HOLY GOD. Oh yah, I forgot to mention I talk to him daily. He bought the stock parts in an attempt to get it running better with the shitty chip Ben so graciously updated for me. He does want the intake arm and large bore throttle body, but after it has been tuned.

Furthermore, give me one reason why the stocker would make the car run better? If less air equals better running, the Iron DUke runs better than a Z06 Corvette. There is no doubt the 96-97 intake arm and TB are restrictive and flow less. And since he is not maxxing the MAP sensor (Almost impossible on a N/A motor), they will have no effect on how it runs, except taking away power.

I just have one question for you. When my car is running high 13s next year, what are you going to say then? When Ben and I have helped Tony get his car running better and possibly in the 13's, what are you gonna say? What BS and useless, thrown together explanations will you have then? Better start working on them now, you're gonna need them.

Well then I guess I will have to swap my STOCK 3.4l and beat your ass.

I'll say good job Tony, and I'll put money up that it'd beat your grammamobile with me driving.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:24 pm

How about your own dyno sheet? Seems that from 2500rpm on, you are also making more torque than stock...Care to use generated fact other then some other guy's guesses?

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:31 pm

At least call my dynoes bullshit like you did the other day...

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:39 pm

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:41 pm

we need more moderation of aaron. Oldskool dont waste your breath. Nobody hear listens to aaron and honestly nobody cares, when it comes to 3.4 intakes i think Kohburn just one upped all the other options I have seen.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:49 pm

SappySE107 wrote:Your dyno sheets dont mean anything in the context you are trying to make them represent. I said I was guessing, which is based on stock 96 dyno sheets and 91-93 dyno sheets. 1000 RPM powerband different means less low end. You haven't proved anything, which is why I yawned. Boring really, but I guess its the best you can do.

My dyno sheets prove that even with a 3.4 built for a 4500-7500 power curve, including the intakes that are supposed to suck for an auto, manages to make more low end torque than a stock 3.4. Oldskool's dyno shows the same thing.

96 engines also had very different cyl heads with very different flow characteristics, different camshafts, a different ignition timing and fuel delivery system, and different exhaust manifolds.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:51 pm

p8ntman442 wrote:when it comes to 3.4 intakes i think Kohburn just one upped all the other options I have seen.

Very true, but soon enough I may be able to compete...

But he only one upped us on a boosted motor. That intake wouldn't be exactly optimal for N/A or sub-10000 rpm.

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:56 pm

jstillwell · Post by **jstillwell** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:57 pm

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:11 pm

SappySE107 wrote:But none of those are a stock motor with just the 96 intake setup put on. That is the exact context of the thread on 60V6 you copied quotes from. So again, not helpful in any way.

True, but none of the 96-swapped motors have mods done with low end in mind. Not Michael's (218whp), oldskools, or mine.

Mine had headers, equal length ones, tuned for 4500+ rpm. It also had a large diamater, high flowing exhaust system. THe only mods I have that would help below 4000rpm were the UD pulley and spark plug wires. The same goes for oldskool and Michael.