The Oldsmobile Connection

[andrewk]

Forgot this one-


91parkave wrote: no potatoes, thats when i had it over the heat shield and under it.


andrewk wrote: So you took it off? Why? Need the foil for the grill?:lol:

Any answer for this, or should I file it with the rest of the questions you haven't answered?

[91parkave]

Quote: 88 Coupe
Yes, he actually offers relevant information in an easy to read format, as opposed to your lies, childish arguments, obfuscation, and diversions.

Grow up, and get back on topic.

Norm

Clown when did i lie? children dont argue about cold-air intakes, what about this makes it childish...honestly, diversions and such...right ...
AS for grow up and get on topic i should quote your many off topic comments throughout this whole forum. your not one to give advice on that subject...

Quote: Oldsguy
Interesting read, after nine pages and half an hour of my time. I still know what I know about underhood temperatures and effects on cold-air-intake, but I know something else too. Somebody doesn't know much at all and isn't willing to admit it. Open up you eyes 91parkave, your'e wrong.


jeesh......

What exactly do you feel im wrong about? just curious


As for andrew,
in the end of your first statment it goes back to Opinion vs. opinion. The facts that lead us to diffrent ideas is just that. Therefore Neither one of are right. We can argue all day on why stocks setups work and we can argue all day about why fuel injected "performance" cars dont use drier duct, and such but use smooth walled intakes. Neither on us can find hard evidence otherwise so whats the point? well i thought again about this when you port and polish heads what the whole objective? to let more air in with minimal turbulence. by removing the "factory" casting flashes and such...well same applies to the air intake smooth straight ir or "laminar" flow is better than turbulent flow in any area of the engine. Does it work...yup but were going for performance not the other way around


as for the coolant temps and all just a misunderstanding. and andrew im 6'3 to but ive never have put my hand on the crossover. :blush:

[88 Coupe]

andrewk wrote: Good to see someone else is following along too ........
There are more than a few of us. But you already knew that.

91buickman wrote: ........ when did i lie? ........
When have you not lied?

From: http://www.oldsconnection.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21202&highlight=drag+car+automobile#21202

On Fri Aug 10, 2007 @ 9:17 pm, 91buickman wrote: ........ Norm is running a big block olds drag car ........
Norm

[88 Coupe]

91buickman wrote: ........ i should quote your many off topic comments throughout this whole forum ........
Don't waste our time making childish threats, post the quotes.

Norm

[OldsGuy]

91parkave wrote: What exactly do you feel im wrong about? just curious

Not going there......winning an argument on the internet is like winning a debate against a rock, who cares and what difference does it make?

[91parkave]

Quote: olds guy
Not going there......winning an argument on the internet is like winning a debate against a rock, who cares and what difference does it make?


So why post anything all i aasked for is why you said what you said.

Quote: clown
When have you not lied?


Clown really the post shows nothing of me lying. what have i lied about? nothing, i stuck to my original beliefs. and quoting that you have a drag car was for what? im sure you not running a 468 BB olds with slicks everyday through daily driver traffic???how childish are you for quoting me by the wrong name?? and please clown get real with yourself before you come at me calling me childish for defending myself. especially when nobody has had hardcore proof that im not wrong. I didnt come here calling people a liar or chilidish about their beliefs, i just showed mine and what ive done. and why i think it works better then dryer duct. I havent proved you guys wrong per say but neither have you guys proved anything i said to be wrong with hardcore proof, just your opinions.

[88 Coupe]

91buickman wrote: olds guy wrote:
Not going there ........
So why post anything all ........
So you would know he is onto your silly game.

91buickman wrote: ........ im sure you not running a 468 BB olds with slicks everyday through daily driver traffic ........
Prove you are not lying.

91buickman wrote: ........ calling me childish for defending myself ........
You have not been defending, you have been stonewalling.

You are not mature enough know the difference.

88 Coupe wrote: 91buickman wrote: ........ actually theres been many studies on how turbulent flexible tubing is ........
Again, cite a couple.
Where is your proof.

91buickman wrote: ........ I didnt come here calling people a liar ........ buickman wrote: has a creases which creates very very turbulent air ........

88 Coupe wrote: Not much more than your K&N type filter, although compared to galvanized, it does muffle sound and slow velocity a bit.
actualy theres been many studies on how turbulent flexible tubing is ........
You called me a liar.

91buickman wrote: ........ but neither have you guys proved anything i said to be wrong ........
You have been shown to be wrong, since your first post on this thread.

91buickman wrote: ........ just your opinions.
Opinions based on documented fact.

Norm

[andrewk]

Quote: Does it work...yup but were going for performance not the other way around


And now we are back to my entire point, which is the performance level where this matters, or will make a difference is higher than 98% of people with CAI's.

Since you are using a menagerie of stock components, your CAI only has to be good enough to let those components work properly, as they did in the stock setup. If you were using more advanced components, then it would probably make more of a difference.

The performance advantage of the CAI in this application is to provide a better intake location-

Quote: im 6'3 to but ive never have put my hand on the crossover.

I am what you would call "heavy on the top end"- I support a bit of a beer gut when I am bent over for long periods of time...

[Brando]

I'm 6'5", can't say I've ever put my hand on an exhaust crossover, not when the engine is running anyways. I have put my hands on several passive and active crossovers though, without any harm done... :D

TOC Admin
Brando

[andrewk]

Brando wrote: I'm 6'5", can't say I've ever put my hand on an exhaust crossover, not when the engine is running anyways. I have put my hands on several passive and active crossovers though, without any harm done... :D

TOC Admin
Brando

LOL- I am still not sure how I did it- Just sorta put my arm down as I was leaning over the engine... I'm not trying to say that SOB wasn't hot, but it wasn't so hot I couldn't touch it-

[91parkave]

Clown: Quote:
When have you not lied?
From: http://www.oldsconnection.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21202&highlight=drag+car+automobile#21202

a lie....where again?

Quote: [quote="On Fri Aug 10, 2007 @ 9:17 pm, 91buickman"] ........ Norm is running a big block olds drag car ........

and you never answered the question, talk about real stonewalling....like i said so you drive the olds w/slicks dual ram air tubes and a BB 468..EVERYDAY???

And for the "childish" rants you keep going on about have no bearing or relevent to this thread clown. like i said earlier get my name right then if you have something to say to me about my charachter which you know nothing about then PM me, otherwise keep it on "topic" as you say...or is that more hypocracy i see from you??

Andrew K. Quote:
And now we are back to my entire point, which is the performance level where this matters, or will make a difference is higher than 98% of people with CAI's.

Since you are using a menagerie of stock components, your CAI only has to be good enough to let those components work properly, as they did in the stock setup. If you were using more advanced components, then it would probably make more of a difference.

The performance advantage of the CAI in this application is to provide a better intake location-

Its factual that people have gains from using Cold air intakes and such...better mileage, performance...etc. without any other mods. I Know the cold air kit was the first mod i did on my car/cars and always had better results (mileage..etc) for you to say 98% cant be true. and is based on your opinion. All you have to do is look around cold air intakes makea diffrence on stock cars and modified cars, So i dont see how you drew that conclusion.


Oldsguy: Quote:
Not going there......winning an argument on the internet is like winning a debate against a rock, who cares and what difference does it make?

If you didnt want to "go there" then why did you make a comment in the first place? it was one simple question i asked, i dont see where you got i wanted to argue with you about anything from that post.

[andrewk]

Quote: Its factual that people have gains from using Cold air intakes and such...better mileage, performance...etc. without any other mods. I Know the cold air kit was the first mod i did on my car/cars and always had better results (mileage..etc) for you to say 98% cant be true. and is based on your opinion. All you have to do is look around cold air intakes makea diffrence on stock cars and modified cars, So i dont see how you drew that conclusion.

I think you are forgetting what we are talking about. This was never about what benefit you will receive from a CAI, as that was never in question. It was the material being used. That percentage, which is a vague estimate, is the people not running advanced enough equipment for the usage of flex-duct instead of a smooth-walled pipe to make a difference for them, in terms of "turbulent flow" and "heat soak" and other terms that are constantly regurgitated without regard on boards everywhere.

[88 Coupe]

91buickman wrote: you drive the olds w/slicks dual ram air tubes and a BB 468..EVERYDAY?
Never said I did. Perfect example of "stonewalling".

91buickman wrote: ........ Norm is running a big block olds drag car ........
Not true. That makes it a lie.

Norm

[91parkave]

Andrew K. Quote:

I think you are forgetting what we are talking about. This was never about what benefit you will receive from a CAI, as that was never in question. It was the material being used. That percentage, which is a vague estimate, is the people not running advanced enough equipment for the usage of flex-duct instead of a smooth-walled pipe to make a difference for them, in terms of "turbulent flow" and "heat soak" and other terms that are constantly regurgitated without regard on boards everywhere.

In your above post you mentioned what percentage of people who have nothing or something to gain from CAI's. Thats why i replied to that. And advanced enough equipment? come on andrew fuel injected/Maf equppied cars are not simple by any means. So as for the advanced statment well yea all of us except clown have advanced equipment from the factory. So let me re-phrase my idea then. Since we all run "advanced" equpiment, it is beneficial to make everything run efficently as possible. By way of certain modifactions. We all know that drier duct has a crap load of "ridges" when air enters that turbulence will follow when it hits the MAF "screen" it has to be straightened out to enter the TB. how efficent is that??? now lets think my current setup has one long radius bend of PVC, The air flows smoothly enough to get Laminar before it reaches the MAF, since the air is already "straight" it passes through the screen with little to no resistance.


Clown Quote:
Never said I did. Perfect example of "stonewalling".


Clown you said already that youre setup with the drier duct is better than my PVC........Fact.........so then what is your basis for comparison?
So then if you dont run the car you have pictured what do you drive and what type of drier duct setup do you have? pics pics pics

[88 Coupe]

91buickman wrote: ........ We all know that drier duct has a crap load of "ridges" ........
No one ever said any different.

91buickman wrote: ........ when air enters that turbulence will follow ........
Not true.

91buickman wrote: 88 Coupe wrote: 91buickman wrote: ........ has a creases which creates very very turbulent air ........
........ Not much more than your K&N type filter, although compared to galvanized, it does muffle sound and slow velocity a bit ........
actualy theres been many studies on how turbulent flexible tubing is ........
You called me a liar.

88 Coupe wrote: 91parkave wrote: ........ actually theres been many studies on how turbulent flexible tubing is ........
Cite a couple.
Still nothing?

Norm