I hate to perpetuate this but having a 99 myself, I have some input.
When I did the relocation mod originally, I went from about 12 in town
to about 10 in town. This had nothing to do with the mod. It had to do
with than fact that somehow that mod magically added about 10 pounds to
my foot. More power = more foot. When I got my K&N cold air, I put the
IAT back and the perceived power was about the same between the two.
The difference was if I kept my foot out of it, I got most of my mileage
back. Driving like I stole it was the cause of my mileage drop not the
IAT. YMMV [literally]
Brian wrote:
> It appears that because I did challenge some other "opinions" that that is
> where the problem lies. Not that I was wrong with my opinion, but more so
> in who I disagreed with.
>
> As for the personal experience, I was speaking for my own personal
> experience with not only an IAT adjuster(on my '99), which as I stated, I'm
> pretty sure Bernd made, but also with re-locating the IAT to the intake tube
> on the K&N tube on my trucks(both my '99 and my '00). In all cases, my gas
> mileage suffered as compared to having it in the intake manifold. Your
> results may vary, but I'd be surprised if they did. So far other than a
> mathematical equation that obviously neither you nor Bernd can solve,
> nothing has been posted to make me believe any different. Math's not hard,
> doesn't matter what value changes in the equation, the answer is always
> affected. Seems you don't want to comprehend that it has any effect at all.
>
>
> As far as going back and re-reading old posts, I follow along via email, and
> delete messages after I read them. Don't remember my log on to the DML
> webmail and don't care to try and figure it out. And since you are the
> third leg in this debate, you can take the first step in ending it by not
> replying.
>
> brian cropp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2008 - 00:13:23 EDT