Did anyone read the disclaimer????
Read below.....................
Compatability information
After comprehensive testing we have found that some engines do not respond
to the added air-flow from the e-RAM.
The following engine sizes will not see substantial gains from the e-RAM:
All engines above 4.7 Liters (4.7L to 5.0L require two e-RAMs)
Also:
To insure proper performance results, please consult e-RACING if your car is
a 1996 or newer with an OBD2 type engine management system.
-----Original Message-----
From: boydmcguire@mindspring.com <boydmcguire@mindspring.com>
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: DML: eRAM? Whats up with it?
>yeah, and gives you 10% of the results.
>Blake
>'93 LE Silver/White
>4x2 Auto
>5.2L 318cu V-8
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dester243@aol.com <Dester243@aol.com>
>To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
>Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 4:55 AM
>Subject: Re: DML: eRAM? Whats up with it?
>
>
>>hm.. i might consider this. why would an electric fan produce less HP
>than
>>a belt driven one? actually. for about 400 bucks, i'm willing to test
this
>>product out. i'll report back and i've sent them an e-mail saying if i
get
>>good results then the DML might consider a group buy. Hey, some of us
>can't
>>afford a 4000 dollar supercharger...
>>-Dester
>>
>>this thing is only 10% the cost of a conventional supercharger
>>
>>> I looked at it and it is a high perf fan inline with the intake tubes.
>>> not a bad idea, but a bit expensive for 4 to 6% increase in hp. I'd
>>> save up a bit and get the full on supercharger.
>>> Besides, if it was that incredible, we would have heard about it. The
>>> picts are from 1998. Sounds fishy.
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> eric neidhamer wrote:
>>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:14:22 EDT