I have used all Amsoil fluids for over 4 years now and have been very satisfied. I did use their air filters on my Carb'd vehicles, but never really noticed a gain, just liked the convenience of quick clean, easy clean. K&N has impressed me none whatsoever...ever. If 5 hp matters that much for a stictly "performance mod," then you apparently are worried about more than just true performance. If you can change your E/T by .01 with a different air filter...yipee. You can do that by a better launch. That's my take on air filters.

On the oil...that is no surprise to me. My ditrubutor for Amsoil is one of the 2 men that tested Amsoil in Navy applications...he knows more about oil than I know about myself...He told me a long time ago that Amsoil was the best, and I have tested it in more ways than one, and it proves true. The HP isn't the main factor though...it's why you get that extra HP with Amsoil that matters (i.e. less friction, etc...)

Very nice work CrazyLettuce?...

 

Thanks for the dyno #'s. I figured from what I read your assumptions would be good. Nice to see a dyno prove it.

Did you check if the computer was retarding your timing at all?

You should try some different gas some time, 89, 92,92 &94. Or you could just check for knock and changing the timing

Keep-up the good work. Dana

 

Down here in South Texas, (Edinburg), most LS1 guys still use a AutoZone paper filter. So it comes to no surprise to me. They really seen to like them here.

 

Not at all.. Sorry for the late response.. Just drove the car to NC and back.. 2000+ miles in 5 days.. Will have gas mileage computations to add for the lid to see if it stayed the same, hurt, or even helped my average MPG..

The M6 feels the same.. What I found from having the tech run my car on the Dyno was that I "am nice to my tranny".. hehe He said it still feels like new.. it feels that way cause I am not hard on it.. I do run it hard but not 100% of the time.. The fluids netted no power but in theory they should show less wear on my internals.. right? Well we shall see.. I will prolong my changes to at least 5K miles if not more..

 

The timing tricker is a resistor placed in the IAT cable to make the PCM think the incoming air charge is 57*F, which would mean higher air density as well. I believe the PCM has tables which will add spark (or at least remove less retard) at colder temperatures. However, my experience has shown that it is a temporary gain because the O2's will rat you out

The PCM will initially add more fuel to maintain the stoichometric value at part-throttle, but the O2's will report they are too rich since we really aren't receiving the reported air density. The PCM will lean out the STFT's, then the LTFT's to start pulling fuel until the O2's are in their acceptable range.

I do have some old dyno data from a friend's car. We made the pulls on 10/17/98, and air temps were 96-97*F. With the same smoothing factor, he generally picked up 10 peak torque and 3 peak HP on the first pull with the TT (pull #6) against pull #5, but there were gains at all RPM's. The TT was the only change from pull #5.

On the second pull with the TT (pull #7, no changes), he was down a peak 10TQ and 6 HP against the last run w/o the TT (pull #5), and was down across the board on pull #7.

I also tested a TPIS filter at the same event, borrowed from another car. My stock baseline was 289HP/300TQ, with the non-speed rated tire rev limiter of ~5300RPM. Lid off and no filter made 295/302. The TPIS dropped it to 283/296. Put it back to stock and it pulled 296/303. Then put on the TT, and graphs are identical until 4500. At which point the TT pull is lower until the rev limiter - a peak difference of 8TQ and 7HP.