^ Very intelligently and articulately spoken. And with such irrefutable proof, too! Congratulations on the highly persuasive argument.
I'm so embarrassed. My pile of s*** tune could only do this with my mods. See attachments. I know this is pretty pitiful (throat clearing sound here), but I just don't have the desire to blow up my engine and spend a lot of extra money on more hardware and a custom e-tune to try to do so much better as with the AP fanboys. So, how much better did your tune turn out to be? Just curious.
I realize that my piddling 312/319 Dynojet, then probably over-corrected at 1.02 to 292/298 is WAY below what you must be putting down. Please excuse my poor tuning choice. And, hitting 60-100 mph in just under 6.0 seconds on the G-Tech is probably very below your expectations for a good tune. I sure wish I hadn't let up on the throttle too soon on that run, as I came up one mph short of hitting 130 mph in about 19.5 seconds or so. 120 was logged at 16.2 seconds. Stock 2008 MS3 hits 120 in 20.3 seconds, according to Road and Track, so my trivial 4.1 second improvement was hardly worth the effort, I guess.
I wonder how many car lengths 4.1 seconds might work out to be at 120 mph? Probably not very many at all. My math skills are probably a lot worse than yours. My spelling and grammar definitely is too. They sucks as much as my tuning and mod choices.
I know new Camaro SS and Mustang 5.0 cars are slow, and have to move out of your way, so my comparison to them is probably more proof of how much of a POS my tune is. Sorry I'm such a disappointment. Oh well. I'll try to do better.
Maybe you can post up some logs or data to show me how to do better with my simple bolt-on mods? Maybe if you find your way over to south Mississippi, we could do some runs and let you show me how it's supposed to be done? I see from one of your other posts that we have very similar mods and mileage on our MS3s.
