Mine drives to Lake Tahoe, up 50 though 110F Folsom. Temps never went past 185F
Been to Santa Cruse a few times. Didn't go over 175F which is it's normal freeway temp.
I guess on these cars with a bigger rad and or better fans then my GP so it can keep up by just running the fans a lot more to keep it cool. Like I said I fixed my problem by adding two more high CFM fans that ran 100% of the time when key was on.
If you really dont beleive this will affect the performance of your radiator just unplug your fans and go take her for a spin over a mountain road. On a car without a bunch of stuff blocking the radiator it will stay cool without having to run the fans constantly or at all . Mostly fans are only running when you are at an idle or stop and go at slower speeds. Your fans are probably running 2X as much as before.
__________________
05 GTO A4 IBM / Vararam intake, Ported TB, LS2 Portworks intake, 1.9 rockers, Spintech, res delete, Tune, 5K HIDs
*12.57@113.6 MPH Street tires, stock manis & cam *
12.83@110.4 pre rockers.
05 300C Hemi stock 14.3@98 MPH 2.2 60 ft =?(
01 GTP 3.8 liter 62-1 turbo,IC, rockers 7.9@90 MPH/12.4@113 MPH with crappy 2.0 60 ft @ 15 PSI
Keep in mind the 2004 fan setup is different. They don't turn on at all until you hit a temperature defined in the tune.
For me they start at 185F and turn off at 180F. Anything below that the fans won't turn at all.
Good point. Still you are running the fans a lot more to keep it cool then it did prior to the blockage in airflow. It didnt go over 185 to Tahoe because your fans were keeping you alive. If they werent running you would have been on the side of the road.
Its not like its a huge deal on these cars anyway. Fans might wear out a little faster and will be drawing more power but as long as it stays cool I guess that doesnt really matter. Was just an interesting point I hadnt thought of until now.
Well my GP for a FACT ran hot with a Front mount blocking the airflow to my rad. It will affect the performance of a radiator to some extent. Mine was 100% until I would go over hwy 17 which is a long and hilly mountain road, then my car would jump 40-50 degrees. Without the front mount blocking air it didn't climb at all. Had to add some extra fans to help the problem. Put a piece of cardboard over the entire front of your radiator and see what happens if you really dont believe/understand this Myth = true
Well, considering this is a GTO board and your talking about your GP, who cares. But just to humor you, having a front mount and completely blocking off the rad. with cardboard are two very different scenarios.
LOL, now I understand the logic you apply to things. That explains why you're having such a hard time understanding the whole intake thingamajig
And people wonder why there is no real tech on these boards.
Ever warm ur cats up before starting it? If u start the car with them cold it is loud. If I keep the key in the ON position for about 15 minutes then start it, they are already warm and quiet. Good tip for anyone needing a quieter start, or that are emission control freaks.
Personally, I think people are looking waaaay too deep into this whole intake thing. The money could be much better spent elsewhere on the car. I don't see why there is this newfound fascination with maximizing the intake of the car. Now some guy is looking at building a custom filter for the Vararam intake. How much is one of those custom one-off filters going to cost? People on here are talking about spending $500+ for an Australian intake to be shipped over here.
I'd rather put that money towards heads or a camshaft and get much better and more noticeable gains.
These are street cars, not race cars.
Does the Vararam work? Yes.
Does the Svede intake work? Yes.
Do the Australian intakes work? Yes.
Pick one and move on with your modding.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konnie the Goat...
Heat leads to brittleness, brittleness leads to breakage, breakage leads to suffering, suffering leads to hate, and hate is path to the dark side of zipties all over the place.
Well, considering this is a GTO board and your talking about your GP, who cares. But just to humor you, having a front mount and completely blocking off the rad. with cardboard are two very different scenarios.
LOL, now I understand the logic you apply to things. That explains why you're having such a hard time understanding the whole intake thingamajig
And people wonder why there is no real tech on these boards.
Wow, now I am in your cross hairs too huh ? So I guess since this is a GTO forum common physics don't apply then ANY significant obstruction blocking airflow to the radiator WILL for a FACT hinder its ability to run efficiently. Doesnt take rocket science to understand the thermal dynamics in this situation.
As to your last comment; yeah with people like you posting up totally inconclusive data and presenting it is fact why do we need anyone to try and knock sense into peoples heads? I mean hey you really "proved" which one was better so why bother listening to anyone else ?
Not knocking one or the other but I have the Svede intake and this past summer with the temps around here at 100* + my car did not run one degree hotter then it did before so this argument is bs.
Couldn't agree more. Mine has been on for a while with no temp issue and I even have a 3,200 stall in here without aux trans cooler.
__________________
2004 Black, A4
Ed's own 220/228 & Ed's Unported Dart Pro LS1 205 Heads, JBA Shorties, Yank 3200, 92MM FAST, Svede Intake, Kaltech Tune, Rocksand 3.91's, Truetrac & linelock. M/T ET Streets (on stock 17's). Stock 78MM MAF
ET 11.999 @ 114.00, 1.695 60ft . DA +264 @ 3,870lbs.
2008 White G8 GT A6
ET & MPH unknown - "until the wife goes shopping"
Sons car Now 09 G8 GT Stryker Blue 13.69 @ 102.11 100% Stock
A heat exchanger like the maggie, or a turbo intercooler, or trans cooler mounted in front of the radiator still allow air to pass through. The air passes through the radiator and does it's job of extracting heat from a 190* radiator core.
An intake in front of the radiator steals air that would normally pass through, the engine consumes quite a bit of air at times. Now you have a portion of the radiator that is blocked from air flow and an engine sucking as much air as it can, usually when you need the most out of your cooling system. Over time the excess heat that can't be released by that portion of the radiator might shorten the life of the radiator, cause calcification, who knows.
There might be a problem, might not. Just something to consider.
A heat exchanger like the maggie, or a turbo intercooler, or trans cooler mounted in front of the radiator still allow air to pass through. The air passes through the radiator and does it's job of extracting heat from a 190* radiator core.
An intake in front of the radiator steals air that would normally pass through, the engine consumes quite a bit of air at times. Now you have a portion of the radiator that is blocked from air flow and an engine sucking as much air as it can, usually when you need the most out of your cooling system. Over time the excess heat that can't be released by that portion of the radiator might shorten the life of the radiator, cause calcification, who knows.
There might be a problem, might not. Just something to consider.
I guess it comes down to how much you block off - the Svede only drops down about 3-4 inches most over the radiator itself.
Plus when you add back on the cover - it helps.
I drive mine to Etown 45 minutes and can hot lap it without any issues. on 90 degree day - engine temp was 185 (per HPTuners) at most and trans 190-195. Once on the road back - both dropped with the trans hitting 155-165 (I have a trans temp qauge in the car).
Car does have a 165 T-Stat, but then that only comes into play in opening the circulation quicker.
So unless it it really nasty stop & go for a long period of time with the AC on, during a really hot day - I don't think the Svede is an issue.
Wow, now I am in your cross hairs too huh ? So I guess since this is a GTO forum common physics don't apply then ANY significant obstruction blocking airflow to the radiator WILL for a FACT hinder its ability to run efficiently. Doesnt take rocket science to understand the thermal dynamics in this situation.
As to your last comment; yeah with people like you posting up totally inconclusive data and presenting it is fact why do we need anyone to try and knock sense into peoples heads? I mean hey you really "proved" which one was better so why bother listening to anyone else ?
Crosshairs?? Similar to Pharmadwhatever, you state the obvious and act like you actually know something. It's ridiculously funny actually.
Let's see, the car dynoed less back to back with custom tunes. MAP went down with the Vram, the car richened up with the Vram and it ran less MPH at the track with the Vram. There, it's spelled out for you and my guees is you still can't figure out what's being said can you. But hey, Patrick Ledford said it outflows all the Aussie intakes. Ya'll been
It's funny, guys always bitch on the boards about actual results. The dyno is b.s. The flowbench is b.s. The dragstrip is b.s. The logs are b.s. The timeslips are b.s. blah blah blah.
You naysayers can't explain two simple results from slapping on the Vram. MAP went down and the car richened up. Engines 101, yet you talk about conclusive data from my test as if you would be able to learn anything from analyzing any data. LMAO
Crosshairs?? Similar to Pharmadwhatever, you state the obvious and act like you actually know something. It's ridiculously funny actually.
Let's see, the car dynoed less back to back with custom tunes. MAP went down with the Vram, the car richened up with the Vram and it ran less MPH at the track with the Vram. There, it's spelled out for you and my guees is you still can't figure out what's being said can you. But hey, Patrick Ledford said it outflows all the Aussie intakes. Ya'll been
It's funny, guys always bitch on the boards about actual results. The dyno is b.s. The flowbench is b.s. The dragstrip is b.s. The logs are b.s. The timeslips are b.s. blah blah blah.
You naysayers can't explain two simple results from slapping on the Vram. MAP went down and the car richened up. Engines 101, yet you talk about conclusive data from my test as if you would be able to learn anything from analyzing any data. LMAO
If the forum is filled with such idiots then why are you here? You complain about a lack of "tech" but the last few pages you have been bickering. You sir are just as guilty of what you claim of others.
Taken from another thread "A 6.0L (366 Cubic Inch Displacement) @ 6,500 RPM requires 688.37 CFM (100% V.E.)."
Vararam "claims" 1350-1800 cfm through the filter. Using these numbers how could it possible be that much of a restriction? I'm not here to argue your results, I'm more interested in what is holding my current intake back, as per your results.
Though I really didn't want to get involved that much with this thread - I have to ask the vararam MAF guys.
How are you guys dealing with the wide fluctuations with the MAF signal?
We had the vararam on Jr's car - while the car was a bad MF'er - it seems at looking at the data it could have been better. The MAF Hz after a professional tune (they did mine also) was all over the place. I saw variances of 500+ HZ for the same RPM's over the run.
While not scientific - the Svede on my 04 with a stock 04 MAF (yeah I know) - was no where near that variance. Now my car was tuned for a very, very good 4 custom inch tube with a 9 inch cone on a Cold Air Inductions CAI. So I could have done better if I took the car back to my tuner. But it should have been close. I was worst case 250Hz variance - but not normal.
Did a 2nd order poly trend line just to be sure.
Both car - same day - 1 1/2 hours apart @ Etown on HPTuners.
Problem of course is 2 different cars. Originally me & Svede's plan was to move his unit over to Jr's car to do back to backs at Etown. Problem was a trans cooler in his car stopped us. Before we could move the cooler - Jr hit the wrong end of a Jeep at 60-65mph. Can you spell total?
The Dynamic Air g/cyl look a bit worse too on the vararam. Not the absolute values, but the trend lines. Svede kicked in about 250+ RPMs quicker for max g/cyl and went into a down trend about +250 further out later (around 6,100). Just for those wonderoing - the absolute values were significantly better in the Svede - but again different engine setup.
But before anyone has a fit - like I said 2 different engines. So this isn't even close to scientific.
The excel spreadsheet unfortunately is in work. Just looking at hardcopy graphs right now. But I will post to someone Monday if they want it. Just email me.
As you can see - I am looking at more then 1 variable. It is the whole combo for the engine to run right.
Though I really didn't want to get involved that much with this thread - I have to ask the vararam MAF guys.
How are you guys dealing with the wide fluctuations with the MAF signal?
We had the vararam on Jr's car - while the car was a bad MF'er - it seems at looking at the data it could have been better. The MAF Hz after a professional tune (they did mine also) was all over the place. I saw variances of 500+ HZ for the same RPM's over the run.
While not scientific - the Svede on my 04 with a stock 04 MAF (yeah I know) - was no where near that variance. Now my car was tuned for a very, very good 4 custom inch tube with a 9 inch cone on a Cold Air Inductions CAI. So I could have done better if I took the car back to my tuner. But it should have been close. I was worst case 250Hz variance - but not normal.
Did a 2nd order poly trend line just to be sure.
Both car - same day - 1 1/2 hours apart @ Etown on HPTuners.
Problem of course is 2 different cars. Originally me & Svede's plan was to move his unit over to Jr's car to do back to backs at Etown. Problem was a trans cooler in his car stopped us. Before we could move the cooler - Jr hit the wrong end of a Jeep at 60-65mph. Can you spell total?
The Dynamic Air g/cyl look a bit worse too on the vararam. Not the absolute values, but the trend lines. Svede kicked in about 250+ RPMs quicker for max g/cyl and went into a down trend about +250 further out later (around 6,100). Just for those wonderoing - the absolute values were significantly better in the Svede - but again different engine setup.
But before anyone has a fit - like I said 2 different engines. So this isn't even close to scientific.
The excel spreadsheet unfortunately is in work. Just looking at hardcopy graphs right now. But I will post to someone Monday if they want it. Just email me.
My tuner (in sig) managed to get my tune within a 1% variance. You can try to PM him and ask him more specifics. I am no expert in tuning, but he is well known in my area.
If the forum is filled with such idiots then why are you here? You complain about a lack of "tech" but the last few pages you have been bickering. You sir are just as guilty of what you claim of others.
Taken from another thread "A 6.0L (366 Cubic Inch Displacement) @ 6,500 RPM requires 688.37 CFM (100% V.E.)."
Vararam "claims" 1350-1800 cfm through the filter. Using these numbers how could it possible be that much of a restriction? I'm not here to argue your results, I'm more interested in what is holding my current intake back, as per your results.
Because some people actually get it and appreciate the information. The bickering starts when simple engine dynamics are ignored and requests for "proof" are demanded. The proof serves no purpose because the info means nothing to the uninformed.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match over what Patrick claims. Patrick is around to sell product, period. Is it a better intake than the factory style, yes. And for whatever % of the combinations it does what it's supposed to do. Does it flow more air than other intakes, yes and no. On my 427" motor, the Vram does not flow more air than my Aussie intake. Pure and simple. More air, more fuel = more power.
Crosshairs?? Similar to Pharmadwhatever, you state the obvious and act like you actually know something. It's ridiculously funny actually.
Let's see, the car dynoed less back to back with custom tunes. MAP went down with the Vram, the car richened up with the Vram and it ran less MPH at the track with the Vram. There, it's spelled out for you and my guees is you still can't figure out what's being said can you. But hey, Patrick Ledford said it outflows all the Aussie intakes. Ya'll been
It's funny, guys always bitch on the boards about actual results. The dyno is b.s. The flowbench is b.s. The dragstrip is b.s. The logs are b.s. The timeslips are b.s. blah blah blah.
You naysayers can't explain two simple results from slapping on the Vram. MAP went down and the car richened up. Engines 101, yet you talk about conclusive data from my test as if you would be able to learn anything from analyzing any data. LMAO
Wow, you know I initially posted asking a few simple questions and was curious. Obviously you are like talking to a brick wall. You are sure full of yourself aren't you? Have a rather large ego even compared to the normal huge egos on here. I know Pharm dug in pretty hard on you from the start but give some of us other guys a break would ya....
You ran two filters with two tunes but wont let anyone view your logs to see what was going on? How about the slips, same exact 60 foots etc ? Same exact DA and temps on these runs?? I cant imagine it was possibly COOLER on the latter runs when the Aussie filter performed a whole 1 MPH better . Someone else mentioned the IAT sensor and where it was located on the two setups but no answer. Was the VR sealed well to the hood?
Too many variables to be considered remotely conclusive data. You keep believing you are gods gift to LSx cars. it really is amusing to say the least. If you could just stick to the facts and feed us more info it would be helpful. If you want to just keep talking down to all of us dummies feel free to continue to look like a real joker.
I dont get how people are saying that the dyno is bs. If he took one intake off and put the other one on. The same day, same dyno, tuner, and car, how can you say that the dyno is irrelivant. he lost hp on the same dyno when the car was tuned to the intake so it means for his application that the Aussy intake is a better match.
You can spit out numbers on whats its suppost to do but he is giving you what he got dyno wise and drag wise. The drag numbers are also on the same day with the diffrent intakes with the tunes to match (at least thats what it looks like).
I dont have either of these intakes so I am not being biased
I dont get why you guys are jumping down this man throat for posting his comments and findings.
I have found many diffrences on my bikes from one filter to another. I race motorcycles and help tune them with my sponsor and we have found up to 3 to 8hp on just a filter for motorcycles. On my race CBR600RR when i swapped from the BMC to the DNA street i gained 5hp and then when I went from the street to race I gained another 3hp. But now I will probably get jumped on for saying that bikes are like cars.
My tuner (in sig) managed to get my tune within a 1% variance. You can try to PM him and ask him more specifics. I am no expert in tuning, but he is well known in my area.
Interesting - on a HZ basis that would be 50hz to 100hz from 5K up on either side.
Where we saw the big variance was above 5,000 RPM's - where the car on the track is really pushing. And where it makes sense that air turbulence becomes an issue with a filter added on a MAF.
Well he is talking about less then 1% increase in his trap speeds and I bet that or less on the dyno. Two different tunes . Drag strip could vary depending on the 60 foot. also he ran the "better" filter later in the day which was most likely cooler and lower DA for his huge 1% increase.
Wouldn't take much at all to make a 1% increase with a different tune.
What would be really interesting is to see what a stock box would do on his setup and then compare
BTW Pharm jumped down his throat, I was trying to be nice until he started firing at me.
Personally, I think people are looking waaaay too deep into this whole intake thing. The money could be much better spent elsewhere on the car. I don't see why there is this newfound fascination with maximizing the intake of the car. Now some guy is looking at building a custom filter for the Vararam intake. How much is one of those custom one-off filters going to cost? People on here are talking about spending $500+ for an Australian intake to be shipped over here.
I'd rather put that money towards heads or a camshaft and get much better and more noticeable gains.
These are street cars, not race cars.
Does the Vararam work? Yes.
Does the Svede intake work? Yes.
Do the Australian intakes work? Yes.
11secGTO - Don't let a debate like this turn you off from this board. It is a great tool for these cars. It is also a good place to hang out on a slow work day.
Also I am no physics expert.. Could the extra volume your intake has before the filter help with the flow? Kind of like how the extra volume (not just better flow) of a fast or ported intake helps create more power.
Personally, I think people are looking waaaay too deep into this whole intake thing. The money could be much better spent elsewhere on the car. I don't see why there is this newfound fascination with maximizing the intake of the car. Now some guy is looking at building a custom filter for the Vararam intake. How much is one of those custom one-off filters going to cost? People on here are talking about spending $500+ for an Australian intake to be shipped over here.
I'd rather put that money towards heads or a camshaft and get much better and more noticeable gains.
These are street cars, not race cars.
Does the Vararam work? Yes.
Does the Svede intake work? Yes.
Do the Australian intakes work? Yes.
Pick one and move on with your modding.
I agree with you - depending on how you view item 1 on your list.
Unfortunately - some of us are looking for every hundreth that we can get. But then again - we are the guys that have 5-10K on our odometers.
Been racing on & off for 30 years+. You could have had this same discussion via telephone or telegraph back then.
My view is buy what you like. There is always a better product being developed. I have 5 Intake systems (oop's wrong - gave one to a friend Sunday) in my garage. Part of the story owning one of the first GTO's in the States.
Well he is talking about less then 1% increase in his trap speeds and I bet that or less on the dyno. Two different tunes . Drag strip could vary depending on the 60 foot. also he ran the "better" filter later in the day which was most likely cooler and lower DA for his huge 1% increase.
Wouldn't take much at all to make a 1% increase with a different tune.
What would be really interesting is to see what a stock box would do on his setup and then compare
BTW Pharm jumped down his throat, I was trying to be nice until he started firing at me.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
Ok, let the disection begin. BTW, I already posted the track info previously, but none of the bigshots figured out the DA changes.
Let's see, I ran the "better filter and tune" a whopping 15 minutes later. Let's see the naysayers back up thier comments and figure the DA change.
As far as the 1% comment, I'm curious as to what skin you have in the game? What testing have any of you naysayers done to prove Vram over an Aussie intake? My guess is none.
Personally, I enjoy trying to MPH a car. I'm not so concerned with the ET. I like building horsepower, (in my garage of course) and MPH confirms it. Of course, the car dropped a few tenths to go along with the MPH gain.
Ok, let the disection begin. BTW, I already posted the track info previously, but none of the bigshots figured out the DA changes.
Let's see, I ran the "better filter and tune" a whopping 15 minutes later. Let's see the naysayers back up thier comments and figure the DA change.
As far as the 1% comment, I'm curious as to what skin you have in the game? What testing have any of you naysayers done to prove Vram over an Aussie intake? My guess is none.
Personally, I enjoy trying to MPH a car. I'm not so concerned with the ET. I like building horsepower, (in my garage of course) and MPH confirms it. Of course, the car dropped a few tenths to go along with the MPH gain.
Only thing I could say on the slips is #1 is a lower 60 foot then #2 which usually gives a lower trap speed. #3 however is about the same as #1's 60 but higher trap. Those two runs there is a 40 min break in between so cooler temps a changes in DA could affect it some. Slips help a lot to paint the picture IMO. After looking at those I would say that #2 and #3 did favor the OTR.
More importantly did you load a separate tune for each filter at the track? With such a small margin for error between two tunes it is hard to say for certain that filter B is better then filter A. Thats where seeing logs would really help. Were they both running exactly the same AFR etc. Tiniest difference and it could favor one run verse the other by 1-2% easy.
I agree with you about looking for trap rather then ET to see how much power you are really putting down. Nice setup you have and some nice times you are running too.
Only thing I could say on the slips is #1 is a lower 60 foot then #2 which usually gives a lower trap speed. #3 however is about the same as #1's 60 but higher trap. Those two runs there is a 40 min break in between so cooler temps a changes in DA could affect it some. Slips help a lot to paint the picture IMO. After looking at those I would say that #2 and #3 did favor the OTR.
More importantly did you load a separate tune for each filter at the track? With such a small margin for error between two tunes it is hard to say for certain that filter B is better then filter A. Thats where seeing logs would really help. Were they both running exactly the same AFR etc. Tiniest difference and it could favor one run verse the other by 1-2% easy.
I agree with you about looking for trap rather then ET to see how much power you are really putting down. Nice setup you have and some nice times you are running too.
Peace
The DA change between run #1 and #3 was 35 feet. We are talking about a solid 1.7 to 2 mph gain in a 4,100+ pound car. That is not a fluke, considering the gain was there for the whole day. I've been drag racing a long time an 35ft in DA means zilch nada nothing that's measurable in these cars. In the span of time I was running, the DA never varied more than 100ft. That kind of takes that variable out. The items that were changed were the intake and tune. Both were tuned for peak power on the same dyno, within 5 minutes if that of each other, literally. Making a tune at WOT is not rocket science. It's the easiest part of the tune.
BTW, all runs and tune done with Ca. crap 91 fuel. One corrected run was a 11.09@123.3, Damn close to a 10 second pass in a full weight plus all the crap I had in the trunk, two car seats, stock suspension, stock geared car at sea level. I almost forgot, to the guy with the lightened trailler queen, I drive mine everyday and drive the 400 mile round trip to the track.
The DA change between run #1 and #3 was 35 feet. We are talking about a solid 1.7 to 2 mph gain in a 4,100+ pound car. That is not a fluke, considering the gain was there for the whole day. I've been drag racing a long time an 35ft in DA means zilch nada nothing that's measurable in these cars. In the span of time I was running, the DA never varied more than 100ft. That kind of takes that variable out. The items that were changed were the intake and tune. Both were tuned for peak power on the same dyno, within 5 minutes if that of each other, literally. Making a tune at WOT is not rocket science. It's the easiest part of the tune.
BTW, all runs and tune done with Ca. crap 91 fuel. One corrected run was a 11.09@123.3, Damn close to a 10 second pass in a full weight plus all the crap I had in the trunk, two car seats, stock suspension, stock geared car at sea level.
Have a good evening.
Would still need to know exactly what the AFR was through the run since you had two different tunes. There is no way to know for sure both are spot on and really maxing out the car for the 1/4. About 1.5 %. I think even you could admit that it would take very little in a tune to make that much up. Cooler temps during your last 7 runs possibly? Not saying the OTR isnt better but there is still room for error here.
Was the Vararam sealed properly to the hood with no leaks? Any logs showing IATs during runs?
What is the "better flowing filter" anyway?
Would be helpful for all of us to know where and what the weaknesses are on these intakes.
4100 lbs ??!! 3725 stock weight plus 400 lbs driver or driver plus roll cage ??
Would still need to know exactly what the AFR was through the run since you had two different tunes. There is no way to know for sure both are spot on and really maxing out the car for the 1/4. About 1.5 %. I think even you could admit that it would take very little in a tune to make that much up. Cooler temps during your last 7 runs possibly? Not saying the OTR isnt better but there is still room for error here.
Was the Vararam sealed properly to the hood with no leaks? Any logs showing IATs during runs?
What is the "better flowing filter" anyway?
Would be helpful for all of us to know where and what the weaknesses are on these intakes.
4100 lbs ??!! 3725 stock weight plus 400 lbs driver or driver plus roll cage ??
3725 + me 235, plus fuel and all the crap I had with me.
The exact AFR is irrelevant. You tune to what makes the most power. Each car/combo is different, there is no magic AF number to shoot for. I don't know how much time you have spent on a dyno trying different tunes, but the Vram tune would have had to be off a huge amount to be down 2mph. That's at least 20hp.
Again, putting the Vram on immediately showed a restriction and rich condition. Since nobody has addressed the two questions I asked, I guess I will. The car got fat and lost power. We took fuel out of the car to lean it back out to bring some power back. It never came back though. Why????? Because it's not moving the same volume of air as the Aussie intake, on a static dyno no less. When you throw in the factor of the car moving fresh cold air through the grills directly into the Aussie intake the results are even greater.
2005 GTO Owner
Myth = true 
So I guess since this is a GTO forum common physics don't apply then 
