6
Is a Stage 1 tune for a 2.5L worth it?
- Thread starter OrangeSpy
- Start date
twodotfive
Ready to race!
In short: no. Not for 400-500 bucks.
There is a difference but not $500 worth. Picked up more torque and driveability was better.
Rice_Pilaf
New member
APR has an maf-less tune for an SRI?
To add to the thread, I would recommend saving for an SRI and software package from I.E., C2, or UM.
Squashdaddy
Go Kart Champion
^^this
Vancity2Constantinople1
Banned
no. this guy has no idea what he is talking about, and this thread is dumb.
Johnny Two Tone
Ready to race!
david9962000
Drag Race Newbie
Johnny Two Tone
Ready to race!
I call bulls**t on that hogwash article.
Firstly, and most importantly, EVERYONE says that an increase in only a few HP cannot really be felt in real world use. E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E. says that. There are hundreds of pages worth of threads with posters debating the benefits of adding a single aftermarket part to their cars to get five HP here 6 HP there, and how it's largely a waste of money. On top of that, the idea that someone could feel a few HP increase and say that their car gained more "pep" is placebo effect at full force. You'll never find a test like the one you posted that uses a double-blind standard. Therefore you will never find an accurate test that shows that higher octane in a car not designed for it gains any real world benefit over cost.
Secondly, we've had multiple discussions on here about how higher octane can be beneficial in high heat situation (long, high speed road trips). But, those scenarios do not match average use by average drivers and so cannot be claimed to be universally applicable (like ones with meaningless peak gain numbers).
Thirdly, lines like:
-"The logic experts use to justify their claims..." / "To test the "premium gasoline is a waste of money" theory..."
-"If you want standard performance use standard gasoline. But if you want premium performance, pay for premium gas."
-"The P-Flo intake took the Jetta to the next performance level by eliminating the airflow limitations in the stock airbox. Throttle response and power were significantly increased, plus the induction growl under the hood added to the sportier feel.
make that article sound like it was bought and payed for. "Experts use to justify their claims"? It's the people insisting that 91 is worth spending money on that are trying to justify claims. That very article is trying to justify a claim. And, using the word "theory" is just f**ked up. The theory is that 91 is beneficial, not that 91 isn't. There's no such thing as a theory that something doesn't do something. You can't prove a negative - you can't have a theory of not-something.
I could post countless sites by actual professionals (including technical experts from Toyota, Nissan, etc) saying that it's not worth spending the money on premium. But, all I really need to do to prove it is ask this question:
If a manufacturer could have better marketing using a higher HP rating on their cars and be able to claim an even higher MPG rating (probably the most important number of all for marketing) why would any car, that is being claimed to gain a financially worth while performance benefit by people who do not work for a automotive manufacturer, be built to use 87 octane and also have an included recommendation of using 87 octane?
dragon69185
Go Kart Champion
From what I know, and from the good information is on this thread, you will get a slightly better throttle response, but won't gain really much in the way of HP. So, for most people, it isn't worth the cost for very little gain.
And I'm guessing the OP's original cost of $400-500 is because he is in Canada, but that is just my guess.
And I'm guessing the OP's original cost of $400-500 is because he is in Canada, but that is just my guess.
