WHAT do you think?

[brigond]

I love gimmicks. I always hope that an easy cheap bolt on will actually do what it says.

[DynoDave]

Interesting. There's good reason to be skeptical. Too many devices over the years that did little or nothing.

But it is easy to see the improved atomization of the fuel shot, and it makes sense that that would make the engine more responsive. Easy to install and reverse, the only thing at risk is your $40.

I do find it interesting that reading the review from Street Muscle Magazine, they do say there is a seat of the pant improvement, but nothing scientific. And the stronger wording seems to be around a 350 with a double pumper, a carb which many will tell you has no purpose on a street engine. But with 4 accelerator pump nozzle shots into a 350 cube engine moving a full size truck, you would expect that improved atomization would help the most in this application.

I'm also not sure I understand their charts and claims. 20% faster to 50mph? If that's true, it's big. Look at these number for the 2019 Challenger. This is 0 - 60, but just to illustrate a point...

R/T 2dr Rear-wheel Drive Coupe,375 hp = 5.1 sec to 60mph, 13.7 @ 103 mph

GT 2dr All-wheel Drive Coupe,305 hp = 6.3 sec to 60mph, 14.8 @ 95 mph

So here the Challenger has to add 70 horsepower to make a 25% improvement (5.1 x 1.25 = 6.375). SO a 205 improvement would be...50 horse? That's a LOT of overall horsepower gained from an improved pump shot.

The dyno numbers...first chart, a 20 ft. lb. increase and 21 horsepower...at 4000k rpm. That's a big jump (though nothing like the numbers for the Challenger would seem to indicate that you need for a 20% 0-50 improvement), and way down the line time-wise from the just-off-throttle event that the accelerator pump works in. That pump shot is done and gone by 2000 rpm, where these dyno charts start. I don't know...not an engine builder.

The second chart, 5 to 6 ft. lb, and 5 horse...that's a little more believable (though to be fair, obviously a less powerful engine).

So I can believe some improved off idle response, and maybe a few extra ponies. But I'd have to "see it to believe it" to buy into more than that. But yeah, improved off idle response for $40...sure, why not.

[odzking]

If it worked, you wouldn't have to sit through all the bullshit in that 10 minute ad.

[brigond]

Apr 11, 2018 12:17:04 GMT -5 odzking said:

If it worked, you wouldn't have to sit through all the bullshit in that 10 minute ad.

Good point, there's a whole lot of attempts at convincing going on there.
There's also very few testimonials with your average Joe . Most are from the company themselves.
Another thought is that it's so simple, and why didn't the car companies from the carbureted car era figure this out?

The most convincing part is the audio of with the plate and without.
Video trickery?

[ltmike]

A small increase in hp could make a bigger increase in 0-60 time depending largely on rear end ratio.
2:73 vs 4:11, obviously if you look at it in percentages in 0-60 time if your working with a 4:11 gear it’ll boast a larger percentage in improvement. So percentages are about as good as a guesstamated hp increase. (Which is so abused by most every car owner).
On the actual part, it just scatters the initial shot from the excellerator pump. After that it appears to be in the way blocking the smooth flow of air thru the carb which I could see hampering the main jets from working at top efficiency.
That money is better spent on or in part on a K&N filter.