|
|
#29 |
![]() Drives: 2016 Camaro 2SS Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Georgia
Posts: 181
|
Honestly, after doing the research, GM states that AFM really only offers up to 12% efficiency increase..which means in reality..it's probably closer to 7%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Drives: 2SS 1LE Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: US
Posts: 3,794
|
as far as efficiency goes i thought 7% is monumental.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Drives: SS 6 speed of course Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Hilo, HI
Posts: 4,346
|
sock is best for guys afraid of mods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Drives: 2016 camaro ss Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Spring, TX
Posts: 1,127
|
Not afraid of mods, but I think it would be a waste to get rid of AFM valves just because the aftermarket is currently ignoring proper support or hasn't developed it yet. As I have no current plans for a radical camshaft in the near future, I see no reason to disable AFM
__________________
2016 camaro 2SS hyper blue/Kalahari, A8, MRC, NPP, sunroof, SW headers through axleback, Circle D 3600rpm TC, Pray ported IM/TB, E85
Sold: 2002 Z28, NBM, M6, 460rwhp, 2009 HHR SS RIP : 2002 WS6 Black, A4, 355rwhp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|