25 0 mode (GeV) 1 st KK exc. (GeV) 2 nd KK exc. (GeV) Left charg. 80 1232 3096 Right charg. - 1000 3000 Neutral 0 , 91 1056 , 1232 3019 , 3096 TABLE I: Low lying masses of the spectrum (zero modes and first two KK excitations) for the model in the flat limit, with the following parameter choice: πR = 1 . 57 · 10 − 3 GeV − $^{1}$, ¯ g$_{5}$ = 1 , naive unitarity cut-off equal to 10 5 GeV . of the first eigenstate of the right charged sector. The contour is obtained by a χ 2 analysis, based on the following experimental values for the ϵ parameters: with correlation matrix taken from [77], and adding to the present model contribution the one from radiative corrections in the SM. To fix the SM contribution, we set m$_{t}$ = 173 . 1 [78], α − $^{1}$( m 2 $_{Z}$) = 128 . 957 ± 0 . 020 [79] and consider two different test values of the Higgs mass, m$_{H}$ = 1 TeV and m$_{H}$ = 300 GeV. Notice that, since we have considered SM fermion couplings, the new physics contribution to ϵ$_{b}$ is zero. Since the ϵ$_{b}$ experimental value is very slightly correlated to ϵ$_{1}$$_{,}$$_{2}$$_{,}$$_{3}$ , we did not include this observable in the analysis. We get: (these SM contributions are obtained as a linear interpolation from the values listed in [80]). Fig. 4 also reports contours that correspond to several values of the naive unitarity cut- off, (81). As it can be seen, the model is potentially compatible with EW precision data, even for a relatively small mass scale for the new heavy vector states. Similarly to the SM ϵ$_{1}$ = 3 . $_{6 10}$− $^{3}$, ϵ$_{2}$ = − 6 . $_{6 10}$− $^{3}$, ϵ$_{3}$ = 6 . $_{7 10}$− $^{3}$, for m$_{H}$ = 1 TeV; (91) ϵ$_{1}$ = 4 . $_{8 10}$− $^{3}$, ϵ$_{2}$ = − 7 . $_{1 10}$− $^{3}$, ϵ$_{3}$ = 6 . $_{1 10}$− $^{3}$, for m$_{H}$ = 300 GeV; (92)    1 0 . 60 0 . 86 0 . 60 1 0 . 40 0 . 86 0 . 40 1    , (90) ϵ$_{1}$ = (+5 . 4 ± 1 . 0)10 − 3 ϵ$_{2}$ = ( − 8 . 9 ± 1 . 2)10 − 3 ϵ$_{3}$ = (+5 . 34 ± 0 . 94)10 − 3 (89)