|
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Yeah, there are a lot of factors that are very hard to measure. Heat soak is an issue, what happens when the computer learns, etc.
These results at least show there are not going to be any massive gains by fitting the pipe (and probably not significant losses either). When I dynoed mine i didnt see a shift in power either way, but when your only testing 1 car the results are far from conclusive.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| concorde |
|
|||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: this intake got 8rwhp gain on the dyno. Can someone make these up, i would be happy to buy one that looked like this.
what else has he had done to the engine? for a rough estimate of 7% increase at the fly wheel he must have had something else done. does it have a pod filter in the box as well?
_________________ 2nd Place Summernats19 SQ Comp, Street Pro 0-600 Class
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| jonbays |
|
||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: We dyno tested my intake pipe on 3 cars with different lavels of modifications.
Firstly was my Fairlane Concorde with no engine modifications, 2.5" exhaust and SS CAI, i gained 1rwkw. Second was data_mine's falcon, he has a stage 2 ALTED cam, 2.5" exhaust. he gained 2rwkw. Last was fordfreak_ef's falcon, he has more extensive engine mod's but i'm not sure what exactly, he gained 2rwkw over his current 3" mandrel bend intake, would be a greater difference over stock intake. My intake pipe is alot shorter and more direct than his current system. these runs were straight swap over with no time given for the computer to adapt and learn. after 500km or so the figures should improve. the A/F ratio was also improved in data_mine's car that does not have a chip installed or been tuned. Hope this helps and gives you an idea over the different types of pipes being made. i will post pictures of my intake this afternoon hopefully. I would say these results are entirely predictable and indicate all this CAI and big pipe stuff is total BS. 1-2 rwkw I believe that all right funny how some people just HAVE to believe they will get 10rwkw from a simple mod like this. |
||
| Top | |
||
| jonbays |
|
||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: {USERNAME} wrote: 1 rwkw....not much...and not worth the $$$ and fustration to put one it ..... so i reckon It depends. If it genuinly improves RWK by 1-2 kw throughout the entire rev range AND increases torque as well (depending on price, of course) it's definantley worth it. If it did do this then you know its a dyno correction factor giving the increase don't you! What would be the difference at 2000rpm honestly between an 80mm or 100m hole NOTHING |
||
| Top | |
||
| elrob |
|
||
|
i notice in the pic you still use the standard piece at the throttle body...isnt this supposed to be where some of the restriction is ?
|
||
| Top | |
||
| data_mine |
|
|||
|
My dyno chart:
{DESCRIPTION} As can be seen power is increased everywhere. Blue line is stock EL intake, Green line is with new pipe fitted. Red line was after I fitted a Crane HI6 Ignition (+LX92 coil) system. As this pipe does NOT go over the extractors, heat soak would be less of an issue than many of the other aftermarket pipes as most of them loop further around placing them above the extractors. Testing was done bonnet up, and I can even provide a video of the test (if there's enough interest I'll recode it smaller for web download and post it). As power is a function of torque and RPM, with an inflexion at 5252 RPM, more power BELOW 5252RPM has to mean more torque down low.
_________________ 1998 DL LTD in Sparkling Burgundy, daily, 302W, stereo, slow |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| twr7cx |
|
|||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: i notice in the pic you still use the standard piece at the throttle body...isnt this supposed to be where some of the restriction is ?
Nah that peice your talking aout is actually really good. I still use it in my set up to. It has an entry diamter or 3"'s and hten gets bigger, then it's exit diameter is the same as the throttle body. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| concorde |
|
|||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: {USERNAME} wrote: {USERNAME} wrote: 1 rwkw....not much...and not worth the $$$ and fustration to put one it ..... so i reckon It depends. If it genuinly improves RWK by 1-2 kw throughout the entire rev range AND increases torque as well (depending on price, of course) it's definantley worth it. If it did do this then you know its a dyno correction factor giving the increase don't you! What would be the difference at 2000rpm honestly between an 80mm or 100m hole NOTHING you do realise that actual flow is relative to the throttle position. 100mm will flow alot more than 80mm at 100% throttle.
_________________ 2nd Place Summernats19 SQ Comp, Street Pro 0-600 Class
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| MikGan |
|
|||
|
So what was the price on the pipe anyway?
_________________ I couldnt fix your brakes so I made your horn louder
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: {USERNAME} wrote: {USERNAME} wrote: {USERNAME} wrote: 1 rwkw....not much...and not worth the $$$ and fustration to put one it ..... so i reckon It depends. If it genuinly improves RWK by 1-2 kw throughout the entire rev range AND increases torque as well (depending on price, of course) it's definantley worth it. If it did do this then you know its a dyno correction factor giving the increase don't you! What would be the difference at 2000rpm honestly between an 80mm or 100m hole NOTHING you do realise that actual flow is relative to the throttle position. 100mm will flow alot more than 80mm at 100% throttle. The point that I think jonbays is correctly making is that it doesnt matter how much a pipe flows, if your only sucking a small amount of air through (like at low rpm even at full throttle), it doesnt matter if its 60mm, 80mm, or 200mm it isnt going to be a restriction. After all, it’s the engine not the intake pipes flow figures that determine how much air is getting sucked in at this time. If you read the dyno at face value it suggests that the standard pipe is more restrictive down low that up high (approx 4kw or 3.5% at 120kph and 3kw or 2% at 175kph). But yeah, its a dyno so cant get to caught up in the details of it. Ive had bigger differences between back to back runs with no changes. All this shows is there isnt going to be a massive difference either way.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| concorde |
|
|||
|
it does make a difference having a larger pipe at lower revs. having a smooth intake with alot less air terbulence creates greater flow through greater air speed.
if you took 2 engines, exactly the same, one with a 100mm intake and the other with 6 throttle bodies you would get a huge difference. i'm using this as an example of flow diffrences between intakes, they are different methods of intakes, but that is what the debate is, its about flow and intake differences.
_________________ 2nd Place Summernats19 SQ Comp, Street Pro 0-600 Class
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: it does make a difference having a larger pipe at lower revs. having a smooth intake with alot less air terbulence creates greater flow through greater air speed.
Actually the smaller pipe has higher airspeeds, which in theory at least should produce more power up to the point that it becomes a restriction.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| MYLO_XR6 |
|
||
|
you still havent given a price bro!
_________________
|
||
| Top | |
||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Dont know about this one, but Ive seen these sorts of pipes go from anywhere between $90 and $400. I paid $160 from mine which goes from the airbox right around to the throttle body.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
BTW: There is a thread on another forum where a company tested larger diameter pipes and found they lost 1-2kw.
Quote: On every single test done the tapered original AU pipe was at least 1-2rwkw BETTER. It seems one myth is already busted. The original AU tapered piping is proven to be more effective than a replacement larger diameter pipe.
I didnt agree with a lot of things said in that thread (they claimed their intake that used the origional AU pipe work was worth 8rwkw at all rpm), but it goes to show how results can differ in the same test.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 51 guests |
