Originally posted by ZeroBanger it looks like my old thread from about a year and a half ago was deleted, but I did extensive testing at the drag strip and the short story is I found that by ramming air under the car into both the M2/rx7fashion cold air box and the stock air box in both instances I gained a consistent 5-6 mph on the trap. This was done using averages from about 60 runs at the strip. Let's say you've got a 3,000 lb. car with a manual transmission (~15% drivetrain losses). With a trap speed of 102 mph, that's equivalent to about 255 horsepower at the flywheel. Sound familiar? To increase trap speed to 107-108 mph, though, you'd need 294-302 horsepower at the flywheel, or another 39-47 horsepower. In other words, you couldn't pick up 5-6 mph in trap speed on even a stock FD just by "ramming" air into the air box. Let's take the same car and calculate the horsepower required for a 117 mph trap speed. Oddly enough, it works out to just about 325 at the rear wheels, or ~384 at the flywheel, which corresponds very closely to the dyno results and trap speed of my friend's R2. What would it take to increase trap speed by 5-6 mph? 435-445 horsepower at the flywheel. Once again, you're not going to manage that with just a "ram air" intake. |
these aren't the greatest scans. but i found it interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan3.jpg http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan4.jpg |
Originally posted by wrparrish these aren't the greatest scans. but i found it interesting. http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan3.jpg http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan4.jpg |
|
TURBO INLET PRESSURE EFFECT
increasing inlet pressure, for a fixed boost, will reduce the pressure ratio, make the turbo work less at lower rpm with less pumping losses, reduce manifold temps, and reduce exh dilution of the intake charge. this is not a big effect. this link is to an excel spreddsheet that i've checked and corrected. this shows the effect of pressure drop in the intake on the charge temp and the mass flow rate. it does not account for slight changes in the compressor efficiency. it does not consider exhaust effects. just vary the the intake pressure drop in the far right rpm column, and see effects on intake temp and the TMf, or theoretical mass flow. drop of zero means atmospheric, and -.5 means a ram effect pressure of .5 psi 'boost' at the turbo inlet. fyi, in the prior posted motorcycle link, 30 mbar is .44 psi. http://johnbaas.dyndns.org/audi/VE.xls |
Originally posted by jimlab And what else did you change to get the rest of the horsepower responsible for that increase in trap speed? Let's say you've got a 3,000 lb. car with a manual transmission (~15% drivetrain losses). With a trap speed of 102 mph, that's equivalent to about 255 horsepower at the flywheel. Sound familiar? To increase trap speed to 107-108 mph, though, you'd need 294-302 horsepower at the flywheel, or another 39-47 horsepower. In other words, you couldn't pick up 5-6 mph in trap speed on even a stock FD just by "ramming" air into the air box. Let's take the same car and calculate the horsepower required for a 117 mph trap speed. Oddly enough, it works out to just about 325 at the rear wheels, or ~384 at the flywheel, which corresponds very closely to the dyno results and trap speed of my friend's R2. What would it take to increase trap speed by 5-6 mph? 435-445 horsepower at the flywheel. Once again, you're not going to manage that with just a "ram air" intake. I didn't make any changes when I did the tests. I dont have my data with me at the moment but the first comparisions were with stock air box, highflow cat, catback, power FC, small SMIC only. First runs were done with stock air box with K & N filter. The next set of runs were identical with a ram air going into the bottom of that box. The gain was 3-4 MPH on the trap consistent. The 2nd set of tests over the next few months were done with an rx-7 fasion air box and midpipe, everything else the same as above. The initial test over the first month or so had no ram air. My trap actually dropped over what my trap was with the highflow cat and ram air in the stock air box. The next set of tests were done with the same setup but a ram air into the bottom of the rx7fasion cold air box, this was done over a month or 2. The result was 4-5 MPH average over the same setup without the ram air. |
Originally posted by DamonB That's why stock cars for instance plumb their intake to the base of the windsheild... Fact is you can get high pressure air anywhere you wish on a moving car. The vehicle is moving through the air at some velocity and so the air in relation to the vehicle is moving at the same velocity IF you bring your ram air from outside the boundary layer of the vehicle. The nose generally has the cleanest air; that's a given. |
Originally posted by ZeroBanger Jim, I didn't make any changes when I did the tests. I dont have my data with me at the moment but the first comparisions were with stock air box, highflow cat, catback, power FC, small SMIC only. First runs were done with stock air box with K & N filter. The next set of runs were identical with a ram air going into the bottom of that box. The gain was 3-4 MPH on the trap consistent. The 2nd set of tests over the next few months were done with an rx-7 fasion air box and midpipe, everything else the same as above. The initial test over the first month or so had no ram air. My trap actually dropped over what my trap was with the highflow cat and ram air in the stock air box. The next set of tests were done with the same setup but a ram air into the bottom of the rx7fasion cold air box, this was done over a month or 2. The result was 4-5 MPH average over the same setup without the ram air. Facts are facts... you can't pick up 5-6 mph (or even 3-4) in trap speed in back to back testing with only the addition of a hose to the air box from the front of the car. |
Originally posted by jimlab In other words, track and weather conditions certainly varied and there was no data collected about engine coolant or oil temperature during runs, so there was no baseline and basically it's all worthless data. Facts are facts... you can't pick up 5-6 mph (or even 3-4) in trap speed in back to back testing with only the addition of a hose to the air box from the front of the car. The RX7 Fashion airbox is less restritive than stock. This test proves that the engine can and will accept more air than the aftermarket box will allow, without additional pressure feeding the box. ZB's test cannot not be discounted as irrelevant. |
I REALLY hope we don't get another WWIII goin between Zerobanger & Jimlab lol ;)
|
Originally posted by adam c I thinks ZB's tests are very helpfull. It shows that bringing additional air into the airbox increases your trap time in the 1/4 mile. An obvious HP gain. How much, I cannot say. The RX7 Fashion airbox is less restritive than stock. This test proves that the engine can and will accept more air than the aftermarket box will allow, without additional pressure feeding the box. ZB's test cannot not be discounted as irrelevant. Thanks for the support, JimLab just likes to argue. |
Originally posted by ZeroBanger You can be discounted as irrelevant. Like I said, I took averages over many months of testing. You can relate it to what ever you want but when I have the ram air I consistently had the higher trap speed than when I didn't. Your opinion is just an opinion. My tests were done well and any reasonable person would understand it. Unfortunately, without evidence of apples to apples tests, your claimed results will be subject to criticism and/or doubt. |
Originally posted by FD Seeker I think adam's last line "cannot not be" was a mistake. I think he was supporting you. Unfortunately, without evidence of apples to apples tests, your claimed results will be subject to criticism and/or doubt. |
Originally posted by jimlab In other words, track and weather conditions certainly varied and there was no data collected about engine coolant or oil temperature during runs, so there was no baseline and basically it's all worthless data. Facts are facts... you can't pick up 5-6 mph (or even 3-4) in trap speed in back to back testing with only the addition of a hose to the air box from the front of the car. |
That was a typo. The extra "not" shouldn't be there.
I meant that the tests are valid. |
Originally posted by ZeroBanger I didn't make any changes when I did the tests. I dont have my data with me at the moment but the first comparisions were with stock air box, highflow cat, catback, power FC, small SMIC only. First runs were done with stock air box with K & N filter. The next set of runs were identical with a ram air going into the bottom of that box. The gain was 3-4 MPH on the trap consistent. |
Originally posted by ZeroBanger Like I said, I took averages over many months of testing. You can relate it to what ever you want but when I have the ram air I consistently had the higher trap speed than when I didn't. Your opinion is just an opinion. My tests were done well and any reasonable person would understand it. Your "tests" mean jack shit. Go back to posting in the lounge. |
Originally posted by jimlab Any intelligent person would understand that the difference in track conditions, temperature, humidity, tire condition, the heat of your engine, or the amount of gas in your tank could skew the results... I guess you're not one of them. Your "tests" mean jack shit. Go back to posting in the lounge. |
Another autospeed article on where to mount your intake.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1023/article.html Unfortunately, this one requires a subscription. |
Originally posted by KevinK2 The stock box inlet elbo is very restrictive. I measured about 1.2 psi of vacuum at 6K+ in the box on a stock FD, with no filter in place. This may have been the biggest factor in your stock box testing. I'm still waiting for someone to mount a boost sensor on their bumper or hood and show me they can achieve 1 psi to add on to the 10 psi their turbos are producing... :rolleyes: |
Originally posted by ZeroBanger My tests are valid, Im certain of it. What part of your "tests" do you believe resembles what I've just described? That you went to the same track? :rolleyes: |
Statical data is more accurate when a large sample is taken. If ZB was trying to prove his point with only a few samples, you would be correct in questioning him. However, he has a large number of tests which strongly support his conclusion.
|
If Jim Lab is so damn sure of himself he can hand pick someone in northern cali to meet me at the track. I will take 2 towels and stuff the hoses under my car for 2 runs and remove them for the other two.
I will run my water injection so heatsoak will not be an issue. im very confident of my findings. Put up or shut up Jimlab. |
Originally posted by adam c Statical data is more accurate when a large sample is taken. If ZB was trying to prove his point with only a few samples, you would be correct in questioning him. However, he has a large number of tests which strongly support his conclusion. |
Originally posted by jimlab If his data were collected in controlled conditions, it would support his conclusion. Since it was taken with no baseline, no way of determining if additional weight from fuel or or track conditions affected the outcome, it's useless. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands