Originally posted by ZeroBanger 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. im very confident of my findings. |
Originally posted by jimlab And I'm confident that you're one of the least intelligent people on this forum... |
Originally posted by adam c There is no need for personal attacks here. I'm certain that you can make your point without resorting to this. |
Wouldn't this be comparable to a change in altitude ? Say the air box mod gets rid of 1.2 psi vacuum and adds 2 psi of ram air at speed. This is like going from ~5000 feet to sea level. Which is worth about 10% in horsepower, or about 4 mph trap speed.
|
Originally posted by Fred Sickert This is like going from ~5000 feet to sea level. Which is worth about 10% in horsepower, or about 4 mph trap speed. Turbocharged engines, on the other hand, can compensate to a large degree for changes in altitude. The FD's wastegate actuator opens at 7 psi, for example, and the spring inside doesn't care if you're in Denver, at sea level, or on the moon; it still takes 7 psi to force it to open the wastegate. Since air pressure is lower at higher altitudes, the turbo(s) just have to work harder to produce a given boost level. |
I got a quick question while we're at it... since you guys mentioned cold air intakes... exactly what is it about the cold temp factor that gives more HP? Cuz to my understanding, pretty much anything that will cool the incoming air increases HP eg. true cold air intake, intercooler, and I believe NOS even works by causing a sudden drastic reduction in temps. So how's this cold factor work?
My total guess is that you get better combustion and thus extract more energy from the process at lower temps?? |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jimlab
Now why didn't you think of that in the first place?!? I see as usual you ignore the question I asked by asking another. I'll say it again, have one of your friends meet me at searpoint or sac raceway and we will resolve this. Until then, STFU And I'm confident that you're one of the least intelligent people on this forum... |
Hey dude,
Don't know if this will be any help at all, but my bonnet has one in it built in. I have HKS filters that sit under the scoop but rather than being forced, the inside of the bonnet is shaped in place to blow right down, so any air entering gets blown right onto them (only use at speed right?) :) Although I don't know the make of the fibre glass bonnet as it came from Japland, it's got it lots of markings on there.. could look it up and take more photos for ya if ya interested in getting one :) lemme know if ya do http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robert.pogmore/bonnet.jpg |
bah i've managed to post under someone elses username again (forum bug?)
it was me who posted that last one so if you need any info don't bother poor old mr butler :) |
Here is another calculator. I changed some of the numbers (it's for an audi turbo), and plugged in a higher altitude to simulate a pressure change in the intake. http://not2fast.wryday.com/turbo/glo...=0.50&AFR=13.0
Anyone know what the VE, and SFC should be for an FD ? |
Originally posted by ZeroBanger I see as usual you ignore the question I asked by asking another. I'll say it again, have one of your friends meet me at searpoint or sac raceway and we will resolve this. Until then, STFU 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. I dont care what you think. I'll admit I am an overachiever and probably there are people with degrees and qualifications better than me that probably should be sitting in my chair at work, but damn it I worked my ass off to put myself where I am You constantly troll this forum looking for a fight. You think you know it all. I have never, ever gone into any of your threads where you are discussing technical issues (do you even have any?) and bashed you or made personal attacks. I never liked you but I did have some respect for you. I have lost that. |
I tested my car I know what performance gains it made. I dont care what you think because you are wrong. Period.
|
Why don't you guys make a bet on this, have someone neutral referee ?
|
Originally posted by ZeroBanger I tested my car I know what performance gains it made. I dont care what you think because you are wrong. Period. There is no way you can maintain any degree of similarity over the course of 60 runs, without being in a controlled indoor facility where you can accurately measure windspeed, ambient temp, exact weight of the car, and heat of the engine before and after every run. Temperature changes as the night goes on, wind could be blowing at the back of your car, track becoming more sticky, there are many factors that could be skewing your data, not to mention the human factor, you could have just been driving better, shifting at the precise shift points, etc. If it really did happen, no scientist would look at your results and say 'yes that is the exact reason why your trap speed increased, because you did that' Too many variables. You know what they teach you in grade 7 science... a proper experiment has one isolated changing variable, the rest stay the same, in order to get valid results. Your experiment has MANY variables changing from run to run. |
Originally posted by ZeroBanger I tested my car I know what performance gains it made. I dont care what you think because you are wrong. Period. |
Originally posted by Bio-Weapon That is a very ignorant statement. I think this is one of the downfalls of this forum. Two people go butting heads and when one says something to prove the other wrong, he will not accept it, because it would go against his findings, which because he did it, believes that they are utterly flawless. There is no way you can maintain any degree of similarity over the course of 60 runs, without being in a controlled indoor facility where you can accurately measure windspeed, ambient temp, exact weight of the car, and heat of the engine before and after every run. Temperature changes as the night goes on, wind could be blowing at the back of your car, track becoming more sticky, there are many factors that could be skewing your data, not to mention the human factor, you could have just been driving better, shifting at the precise shift points, etc. If it really did happen, no scientist would look at your results and say 'yes that is the exact reason why your trap speed increased, because you did that' Too many variables. You know what they teach you in grade 7 science... a proper experiment has one isolated changing variable, the rest stay the same, in order to get valid results. Your experiment has MANY variables changing from run to run. Can you specifically pinpoint and isolate the hose as being the sole reason for the increased trap speeds...no. But can you dismiss that it had an effect? With consistantly better trap speeds, no you can't dismiss it either. So I think the only thing you can conclude safetly is that it DID have an effect. How much of an effect is something that must be determined in an absolutley controlled environment... Oh...and anyone wanna give my question a shot regarding the colder air temps?? (look a few posts above) :) |
wrong
Originally posted by jimlab 1.2 psi of vacuum? Vacuum is measured in inches of mercury (in. Hg). 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: if you assume excess air builds up at car front, then the highest local pressure would be the stagnation pressure, = 1/2 x rho x v^2 above ambient: .14 psi at 60 mph .38 psi at 100 mph .84 psi at 150 mph |
I did enough testing to know that the ram air added consistent mph to my trap speed. I averaged over all those runs because surely there can be temperature differences, track conditions, etc. All I can say the only major difference was the ram air hoses I put in my air box and every time my trap was significantly higher. Thats why I AVERAGED it. It gives me a ball park figure. I dont expect that my car will always get 5 or 6 mph more with the ram air, but from my testing I can tell it has a great effect. Thats the reason I did it.
Again, take it for what its worth. |
Originally posted by wbutler Hey dude, Don't know if this will be any help at all, but my bonnet has one in it built in. I have HKS filters that sit under the scoop but rather than being forced, the inside of the bonnet is shaped in place to blow right down, so any air entering gets blown right onto them (only use at speed right?) :) Although I don't know the make of the fibre glass bonnet as it came from Japland, it's got it lots of markings on there.. could look it up and take more photos for ya if ya interested in getting one :) lemme know if ya do http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robert.pogmore/bonnet.jpg |
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. |
Originally posted by PVerdieck And what happened in the intervening months to your RT, shifting and launch abilities :) |
Wait wait wait... As I had understood it, I thought you did your 60 runs in one trip to the track... That only further invalidates the data, since no two days are ever the same. And you saying that you averaged it only makes it less believeable. Averages are not so good when trying to prove something. Sure it may happen, but if it didnt happen every time, and you just average it out, that's totally useless. There is no point in even arguing for your data, any rational thinking person would see that your results aren't valid.
|
This thread isn't about me. Dont believe me, I dont care. Help the guy out that started this topic and leave me out of it.
|
Originally posted by Bio-Weapon Wait wait wait... As I had understood it, I thought you did your 60 runs in one trip to the track... That only further invalidates the data, since no two days are ever the same. And you saying that you averaged it only makes it less believeable. Averages are not so good when trying to prove something. Sure it may happen, but if it didnt happen every time, and you just average it out, that's totally useless. There is no point in even arguing for your data, any rational thinking person would see that your results aren't valid. Lets see ........ he did something to his airbox to provide more air. Then he tested it a bunch of times under similar conditions. He looked at his data, and concluded that forcing more air into the airbox made the car run faster. What's so hard to believe? I like the scoop on the hood in the pic. Looks very nice. |
Thats a STOUT Hood - I have a carbon one so I guess the do them in carbon and fibre glass! *me goes to see how much it's worth* :D |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands