Now why didn't you think of that in the first place?!?

And I'm confident that you're one of the least intelligent people on this forum...

 

There is no need for personal attacks here. I'm certain that you can make your point without resorting to this.

 

I was just stating my opinion...

 

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.

 

With a naturally aspirated engine, and actually, it's about 3% per every 1,000 feet of elevation.

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

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 *** off to put myself where I am and I will take second place to nobody. 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.

 

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

 

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 ?

 

Feisty, aren't we. Maybe you should go back and re-read my post which illustrated the power increase required to make a 5-6 mph difference in trap speed with both a stock and modified FD. That is what you claimed: 5-6 mph.

If you think you can gain 40+ horsepower and pick up 5-6 mph in trap speed just by unplugging a duct to your intake box, you are sadly mistaken.

Well, let's hope you're somewhat better at your day job than you are at intelligently discussing the performance of cars. You at least graduated from high school, right?

If you did a little research, you might understand why what you're claiming is impossible. Your lack of knowledge and understanding on many levels is why we continue to have problems. Have you ever noticed that I don't argue with people who know what they're talking about?

Was that supposed to mean something to me?

 

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 ?

 

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.

 

Jimlab is absolutely right. There are too many variables that you didn't account for during your testing, and your results are inconsistant with logic. I just got done judging a local science fair last week (7th and 8th graders), and if your project were there, it probably would not have done too well.

 

You make a good point, but if ZeroBanger is right, and he CONSISTANTLY had trap speeds 4-5 mph faster, on practically every run, then your LOGIC would *have* to tell you..wait..hold up. The wind can't have been ALWAYS in his favor, the track couldn't have ALWAYS been sticker, the shift points couldn't have ALAWYS been better, and the temperature ALWAYS optimum.

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)

 

vacuum can be measured in hogs per sq mile. just like a manifold gage shows, vacuum is a how much lower than ambient pressure a point is. 1.2 psi is about 2.5" hg, for vaccum or pressure. full vacuum is -ambient pressure, and changes in value with elevation.

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.

 

Thats a STOUT Hood - I have a carbon one

 

And what happened in the intervening months to your RT, shifting and launch abilities

 

they remained as bad as they are today.

 

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.

 

I'm a rational thinking person.

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.

 

yay thanks matey, always wondered what make it is

so I guess the do them in carbon and fibre glass!

*me goes to see how much it's worth*