FNM

ooh! £500! not bad!

jimlab

You may well be, and I'll apologize in advance, but it's also obvious that you don't know enough about the topic being discussed to form an educated opinion one way or the other. The proof is obvious; if you did, you'd be questioning his results also.

Similar does not equal same. Identical conditions -- or so nearly identical that as many variables as possible are eliminated to avoid skewing the results -- are required to obtain valid data to prove a specific theory. As has been clearly stated several times already, this did not occur.

Run faster, almost certainly. 5-6 mph faster? Bull-*******-****. He can't break the laws of Physics with a tube from his air box to the front of the car, and that's where the argument started. His claim is being questioned because it is not possible without other factors contributing to the results which skewed the outcome, and he's apparently not intelligent enough to know the difference.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

So Jimlab...you'd agree that setup would better your times, but the major issue is by how much?? (I'm assuming you mean it would increase it something notable or significant...not mere milliseconds or something inconsequential in that respect)

jimlab

We're talking about an increase of 1-2 mph at most. An average of 5-6 mph is not only impossible, it also indicates that some of the results must have been even faster than 5-6 mph...

Not on this planet.

adam c

iTrader: (2)

Your apology seems a bit insincere.

Since you don't know anything about me, or my history with rotary vehicles, I will fill you in. I'm no kid. I have been involved in racing (as a driver) for nearly 30 years. I bought my first RX7 in 1982. After racing it for 2 years, I bought a 79 RX7 with a blown motor. I built the car into a very successful autocrosser. I competed in many competitions against nationally ranked drivers (usually, but not always, getting beat). Building a car that runs was not that tough, you should try it. My apologies (not in advance) for that cheap shot.

I have designed and fabricated a really efficient modification for the FD stock airbox. I have sold many of these to forum members with nothing but praise. In the design process I spent over 100 hours studying the intake system of the FD. I know a little bit about it.

I don't know ZB. We have never met, or spoken. It is obvious to me that he spent a lot of time testing his intake at the track. It is also obvious to me that some performance gains will be seen from his "ram" system. I cannot say how much.

The third thing that is obvious, is that your dislike for ZB (for whatever reason) has led you to say some things that you should have kept to yourself. You seem to be an intelligent guy. Calling people names will cause you to lose the respect of the "good guys" on this forum. If you have no respect here, you have nothing.

jimlab

Gee, really?

Good for you, but not one iota of that qualifies you to make judgments where drag racing and trap speed are concerned. You're obviously ignorant of the formulas involved for calculating horsepower from trap speed or you'd be as incredulous as I am. No car picks up 5-6 mph in trap speed from something as minor as a change in the configuration of the intake.

It's only a cheap shot if I care, and I don't. I've had several that did run and most were probably far more expensive and far faster than yours... sorry for another cheap shot.

Some would say that if it took you over 100 hours to study the stock intake and modify it that you really don't know what the hell you're doing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. BTW, did your 100 hours of studying show that your really efficient modification would add 40+ horsepower by any chance?

Well, at least you admit that much. Too bad you can't figure out that you're on the losing side of this argument.

Riiiiight.

FD Seeker

Regardless of his behavior, Jim is obviously correct about proper experiment procedures. Without evidence of that, ZB's data can be questioned. It's a black and white issue that needn't be argued (again and again). ZB has said on more than one occasion to take his results for what [you think] they're worth. I for one am glad that at least some attempt was made, and I apply all the necessary thinking filters to his results. That said, I think we would all benefit from (relish) Jim's accepting ZB's challenge, regardless of the outcome. Jim?

To the topic, it seems the hood scoop idea has potential, but requires testing and prototyping to determine how much. The examples shown so far are interesting, but neither fit my original thought. One did not protrude above the hood line, and the other was pretty small. (I'm not aware of either being sealed to the intake box.)

I appreciate everyone's input.

ZeroBanger

Ok, for those who care:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marshall
I might take hell for this but its hard to beat the modified stock airbox if space isn't an issue (ie large stock mount or front mount IC). By modified I mean blocking the IC duct intake and opening up the bottom and routing ducted fresh air in from the passenger side. Then drop in a K&N. Several hundred bucks cheaper than aftermarket and the dyno won't show a difference!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are right. I went to the track alot this year. I mean I ran probably 40 runs. I can say that I went for about 3 months ever wed with my stock airbox. after I punched a hole in the bottom and routed a hose to the nose of the car I gained 2.5 MPH on my trap and 2/10th on my 1/4.

I got an aftermarket intake to make my engine cleaner and my trap dropped a bit.

that was in this thread in 2002 https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...highlight=trap

That was talking about the first stage of testing that I did. I ran the stock airbox and compared to the stock airbox with a hose running through the bottom.

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...highlight=trap



If you dont have an R1 you can put a ram air from where the oil cooler would be. Also, you can do it from under the car inbetween the radiator and the chassis. Thats how I did mine.

The cost is minimal and its not noticable unless your looking for it. I picked up 5 MPH on my trap speed from this, but I warn you that you need to clean your filters often. My box is the rx7fashion box, but its the same.

The ram air that is in the nose of the car (between radiator and chassis) is done by using an old stock IC hose.

The other one is more complex, it involves a 8 X 9 X 4 plastic container that fits exactly over where the oil cooler would be if it was an R1 (you have to remove the black plastic piece). I bought it at home depot and it has a 3 inch round opening at the top. I think this piece was designed for gutters or something, Anyway from there I bought 3 inch vaccuum cleaner hose (the cooregated hose) and routed it from that location, throught the plastic undercarriage and into the bottom of the air box. the ram air from under the car goes to my primary turbo, the other ram air goes to my secondary turbo.

that was last august in this thread :https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...highlight=trap


midpipe will give you more HP than a High flow cat. Fact and Fiction. I had a modified stock air box (ram air from under the car) and a highflow cat, I had the stock air box replaced with an aftermarket (rx7fasion, aka M2) and got a midpipe. My trap speed dropped by about 3-4 MPH. I could not understand. When I made a ram air for my rx7fasion box, my trap speed was 5 MPH faster than with the exact mods on my highflow cat. The moral to the story? The intake is more critical to your car for making power than a mid-pipe. The solution? Ram cold air from under the car to make the most of the midpipe. But yes, the most bang for the buck is a midpipe. I dynoed with a HFC and then with a MP and gained 30 rwhp from the mp (with my ram air).

that is in this thread https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...highlight=trap sometime last year

here is a thread that I had listed the abreviated results. Believe what you want, but I did do this testing and Im satisfied with it.


My original thread from last october somehow got deleted, but here was my results:

Agreed, I have done some extensive testing on my stock box to get my trap, then modified it tested it to get my trap. then I got an rx7fasion (same as M2) intake and then got my trap, then I modified it and got my trap.

stock airbox no mods to the air box
Average trap 104.X
Best trap 104.X

stock airbox mods to the airbox
Average trap Low 105's
Best trap mid 106's.

Rx7fasion airbox (unmodified) and midpipe instead highf flow cat
average trap 105
Best trap 106's

Modified RX7fasion Airbox same mods as above
Best trap 109.86
worst trap 109.56

I have backed this up with about 50 timeslips, btw. This is not just doing 1 or 2 runs, I had substantial timeslips. Your trap speed does not lie. What I found was that the stock airbox (though boring) has the exact same HP potential of the aftermarket cold air boxes. You will notice I had to modify my cold air box to really get a good trap.

I just made a new modification to the hose that I routed from the nose of my car, and I expect to get 111-112 traps next weekend.

It will help you get more boost in the gears, too.


https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...highlight=trap

jimlab

You just don't get it, do you. I don't care if you post all of your time slips for every run you've ever made, because it's not your trap speeds I'm questioning. I'm questioning how they were obtained.

You did not do back-to-back testing, so your results are suspect. And for the last time, the difference in trap speed can not be solely attributed to your air box changes. Some other factor(s) contributed to a change of that magnitude, because it represents an increase of 40 or more horsepower. You list no data on temperature, humidity, DA, tire pressure and type, weight, boost level, or any of the other factors that could (and probably did) affect your results.

Did you have the same engine on all those runs? I know for a fact you've had it replaced. Was the new engine ported? Did you have the same turbos on each run? You've replaved most of the drivetrain in the last year or so, so it is extremely difficult to believe that the only thing that changed between sessions at the track was the configuration of your intake because the change in horsepower required says otherwise.

Now do you get it?!?

ZeroBanger

every single one of those runs were with my original engine. as I said before the only differences the first run had stock airbox, highflow cat, power fc, intercooler.

the second set of tests had rx7fashion intake and midpipe plus the other mods listed above. And the turbos were all the same.

And if you think i'm lying go look at the dates of those threads and then look at the date I posted thread about my engine rebuild. And yes the drivetrain has all been replaced (turbo's, engine, transmission) in the last year, those tests were done about 20 months ago.

One last time, I dont care if you believe it or not.

jimlab

Interesting. So nothing changed but your intake, huh?

Looks like something else changed after all...

So you had "ram air" on a less restrictive intake and a midpipe when you trapped 5 mph faster...

Bingo, mystery solved. Didn't you think that a 30 RWHP difference from the first runs to your last runs was worth considering as a change?

ZeroBanger

You are misunderstanding this. I said that the initial runs was with a highflow cat, power fc stock air box and intercooler. I ran tests with a modded air box and gained something like 2-3 MPH on the trap. I think it was 2.5.

Then I put on an rx7fashion cold air box and mid pipe. My trap dropped to below what it was with the modded stock air box/highflow cat.

I then ran more tests with with the same setup as above except a ram air in the rx7fasion box and gained 5 or so HP over what it got without the ram air.

I was never talking about my trap speed with the midpipe vs without it.

Bio-Weapon

Oh I believe that your trap speed changed... Sure thats possible. What I don't believe is what you THINK caused it. That's what we're arguing here.

jimlab

You still haven't answered the question of whether the temperature, humidity, DA, weight, tire pressure, boost level, or any other factors changed between your testing sessions.

Really? That's not what you posted...

stock airbox mods to the airbox
Average trap Low 105's
Best trap mid 106's.

Rx7fasion airbox (unmodified) and midpipe instead highf flow cat
average trap 105
Best trap 106's

Which included a dyno session where you found out you were making 30 more RWHP with the midpipe than you were with the high flow cat, or am I still misunderstanding you?

Which is why your results are useless for determining the performance benefit attributable solely to the changes you made to your intake.

ZeroBanger

A few posts above, I posted this. You only see what you want to see.

Ok, for those who care:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marshall
I might take hell for this but its hard to beat the modified stock airbox if space isn't an issue (ie large stock mount or front mount IC). By modified I mean blocking the IC duct intake and opening up the bottom and routing ducted fresh air in from the passenger side. Then drop in a K&N. Several hundred bucks cheaper than aftermarket and the dyno won't show a difference!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are right. I went to the track alot this year. I mean I ran probably 40 runs. I can say that I went for about 3 months ever wed with my stock airbox. after I punched a hole in the bottom and routed a hose to the nose of the car I gained 2.5 MPH on my trap and 2/10th on my 1/4.

I got an aftermarket intake to make my engine cleaner and my trap dropped a bit.

that was in this thread in 2002 https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...;highlight=trap

That was talking about the first stage of testing that I did. I ran the stock airbox and compared to the stock airbox with a hose running through the bottom.

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...;highlight=trap



If you dont have an R1 you can put a ram air from where the oil cooler would be. Also, you can do it from under the car inbetween the radiator and the chassis. Thats how I did mine.

The cost is minimal and its not noticable unless your looking for it. I picked up 5 MPH on my trap speed from this, but I warn you that you need to clean your filters often. My box is the rx7fashion box, but its the same.

The ram air that is in the nose of the car (between radiator and chassis) is done by using an old stock IC hose.

The other one is more complex, it involves a 8 X 9 X 4 plastic container that fits exactly over where the oil cooler would be if it was an R1 (you have to remove the black plastic piece). I bought it at home depot and it has a 3 inch round opening at the top. I think this piece was designed for gutters or something, Anyway from there I bought 3 inch vaccuum cleaner hose (the cooregated hose) and routed it from that location, throught the plastic undercarriage and into the bottom of the air box. the ram air from under the car goes to my primary turbo, the other ram air goes to my secondary turbo.

that was last august in this thread :https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...;highlight=trap


midpipe will give you more HP than a High flow cat. Fact and Fiction. I had a modified stock air box (ram air from under the car) and a highflow cat, I had the stock air box replaced with an aftermarket (rx7fasion, aka M2) and got a midpipe. My trap speed dropped by about 3-4 MPH. I could not understand. When I made a ram air for my rx7fasion box, my trap speed was 5 MPH faster than with the exact mods on my highflow cat. The moral to the story? The intake is more critical to your car for making power than a mid-pipe. The solution? Ram cold air from under the car to make the most of the midpipe. But yes, the most bang for the buck is a midpipe. I dynoed with a HFC and then with a MP and gained 30 rwhp from the mp (with my ram air).

that is in this thread https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...;highlight=trap sometime last year

here is a thread that I had listed the abreviated results. Believe what you want, but I did do this testing and Im satisfied with it.


My original thread from last october somehow got deleted, but here was my results:

Agreed, I have done some extensive testing on my stock box to get my trap, then modified it tested it to get my trap. then I got an rx7fasion (same as M2) intake and then got my trap, then I modified it and got my trap.

stock airbox no mods to the air box
Average trap 104.X
Best trap 104.X

stock airbox mods to the airbox
Average trap Low 105's
Best trap mid 106's.

Rx7fasion airbox (unmodified) and midpipe instead highf flow cat
average trap 105
Best trap 106's

Modified RX7fasion Airbox same mods as above
Best trap 109.86
worst trap 109.56

I have backed this up with about 50 timeslips, btw. This is not just doing 1 or 2 runs, I had substantial timeslips. Your trap speed does not lie. What I found was that the stock airbox (though boring) has the exact same HP potential of the aftermarket cold air boxes. You will notice I had to modify my cold air box to really get a good trap.

I just made a new modification to the hose that I routed from the nose of my car, and I expect to get 111-112 traps next weekend.

It will help you get more boost in the gears, too.


https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...;highlight=trap

ZeroBanger

Yes once gain you mis-understand. Let me say it again and try to read it this time.

test 1 ran many 1/4 mile runs with stock air box, highflow cat and power fc and intercooler. This would have been done over a period of months

test 2 had ONLY the mods above and then put a hole in the air box routed a hose. ran this over the same number of runs.

So you see I was comparing the exact mods the only difference the ram air in the air box.


Ok, next set of tests.

got a midpipe, rx7fasion air box. everything else is the same.

test 3: Got my trap speed averages over a certain number of runs.
test 4 added a ramair to the air box. get my trap speed again over a few months averages.

So you see I compared test 1 & 2 trap speeds and test 3 & 4. I had the exact mods the only difference to the car was the ram air in both.

This is boring me.

jimlab

No problem to this point, we all understand. Maybe you're the one who needs to re-read what you've posted.

Except for the midpipe, which you stated made 30 more RWHP on the dyno than the same combination with the high flow cat, which is where your 5-6 mph came from, Mr. Science Guy.

Now, let's go back to page 3...

No mention of the midpipe or the extra horsepower whatsoever.

Now do you understand why A) your results can not be attributed solely to changes of the intake configuration, and B) why your 5-6 mph increase was suspect?

Perhaps if you were better at expressing yourself and more honest and accurate about your claims, we wouldn't have to have these little discussions...

jimlab

Hey adam c, Mr. "I-spent-over-100-hours-studying-the-intake", have you figured out where ZeroBanger's additional trap speed came from yet?!?

You people ******* kill me...

ZeroBanger

except you are again not following. When I put my midpipe on and got the rx7fasion air box, my trap actually DROPPED compared to the highflow cat and stock airbox with the ram air.

the extra 5 MPH in the trap happen when I put a ram air in the rx7fasion air box.

let me spell it out for you. Rx7fashion air box no ram air and midpipe made 5 MPH less on the trap than rx7fashion air box with ram air and midpipe.



these little discussions are getting boring.

jimlab

There's nothing to follow.

Bullshit. You didn't pick up 40+ horsepower with a piece of dryer hose, although given your lack of understanding of what contributed to the increase in trap speed, I've no doubt you believe you did...

clayne

ZB,

None of these trap speed differences have anything to do with "ram air."

If anything, your airbox modifications are resulting in better flow characteristics and/or quicker spool times.

In addition, the midpipe is what is resulting in such large trap speed difference. If you take the midpipe off and put your HF cat back on you'll most likely see the 2-3 mph difference (you stated before) when comparing unmodified intake against modified intake.

One simply is not going to gain 6 mph trap due to "raim air" unless their previous configuration was seriously bad.

adam c

iTrader: (2)

Wow. What a bad attitude. Incapable of discussing anything rationally. There always has to be some name calling or bad language. You should learn a little self control.

I'm done with this thread.

jimlab

And you should learn to stay out of debates about subjects you know nothing about.

Well, I sure hope I haven't lost your respect...