What is an INTAKE really worth when you are TUNED?
Dec 27, 2008, 05:14 PM
#31
Account Disabled
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: 私の家
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never had the dyno without a tune first, so there'd be no point. gruppe m advertises gains of 25+hp, may not be that much but it's definitely the most functional intake you can buy for the evo x. not only that, it looks the best as well.
Dec 27, 2008, 05:35 PM
#32
TTP, I agree with you on this 100%. Adding a larger MAF pipe than stock does throw off the scaling and puts the car into load cells that add timing and make the car run leaner.
We did NOT change the MAF tube on our intakes because of this. I've found the same thing you did, 8-10 whp from taking the filter out or installing a good high flow filter and retain the stock MAF housing. We also have a carbon fiber filter shield to keep the fan from messing with the idle, I think we were the first to actually release a product to fix the problem. If you want to try one let me know.
Soon, not being tuned won't even be an option. It's going to be cheap/easy and available from many-many vendors just like the EVO8-9's.
Good job on your write up.
We did NOT change the MAF tube on our intakes because of this. I've found the same thing you did, 8-10 whp from taking the filter out or installing a good high flow filter and retain the stock MAF housing. We also have a carbon fiber filter shield to keep the fan from messing with the idle, I think we were the first to actually release a product to fix the problem. If you want to try one let me know.
Soon, not being tuned won't even be an option. It's going to be cheap/easy and available from many-many vendors just like the EVO8-9's.
Good job on your write up.
Dec 27, 2008, 06:15 PM
#33
Bump. If anyone has any insight into how the ecu compensation tables for fueling work, as well as any answers to the other questions in my post, I would be very appreciative, thanks.
I'm confused by one thing that never was addressed in this thread; TTP talks about how drop ins and intakes with the stock sized maf housing create small amounts of power because they improve flow, but don't trick the ecu into running a lower load cell like an intake with an oversized maf, which is true. But, my question is this: with hotwire mafs like the one used in the X, why is it that a drop in or an intake that doesn't change the maf housing diameter still leans out the A/F mixture?
I mean, with the maf housing being unchanged, the velocity over the maf will be in correct balance to the volume of air entering the system, so why doesn't the ecu compensate and dump more fuel in to maintain the stock A/F ratio? I mean, drop-ins make 10 to 15whp on most dynos, and they ALL show a leaner A/F ratio by about .5 points across the board (which of course is a good thing for us on the crappy stock tune). What is also interesting to me is the fact that many tests have confirmed that once tuned and the A/F ratios are properly dialed in, an intake adds zero power unless the car is at extreme power levels from massive turbos that require extra large intake pipe diameters.
If that's the case, then it means that intakes and drop-ins don't actually increase the amount of air that's entering the system and only reduce restriction. Either that or there is an increase of air entering the engine, but the turbo/engine can't make use of it until power levels reach high enough levels to require oversized intake piping diameters. Any insight into this? I know that I can't be the only one who is aware of this and susbsequently confused.
I mean, with the maf housing being unchanged, the velocity over the maf will be in correct balance to the volume of air entering the system, so why doesn't the ecu compensate and dump more fuel in to maintain the stock A/F ratio? I mean, drop-ins make 10 to 15whp on most dynos, and they ALL show a leaner A/F ratio by about .5 points across the board (which of course is a good thing for us on the crappy stock tune). What is also interesting to me is the fact that many tests have confirmed that once tuned and the A/F ratios are properly dialed in, an intake adds zero power unless the car is at extreme power levels from massive turbos that require extra large intake pipe diameters.
If that's the case, then it means that intakes and drop-ins don't actually increase the amount of air that's entering the system and only reduce restriction. Either that or there is an increase of air entering the engine, but the turbo/engine can't make use of it until power levels reach high enough levels to require oversized intake piping diameters. Any insight into this? I know that I can't be the only one who is aware of this and susbsequently confused.
Dec 27, 2008, 06:48 PM
#34
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately it comes down to getting more air in and out of the motor. A small diameter convoluted pipe will not flow as much as a larger diameter smooth pipe. There should be no debate on this.
If a different MAF housing changes the load cell, then so be it. Isn't that the same thing you do when you tune? Change fueling and timing. Who cares where fueling and timing start? It's all about where it ends up!!
If a different MAF housing changes the load cell, then so be it. Isn't that the same thing you do when you tune? Change fueling and timing. Who cares where fueling and timing start? It's all about where it ends up!!
Dec 27, 2008, 07:02 PM
#35
i think ultimately it comes down to the end user, the customer on what avenue to take. to intake or not to depends on what you are using your car for, DD, track, drag, offroad, rally, etc etc and mod accordingly.
Last edited by beetle_orange; Dec 27, 2008 at 07:09 PM.
Dec 27, 2008, 08:35 PM
#36
Ultimately it comes down to getting more air in and out of the motor. A small diameter convoluted pipe will not flow as much as a larger diameter smooth pipe. There should be no debate on this.
If a different MAF housing changes the load cell, then so be it. Isn't that the same thing you do when you tune? Change fueling and timing. Who cares where fueling and timing start? It's all about where it ends up!!
If a different MAF housing changes the load cell, then so be it. Isn't that the same thing you do when you tune? Change fueling and timing. Who cares where fueling and timing start? It's all about where it ends up!!
This can be seen from data logs that show completely bone stock evos that have a few counts of knock at high revs. The idea of running a lower load cell with leaner A/F ratios and more timing, along with full boost makes me a little nervous. Going back to one of my original questions that was never answered, does the ecu compensate by adding more fuel? If so, then why does a drop in filter that still retains the original maf housing and thus the factory load cells lean out the A/F ratios? I'm still confused by this.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Dec 27, 2008 at 08:55 PM.
Dec 27, 2008, 10:03 PM
#37
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as what a larger MAF housing does......
When we first got our X and had NO ability to tune the ECU we decided to try different MAF housings. I machined up several MAF housings and we welded them into 3 1/4" tubing of different wall thickness. We had 1/4" wall (2.75" ID) 1/8" wall (3" ID) and .032ish" wall (3 3/16" ID)... We tried each housing trying to lean out AF ratios and bring up power. NOT ONE of them leaned out the X enough to make a significant difference. We even went so far as to pull off the breather for the valve cover to have a post MAF leak (aprox 1/2" hole) and still had no significant difference.
Based on this, I would make the assumption that the MAF is not very sensitive to those changes at larger air flow rates.
Last edited by Ivan@AMS; Dec 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM.
Dec 27, 2008, 10:56 PM
#38
If anything, removing the airfilter with the stock hotwire type MAF sensor would only have the potential to RAISE slightly IF ANYTHING which would LOWER TIMING AND ADD FUELING.
Insinuating that gains in performance in our test could be the result of load cell changes is flat out wrong.
I forgot to mention that ignition timing and boost were all datalogged by the OBD II scan option we have on our Mustang Dyno. Each run is datalogged both on the Mustang Dyno as well as in our own Zeitronix wideband software.
Dec 27, 2008, 11:34 PM
#39
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is incorrect.
If anything, removing the airfilter with the stock hotwire type MAF sensor would only have the potential to RAISE slightly IF ANYTHING which would LOWER TIMING AND ADD FUELING.
Insinuating that gains in performance in our test could be the result of load cell changes is flat out wrong.
I forgot to mention that ignition timing and boost were all datalogged by the OBD II scan option we have on our Mustang Dyno. Each run is datalogged both on the Mustang Dyno as well as in our own Zeitronix wideband software.
If anything, removing the airfilter with the stock hotwire type MAF sensor would only have the potential to RAISE slightly IF ANYTHING which would LOWER TIMING AND ADD FUELING.
Insinuating that gains in performance in our test could be the result of load cell changes is flat out wrong.
I forgot to mention that ignition timing and boost were all datalogged by the OBD II scan option we have on our Mustang Dyno. Each run is datalogged both on the Mustang Dyno as well as in our own Zeitronix wideband software.
Like I said before, I do not want to argue with anybody. I did not run the test. If you say the load cell did not move in your test, then I will go with that.
I do have a question though. If the load cell did not move with the filter removed.... then where did the power gains come from? It would seem it came from less restriction in the intake system. If this is the case, then how can the premise of the original post be true? I think its pretty clear that a large diameter smooth intake pipe will outflow a smaller diameter convoluted intake pipe.
Dec 27, 2008, 11:37 PM
#40
Ultimately it comes down to getting more air in and out of the motor. A small diameter convoluted pipe will not flow as much as a larger diameter smooth pipe. There should be no debate on this.
If a different MAF housing changes the load cell, then so be it. Isn't that the same thing you do when you tune? Change fueling and timing. Who cares where fueling and timing start? It's all about where it ends up!!
If a different MAF housing changes the load cell, then so be it. Isn't that the same thing you do when you tune? Change fueling and timing. Who cares where fueling and timing start? It's all about where it ends up!!
The goal is to maximize the mass of air the engine/turbo is able to ingest. This means reducing the flow restrictions as much as possible. To go to an extreme, turbo drag cars have no intake to speak of, just a straight shot into the turbo.
The stock intake tube going from the MAF to the turbo with all it's little ribs and whatnot will not flow as well as a larger diameter smooth pipe, period. Go stick them on a flow bench to test for yourselves if you want and measure the pressure drops.
Dec 28, 2008, 01:20 AM
#41
It makes you wonder how 3 of the best Evo tuners could have such different views. Im sure your all right in some ways, but how does the average consumer who doesn't have 10 hours a day to study fuel and ignition maps watching a wideband on a dyno make a choice in who is right...
Dec 28, 2008, 01:39 AM
#42
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: kent wa
Posts: 4,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not correct that I said "I cant say for sure"?
Like I said before, I do not want to argue with anybody. I did not run the test. If you say the load cell did not move in your test, then I will go with that.
I do have a question though. If the load cell did not move with the filter removed.... then where did the power gains come from? It would seem it came from less restriction in the intake system. If this is the case, then how can the premise of the original post be true? I think its pretty clear that a large diameter smooth intake pipe will outflow a smaller diameter convoluted intake pipe.
Like I said before, I do not want to argue with anybody. I did not run the test. If you say the load cell did not move in your test, then I will go with that.
I do have a question though. If the load cell did not move with the filter removed.... then where did the power gains come from? It would seem it came from less restriction in the intake system. If this is the case, then how can the premise of the original post be true? I think its pretty clear that a large diameter smooth intake pipe will outflow a smaller diameter convoluted intake pipe.
Dec 28, 2008, 02:12 AM
#43
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of deflecting radiator air, I ment to build a carbon fiber induction box for my car. I figure I can pull air from right next to my AMS brake ducts. These guys know what they are doing. If AMS chimes in, I take it as fact.
Dec 28, 2008, 05:25 AM
#44
everyone does mistakes...
Let myself clear here for the moment:
I personally like AMS , fact seems to ME, the only one US manufacturer to worth to look at it.
You can flame me, but i see products left and right. Looks to me so far, AMS is always bring the quality and the power. Doesn't matter which product you got from them.
But i'm still a JDM *****, as much as my valet let me. There is a several reason for that.
Anyway.
I just want to tell you, to believe in one, and only one blind folded. Probably not a great idea in the tuner scene.
Rob
Let myself clear here for the moment:
I personally like AMS , fact seems to ME, the only one US manufacturer to worth to look at it.
You can flame me, but i see products left and right. Looks to me so far, AMS is always bring the quality and the power. Doesn't matter which product you got from them.
But i'm still a JDM *****, as much as my valet let me. There is a several reason for that.
Anyway.
I just want to tell you, to believe in one, and only one blind folded. Probably not a great idea in the tuner scene.
Rob
Dec 28, 2008, 09:02 AM
#45
You may also consider vendors findings that do have an intake system in their "own" product line with nothing to gain or lose by posting their technical findings.
Then there is the case of David Buschur who does make an intake for the Evo X, however his brutal honesty does not get in the way of his intake salesmanship.
Now that's a true sign of another good vendor.
Then there is the case of David Buschur who does make an intake for the Evo X, however his brutal honesty does not get in the way of his intake salesmanship.
Now that's a true sign of another good vendor.