If you truly drop 0.2 seconds from the intake, that is a pretty good deal. About $80 per tenth of a second. Even if it is only a consistent 0.1, it is $160 per tenth, which might seem like a lot, but it really isn't.

Consider a Supercharger, $3600 (the same supercharger for a Mustang is $2000!!!) you will probably see about a second decrease in the 1/4 mile, or $360 per tenth!!!

I think part of the problem is that nissan was able to extract so much power from a smallish engine that it makes it harder for the aftermarket to improve upon it.

Ford make the 5.0 mustangs with only 225 hp, huge power gains could be made for little money. You could even get about 10-15 RWHP for free if you knew a few tricks (Timing Changes/Air Silencer Removal/Ice the Intake/Short Belt)

--Ray

 

Ok, I've said it before, but I'm saying it again. I've had lengthy discussions with SEVERAL mechanical/materials Engineering friends about K&N vs. Oiled Paper vs. Non-Oiled Paper vs. Foam filters.

Foam will typically outflow K&N and K&N will always outflow paper. The concept is simple. The bigger the "holes" or "pores" of the media the more air AND "dirt" that will travel through. I can't do justice on why the type of media determines the size of holes, so do a websearch.

Some of us are willing to sacrifice SOME protection for added performance and choose K&N. K&N filters are a GREAT compromise between air flow and dirt protection. They have been proven for years and I was told they were first used in offroad motorcycles as an adequate dirt barrier in extremely dusty conditions.

If you want MAXIMUM dirt protection then go with a STOCK oiled Nissan paper filter. If you want something that flows more air AND provides good dirt protection then go with a K&N. If you want MAXIMUM air flow with MINIMUM protection go with the Foam. If you want MAXIMUM air flow/hp then go withOUT a filter. This is why race engines don't use anything, because they don't care if the engine injests dirt since they will be rebuilding it soon anyways.

You decided what's more important.


Steve,
The ONLY true way to test whether the MF or K&N provides better filtration is to have a "test vehicle" drive say 3000 miles with each filter and then have Blackstone Labs(?) perform an OIL ANALYSIS. You will get a silica(dirt) measurement ppm that will PROVE which filter provides better protection. That's the ONLY method I would trust.

 

That's a nickel's worth of information

 

More tangible, what part of two tenths of a second do you not understand? Make a few runs at the track and see if you will have that same attitude.

 

I did not say tangible ENGINE mods...I'll go $60.00 into a FSTB first...

And buddy, it is not me with an attitude...

 

ok the black stone test is something i would consider but that would take time i hope to do the test soon

about the quarter mile times there are WAY too many varialbes to look only at the end time, trap speeds compared to 60foot times compared to 1/4 time is what matters. dropping that .2 seconds could be anything. i varied .3 seconds the same day with my maxima when i dragged it. dyno on the same car and machine are teh only real way to test it. you can't say you will lose .2 seconds from an intake withouth looking at other things, a lot of other things. (where's dave B )

i still feel that the monster flows are a better and safer filter overall, esp with all the maf stuff lately. i will prolly by some more k/ns and give people a choice but as a default use monsterflow and k/n by special request.

and you canm see decent gains from one side of the engine, people see 12-15hp from a y ppipe ALONE and 10hp from my intake ALONE, they work good in usision but to say that it won't do anything alone when there are dynoes to back it up is just incorrect.

-steve

 

All great points and very well written!

 

Well this topic got a lot of attention! Probably because there isn't a whole lot you can do to a max it make it faster (compared to say, a Honda B engine). I think the intake is the easiest way to increase HP...and from the looks of it, what a gain! Thanks for everyone putting their .02 cents in. Here's mine:

I'm going to go with the frankencar as soon as I have the $$. I think the dyno basically speaks for itself. If there's a filter issue, then a K&N, or any other filter for that matter, can be easily put on there. I think the Berk is a fine piece too...I just prefer to go for the bigger numbers. I hope that there are some tests on the monster filter to prove or disprove it's particle effectiveness. I'll be sure to keep my eyes out for those.

Now, where to get those y-pipes??? Do they mess up your emissions? Here in OR, they're pretty strick with smog sniffers and stuff every two years.

 

...that's more like a buck.

 

I'm not trying to discredit MF or deter anyone from buying it. This is merely my opinion as I mentioned in the beginning. You can go with MF, K&N, or stock...it won't bother me. Like I said, it's just my .02 and that's it. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else...

 

.2 sec for $60 not good? What other mod out there can do that?

 

btw, Brian... i'm not set for it yet but just curious when your next Katana sale might be.

Thanks.
- mike

 

about the quarter mile times there are WAY too many varialbes to look only at the end time, trap speeds compared to 60foot times compared to 1/4 time is what matters. dropping that .2 seconds could be anything. i varied .3 seconds the same day with my maxima when i dragged it. dyno on the same car and machine are teh only real way to test it. you can't say you will lose .2 seconds from an intake withouth looking at other things, a lot of other things. (where's dave B )

i still feel that the monster flows are a better and safer filter overall, esp with all the maf stuff lately. i will prolly by some more k/ns and give people a choice but as a default use monsterflow and k/n by special request.

and you canm see decent gains from one side of the engine, people see 12-15hp from a y ppipe ALONE and 10hp from my intake ALONE, they work good in usision but to say that it won't do anything alone when there are dynoes to back it up is just incorrect.

 

Unfortunately, comparing equipment based on single dyno runs is as ridiculous as comparing trap speeds. Back to back dyno runs can vary by fairly significant amounts with absolutely no equipment changes. Case in point:

http://www.greghome.com/Greg's%20Gar...jetResults.htm

 

Actually Dyno runs are pretty accurate in my opinion since you can factor in the environmental factors and do an SAE correction. (btw, Greg's plots are non-SAE corrected, if they were the variance wouldn't be so big)

p.s. i'm speaking mainly about dyno runs. this post has nothing to do with intakes.

 

Greg doesn't indicate how far apart the dyno runs took place, but I'm assuming they were conducted fairly close together. If that's the case, what impact would SAE correction have?

This isn't the first time I've seen a variance in back to back dyno runs. Error rates of 2% to 3% are not atypical. When you're talking about an engine putting out 200 hp to the wheels, that's an error rate of approximately 4 to 6 hp. So to say then, for example, that my equipment produces 5 more hp than your equipment and base it on single back to back dyno runs is problematic at best.

 

It can get very varied even if on the same run as you have to consider the engine temperatures and whatnots.

Scroll down to Akrus' post to see the difference in a single run between SAE and STD plots.

Additionally, although it wasn't run in the right gear my dyno run several months back varied within the numbers you specified.

 

Yes, I agree that many variables come into play. That's what concerns me. How much credence can you put on single dyno runs when comparing two pieces of closely related equipment? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that results of single dyno runs are reliable if they're SAE corrected. If that's the case, then it's possible to make performance claims based on single dyno runs. If not, then multiple runs need to be taken and averages arrived at before reliable comparisons can be made. Which one is it?

 

Much the same as a 1/4 mile run on the same day, same temp, same conditions, same cars but diff. tracks and diff. times and speeds........hummmmmmmmm cars are not exact as much as we want/need them to be. Its called variables!
l8tr -- SS

 

Good. We're getting closer. So how much of variance should we allow when comparing two pieces of closely related equipment? Is a 2% error factor (i.e., 4 hp on a 200 hp engine) OK? Or how about a 3% error factor (i.e., 6 hp on a 200 hp engine)? Or maybe even a 4% error factor would be reasonable (i.e., 8 hp on a 200 hp engine).

If you haven't figured this out yet, what I'm trying to determine is the bullsh!t factor when one guy says his intake produces "x" more horsepower than another guy's intake and he has the dyno runs to prove it. At what point does the number "x" become believable?

 

If it's STD then it's not worth comparing unless you're very sure that everything is the same between runs.

The SAE correction takes into account the current environmental factors and standardizes it to agreed upon numbers by the organization. That's the reason SAE correction is so invaluable when dyno runs are made as the results are then based on actual engine performance w/o factoring in changes in temp/humidity/etc.

 

OK soundmike. Stay with me. There HAS to be more to it than simply changes in temp/humidity, etc. For example, there's some amount of error in the dyno itself. And someone else mentioned engine temperature. And then there are changes in ECU mappings. And God only knows what else. So what would you say is an acceptable error percentage when dyno results are SAE corrected? BTW, it's OK to say that you don't know.

 

I'd give it a -/+ 3% error margin, as you've mentioned earlier the numbers seem to coincide with most dynojet results from the same car/mod/etc.

Again, imho, given that the dyno is SAE corrected the margin of error there is very minimal (i don't think it should even be 1% at the most). So everything is based on engine performance variations at the period between the first and last run. And 3% seems to be not only understandable but within reason.

 

All right. Then let's apply that to the real world. On a 200 hp engine, 3% would be 6 hp. So someone claiming that their intake, for example, produced 6 more hp than another person's intake on the same engine and based that claim on a single dyno run for each piece of equipment would be within the error range you specified. In that instance, their claim could be dismissed as error, right?

 

If based on a single result/run then the assumption may be correct. But if it's reproducible then it's as valid as it gets.

 

Agreed. I'm taking off for awhile, but I'll pick this up when I get back. In the interim, ponder this. Steve is claiming certain horsepower increases for the Frankencar Intake that seem to be based on single dyno runs. If those increases are 6 hp or less, how legitimate are his claims? And even if they're over 6 hp, would it be unfair to reduce those claims by 6 hp to account for potential error?

 

Well, he's posting claims of 10hp. There's always going to be variables...with dyno and track runs, but if you know that you can pretty much run a 14.5 (sometimes higher, sometimes a little lower) and then you blast out a 14.2 a couple of times after putting the intake in...I think it's safe to say that the intake helped. You can't base everything on one run...nor on one dyno. I think the dyno proves that it at least helps...doesn't hurt. I mean, yeah, it may not be that much at times, but it ain't losing any either. Plus, we all know more air= more HP. Simple fact. It doesn't take a genius to realize that just by getting rid of the air silencer box, you're gonna increase HP. The question is how much better is one set up vs the other.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Those runs by the Canadian peeps seems to back up Steve's claims albeit w/ a +/-<3hp difference. (May want to double check on that. Server keeps bogging down on me when i try moving around)

 

Not that this fire really needs more fuel, but I'd like to point out a potential error in the math done by the people trying to figure potential error, if you follow.

People are saying that there may be a +/- 3%hp change in the dyno tests, and therefore, they use that to theoretically take 6hp off of the engine with an intake. This only gives the -3%hp aspect, and only on one engine, not both. To be fair, what's to say that the intake engine wasn't having a bad day, and the stock engine wasn't having a good day.

I'm gonna break this out with an example (check my math, I've been out of school for a while):


if engine A (stock dyno run for example): runs 200hp in the test, +/-3% would be a range of 194hp to 206hp

if engine B (Frankencar or Berk dyno, you decide, it's theoretical anyway): runs 210hp in the test, +/-3% would be 203.7hp to 216.3hp

Now, using the proposed potential error of dyno tests, theoretically, an intake may add as much as 22.3hp? Or maybe it actually removes 2.3hp? See now how you can exploit the math to make whatever argument you want?

I'm not really sure what my point is, it just bothered me to see the one-sided math. Take everthing here with a grain of salt.

 

Precisely my point, Shaggydum. And what a marvelous extrapolation. You'll have people trying to figure out your post for days.

But here's one you missed. Starting with an engine output of 200 hp, what is the minimum amount of real horsepower increase that would result in a dyno run of 210 hp INCLUDING a +3% error? The answer is 203.88 hp. So in essence, a real horsepower increase of less than 4 hp could result in a dyno increase of 10 hp. Now look at how much fun we're having . . .

 

I am not sure if it is relevant, but Steve did his run on 2002 Maxima. He said it gained about 10hp. Maybe on 2000-2001 Maxima it will gain less?! Who knows. I don't think anybody ran a dyno on other than 2002 Maxima with his intake.

I got his intake because I like the idea of having midpipe. I am thinking it might be adding that extra hp, but I am not 100%.

After installing it soon I will let people know how my car drives and feels with FrankenCar Intake.

 

It's really not that important, Dany. At least it's not to me. All I really wanted to do was demonstrate that things aren't always the way they appear to be.

Thanks for playing, guys. It's been fun!

 

there is a reasopn i did two runs with each to show consistency, stock runs were 204 and 203 and intake runs were 213 and 214. same day same car corrected for environemtn and letting the engine cool the same amoutn of time each run. i was going for consistent gains and that's what i've gotten and other have gotten too. akrus and emax i believe. you can stretch numbers anyway you want but if you look at it, one intake makes more hp prolly 99% of the time. (not gonna say which one)

-steve

 

That's the info I was looking for. Single runs say nothing as far as I'm concerned. There are simply too many variables that can factor into creating the difference. But if you do multiple runs and get roughly equivalent results, you've got a much stronger basis for making your claims.

 

That guy who ran .2 sec quicker ran a best of .2 sec quicker. It was not like I'm only talking about two runs here. He ran one whole day and took his best of the day and ran another whole day and took his best from that day.

 

Whenever you want. I can still always get good deals on Katana wheels. Tires too if anybody cares. You people with 19's should take note.

 

No, no-ones offended. Hell, I dont own Monster Filter ...I just dont wanna get the idea floating around that mf lets dirt into the engine if its not true. btw Sorry if I sounded like a pr1ck in my last post.

 

do you have 60foot times and temp??? the good thing about dynoes is that we don't need these because a dyno is corrected. please post the rest of thetime slip info, 60foot times, trap speeds and ambient air temp with barometric pressure.

 

It's all good ChillWill2000...We do our best to inform our fellow .ORG'ers.

 

Precisely, HulaMAX. As far as MonsterFlow is concerned, the jury is out until independent tests have been conducted regarding its filtration capabilities.

I don't necessarily distrust oiled foam filters. The Amsoil filter is probably one of the best on the market at filtering small particulate matter, and it's oiled foam. But oil is oil, and overoiling a filter . . . cotton based, foam, or otherwise . . . can damage a MAF.

I also don't care what label MonsterFlow wants to put on the oil they use on their filters. They can call their oil a "petroleum-based tackifier" if they want to. But as far as I'm concerned, that's simply marketing hype to divert attention away from the fact that they're using oil on their filters.

The best air filter on the market appears to be the A'pexi paper filter. In the long run, it's also the most expensive. But in this case, you get what you pay for . . . superb filtration, excellent air flow, no oil, and no marketing hype.

PS: If I were Steve . . . which I'm not . . . I would send all the MonsterFlow filters back and replace them with A'pexi filters. Then I'd REALLY be able to separate myself from my competition. And just think of all the money I could make selling replacement filters . . .