Intake - what does the resinator do, and where are the dyno's?
08-05-2003, 07:29 AM
#41
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Since I'm short of cash, I've been experimenting with my intake setup a lot. Most of you know that I'm running a hacked stock airbox. The lower airbox below the filter is the only part that gets cut or hacked. I had orginally cut front portion of the airbox (behind the battery) and then drivers side of the airbox. On the drivers side of the airbox I ran 2.5" shopvac hose from the airbox to right behind the headlight for some cooler air. I know cold air is getting funneled in there because when it rains there some moisture in the pipe (nothing to worry about). I've also left the stock intake snorkel in place.
Yesterday I decided to seal up front portion of the airbox and only use the side with the shopvac tubing. To my amazement the setup feels even better plus it's pretty quiet which is something I'm really liking now.
BTW, I am running the resonator between the TB and MAF. My car DEFINATELY runs better with that ugly black box.
Dave
Yesterday I decided to seal up front portion of the airbox and only use the side with the shopvac tubing. To my amazement the setup feels even better plus it's pretty quiet which is something I'm really liking now.
BTW, I am running the resonator between the TB and MAF. My car DEFINATELY runs better with that ugly black box.
Dave
08-05-2003, 07:43 AM
#42
Handsome
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,074
Originally posted by Dave B
Something to consider here is that many aftermarket intakes do gain upper rpm power, but end up causing a jagged power delivery and possibly lower midrange power (Frankencar intake dynos in particular).
Dave
Something to consider here is that many aftermarket intakes do gain upper rpm power, but end up causing a jagged power delivery and possibly lower midrange power (Frankencar intake dynos in particular).
Dave
As I said in another thread Sport Compact put an intake on a WRX. On the dyno it gained somehere around 10-15hp, but was SLOWER during track testing. The reason is because in some RPM ranges it was losing 30hp. The reason was resonance tuning to which they said "the thin black box does actually serve a purpose." Peak RPM gains mean nothing to me.
I know that most intakes like stillens and JWT are dyno and track tested for gains. But the midpipe was an idea of what if we didn't drill the hole into the fender well and just attached the filter to the upper piece. I really don't think that the upper piece of a CAI was ever engineered or R&D'd to produce gains by itself.
I made my midpipe so either way I will not be losing any money and bought my JWT filter and velocity stack from PCGuru's old car (may it rest in peace.) I just wanted to see the dyno's to see if the loss the midpipe intake see's in the lower and midrange RPM is the result of poor resonance. I still feel that the Stillen JWT intake design is superior because it was R&D'd, they would have thought about replacing the resinator if it was beneficial.
Dave I agree about the stock intake but I would leave the hole. The biggest limitation to our intake is the stock box, the inlet from the snorkel is smaller than the outlet to the throttle body, to match the capabilities of the throttle body I would keep it ported.
I have asked the person who has the dyno's advertised on the midpipe design sight that say's it gains 3hp and 7lbf of torque over Stillen (peak gains mean nothing) to give me an idea of what the hp across the RPM range looks like. He said it was ancient history and that he doesn't remember what the results were. I think this pretty much makes up my mind that I should not put my midpipe back on, that and the ONLY testimonials (and research) from track times are coming in favor of the resinator.
08-05-2003, 09:32 AM
#43
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Street Reeper
Dave I agree about the stock intake but I would leave the hole. The biggest limitation to our intake is the stock box, the inlet from the snorkel is smaller than the outlet to the throttle body, to match the capabilities of the throttle body I would keep it ported.
I have asked the person who has the dyno's advertised on the midpipe design sight that say's it gains 3hp and 7lbf of torque over Stillen (peak gains mean nothing) to give me an idea of what the hp across the RPM range looks like. He said it was ancient history and that he doesn't remember what the results were.
Dave I agree about the stock intake but I would leave the hole. The biggest limitation to our intake is the stock box, the inlet from the snorkel is smaller than the outlet to the throttle body, to match the capabilities of the throttle body I would keep it ported.
I have asked the person who has the dyno's advertised on the midpipe design sight that say's it gains 3hp and 7lbf of torque over Stillen (peak gains mean nothing) to give me an idea of what the hp across the RPM range looks like. He said it was ancient history and that he doesn't remember what the results were.
*Important: Not trying to say Frankencar intakes are worse than other hybrid/midpipe setup*
The only major gains I see with the Frankencar intake with midpipe are at the peak from 6000-6200rpms. Power appears to marginly better from 5000-6000rpms (3-4fwhp), but the severe dips in power from 4200-4700rpms and at 6200-6400 most likely will negate most of the gains up top especially the 4200-4700rpm dip. Too bad Frankencar didn't post "average" HP/TQ gained. It's pretty easy to do as long as the shop gives you the 100rpm increment numbers during the entire run. From that you can get a solid idea of what's really working and what's not.
Dave
08-05-2003, 04:44 PM
#44
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 1,424
Originally posted by Dave B
The only reason to run the MEVI is if you have the JWT ECU. A lot of us learned this the hard way because our 1/4 mile didn't improve with just the MEVI. The JWT ECU will restore all the lost midrange power and then some.
The only reason to run the MEVI is if you have the JWT ECU. A lot of us learned this the hard way because our 1/4 mile didn't improve with just the MEVI. The JWT ECU will restore all the lost midrange power and then some.
If the answer is yes, then we can solve this problem with continuously variable resonance intake design. Any gains by using the JWT ECU will further benefit the car.
08-06-2003, 07:33 AM
#45
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by sryth
I understand the JWT ECU will restore power and allow you to run the engine at higher speeds. The question is: Does the MEVI have power problems in the mid-range of the spectrum because of intake resonance?
If the answer is yes, then we can solve this problem with continuously variable resonance intake design. Any gains by using the JWT ECU will further benefit the car.
I understand the JWT ECU will restore power and allow you to run the engine at higher speeds. The question is: Does the MEVI have power problems in the mid-range of the spectrum because of intake resonance?
If the answer is yes, then we can solve this problem with continuously variable resonance intake design. Any gains by using the JWT ECU will further benefit the car.
A continuously variable resonance intake design sounds cool, but it would take a ton of R&D to get the intake to adjust to varying flow as rpms rise and decrease while making power. Lots of moving parts would definately increase the chances of failure. How are you going to make the intake adjust to load and rpm?
Dave
08-06-2003, 11:13 AM
#46
Handsome
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,074
Originally posted by Dave B
The only major gains I see with the intake with midpipe are at the peak from 6000-6200rpms. Power appears to marginly better from 5000-6000rpms (3-4fwhp), but the severe dips in power from 4200-4700rpms and at 6200-6400 most likely will negate most of the gains up top especially the 4200-4700rpm dip.
Dave
The only major gains I see with the intake with midpipe are at the peak from 6000-6200rpms. Power appears to marginly better from 5000-6000rpms (3-4fwhp), but the severe dips in power from 4200-4700rpms and at 6200-6400 most likely will negate most of the gains up top especially the 4200-4700rpm dip.
Dave
A dyno of the stillen with resonator would be useful in determining if this is correct which was basically the point of this thread. If there was no difference and all open filters had severe dips then I would put my midpipe back on because I really liked the sound.
08-06-2003, 03:06 PM
#47
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Street Reeper
That is exactly why I wanted to see the comparing Dyno's, I wondered if these gains came from just having an open filter. As I explained earlier the size of the inlet from the snorkel coming into the box is not as large as the outlet going to the throttle body. With an open filter there would be no restriction, I also wondered if the dips in the RPM's were a cause of poor resonance. So my conclusion would be that the high rpm gain was from an open filter, and the severe dips were poor resonance.
A dyno of the stillen with resonator would be useful in determining if this is correct which was basically the point of this thread. If there was no difference and all open filters had severe dips then I would put my midpipe back on because I really liked the sound.
That is exactly why I wanted to see the comparing Dyno's, I wondered if these gains came from just having an open filter. As I explained earlier the size of the inlet from the snorkel coming into the box is not as large as the outlet going to the throttle body. With an open filter there would be no restriction, I also wondered if the dips in the RPM's were a cause of poor resonance. So my conclusion would be that the high rpm gain was from an open filter, and the severe dips were poor resonance.
A dyno of the stillen with resonator would be useful in determining if this is correct which was basically the point of this thread. If there was no difference and all open filters had severe dips then I would put my midpipe back on because I really liked the sound.
Dave
08-06-2003, 05:07 PM
#48
Hey everybody. I just wanted to include my personal experiences with all my different intake setups.
I started off with stock intake. Then, upgraded to regular cone filter. Hard to tell the difference. I then, went from cone filter in the engine bay to cone filter in my removed headlight.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/ramair.jpg
My best track time with cone filter was a 15.2. My best track time with this setup was 14.8. No joke, the difference is AMAZING!
I then fabbed up my own midpipe. Which I think didn't make a difference at all. Then, I got a NICE intake... WSP CAI. So I removed my ghetto home depot midpipe. The CAI is much better for the street than my cone filter in the engine bay. Less prone to heat soak when the motor heats up.
Now, I'm tinkering with different versions of ram air. I am convinced the setup in the headlight is the best I've done so far. I've been using the CAI for street and the headlight removal for track use.
This my latest idea for the street.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/fronttupperware.jpg
http://www.javay.com/bbs/enginetupperware.jpg
In those pics, I tried to draw in more air than the engine can handle. Which would, in theory, cause the air tight tupperware to pressurize and get a ram air effect. This idea is definitely better than my normal CAI. Is this idea better than my track ram air idea? I doubt it. I have not been to the track to test this Tupperware, but right now, I don't think it's as good as my track ram air on the highway. Yes, I've driven with my headlight removed on the highway. With the Tupperware idea, I don't think my air inlet is big enough to draw in enough air. With the filter sitting out on the open, it has access to all the cool air it wants. With it in the Tupperware, it's ALL up to this little tube below my bumper. Right now, I'm fabbing up a rectangle air inlet to try to catch more air. It should catch about 150% more air. Hopefully it will be a noticable difference. If I still think the Tupperware container isn't getting TOO much air, then I will just proceed to my next idea.
My next idea is to get rid of the Tupperware and to run a normal CAI. But keep my ram air inlet below the front bumper. It would just divert the air straight to the cone filter just like when it's sitting in my headlight. Oh well, those are my intake projects. Don't laugh too long at my Tupperware, it might hurt my feelings.
In conclusion, with the headlight removed, that is BY FAR my best intake to date. Now, to make it better for the track, add a cone shell around the filter so it will grab more air. So, it will look like a dog that just came back from the vet with an ear infection. lol Thanks for reading.
I started off with stock intake. Then, upgraded to regular cone filter. Hard to tell the difference. I then, went from cone filter in the engine bay to cone filter in my removed headlight.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/ramair.jpg
My best track time with cone filter was a 15.2. My best track time with this setup was 14.8. No joke, the difference is AMAZING!
I then fabbed up my own midpipe. Which I think didn't make a difference at all. Then, I got a NICE intake... WSP CAI. So I removed my ghetto home depot midpipe. The CAI is much better for the street than my cone filter in the engine bay. Less prone to heat soak when the motor heats up.
Now, I'm tinkering with different versions of ram air. I am convinced the setup in the headlight is the best I've done so far. I've been using the CAI for street and the headlight removal for track use.
This my latest idea for the street.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/fronttupperware.jpg
http://www.javay.com/bbs/enginetupperware.jpg
In those pics, I tried to draw in more air than the engine can handle. Which would, in theory, cause the air tight tupperware to pressurize and get a ram air effect. This idea is definitely better than my normal CAI. Is this idea better than my track ram air idea? I doubt it. I have not been to the track to test this Tupperware, but right now, I don't think it's as good as my track ram air on the highway. Yes, I've driven with my headlight removed on the highway. With the Tupperware idea, I don't think my air inlet is big enough to draw in enough air. With the filter sitting out on the open, it has access to all the cool air it wants. With it in the Tupperware, it's ALL up to this little tube below my bumper. Right now, I'm fabbing up a rectangle air inlet to try to catch more air. It should catch about 150% more air. Hopefully it will be a noticable difference. If I still think the Tupperware container isn't getting TOO much air, then I will just proceed to my next idea.
My next idea is to get rid of the Tupperware and to run a normal CAI. But keep my ram air inlet below the front bumper. It would just divert the air straight to the cone filter just like when it's sitting in my headlight. Oh well, those are my intake projects. Don't laugh too long at my Tupperware, it might hurt my feelings.
In conclusion, with the headlight removed, that is BY FAR my best intake to date. Now, to make it better for the track, add a cone shell around the filter so it will grab more air. So, it will look like a dog that just came back from the vet with an ear infection. lol Thanks for reading.
08-06-2003, 05:43 PM
#49
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 1,424
Originally posted by Dave B
A continuously variable resonance intake design sounds cool, but it would take a ton of R&D to get the intake to adjust to varying flow as rpms rise and decrease while making power. Lots of moving parts would definately increase the chances of failure. How are you going to make the intake adjust to load and rpm?
A continuously variable resonance intake design sounds cool, but it would take a ton of R&D to get the intake to adjust to varying flow as rpms rise and decrease while making power. Lots of moving parts would definately increase the chances of failure. How are you going to make the intake adjust to load and rpm?
08-06-2003, 06:04 PM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Aaron92SE
Hey everybody. I just wanted to include my personal experiences with all my different intake setups.
I started off with stock intake. Then, upgraded to regular cone filter. Hard to tell the difference. I then, went from cone filter in the engine bay to cone filter in my removed headlight.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/ramair.jpg
My best track time with cone filter was a 15.2. My best track time with this setup was 14.8. No joke, the difference is AMAZING!
I then fabbed up my own midpipe. Which I think didn't make a difference at all. Then, I got a NICE intake... WSP CAI. So I removed my ghetto home depot midpipe. The CAI is much better for the street than my cone filter in the engine bay. Less prone to heat soak when the motor heats up.
Now, I'm tinkering with different versions of ram air. I am convinced the setup in the headlight is the best I've done so far. I've been using the CAI for street and the headlight removal for track use.
This my latest idea for the street.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/fronttupperware.jpg
http://www.javay.com/bbs/enginetupperware.jpg
In those pics, I tried to draw in more air than the engine can handle. Which would, in theory, cause the air tight tupperware to pressurize and get a ram air effect. This idea is definitely better than my normal CAI. Is this idea better than my track ram air idea? I doubt it. I have not been to the track to test this Tupperware, but right now, I don't think it's as good as my track ram air on the highway. Yes, I've driven with my headlight removed on the highway. With the Tupperware idea, I don't think my air inlet is big enough to draw in enough air. With the filter sitting out on the open, it has access to all the cool air it wants. With it in the Tupperware, it's ALL up to this little tube below my bumper. Right now, I'm fabbing up a rectangle air inlet to try to catch more air. It should catch about 150% more air. Hopefully it will be a noticable difference. If I still think the Tupperware container isn't getting TOO much air, then I will just proceed to my next idea.
My next idea is to get rid of the Tupperware and to run a normal CAI. But keep my ram air inlet below the front bumper. It would just divert the air straight to the cone filter just like when it's sitting in my headlight. Oh well, those are my intake projects. Don't laugh too long at my Tupperware, it might hurt my feelings.
In conclusion, with the headlight removed, that is BY FAR my best intake to date. Now, to make it better for the track, add a cone shell around the filter so it will grab more air. So, it will look like a dog that just came back from the vet with an ear infection. lol Thanks for reading.
Hey everybody. I just wanted to include my personal experiences with all my different intake setups.
I started off with stock intake. Then, upgraded to regular cone filter. Hard to tell the difference. I then, went from cone filter in the engine bay to cone filter in my removed headlight.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/ramair.jpg
My best track time with cone filter was a 15.2. My best track time with this setup was 14.8. No joke, the difference is AMAZING!
I then fabbed up my own midpipe. Which I think didn't make a difference at all. Then, I got a NICE intake... WSP CAI. So I removed my ghetto home depot midpipe. The CAI is much better for the street than my cone filter in the engine bay. Less prone to heat soak when the motor heats up.
Now, I'm tinkering with different versions of ram air. I am convinced the setup in the headlight is the best I've done so far. I've been using the CAI for street and the headlight removal for track use.
This my latest idea for the street.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/fronttupperware.jpg
http://www.javay.com/bbs/enginetupperware.jpg
In those pics, I tried to draw in more air than the engine can handle. Which would, in theory, cause the air tight tupperware to pressurize and get a ram air effect. This idea is definitely better than my normal CAI. Is this idea better than my track ram air idea? I doubt it. I have not been to the track to test this Tupperware, but right now, I don't think it's as good as my track ram air on the highway. Yes, I've driven with my headlight removed on the highway. With the Tupperware idea, I don't think my air inlet is big enough to draw in enough air. With the filter sitting out on the open, it has access to all the cool air it wants. With it in the Tupperware, it's ALL up to this little tube below my bumper. Right now, I'm fabbing up a rectangle air inlet to try to catch more air. It should catch about 150% more air. Hopefully it will be a noticable difference. If I still think the Tupperware container isn't getting TOO much air, then I will just proceed to my next idea.
My next idea is to get rid of the Tupperware and to run a normal CAI. But keep my ram air inlet below the front bumper. It would just divert the air straight to the cone filter just like when it's sitting in my headlight. Oh well, those are my intake projects. Don't laugh too long at my Tupperware, it might hurt my feelings.
In conclusion, with the headlight removed, that is BY FAR my best intake to date. Now, to make it better for the track, add a cone shell around the filter so it will grab more air. So, it will look like a dog that just came back from the vet with an ear infection. lol Thanks for reading.
08-06-2003, 08:16 PM
#51
Handsome
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,074
Originally posted by Aaron92SE
Hey everybody. I just wanted to include my personal experiences with all my different intake setups.
I started off with stock intake. Then, upgraded to regular cone filter. Hard to tell the difference. I then, went from cone filter in the engine bay to cone filter in my removed headlight.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/ramair.jpg
My best track time with cone filter was a 15.2. My best track time with this setup was 14.8. No joke, the difference is AMAZING!
I then fabbed up my own midpipe. Which I think didn't make a difference at all. Then, I got a NICE intake... WSP CAI. So I removed my ghetto home depot midpipe. The CAI is much better for the street than my cone filter in the engine bay. Less prone to heat soak when the motor heats up.
Now, I'm tinkering with different versions of ram air. I am convinced the setup in the headlight is the best I've done so far. I've been using the CAI for street and the headlight removal for track use.
This my latest idea for the street.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/fronttupperware.jpg
http://www.javay.com/bbs/enginetupperware.jpg
In those pics, I tried to draw in more air than the engine can handle. Which would, in theory, cause the air tight tupperware to pressurize and get a ram air effect. This idea is definitely better than my normal CAI. Is this idea better than my track ram air idea? I doubt it. I have not been to the track to test this Tupperware, but right now, I don't think it's as good as my track ram air on the highway. Yes, I've driven with my headlight removed on the highway. With the Tupperware idea, I don't think my air inlet is big enough to draw in enough air. With the filter sitting out on the open, it has access to all the cool air it wants. With it in the Tupperware, it's ALL up to this little tube below my bumper. Right now, I'm fabbing up a rectangle air inlet to try to catch more air. It should catch about 150% more air. Hopefully it will be a noticable difference. If I still think the Tupperware container isn't getting TOO much air, then I will just proceed to my next idea.
My next idea is to get rid of the Tupperware and to run a normal CAI. But keep my ram air inlet below the front bumper. It would just divert the air straight to the cone filter just like when it's sitting in my headlight. Oh well, those are my intake projects. Don't laugh too long at my Tupperware, it might hurt my feelings.
In conclusion, with the headlight removed, that is BY FAR my best intake to date. Now, to make it better for the track, add a cone shell around the filter so it will grab more air. So, it will look like a dog that just came back from the vet with an ear infection. lol Thanks for reading.
Hey everybody. I just wanted to include my personal experiences with all my different intake setups.
I started off with stock intake. Then, upgraded to regular cone filter. Hard to tell the difference. I then, went from cone filter in the engine bay to cone filter in my removed headlight.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/ramair.jpg
My best track time with cone filter was a 15.2. My best track time with this setup was 14.8. No joke, the difference is AMAZING!
I then fabbed up my own midpipe. Which I think didn't make a difference at all. Then, I got a NICE intake... WSP CAI. So I removed my ghetto home depot midpipe. The CAI is much better for the street than my cone filter in the engine bay. Less prone to heat soak when the motor heats up.
Now, I'm tinkering with different versions of ram air. I am convinced the setup in the headlight is the best I've done so far. I've been using the CAI for street and the headlight removal for track use.
This my latest idea for the street.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/fronttupperware.jpg
http://www.javay.com/bbs/enginetupperware.jpg
In those pics, I tried to draw in more air than the engine can handle. Which would, in theory, cause the air tight tupperware to pressurize and get a ram air effect. This idea is definitely better than my normal CAI. Is this idea better than my track ram air idea? I doubt it. I have not been to the track to test this Tupperware, but right now, I don't think it's as good as my track ram air on the highway. Yes, I've driven with my headlight removed on the highway. With the Tupperware idea, I don't think my air inlet is big enough to draw in enough air. With the filter sitting out on the open, it has access to all the cool air it wants. With it in the Tupperware, it's ALL up to this little tube below my bumper. Right now, I'm fabbing up a rectangle air inlet to try to catch more air. It should catch about 150% more air. Hopefully it will be a noticable difference. If I still think the Tupperware container isn't getting TOO much air, then I will just proceed to my next idea.
My next idea is to get rid of the Tupperware and to run a normal CAI. But keep my ram air inlet below the front bumper. It would just divert the air straight to the cone filter just like when it's sitting in my headlight. Oh well, those are my intake projects. Don't laugh too long at my Tupperware, it might hurt my feelings.
In conclusion, with the headlight removed, that is BY FAR my best intake to date. Now, to make it better for the track, add a cone shell around the filter so it will grab more air. So, it will look like a dog that just came back from the vet with an ear infection. lol Thanks for reading.
I have not enclosed this like you did with the tupper ware but rather just used it as an intake cooler. Recently I have been playing with blue ice (those freezer packs that you put in the freezer and use to keep coolers cold for a long time.) I have small ones that I put in line with the in coming air to the JWT filter, the air blows across the pack and is sucked up in the filter. I also bought the can coolers which if you had three cans, one would go on one side, and another would go on the other to cover the cans. I used one and wrapped it in a cold damp towel and placed it over my intake manifold (fits like a glove.) The manifold is keeping cooler and the ice packs are lasting for about 2 hours. I will only be using them at the local meets on Saturday's and will carry some extra's in a small container of ice and water and switch them out every couple hours or so. The car pulls like it does when in the middle of winter.
Keep the innovations coming!
08-06-2003, 08:17 PM
#52
Originally posted by Aaron92SE
Hey everybody. I just wanted to include my personal experiences with all my different intake setups.
I started off with stock intake. Then, upgraded to regular cone filter. Hard to tell the difference. I then, went from cone filter in the engine bay to cone filter in my removed headlight.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/ramair.jpg
My best track time with cone filter was a 15.2. My best track time with this setup was 14.8. No joke, the difference is AMAZING!
Hey everybody. I just wanted to include my personal experiences with all my different intake setups.
I started off with stock intake. Then, upgraded to regular cone filter. Hard to tell the difference. I then, went from cone filter in the engine bay to cone filter in my removed headlight.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/ramair.jpg
My best track time with cone filter was a 15.2. My best track time with this setup was 14.8. No joke, the difference is AMAZING!
08-06-2003, 10:56 PM
#53
Originally posted by 95maxrider
what did you use to get the intake to sit in the headlight place? how did you make the piping? sounds very interesting
what did you use to get the intake to sit in the headlight place? how did you make the piping? sounds very interesting
This is my normal track setup. Even when I'm bracket racing, I use this setup since it's proven to be the most consistant versus my pop charger.
08-07-2003, 02:47 AM
#54
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,362
Originally posted by Aaron92SE
This my latest idea for the street.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/fronttupperware.jpg
http://www.javay.com/bbs/enginetupperware.jpg
In those pics, I tried to draw in more air than the engine can handle. Which would, in theory, cause the air tight tupperware to pressurize and get a ram air effect. This idea is definitely better than my normal CAI. Is this idea better than my track ram air idea? I doubt it. I have not been to the track to test this Tupperware, but right now, I don't think it's as good as my track ram air on the highway. Yes, I've driven with my headlight removed on the highway. With the Tupperware idea, I don't think my air inlet is big enough to draw in enough air. With the filter sitting out on the open, it has access to all the cool air it wants. With it in the Tupperware, it's ALL up to this little tube below my bumper. Right now, I'm fabbing up a rectangle air inlet to try to catch more air. It should catch about 150% more air. Hopefully it will be a noticable difference. If I still think the Tupperware container isn't getting TOO much air, then I will just proceed to my next idea.
My next idea is to get rid of the Tupperware and to run a normal CAI. But keep my ram air inlet below the front bumper. It would just divert the air straight to the cone filter just like when it's sitting in my headlight. Oh well, those are my intake projects. Don't laugh too long at my Tupperware, it might hurt my feelings.
In conclusion, with the headlight removed, that is BY FAR my best intake to date. Now, to make it better for the track, add a cone shell around the filter so it will grab more air. So, it will look like a dog that just came back from the vet with an ear infection. lol Thanks for reading.
This my latest idea for the street.
http://www.javay.com/bbs/fronttupperware.jpg
http://www.javay.com/bbs/enginetupperware.jpg
In those pics, I tried to draw in more air than the engine can handle. Which would, in theory, cause the air tight tupperware to pressurize and get a ram air effect. This idea is definitely better than my normal CAI. Is this idea better than my track ram air idea? I doubt it. I have not been to the track to test this Tupperware, but right now, I don't think it's as good as my track ram air on the highway. Yes, I've driven with my headlight removed on the highway. With the Tupperware idea, I don't think my air inlet is big enough to draw in enough air. With the filter sitting out on the open, it has access to all the cool air it wants. With it in the Tupperware, it's ALL up to this little tube below my bumper. Right now, I'm fabbing up a rectangle air inlet to try to catch more air. It should catch about 150% more air. Hopefully it will be a noticable difference. If I still think the Tupperware container isn't getting TOO much air, then I will just proceed to my next idea.
My next idea is to get rid of the Tupperware and to run a normal CAI. But keep my ram air inlet below the front bumper. It would just divert the air straight to the cone filter just like when it's sitting in my headlight. Oh well, those are my intake projects. Don't laugh too long at my Tupperware, it might hurt my feelings.
In conclusion, with the headlight removed, that is BY FAR my best intake to date. Now, to make it better for the track, add a cone shell around the filter so it will grab more air. So, it will look like a dog that just came back from the vet with an ear infection. lol Thanks for reading.
http://www.dragonintakes.com/gallery...m-cold-air.jpg
08-07-2003, 07:07 AM
#55
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Okay, does anyone else think we're being a little rediculous when it comes to intake 
I've tried more setups than I can count including the now famous tupperware setup (did this about 2 months ago). Nearly the setups have been tested on the track and the truth is I've noted no real measureable differences. My past setups have included:
1) HKS cone intake with stock resonator
2) Poorman's CAI = K&N panel, extra pipe tapped into the stock intake snorkel
3) HKS cone intake with midpipe
4) Elongated piping for the HKS setup
5) HKS cone with midpipe and tupperware airbox
6) Hacked stock airbox, K&N panel, midpipe
Next setup to be tested is the hacked airbox with stock resonator.
I've also run numerous times WITHOUT a filter and there's absolutely no difference in ET or MPH.
I've even dynoed the HKS setup vs the Poorman's CAI and there was no power difference from 2000-5400rpm (pre-MEVI) with nothing gained at peak. Only when power started dropping off at 5400rpms was the HKS intake able to keep the power from falling as hard. The difference in power was along the lines of 3-4fwhp at some places in the curve.
Dave
I've tried more setups than I can count including the now famous tupperware setup (did this about 2 months ago). Nearly the setups have been tested on the track and the truth is I've noted no real measureable differences. My past setups have included:
1) HKS cone intake with stock resonator
2) Poorman's CAI = K&N panel, extra pipe tapped into the stock intake snorkel
3) HKS cone intake with midpipe
4) Elongated piping for the HKS setup
5) HKS cone with midpipe and tupperware airbox
6) Hacked stock airbox, K&N panel, midpipe
Next setup to be tested is the hacked airbox with stock resonator.
I've also run numerous times WITHOUT a filter and there's absolutely no difference in ET or MPH.
I've even dynoed the HKS setup vs the Poorman's CAI and there was no power difference from 2000-5400rpm (pre-MEVI) with nothing gained at peak. Only when power started dropping off at 5400rpms was the HKS intake able to keep the power from falling as hard. The difference in power was along the lines of 3-4fwhp at some places in the curve.
Dave
08-07-2003, 01:09 PM
#56
Originally posted by Dave B
Okay, does anyone else think we're being a little rediculous when it comes to intake
I've tried more setups than I can count including the now famous tupperware setup (did this about 2 months ago). Nearly the setups have been tested on the track and the truth is I've noted no real measureable differences.
Okay, does anyone else think we're being a little rediculous when it comes to intake
I've tried more setups than I can count including the now famous tupperware setup (did this about 2 months ago). Nearly the setups have been tested on the track and the truth is I've noted no real measureable differences.
Dave, I've heard someone that shorter intakes have been proven better than longer intake tubing on 4th gens. But, I have not seen any 4th gens try to relocated the filter to the headlight. Give that VQ more air and see what happens.
As far as my Tupperware idea, is it better than CAI or Pop charger? OH YES!! B/C I simply stuck a tube in the airflow and I'm giving my motor the air it needs. Is it as good as my track ram air in headlight? I dont' think so.
I am not joking when I say I shaved 4 tenths of a second with my removed headlight idea. If you doubt my car's consistancy, I am a serious bracket racer. I know my car.
I think I'm going to get rid of my Tupperware. It was worth a shot, but I think I found something less embarassing and just as good. I'm going to use my regular WSP CAI and keep my ram air inlet. Help it get more air.
08-07-2003, 04:49 PM
#57
Handsome
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,074
Pretty good article on the 350z intake, that's pretty impressive when you consider that full exhaust netted 2 hp.
Intake
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june03/350pop/
Exhaust
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june03/350exhaust/
Intake
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june03/350pop/
Exhaust
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june03/350exhaust/
08-07-2003, 05:18 PM
#58
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Aaron92SE
I am not joking when I say I shaved 4 tenths of a second with my removed headlight idea. If you doubt my car's consistancy, I am a serious bracket racer. I know my car.
I am not joking when I say I shaved 4 tenths of a second with my removed headlight idea. If you doubt my car's consistancy, I am a serious bracket racer. I know my car.
I'm making an extra 15-45fwhp from 5600-7000rpms over the the US intake manifold (limiter at 6500rpms) and I only dropped about .35 and gained ~3mph. Others have experienced the same with the addition of the MEVI/JWT ECU. 15-45fwhp is a huge gain spread over a large amount of rpm and it still only nets a drop .35 and gain of 3mph. You say you dropped .4, but what about MPH? If you dropped .4 and were really making more power, your MPH should have gone up by the minimum of 3mph and probably closer to 4mph. MPH dictates HP and ET is pretty much about traction and launch. If you went from say a 15.2@90mph to a 14.8@90mph, you improved your traction and launch. If you improved to a 14.8@93mph, you added power.
I'm not trying to be a d!ck. I just think you're seeing gains that aren't there.
Dave
08-07-2003, 05:28 PM
#59
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Street Reeper
Pretty good article on the 350z intake, that's pretty impressive when you consider that full exhaust netted 2 hp.
Intake
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june03/350pop/
Exhaust
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june03/350exhaust/
Pretty good article on the 350z intake, that's pretty impressive when you consider that full exhaust netted 2 hp.
Intake
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june03/350pop/
Exhaust
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june03/350exhaust/
I also like the shop fan blowing 50mph air straight on the JWT filter. The stock intake of the 350Z/G35 is of a great design. It's like a souped up version of our 4th gen intakes. Something to remember is that the stock intake relys on he front ends air pressure at speed to pressurize the airbox. On a dyno it can't get the pressurization. Too bad Nissan Performance Mag doesn't mention the fact that the 350Z/G35 ECUs are pretty aggressive in dialing back timing/A-F when there are changes in intake/exhaust. From what I've read over at G35driver.com, the ECU will pretty much dial out your mods gains in about a week of driving. The owners are pretty much furious about this.
Dave
08-07-2003, 11:05 PM
#60
Originally posted by Dave B
No offence and I don't doubt the change in ET, but no intake is going to drop a .4 off your 1/4 unless the intake you orginally were using was clogged with a rodent or something I'm making an extra 15-45fwhp from 5600-7000rpms over the the US intake manifold (limiter at 6500rpms) and I only dropped about .35 and gained ~3mph. Others have experienced the same with the addition of the MEVI/JWT ECU. 15-45fwhp is a huge gain spread over a large amount of rpm and it still only nets a drop .35 and gain of 3mph.
You say you dropped .4, but what about MPH? If you dropped .4 and were really making more power, your MPH should have gone up by the minimum of 3mph and probably closer to 4mph. MPH dictates HP and ET is pretty much about traction and launch. If you went from say a 15.2@90mph to a 14.8@90mph, you improved your traction and launch. If you improved to a 14.8@93mph, you added power.
I'm not trying to be a d!ck. I just think you're seeing gains that aren't there.
Dave
No offence and I don't doubt the change in ET, but no intake is going to drop a .4 off your 1/4 unless the intake you orginally were using was clogged with a rodent or something
I'm making an extra 15-45fwhp from 5600-7000rpms over the the US intake manifold (limiter at 6500rpms) and I only dropped about .35 and gained ~3mph. Others have experienced the same with the addition of the MEVI/JWT ECU. 15-45fwhp is a huge gain spread over a large amount of rpm and it still only nets a drop .35 and gain of 3mph. You say you dropped .4, but what about MPH? If you dropped .4 and were really making more power, your MPH should have gone up by the minimum of 3mph and probably closer to 4mph. MPH dictates HP and ET is pretty much about traction and launch. If you went from say a 15.2@90mph to a 14.8@90mph, you improved your traction and launch. If you improved to a 14.8@93mph, you added power.
I'm not trying to be a d!ck. I just think you're seeing gains that aren't there.
Dave
Sorry, I have to correct myself. I looked up my times from that day. My times went from 15.23 @ 89.94 to 14.93 @ 92.61 mph. My intake actually ADDED HP. This is no joke. So, it shaved exactly 3 tenths. Not bad huh? Weather conditions were pretty much the same as the weekend before.
Have you tried to give your VQ the air that it needs? Stick your filter in your headlight and see that you don't shave 2 or more tenths. The faster you go, the more air is pushed in. You know the concept. What do you have to lose? Try it. Everyone is scared to try it b/c it's not "steetable" or they think the longer the tubing is, the worse your power is on the VQ.
Don't believe me. Many NC Maxima people were there that day when I FINALLY cracked into the 14's in my VE Auto. That was the first time I put my filter in my headlight.
08-27-2003, 12:46 PM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just fixed the brakes on my car and since I was working on it anyways I decided to take of the midpipe and put the stock, square resonator back on. Without driving the car, just revving it in the garage I can say one thing, I can actually hear a loud, very loud sucking sound as I turn the car on or off. When I had the mid-pipe the sound was barely noticeable, now you could hear it from maybe 20 yards...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
maxima297
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
4
09-30-2015 03:32 PM