No offense SM, but I'm very surprised you'd buy that.

You've optimized pretty much everything possible(have the dyno numbers to prove it) except heads/cams/catback as far as volumetric efficiency goes, yet you go with that cheapy?

I know the cost was why, however being the engineer, you don't sacrifice anything when it comes to something as crucial for efficiency/boost loss.

Is this just a temporary thing or is there something bigger/better planned?

Also, why wasn't water injection considered?

 

Damn, that is a nasty sleeper for sure!!!

 

That's a big IC Stephen. Even though if you remove the middle bar(look like the big mouth)the openning is still small for that IC,LOL.Cause I already cut mine middle bar out,I got the PFI upgrade IC(smaller than the one you got)and the openning still didn't fill the top of the IC. Do you even feel boost lose?

 

wow, biggest IC i ever seen on a max....cant wait to see numbers.

 

Boost loss will be ~1.5 to ~2.5 psi, from my experiance. The cooler intake charge is good, but alone it is not a big power gain. If you can advance your ignition timing you will gain power.

Nice IC, I like it allot!

 

Okay, here's the data:

I datalogged a run to redline this morning. Air temperature was 76 F, 76% humidity. The intake air temp going into the engine at the start of the run was 85 F (the engine and intercooler were fully up to steady state temperature due to a 30 minute drive to my test track). My temp gauge stores the highest temperature during the run, and it showed 100 F, so the intercooler allowed only a 15 F rise in temperature during the run.

In the graph below, I compare the maf volts and boost pressure vs rpm for this morning's run with data collected during the dyno session when I got 365 whp (corrected). Conditions during the dyno session were air temp 70 F and humidity 22%. I don't remember what the maximum intake air temp was during the session, but I'm used to seeing temps of 150-165 F.

In the graph, both the maf voltage and boost pressure data have been adjusted by taking into account differences in the maf and pressure transducer signals at idle, so they are directly comparable.

The graph shows a 1.5 psi loss in boost pressure due to the FMIC. This is pretty much what I expected. I was hoping for a 1 psi drop, but 1.5 psi is within acceptable limits.

The maf data, though, shows a modest but definite gain in air mass flowrate going into the engine due to the (up to) 65 deg cooler air. Since power is proportional to mass flowrate of air, the FMIC appears to have increased the power by about 2-3%. This may not seem like much, but the increased margin against detonation due to the 50-65 deg cooler intake air allows for more aggressive ignition timing (if I had a way to adjust it, that is), which in turn would make more power.

 

nice data, cant wait to see the dyno results. Even if there is only a slight whp gain I believe it is worth it just for piece of mind. There is always a smaller pulley and an upgraded blower if you feel you need more boost

 

I just realized something. I always dyno with the CAI removed, and my run this morning was with the CAI and filter attached. There may be up to .5 psi loss through the filter which would affect both boost pressure and maf voltage data. I'm going to have to redo the test.

 

As soon as the weather cools down, I promise you the charge is going to drop alot. I dogged the turbo out and the charge pipes were very cold to the touch.

 

SM: how much less power do you think you would have made during the 365whp reading if you had your CAI+filter?

 

I dunno. It may be insignificant, or it may be 5-7 hp. A lot depends on how dirty the filter is.

 

MAF readings this morning included a moving vehicle, so a significant ram-air effect vs. just the fan on the dyno, correct?

Or are you saying that's negligible?

 

And on the flip side of the coil, on the dyno you don't have wind resistance keeping the RPM, ie boost, from building as fast.

Also, were those road numbers an average of both directions or are you sure the road is perfectly flat?

 

Huh? You mean ram air into the CAI (of which there is none) or cooling flow through the FMIC?

 

Road flatness is irrelevant. I'm not calculating power based on E.T. or dV/dT. I'm taking a direct measurement of the maf signal and the boost pressure as the engine runs up to rev limit. The maf and boost levels are only dependent on engine rpm, flow resistance through the engine and air density. So a change in flow resistance will show up, and a change in air density will also show up.

Which brings up another point. I never did get around to replacing my cat and putting the test pipe back on. So there is another difference between the two runs.

 

Both...

You still have a high pressure zone where the CAI filter sits...anyways people always claim a CAI performs better on the road then on the dyno.

 

It does change the load on the vehicle though, same as wind resistance.

I thought I read that higher engine load increases backpressure, therefore volumetric efficiency decreases. Or something like that.

Also, loading a car on a dyno versus the load on a car on the street/track will cause somewhat of a different tune.

Probably a small difference and nothing to worry about here.

 

That's true for turbo cars since boost is affected by load, but with a belt driven SC which is based on RPM is that still true? I didn't think it was. People don't see more boost at redline in 4th gear vs redline in 3rd gear on an SC setup do they?

 

BTW great info stephen, as usual.

 

That's probably what I was missing, however I'm pretty sure what I read was talking about NA cars which would still apply to SCers???

Didn't even think about TC guys...you definitely have a point there.

 

Yes, to the big SM.

I'm not knocking anything he's done/doing, just trying to learn by picking his brain.

 

Yes, I see 7.8 psi tops in 2nd gear while I'm able to hit 8.6 psi in 3rd gear. I think the reason being is that the centrifugal bearings within the compressor has more time to build boost. I know that auto and manual gearing is way different, but its something that I've really picked up on since I installed mine, even more so since I installed the zt-2.

 

Stephen, you said that the intake temps were only 10^ above ambient. That's pretty good! For comparison's sake, what was the average delta (ambient vs. intake) before the IC?

 

So after all you've finnally made the leap of cooling the ait charge?
I would really love to see some timing data logging from you as it would make it much easier for me to finish a much better T/S ecu S/C map. Anuways glad to see another one has seen the light,

Although I do remember everyone calling me crazy over a year ago for FMIC my car-Although I have still not done a "comparison" dyno. Still working on max power-and timing is my key... I'd love to see some timing logs of the jwt ecu program.

 

VQ32?

 

words cant explain how i feel so i kinda broke it down somehow!!

 

i think that being an engineer, he wanted to see if going with a fmic would be worth the trouble on a s/c max. maybe if he likes the results then he might buy a different fmic for perm use.

 

Stephen, did you notice the car running any hotter after putting the intercooler in? Since it covers the radiator completely and the bar and plate intercoolers let less air pass through I would think it would run a lot hotter.

 

Icey I feel your concern about him getting a front mount IC. Guys that have those FMICs dont do nothing with their cars. Just sits there for show. If his results are outstanding I might just keep my V1 permanently and do the same thing he just did. I just feel like the turbo is not as reliable as the V1 kit IMO. It does give you a lot of freaking power! there is no arguement in that.

 

It doesn't cover the radiator completely, just up to the level of the top of the bumper. The entire upper grill area is unobstructed.

 

I dynoed last Friday. I haven't had time to post it yet. Bottom line is I got identical peak hp (at redline), but I lost 9 ft-lb of torque. I'm a bit mystified about the results, since power loss starts to occur pretty early, which I didn't think would happen.

I'm in meetings all day with the Army, I'll try to post the dyno tomorrow.

 

love it. looks great

 

Blue is without FMIC from dyno on 4/1/05
Red is with FMIC, dyno on 9/30/05

 

I think if I had a way to advance timing a bit to take advantage of the cooler air, I would come out ahead with the intercooler.

 

Did you take your filter off for this run, also why not use a smaller intercooler? You don't really need one that large.

 

IMO you are coming out somewhat ahead with the way it sits now. You are at the same power level with about 1.5psi+ less boost. Throw on the 2.62 and enjoy.

 

Yes, I removed the filter.

My rationale for the large intercooler is:

1. Thermal mass - the larger the intercooler, the more heat it can absorb in non-steady state conditions, i.e. stop light to stop light or quarter mile runs.

2. Heat transfer area - more heat transfer area results in more heat rejection

3. Air velocity through the intercooler - the lower the air velocity flowing through the intercooler, the lower the pressure loss is going to be, and the more time there is for heat transfer to take place.

A larger intercooler can introduce a bit of lag into the system, since it takes longer for the pressure to build up in the intake once the throttle goes wide open, but I haven't really noticed anything in that regard.

 

I'm tempted. But I'm already over-revving the blower with the 2.87" pulley at 7000 rpm.

 

I know nothing about superchargers, basically. What would you do to help the blower in that situation?

 

Bah...its only over revving it for a split second for a few hundred rpms. I think you will be alright, Pelto ran the 2.62 for a while but that was with the stock rev limit at 15psi. DO EEET!