|
|
|
11-20-2009, 02:20 AM | #67 | |||
Banned
0
Rep 81
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
a.) The difference in temps between the stock CAI and an open element system is negligible as the inter-cooler is what is responsible for cooling the intake charge after the turbos. b.) the increased efficiency of the turbos with the intake has caused the temps to stay the same. The simplistic equation for making power on a boosted car is Boost+Timing+AFR=hp/tq, and my timing logs were the same after as well, so people running an open intake should see no downside to it. I'm really interested in what data has shown a closed intake to be superior. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 08:46 AM | #69 | |
Banned
79
Rep 5,970
Posts |
Quote:
I wouldn't go that far. I don't think you guys have NEARLY enough information to just dismiss them, especially when your main reasoning seems to be that they're just too expensive to make. You're not schooling anyone in physics and thermodynamics here until you've got some data, and so far I don't see that you do. You're guessing just like everyone else, and attempting to back your guesses up with theorys that may or may not hold up in this situation. The tubes are small, and anytime you've got high velocity flow through a small tube there's going to be a pressure drop. You can't deny that. The only question here is whether or not there's enough pressure drop to justtify the cost involved with making the tubes larger, and the bottom line is you just don't know. If you've modeled the tubes and simulated the drops across the entire boost and RPM ranges, then I'll retract that, but I'm betting you haven't. The wrap-around tubes are an OBVIOUS choke point, and you guys are damaging your credibility trying to convince people who know better that they aren't. Last edited by jeremyc74; 11-20-2009 at 09:46 AM.. Reason: Added Picture |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 12:36 PM | #70 | |
Second Lieutenant
23
Rep 261
Posts |
Quote:
We have done over 150 passes on the dyno with our turbo upgrades with all three intake designs we've discussed and non of them supported the power of our intake. Shiv has posted all the dyno graphs and has openly discussed this before on previous threads. I really have a hard time understanding how you can question our data and dyno graphs when your information about choke point and piping diameter come from pure guesswork and speculation. We have openly stated here on the boards that we are more than willing to back up our claims for stock turbo applications and will post all datalogs and dyno graphs. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 12:50 PM | #71 | |
Banned
79
Rep 5,970
Posts |
Quote:
Are you suggesting that just because the tubes aren't smaller than the turbo inlets they're not causing a restriction? What dyno charts have been shown that demonstrat that there's no power to be gained from increasing the tube size? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 12:56 PM | #72 | |
Second Lieutenant
23
Rep 261
Posts |
Quote:
The bottom line is that We Do Know the inlet diameter of the compressor is 1.45" and to say that increasing the intake diameter above that level will produce more hp on stock turbos is absolutely false. The fact is yourself and several others assume you know about dimensions and values of the stock intake system, when your basing your information on pictures. The information we've presented is factual and true based on hands on measurements taken from factory parts we've done R&D testing with. Last edited by asr engineering; 11-20-2009 at 01:19 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 01:05 PM | #73 |
Second Lieutenant
23
Rep 261
Posts |
Shiv posted dyno sheets and commented after the tuning session with our tt upgrades, that even he was suprised after we removed the intake tubes there was no power or torque increase at all. The dyno sheets look pretty much 99.9% identical both with and without the factory intake tubes connected. So, I'm not suggesting anything since we've already proven it.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 01:43 PM | #74 | ||
Banned
0
Rep 81
Posts |
Quote:
If the ID of the pipes taper down to 1.25-1.3 inches, and the diameter of the compressor wheel is 1.45, then we would see greater efficiency if we changed the pipes to 1.5" ID. you seem to be contradicting yourself by stating that the gains would occur until you reach the maximum 1.45" of the compressor housing. Quote:
I searched here and couldn't find the dyno's proving that the intake pipes going to the turbos were adequate, could you post the link? |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 02:26 PM | #75 | |
Second Lieutenant
23
Rep 261
Posts |
Quote:
We're not contradicting ourselves since we have tested our upgraded turbos with stock tubing completely disconnected resulting in no gain in power or torque at all. If we were to have seen any siginificant gains at all, we would've designed new intake tubes to match our TT upgrades. If the stock inlet tubes can support 538whp, which is within the compressor maps of our upgraded turbos, this is just a prime example of their VE capability. Shiv's posts are located on a thread he started on E90post with the results of our tt upgrade dyno tuning session. I believe the thread title is "500hp Been There Done That". Dyno sheets are located all over the thread including Stage I pump gas files all the way up to Stage III race and meth files. I would be more than happy to re-post a dyno sheet of our results if you haven't already seen it, but we are not permitted to do so since we are not a vendor. Although, we can provide this information to BR Racing to post if you can't find it on e90post. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 06:38 PM | #76 |
Captain
36
Rep 719
Posts |
Vendor status only matters on e90post, we don't care about that around these parts, although the mods might move the thread over to the for sale section. Feel free to post the dynos
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 06:57 PM | #78 |
Private First Class
16
Rep 135
Posts |
"The next step now is to dyno test it on stock turbos vs a factory airbox and collect datalogs to reflect the positive gains."
Probably should have waited to posta at all until you did this before posting with "butt dyno" claims. Neat design however it'll never come near my car at that cost unless it is DRAMATICALLY better than an open air setup. And I mean > 3x or 4x better. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 08:27 PM | #79 | |
Banned
79
Rep 5,970
Posts |
Quote:
Then post a link to the dyno results showing the same power with the tubes and airbox and without. It's a well known fact that the Shivs system shoots for a torque target and it could have very well been making that target at less boost. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 09:06 PM | #80 | |
Banned
0
Rep 81
Posts |
Quote:
Yeah, I had forgotten that shiv's tune is based on a torque target... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2009, 10:39 PM | #81 |
23
Rep 194
Posts |
There seems to be two angles of interest here.
(1) Performance...we will post the data from the prior set of tests, and we have stated that we will perform additional tests of stock/OEM vs the new intake. In addition, if others have had systems on the market, and are now readying new designs that will also be of the closed intake side...normal deduction would be that if those vendors had a product set before, and are now replacing it with a more refined version (closed), there would likely be a reason (performance)....you have seen the new AFE closed system shown at SEMA (and it's price point...but more on that in a sec), and it is only an intake, and it does not leverage for forced air element of the stock intake scoops or inlet...just moves the intake location, and Dinan, which has shown their prototype (and which was supposed to see the light of day this month), which also is a closed system, and which also is a CAI only and not integrated (2) Price...we're working on price, and normally you see price points drop over time as the volume grows and costs are driven out. We're the ONLY ones offering additional elements (powder coating to match car color as an examle, SS mesh air filters), the system we've shown includes the charge pipe and BOV (which in and of itself is over $500 and is with a TIAL unit for better response), which means the intake (closed, powder coated, w two SS mesh air filters, scoops, integrated w OEM system, greater volume) is currently at $1,000 vs the AFE at $800 and not integrated, etc....doesn't seem like the value proposition is too off at all. If we change the BOV type, change to K&N filters, eliminate the color choices, go to lighter weight alum shrouds, etc, we could drive the price point lower, or offer multiple solution options....and again, if you don't like the price point...you're not forced to buy in any way, but is great feedback on where we need to be in a rational pricing discussion, rather than "cheaper". |
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2009, 03:15 PM | #82 |
Streifenden Komet
9
Rep 120
Posts
Drives: 525i was a 325is
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ft.Myers/Orlando Fl
|
i like how you guys are thinking about offering it in multiple solutions. To me more options the better, you seem like the slogan should be "cheaper price cheaper parts, quality parts quality price." Don't sacrifice stick to your guys and if all the info and dynos (i haven't seen them yet) prove the point then as you said no one is forcing us to buy it. i'd shell out the cash for the product once i have done my home work, on you guys as well as ur product. Great going both BRRACING AND ASR Don't back down!
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-21-2009, 11:42 PM | #84 |
Major
199
Rep 1,457
Posts |
@jeremyc74
"you've got high velocity flow through a small tube there's going to be a pressure drop" technically... pressure increases in the tube, not decreases(drops).
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-22-2009, 01:18 AM | #85 | |
Banned
79
Rep 5,970
Posts |
Quote:
It's a restriction. If the outside pressure is at atmosphere, it will be LESS after the tubing. Are you REALLY going to debate that on a technicality? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-22-2009, 10:17 AM | #86 | |
Private First Class
14
Rep 120
Posts |
Quote:
I had thought of building ( done it before for my race jetta using lexan plastic from baby incubator that had been discarded ) something very similar to what you guys came up with. There is no doubt that a closed system sucking air *efficiently* from outside of the engine compartment is a better solution ( in fact, that's essentially what the OEM airbox is, though the design could have been a lot better as it comes with inherent restrictions including the strange small squarish opening from the air filter compartment to the intake tubes... very small ). And I thnk you guys have done a proper job... It's because of people like you who keep trying to come up with "better" systems that we have a tuning market tiday ( the beauty of living in the US rather than Italy.... I applaud the design thought and effort though would make 2 suggestions: -I would prefer an air filter with a built-in velocity stack ( i.e. Baker precision) or BmS style ( not sure if your stainless steels have that?). -For those who already have a charge pipe and a strut bar (Mason) your design will not work... which is unfortunate... maybe a "shallower" box version should be available? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-22-2009, 02:28 PM | #87 |
Streifenden Komet
9
Rep 120
Posts
Drives: 525i was a 325is
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ft.Myers/Orlando Fl
|
"-For those who already have a charge pipe and a strut bar (Mason) your design will not work... which is unfortunate... maybe a "shallower" box version should be available?"
if possible or have the tubes set lower. Once again if possible! Any ideas, would you consider it, would a shallower box retard the design, make it less tan optimal? |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|