New Cold air kit for the 2015 5.0 No flash needed. - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 40 Old 04-28-2015, 04:10 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
New Cold air kit for the 2015 5.0 No flash needed.

New cold air kit for the 2015 from PMAS No tune required.


Link to thread.

PMAS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 40 Old 04-28-2015, 08:36 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Before/after dyno numbers please.


All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #3 of 40 Old 04-29-2015, 11:32 AM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
Before/after dyno numbers please.
Working on it. We will have before/after numbers bolted on a stock car, but we are also going to have a before and after with a tune so it is a fair comparison to the competition that claims huge increases when 90% of it was the tune, not the cold air.
PMAS is offline  
 
post #4 of 40 Old 04-29-2015, 03:24 PM
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 34,550
Doesn't the stock system pull "cold air"? I'm guessing real world gains will be less flow restriction, not colder air, factoring 'tune' out of the picture. And unless the pulls on the stocker and the replacement are done with the engine compartment fully heat-sinked and with the HOOD CLOSED to simulate real word conditions, before/after dyno won't tell you much that's useful.

I guess the term has been used so much that everyone has to refer to their new piece as CAI or cold air intake just so it gets 'hit' when people are searching. All the fuel injected stuff has had factory "CAI" for as long as I can remember.

Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 6.2L; '15 Fit; '16 CrossTrek
Michael Yount is offline  
post #5 of 40 Old 04-29-2015, 04:03 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
Doesn't the stock system pull "cold air"? I'm guessing real world gains will be less flow restriction, not colder air, factoring 'tune' out of the picture. And unless the pulls on the stocker and the replacement are done with the engine compartment fully heat-sinked and with the HOOD CLOSED to simulate real word conditions, before/after dyno won't tell you much that's useful.

I guess the term has been used so much that everyone has to refer to their new piece as CAI or cold air intake just so it gets 'hit' when people are searching. All the fuel injected stuff has had factory "CAI" for as long as I can remember.
You got it. I hate the term "cold air" but if we don't use it some people will not know what we are talking about. Stock fox bodies had "cold air" intakes. The cold portion is a very small gain in power. This is all about flow. This "maf system and intake tube" flows over twice what the stock system flows.

This kit improves power because it flows more not because the air is any colder.
PMAS is offline  
post #6 of 40 Old 04-29-2015, 07:45 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMAS View Post
You got it. I hate the term "cold air" but if we don't use it some people will not know what we are talking about. Stock fox bodies had "cold air" intakes. The cold portion is a very small gain in power. This is all about flow. This "maf system and intake tube" flows over twice what the stock system flows.

This kit improves power because it flows more not because the air is any colder.
More flow is nice. More flow if flow is not your power bottleneck is meaningless. I remain unconvinced that the stock intake presents any restriction on a stock engine. I'm certainly open to being shown otherwise, but I think that's an unlikely outcome. Looking forward to seeing your numbers and methodology for generating them.

Best,

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #7 of 40 Old 04-29-2015, 11:26 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
More flow is nice. More flow if flow is not your power bottleneck is meaningless. I remain unconvinced that the stock intake presents any restriction on a stock engine. I'm certainly open to being shown otherwise, but I think that's an unlikely outcome. Looking forward to seeing your numbers and methodology for generating them.

Best,
Actually I'll dig up the flow test data for the stock system. It's at almost 28" of pressure drop at stock max horsepower. It also actually collapsed the air box inlet behind the headlight at that flow as well. It looks good but flows less than some older stock mustang systems. We generate the numbers on a NIST traceable flow stand capable of 8142 kg/hr at a pressure drop of 80", with an uncertainty in flow of 0.19%. It's lightyears ahead of a super flow type flow stand.
A fox body air box actually flows more than the 2015 5.0.

Last edited by PMAS; 04-29-2015 at 11:27 PM.
PMAS is offline  
post #8 of 40 Old 06-09-2015, 05:38 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Wellllll we strapped it to the dyno today. Let the car cool down and pulled it stock. let it cool down while taking off the stock airbox and installing our kit. No flash, just bolted on our kit and pulled it. We tried to make everything the same between pulls but the air temp in the dyno room ended up being almost 10 degrees hotter when we pulled it with our kit, so the air advantage goes to the stock dyno results. Shown is the best power run stock and the best power run with our kit. We are very happy with the results. NO BS, no "up to bla bla flywheel horsepower, cough, with a flash too"

This kit makes real horsepower to the tires without a flash. You can still add a flash for even more of an increase. The best part is that the more power the car makes, the more this intake system will gain. With a cold air and no tune it probably will make 400 on a cool dry day.

So here it is.. just shy of 400WHP on an otherwise stock "15" Price is $419

Last edited by PMAS; 06-09-2015 at 05:41 PM.
PMAS is offline  
post #9 of 40 Old 06-09-2015, 05:53 PM
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 34,550
Kudos for starting the pulls low enough that folks can see what the impact is down low too. See so many where the pull is started at 3500 --- I'm guessing in most cases, because power up top is traded for a loss down low. NOT the case here.

Couldn't you adjust both with the SAE correction factors so they're directly comparable? Looks like the 10F increase would likely add a HP or two across the board for the "CAI" when adjustments for the higher temp runs are made.

That's a nice piece it appears - with 3-7 lb-ft down low across the board, nice fatter hits at the torque peak and on the top end -- with corresponding power gains.

Guard -- it appears the stock box/filter/piping is holding things back...assuming both kits are equally adept at actually pulling outside/'cold' air into the system.

Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 6.2L; '15 Fit; '16 CrossTrek
Michael Yount is offline  
post #10 of 40 Old 06-09-2015, 08:58 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
Guard -- it appears the stock box/filter/piping is holding things back...assuming both kits are equally adept at actually pulling outside/'cold' air into the system.
3-7ft/lbs is statistical noise as far as I'm concerned. We're talking 1-2% variance here. zzzzzzz That said, there does seem to be a benefit up towards the red line. That's great news for people who spend their time pushing their engine to 6-7k rpm. That doesn't do anything for me.

*shrug*

Ford isn't leaving much on the table here.

Best,


All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #11 of 40 Old 06-09-2015, 09:35 PM
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 34,550
Were there gains AND losses along the curve I'd agree with you; but given the displacement of the curve for a gain throughout it's entirety, I believe it's more than just noise. 3-7HP is significant for a change of this type, especially given how good the OEM's have gotten at not 'leaving much on the table.' And as you pointed out, there's SIGNIFICANTLY more than 3-7 up top....looks like a win to me. 'Course, I don't know the price.

I think you might have trouble overcoming this --- "I remain unconvinced that the stock intake presents any restriction on a stock engine." There seems to be evidence to the contrary.

Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 6.2L; '15 Fit; '16 CrossTrek
Michael Yount is offline  
post #12 of 40 Old 06-09-2015, 09:54 PM
Registered User
 
BadAndy's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Irmo, SC
Posts: 9,962
Nice results. Those engines are best when run to higher rpms and that intake does nice work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joel98gt
Too bad you didnt get KIA ###got.

EDIT: your girl is a fvcking whore too and im glad her POS jetta got stolen LOL
This is the kind of stuff that a "real" man says
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
BadAndy is offline  
post #13 of 40 Old 06-10-2015, 06:43 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
I think you might have trouble overcoming this --- "I remain unconvinced that the stock intake presents any restriction on a stock engine." There seems to be evidence to the contrary.
No trouble at all. There's clearly some small benefit as you approach the red line. I just don't think that benefit would do anything for me because I don't spend more than a few seconds a week at 6-7k RPM. And as you noted, nobody knows how much it will cost yet.

Best,

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #14 of 40 Old 06-10-2015, 11:54 AM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Price is $419.

I would have adjusted the correction but then people will say I'm tweaking the results lol

Actually the stock box is quite restrictive. at 375WHP or about 1500KG/HR the stock box and tube is at 24"h20. That's A LOT of restriction at the factory horsepower level of the car... This is backed up by the horsepower increase with the removal of the restriction in our intake system.


Last edited by PMAS; 06-10-2015 at 12:04 PM.
PMAS is offline  
post #15 of 40 Old 06-10-2015, 11:58 AM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
No trouble at all. There's clearly some small benefit as you approach the red line. I just don't think that benefit would do anything for me because I don't spend more than a few seconds a week at 6-7k RPM. And as you noted, nobody knows how much it will cost yet.

Best,
at 4200 it's making 20 more lb/ft of torque.

I'm sure you would have noticeable gains throughout.
PMAS is offline  
post #16 of 40 Old 06-10-2015, 12:01 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
PMAS is offline  
post #17 of 40 Old 06-10-2015, 12:13 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
duplicate
PMAS is offline  
post #18 of 40 Old 06-10-2015, 07:43 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMAS View Post
at 4200 it's making 20 more lb/ft of torque.

I'm sure you would have noticeable gains throughout.
Interesting, but I'd have a hard time justifying it. Perhaps others are more desperate for any low hanging fruit. I'm not sure my butt dyno would notice a low single digit % increase in torque. Perhaps a few tens of thousands of beers ago when it was smaller and more sensitive.

Maybe a better angle is the "it looks cool and might provide some power benefit under some circumstances" marketing approach....

Best,

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #19 of 40 Old 06-11-2015, 02:45 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 73
Email sent pmas
Jayme is offline  
post #20 of 40 Old 06-11-2015, 02:59 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 57
I'm actually pretty impressed with this. Yes, the price is a bit higher than other "cold air" intakes on the market (they all seem to be around the $300 range) but that looks like a pretty significant boost for being JUST an intake on an N/A car.

OP, at the begining of the thread you mentioned also running a dyno using your intake AND a tune. Anything on that yet?
MSMStannyl is offline  
post #21 of 40 Old 06-11-2015, 04:13 PM
Corral Elite Member
 
Saleen414's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Maple Valley Wa.
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
More flow is nice. More flow if flow is not your power bottleneck is meaningless. I remain unconvinced that the stock intake presents any restriction on a stock engine. I'm certainly open to being shown otherwise, but I think that's an unlikely outcome. Looking forward to seeing your numbers and methodology for generating them.

Best,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
3-7ft/lbs is statistical noise as far as I'm concerned. We're talking 1-2% variance here. zzzzzzz That said, there does seem to be a benefit up towards the red line. That's great news for people who spend their time pushing their engine to 6-7k rpm. That doesn't do anything for me.

*shrug*

Ford isn't leaving much on the table here.

Best,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
No trouble at all. There's clearly some small benefit as you approach the red line. I just don't think that benefit would do anything for me because I don't spend more than a few seconds a week at 6-7k RPM. And as you noted, nobody knows how much it will cost yet.

Best,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
Interesting, but I'd have a hard time justifying it. Perhaps others are more desperate for any low hanging fruit. I'm not sure my butt dyno would notice a low single digit % increase in torque. Perhaps a few tens of thousands of beers ago when it was smaller and more sensitive.

Maybe a better angle is the "it looks cool and might provide some power benefit under some circumstances" marketing approach....

Best,
I am trying to figure out why exactly you bought a Mustang.......you have the whole "don't confuse me facts, my mind is made up" thing going on.

1989 Saleen 414 358cid SBF 2.8L Kenne Bell S/C
26 X 8.5 Hoosier
Best 1/4 mile time 8.623 @ 159.82 mph with a 1.34 60' (5.55 1/8th at 128)
Best 1/8 mile time 5.384 @ 130.75 mph with a 1.29 60'
2001 V-6 5 speed Mustang 189k miles and counting
08' Bullitt #4097 N/A 325 RWHP <<<<<FOR SALE!
Saleen414 is offline  
post #22 of 40 Old 06-11-2015, 07:32 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saleen414 View Post
I am trying to figure out why exactly you bought a Mustang.......you have the whole "don't confuse me facts, my mind is made up" thing going on.
Eh? I bought it to drive it. Why did you buy yours?

As far as I can tell, I'm not confused. A very small power add at the upper end of the power band isn't of much interest to me. Now if I was ALSO going to be supercharging the engine and I felt that the "restrictive" factory plumbing was holding me back and I was interested in eking out every last pony, then sure....go for the gusto.

Best,

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #23 of 40 Old 06-12-2015, 01:16 PM
Corral Elite Member
 
Saleen414's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Maple Valley Wa.
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
Eh? I bought it to drive it. Why did you buy yours?

As far as I can tell, I'm not confused. A very small power add at the upper end of the power band isn't of much interest to me. Now if I was ALSO going to be supercharging the engine and I felt that the "restrictive" factory plumbing was holding me back and I was interested in eking out every last pony, then sure....go for the gusto.

Best,
Fair enough. It may be just me, but you came off as a "negative Nancy" over the whole thing, whereas, when I see some new product I think "it's cool that another aftermarket company is supporting the Mustang", even if I would never need such a product. Glass half full type I guess.

1989 Saleen 414 358cid SBF 2.8L Kenne Bell S/C
26 X 8.5 Hoosier
Best 1/4 mile time 8.623 @ 159.82 mph with a 1.34 60' (5.55 1/8th at 128)
Best 1/8 mile time 5.384 @ 130.75 mph with a 1.29 60'
2001 V-6 5 speed Mustang 189k miles and counting
08' Bullitt #4097 N/A 325 RWHP <<<<<FOR SALE!
Saleen414 is offline  
post #24 of 40 Old 06-12-2015, 03:25 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saleen414 View Post
Fair enough. It may be just me, but you came off as a "negative Nancy" over the whole thing, whereas, when I see some new product I think "it's cool that another aftermarket company is supporting the Mustang", even if I would never need such a product. Glass half full type I guess.
It's not just you, Guard is being a Negative Nelly. Just because it's not something you would buy does not make it a bad product or a waste of money. If the data was put together correctly it clearly shows an increase in performance that is pretty impressive from just a CAI. Would you actually feel it on the street? Probably not and in my opinion if you don't race your car then it's a waste of money but that's just me, others may feel differently. But if you go to the track and race then it's certainly a mod you would want to consider.

2001 Black GT, 5 Speed - Sold
2007 Explorer 4x4 4.6-V8
2013-2015 GT, 6 Speed Convertible - Looking for one
Jeff Dude is offline  
post #25 of 40 Old 06-12-2015, 07:19 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saleen414 View Post
Fair enough. It may be just me, but you came off as a "negative Nancy" over the whole thing, whereas, when I see some new product I think "it's cool that another aftermarket company is supporting the Mustang", even if I would never need such a product. Glass half full type I guess.
That wasn't really my intent. It doesn't offer any real value to me, but I'm not saying it's worthless. It does seem to provide utility if you live in the high rpms or if you've made other mods that could benefit from more air.

Best,

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #26 of 40 Old 06-12-2015, 07:20 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Dude View Post
Would you actually feel it on the street? Probably not and in my opinion if you don't race your car then it's a waste of money but that's just me, others may feel differently. But if you go to the track and race then it's certainly a mod you would want to consider.
We seem to be 100% aligned.

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #27 of 40 Old 06-14-2015, 02:08 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: around the way
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
Doesn't the stock system pull "cold air"? I'm guessing real world gains will be less flow restriction, not colder air, factoring 'tune' out of the picture. And unless the pulls on the stocker and the replacement are done with the engine compartment fully heat-sinked and with the HOOD CLOSED to simulate real word conditions, before/after dyno won't tell you much that's useful.

I guess the term has been used so much that everyone has to refer to their new piece as CAI or cold air intake just so it gets 'hit' when people are searching. All the fuel injected stuff has had factory "CAI" for as long as I can remember.

Hood closed on the dyno doesn't represent "real world" either. There is no air flow through the grille, into the air box. So I guess your "theory" is flawed from all angles

Until they hit the track.

The stock box is a restriction.
Tony K is offline  
post #28 of 40 Old 06-15-2015, 12:08 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guard View Post
We seem to be 100% aligned.
OK agreed. I just misinterpreted your post as sounding negative. Looks like a nice mod depending on what you are looking to accomplish. For a car that a daily driver or a weekend road trip/street toy I don't see the point. There will be others that feel differently, nothing wrong with that. These cars already have more power that you can legally use on the street completely stock.

2001 Black GT, 5 Speed - Sold
2007 Explorer 4x4 4.6-V8
2013-2015 GT, 6 Speed Convertible - Looking for one
Jeff Dude is offline  
post #29 of 40 Old 06-15-2015, 01:43 PM
Registered User
 
TomR's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 4,651
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
Were there gains AND losses along the curve I'd agree with you; but given the displacement of the curve for a gain throughout it's entirety, I believe it's more than just noise. 3-7HP is significant for a change of this type, especially given how good the OEM's have gotten at not 'leaving much on the table.' And as you pointed out, there's SIGNIFICANTLY more than 3-7 up top....looks like a win to me. 'Course, I don't know the price.
As someone who works with measurements and data, noise and tolerances do not always show up as deviations above and below the true data.
24 inches of water is about .87 psi, or a 6% pressure drop from atmosphere.

The PMS system is 8.1 inches water, or .3 psi. That is 2% drop.

In theory there should be less than 4% power increase *if* the pressure measurements are correct. The dyno shows about 5% at peak.

IMO, what looks very "strange", is the low RPM increase. If the inlet system is a restriction, the power increase should be very non-linear. It would have the most effect at the highest flow, rapidly decreasing to no change at lower RPM.

For example, at ~82% peak horsepower, the HP difference is ~308 to 291. That is a ~6% difference.

The pressure difference was measured at 18 H2O compared to 6 H2O, or .65 psi to .22 psi, or 14.05 to 14.28, or 1.6% air charge pressure change. So the dyno said the power increased ~6% for an air measurement change of 1.6%.

When I measure power levels, I play heck to get within 5% without using a caloric standard or normalizing to a caloric standard. Using a good caloric standard and calibrating, I can get well within 1%. I doubt a chassis dyno is 5%, if a system with no moving parts and no friction is only repeatable to 2-3% and accurate to 5% without going back to a caloric standard. I see this every time I do measurements when I measure small differences compared to instrument tolerances.

You decide what those numbers mean for you, but for me they indicate an accumulation of typical measurement "noise" or variability. Don't take this the wrong way, but "rubber rulers" might be marked in a scale of .01 inches when the variability is .1 inches absolute accuracy at big numbers is 1 inch.

I'm not making any judgement about the product. I'm simply pointing out what the data tells me.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
89 LX. 363, single turbo S482 FMW, Super Vic EFI, Fox Lake Stage III heads, solid roller, glide. Holley HP EFI. (combo varies)
TomR is offline  
post #30 of 40 Old 06-15-2015, 03:40 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: League City, TX
Posts: 239
OP, can you publish the air/fuel ratio with the stock CAI compared to your new CAI? Are the power gains more from "leaning out" the combination slightly verses the increased air flow? CAI's have rarely proven any gains at the track on mostly stock NA cars.... My 2014 GT A6 only gained a tenth going from a Pro Cal tune with stock air box to a Steeda tune with their CAI..... Looked much better under the hood though....
aak77573 is offline  
post #31 of 40 Old 06-15-2015, 09:24 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by aak77573 View Post
OP, can you publish the air/fuel ratio with the stock CAI compared to your new CAI? Are the power gains more from "leaning out" the combination slightly verses the increased air flow? CAI's have rarely proven any gains at the track on mostly stock NA cars.... My 2014 GT A6 only gained a tenth going from a Pro Cal tune with stock air box to a Steeda tune with their CAI..... Looked much better under the hood though....
That's my take-away as well. From a beauty contest standpoint, it's a huge win. On a stock engine I have a hard time seeing any real world benefit. The reduction in wallet weight might be worth a tenth. I guess that's why my initial comments came off as snarky. The "no flash needed" implies you haven't done squat to your engine in which case it's all about the curb appeal and not the performance. Just sayin...

I like to encourage 3rd party vendors as much as the next guy, but I also found the initial post a bit misleading.

Best,

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.

-Frank Herbert-
Guard is offline  
post #32 of 40 Old 06-16-2015, 07:13 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomR View Post
As someone who works with measurements and data, noise and tolerances do not always show up as deviations above and below the true data.
24 inches of water is about .87 psi, or a 6% pressure drop from atmosphere.

The PMS system is 8.1 inches water, or .3 psi. That is 2% drop.

In theory there should be less than 4% power increase *if* the pressure measurements are correct. The dyno shows about 5% at peak.

IMO, what looks very "strange", is the low RPM increase. If the inlet system is a restriction, the power increase should be very non-linear. It would have the most effect at the highest flow, rapidly decreasing to no change at lower RPM.

For example, at ~82% peak horsepower, the HP difference is ~308 to 291. That is a ~6% difference.

The pressure difference was measured at 18 H2O compared to 6 H2O, or .65 psi to .22 psi, or 14.05 to 14.28, or 1.6% air charge pressure change. So the dyno said the power increased ~6% for an air measurement change of 1.6%.

When I measure power levels, I play heck to get within 5% without using a caloric standard or normalizing to a caloric standard. Using a good caloric standard and calibrating, I can get well within 1%. I doubt a chassis dyno is 5%, if a system with no moving parts and no friction is only repeatable to 2-3% and accurate to 5% without going back to a caloric standard. I see this every time I do measurements when I measure small differences compared to instrument tolerances.

You decide what those numbers mean for you, but for me they indicate an accumulation of typical measurement "noise" or variability. Don't take this the wrong way, but "rubber rulers" might be marked in a scale of .01 inches when the variability is .1 inches absolute accuracy at big numbers is 1 inch.

I'm not making any judgement about the product. I'm simply pointing out what the data tells me.
You are not taking helmholtz into account or the different reynolds numbers at different velocities in the tube and system. It's not as simple as you suggest, the air is not laminar.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and it is a good one. You can not take a pressure measurement at the outlet of the tube and assume to correlate it to a pressure change in the cylinder to estimate a power change. Your theory would only somewhat work if our intake system discharged directly into the cylinder.

The math is good but it's never perfect. I consistently see changes between CFD modeling and actual data on the stand.
Also, you can't do the math that way even if the rest worked. Pressure drop is not directly proportional to The change in airflow (power)
as for accuracy. the stand was calibrated with a primary standard at NIST. The Uncertianty of the stand is 0.19% of reading to a 95% confidence level.

I'm not trying to say you are wrong, it's just not that simple.

Last edited by PMAS; 06-16-2015 at 08:12 PM.
PMAS is offline  
post #33 of 40 Old 06-16-2015, 07:14 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by aak77573 View Post
OP, can you publish the air/fuel ratio with the stock CAI compared to your new CAI? Are the power gains more from "leaning out" the combination slightly verses the increased air flow? CAI's have rarely proven any gains at the track on mostly stock NA cars.... My 2014 GT A6 only gained a tenth going from a Pro Cal tune with stock air box to a Steeda tune with their CAI..... Looked much better under the hood though....
It is impossible to trick the AFR on a 15. It uses wideband 02's and closed loop fuel and adaptive maf tables at all times.
PMAS is offline  
post #34 of 40 Old 06-16-2015, 08:18 PM
Registered User
 
TomR's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 4,651
Garage
My only point is to show how difficult it is to accurately measure very small changes (as a percentage). I do this all day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMAS View Post
You are not taking helmholtz into account or the different reynolds numbers at different velocities in the tube and system. It's not as simple as you suggest, the air is not laminar.
I'm using the numbers you supplied. I assumed you know exactly how much pressure drop there is, since it is a comparison from A to B.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and it is a good one. You can not take a pressure measurement at the outlet of the tube and assume to correlate it to a pressure change in the cylinder to estimate a power change. Your theory would only somewhat work if our intake system discharged directly into the cylinder.
I assumed the restriction change was to illustrate and support the power change, which would indicate an air flow change.

If the system downstream filter did not change between system A and system B, and if the goal was to reduce restriction to increase pressure pushing air into the cylinder, I'd expect it to be reasonably linear. It works fairly close with boost, if we account for temperature changes and parasitic losses.

I assume there is a nice sized plenum and some long runners to reduce tuning effect.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I'm just point out all of this is difficult to get within 50%, but people take tiny changes as etched in stone fact.

That cuts both ways. I wouldn't discount a change or the value of a system just because someone didn't notice it at a track. Small changes are always accompanied by "noise" or tolerances, and the track has to be a horrible place to quantify small changes.

Quote:
The math is good but it's never perfect. I consistently see changes between CFD modeling and actual data on the stand.

as for accuracy. the stand was calibrated with a primary standard at NIST. The Uncertianty of the stand is 0.19% of reading to a 95% confidence level.
What "stand" is that?

Why do you suppose the filter change caused power to pick up so much down low?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
89 LX. 363, single turbo S482 FMW, Super Vic EFI, Fox Lake Stage III heads, solid roller, glide. Holley HP EFI. (combo varies)
TomR is offline  
post #35 of 40 Old 06-16-2015, 09:11 PM Thread Starter
Authorized corral.net Advertiser
 
PMAS's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eaton Rapids, MI
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomR View Post
My only point is to show how difficult it is to accurately measure very small changes (as a percentage). I do this all day.



I'm using the numbers you supplied. I assumed you know exactly how much pressure drop there is, since it is a comparison from A to B.



I assumed the restriction change was to illustrate and support the power change, which would indicate an air flow change.

If the system downstream filter did not change between system A and system B, and if the goal was to reduce restriction to increase pressure pushing air into the cylinder, I'd expect it to be reasonably linear. It works fairly close with boost, if we account for temperature changes and parasitic losses.

I assume there is a nice sized plenum and some long runners to reduce tuning effect.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I'm just point out all of this is difficult to get within 50%, but people take tiny changes as etched in stone fact.

That cuts both ways. I wouldn't discount a change or the value of a system just because someone didn't notice it at a track. Small changes are always accompanied by "noise" or tolerances, and the track has to be a horrible place to quantify small changes.



What "stand" is that?

Why do you suppose the filter change caused power to pick up so much down low?
I agree is is very hard to show gains as small as these without attributing some part to "noise". But we do the best we can with flow stands and Dynos to somewhat validate each other.

It is reasonably linear but it's still not linear.

There is a big plenum etc but changing the inlet pressure at the runners and ports change the "tuning" effect.

It takes a large change in flow to make a small change in pressure drop at low flows. So a small drop in pressure drop equates to a large difference in flow. I am saying those small differences in pressure drop at the bottom mean a lot in flow and should show large gains down low as well as at high flows.
There is not one special amount of pressure drop that will start reducing power.
Any restriction reduces power.
The way I'm interpreting what you are saying is you will not lose power until you hit 28" h20 example.. Anything less than that won't matter. "You should only see gains at the top where the stock box is restrictive".


The point I'm trying to make is that the stock box is always a restriction at all points of flow. Lowering the restriction at all those points of flow will increase power at all those points of flow.

This whole post is why most companies do not post actual gains (aside from them wanting to overstate them). If I post nothing we are no better than some people selling some of these parts. We made a part put it on a car and had an independent shop Dyno it while trying their best to keep temps and conditions repeatable as best they could. We posted the results. Lots of things could have caused the increase. I'm gonna play probabilities and make an educated guess and say that it was the intake kit, as the flow data and common sense supports that to be the most likely conclusion.

I'm not going into detail about our stand as it is nothing you can buy and it is specific to what we do and was invented to produce some of the parts we make. All of the measurement components are NIST traceable and people like Ford the EPA and many others send us things to test, we also manufacture and calibrate lab grade flow meters for some of these companies.

Last edited by PMAS; 06-16-2015 at 09:25 PM.
PMAS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome