Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the best defender of the product (or said gains provided by the product) the actual person who developed the product? Peter had provided the first answers and we had more questions, all asked in a very civil manner. As goaljnky pointed out, many of the people who responded calling our questions ridiculous and claiming we weren't civil, are relatively new members. This is, of course, aside from Rally who posted a link to a similar yet still different product (It sits behind the grill and has sprayers to cool the intercooler). If Peter had produced numbers like these for his product people wouldn't have to ask for them. Or he could point them in that direction very easily ending all of this speculation. When vendors post about new products, claiming increases in efficiency or HP gains they should be called onto the carpet to provide testing results showing those gains. (This applies to all vendors of performance parts!)

 

They have numbers for the non-sprayer version too They have three different temp lines....stock, diverter, diverter + spray

I can't say for sure, as i don't read minds, but from Peter's post it sounds as though the street version will sit behind the grill just like the madness one. He states that only the race version will have the below-bumper "scoop".

Hahahah yah...i could see that now, a company saying....."check out our competitor's product over there.....it's very similar"

 

what a cute backhanded insult. :teehee:

 

Yes, I understand that. I saw the numbers for all three of the MM versions. The MM version also sits above the intercooler and diverts the incoming air down.

To quote Peter again...."Take a look at the IC it's position in the grill, size and the aerodynamic plane it's sitting in and you will agree that nothing has been designed up to this point that will enhance the efficiency of the IC more then the M7 IC Bezel." So for him to make this claim you would imagine that he has seen and compared his diverter to the MM one, correct? I would also assume due to his posts that the M7 diverter will outperform the MM one, again, a reasonable assumption due to the claims of Peter, wouldn't you agree?

As to your final point, I was stating that if M7 had number like MM they could refer their customers to those numbers to end the speculation instead of inviting inquiries as to the numbers that heretofore have not been forthcoming. Not to refer them to MM for their numbers, next time I will try to be more clear in my posting.

 

I dont think anyone could say for sure...maybe he didn't know about it.....or maybe it's peter being peter

Again, i agree with you guys.....M7 doesn't back up their claims and continues to "pre-release" products without numbers. There's not you could do to deny that...

I was just posting up something to tide people over.... not to challenge anyone. Higher or lower....chances are likely that the M7 numbers will be right around the Madness numbers....i understand there are small differences between the products but i doubt they will have much affect on the numbers.

 

No numbers... but plenty of hype... how come?

Use some basic reasoning here... after spending millions of $$$ on R&D, don't you think MINI would have added a $2 piece of bent sheet metal if it showed any efficiency to do so?

A fool and his money are soon parted..

 

The temperature graphs from the other vendor don't do much for me. What would be more interesting to me would be Willowsprings lap times & top speeds.

Just a suggestion.

 

That seems like there would be way too many uncontrollable variables to offer any real kind of test results. You would have to warm up and do a whole bunch of tests with the car stock....then bring the car in, let it cool down substantially, install the part and then HOPEFULLY you would be able to run the car that same day before the sun went down. But at that point....chances are likely that the temperature outside as well as the temperature of the pavement would have fluctuated a great deal (sort of a big deal when it comes to a part related directly to temperature). The conditions of the track could easily have changed, the tires could either have more or less traction depending how worn they were and if they were able to cool down as well, the driver had already done multiple laps that day which could aid in quicker lap times.With this kind of part, the increase in performance isn't THAT big.....so you would have to be doing a lot of laps to ensure readable data. There would be no way to control any of these variables enough to make both sets of laps even enough to compare the lap times and conclude one way or another about the part.

Not to mention that in order to be able to test on the track all day they would have to either rent it out for testing themselves or go out on one of the open track days. Renting would be a ridiculous expense for such a small company (it's not like we're talking about the larger JDM tuners....) ....And attempting to do any kind of proper testing when there are other cars on the track heating it up, adding traction in the turns, and possibly adding traffic, would be next to impossible.

Doesnt seem like a lap time test would offer much solid data....especially for something as small as an intercooler diverter.

Not saying they shouldn't provide results.....i just don't think lap times and top speeds would be a very helpful test to run for this kind of part.

 

Yea well, the MINI aftermarket would be a LOT smaller if you took out all the garbage products that companies sell that do close to nothing. Tuning in general would be a much less profitable endeavor as well .

This thread is thoroughly entertaining .

 

Wow, the tone in this thread is very different from the tone in an Alta thread. Wonder why that is? Oh maybe because Alta A) posts numbers for their products, and B) answers all their customer's questions WITHOUT an freakin' PMS attitude.

Get over yourself Peter.

You just lost yourself a bunch of potential customers with this thread.

 

 

that's an M7 Design Goal (perhaps the only one but we'll never know without real data)

 

Leave me out of it.

P.S. is SEMA over?

 

SEMA ended Friday, November 2nd.

 

I like that M7 posted graphs,

However I would like to ask that M7 post graphs of the average temperature delta of each setup not the maximum temperature delta of each setup. Now, I don't want to call anyone out but this would seem an obviously more useful number that could be attained easily sing the data you have. Also, judging by the peaks followed by relatively consistant valleys, I'm guessing this peak was at a stop where getting more air to the intercooler likely had nothing to do with the measurement, and yet, thats where the delta values were taken.

If you were so motivated to collect data again, might I suggest that you test it in such a way that you set up a test to actually test the efficiency of this device. Idle the car off a freeway, pull on and take readings at a constant speed. This way you could present a graph to show the effect on the time elapsed returning the charge air to an "equilibrium delta t" (If you run at the same speed for an extended period of time you will get a nearly flat line). This will show the time elapsed in getting rid of heatsoak, that would be a useful value for most drivers, also it would show the difference in the equilibrium delta t of both setups, also a useful number. Any measurements like this should probably also come with a standard deviation and a statement of accuracy of the instruments used (ie +/- 2 degrees C).

Also, the "race" version sticks out real nice under the splitter there, and while I am sure it see's a lot of airflow you also made what looks to be a high pressure area under your splitter. And while that's gonna be negligible at any speed less than 100 miles an hour, its there. If you extend the duct past/to the front of the splitter that goes away.

Just a couple suggestions so you can post some more convincing numbers...

 

I'm relatively new to NAM, but am a little disappointed in this thread. It seems to me that the main thing that attracts people to the MINI and this site is the unique and sometimes idiosyncratic nature of the car and its owners. From what I have seen, Peter is a very progressive and passionate inventor of parts for the MINI and should be excused for his excitement for new ideas which he shares with you here, even at their early stages. Try encouraging rather than disparaging such individuals - they are the source of innovation. There are lots of ways to ask questions and make observations in a helpful and kind way and it's well worth the effort.

 

perhaps you can add HVAC technician to his resume...his product has the effect of chilling below ambient temps. Smart engineering or cooking the numbers??? You be the judge

 

On my comments on this thread, I was not trying to put down any vendor or keep anyone from inventing things. On the other hand, you have to understand, when I see claims being thrown around without supporting testing then I got to ask (I was bitten once and never twice). I have no R56, but I love my MINI and would like to learn more about it... R53 & R56. So if I find something "funny" during my readings, then I go back and look around for info and ask for clarifications. I think everyone should do the same thing and this is the only way that YOU the consumer are assured to get a nicely put together package. If the vendor start realizing that BS cannot be let go easy, then rest assured that no POS product will be offered on these pages, which brings us back to the IC bezel.

Now thankfully, M7 have provided info on the performance of the bezel and I am amused by how this part functions so I got to ask more questions and hopefully find some reasonable answer.

I will post the graph below then my questions...






Looking at the two graphs provided by M7

1- Is the ambient temperature the same during testing?

2- I know the "deltas" are different, 16.26 degrees different at the most probably, but isn't the performance of the IC is also based on how close to ambient it gets you? both the Stock IC and the one with the bezel gets you to about the same out temperature... ok ok 1 degree difference... The Stock does a pretty good job at it (better than the top mount on the R53) and we will not know for sure if the bezel really does it or not unless the inlet temps are closer than 15 degrees apart. I know it's hard to control natural behavior, but the ambient temps are almost constant and similar in degrees in the two tests (that's why I asked #1)... so what happened to the inlet temps that it went up so much?

3- Looking at the second graph again, I see that the bezel works so good that the out temps are below ambient graph!! . How is that possible? were there water sprayer like the Madness one?

I believe that these are some basic questions that came to my mind just looking at the graphs and I am just trying to learn. I have to thank you again for providing us with the info as you promised and looking forward for the answer...

I just thought that if the IC bezel does such a good job, how far does a bigger IC gets you below natural temps? damnnn... I SHOULD get a R56

 

I am sceptical with extreme prejudice about the claim that this bezel allows the IC to cool air below ambient.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x...g?t=1195452411

I am also sceptical about claims that OTHER ICs allow cooling below ambient. The only way to achieve this is to expand the air between the IC inlet and the piston face. IF the IC has a large flow resistance, this could be achieved, but at the expense of a horsepwer-reducing-pressure drop.

I also question why the ambient temperature varies so much during the M7 runs.

 

did a quick (non-professional....i know) overlay in photoshop of the two graphs to show the variation in the ambient temps...only thing i changed was the color so you could tell which was which.

 

Thanks Rally, I was trying to do the same, but my skills with PS are basic... very basic

Good to see the two together, but the difference is minimal? if we forget about the sub ambient temps, this thing "might" work well at high speeds

 

Thanks Rally, but I wasn't clear enough; I'm questioning why the ambient temperature varies 5 degrees or more during each run.

 

ohhhhh gotcha....the variation over the course of each test...not the variation between tests.

They definitely vary as time goes by in each run....it's interesting that at 400 seconds they both converge and stay at the same temperature basically.

I wonder how the ambient temp was being read and from where.