Great - what's the efficiency of the new version? Does it perform better than the old version?

I'd love to see how they both stack up to the GP intercooler.........

 

You just threw a rock in the hornets nest... this atta be fun

 

+1

 

I feel let down by both Alta and M7. It would be so easy to put an end to all this **** flinging by just posting the numbers they came up with after testing thier final products. Instead I think the closest thing we have to that on this thread is rustyboy and his experience of gaining more Hp by going back to the oem Ic. Not to take anything away from rustyboy (in fact he's given us the best data on the effectiveness of these IC's) but rustyboy isn't the manufacturer of either of these parts. I can't believe M7 would say we like our customers BUTT DYNOs to speak for our company- WTF!!

I think if the numbers were anything remotely special they'd post it on thier sites.

I think after 6 pages of this **** if their IC's did anything worth pointing out they would have pointed out their effectiveness by now.

To say a car is fast is one thing. To say say this is my 1/4 time is another. To put up words without numbers is a waste of time, and imho does more to take away credibility from a product/manufacturer than anything else.

 

I think Dr. O's testing showed that the DFIC was good for the street but for the track??

 

You are exactly right as we keep dancing around the subject. What we really need is a NAM sponsored intercooler shootout. If all this flinging keeps going on without numbers, I'm going to put it to rest by datalogging my car(maybe others), getting one each of said intercooler, and do a blind-impartial test with input from the technical types here to get everyone involved. Let the chips, or IAT's , fall where they may.

 

Haha, I know at least one vendor that wouldn't show up to that.

 

Well, if I have to do it myself, vendor cooperation or no, I'll buy every product that doesn't get volunteered by a fellow motorer. By getting a small group of peers, for example Dr. O, Dr. Phil G, and I'm sure some others, together to come to a consensus on what a fair testing program would be for each mode of use(track, street, drag), we could put real results in public that most couldn't argue with, whether they like it or not.

P.S. My wife would be highly disappointed with my grammar. Being a PR and Marketing major, she is always correcting me. I tend to ramble a bit when I'm pounding the keyboard

 

Good luck with that.

Actually, some form of standardized, objective testing for these "modes" would be fantastic, for ALL kinds of mods and combinations thereof...

A continuing challenge is that even breaking down into those three modes still leaves a lot of variables...while most suspension mods might be fairly independent of temperature, one engine mod may very well work better at (high/low/moderate) temp while another works better at (moderate/low/high) temp... and altitudes... and for street, pavement type / quality, etc... lots of variables... just because a 1/4 mile time is great doesn't mean a car can corner... or rev without heat soaking 318 times in 11 miles on the Dragon...

So we always get back to the discussion:
Q: Which is "best"?
A: Product A, because with it I kicked butt at Streets of Willow.
A: Product B, because it got me a better 1/4 mile time.
A: Product C, because it made more torque on the dyno.
A: Product D, because it won me a car show.
and so on...

 

Good luck with that.....we put together a vendor Intake shootout and our attempt at offering a fair testing program at a dyno day and was still met by people who had problems with the numbers and testing etc...

You'll never make everybody happy....

 

Why don't we just ask about 20 people or so and then call that a final conclusion.

 

Well the track is is somewhat easy. There are many details I'm leaving out to make it "scientific" but we go;

For the track test, 2 cars, one light mods, pulley, intake , exhaust, one car full bore. Get a local hot shoe at one of the tracks to do the driving, a guy that can pull consistent laps. Data log the inlet and outlet temps, plus OBD temp, throttle position, rpm etc. on both cars. Start with the stock intercooler as the control on both cars. Send the guy out for 5 laps, timed and logged, then car 2. As car 2 is circulating, change out intercooler on car 1, driver doesn't know what he's getting. Keep doing this round robin, recording lap times, data and driver impressions until each unit goes twice, at random.
We should get some definitive data from something like this.
Now for the street portion, that's where the scientists get together and decide what a fair test is. Vendors can have input if they like to what this test should look like. Hard through the first three gears, drive 30mph for 20 seconds, hard through two gears, on and on. Maybe something completely different, I don't know. I'm sure with all of the brilliant minds available, we could come up with a good, standardized, fair test.
I'm to the frustration point that I think a lot of people are, and this would benefit everyone. You never know, there maybe some surprises. I really have no bone to pick in this, I'm going where the power is

 

Works for me. If 90% or more agree, the dissenters must just have special needs. Or special Vulcan powers.

 

Yes, I know it works for you.

 

And that's what matters.

 

I don't know about that. Maybe we should ask another 20 people.

 

Exactly. You can put together an intercooler showdown but then there are going to be the same number of people that will complain about how the numbers and data were not collected correctly and will still be against it. This was already discussed...

 

Personally, I detest that sort of defeatist attitude even more then I do BS claims. Yes, if you collect the data you will have to be prepared to defend your findings. But to use the fact that the data will be scrutinized to not collect the data at all does not pass the logical mustard. And when self described "tuners" use that faulty logic in marketing their questionable products and follow that up by acting like a the only virgin in the ***** house when called out, then that is just laughable.

 

First of all this is what was stated by Peter at M7. Second, there was never anything said about data not being collected at all. From what I got from this thread about data is that IT IS collected but it is not shared with the public. Though I do agree that this data should be shared, I can also see the vendor's side where people will complain STILL. That's just the way it is, you can't please everyone...

 

Believe me. I am well aware who made that statement. Not collected, or not shared is semantics. In the end the customer is still basing decisions on anecdotal information mostly rooted in the butt dyno. Of all the data that is possibly collected it is the vendor's claims that should require the most scrutiny. Vested interest and all.

 

I agree and fully back doing a NAM sponsored intercooler showdown. But it is just a sad fact that then those who do this shoot off are going to face the scrutiny, not the vendors...

 

LOL. If I know NAM, most of the scrutiny about the testing procedures and controls would come for the the individual vendor's friends and family (supporters) once they see the unfavorable results.

Once you separate the shillers and the fanbois from the haters, what you have left is the truth. All this of course is like theoretical physics. There is only 2-3 guys who actually understand it, and they have a problem explaining it to the rest of us.

 

Again, there will be those who oppose.

 

That's why we invite the vendors from the beginning. They can choose to be involved or not. The managing group of the tests would listen to all input before the testing begins. I can guarantee you though, the minds among us will have no issue defending the findings. There's some bright physicists, scientists and engineers among us.

 

Hey, don't leave out those who have the gift for smelling out BS. They also serve an essential role.