Alta:

what's your take on the filter-size and element-material comparing your intake to others on the market, in particular the new M7 filter, which claims to outflow every other filter out there?

 

Lots of good questions over the weekend. Lets get some answered.

Mk2 colonial viper,
Color is important to you, so red is a good choice?? We could do white, that would really show when you need to clean it! If red isn't your favorite color, give us a suggestion.

efancher,
The rusty/oily water is pretty normal for our setup. Yes 2 catch cans would be the best solution, but when someone buys just one, the way we instruct people to hook it up is the best way. The second catch can method will be in the newer instructions for the CC's.

W3IWI,
The problem with the newer filters falling off isn't as bad as it may have been for you when you bought your intake. Our newer filters don't have a cage around the outside of them. This adds weight and also does add to the filter falling off, if there is a little too much oil on the inside lip. But it is very easy to add a short lenght of tube to the air box to help with them coming off. If you would like one of the newer filters, give us a call and we can get you a new one at a discount.

cdconsor/mdsbrain,
When we made our first IC, using Tube and Fin core construction, and CNC'd endtanks, our initial testing showed roughly 8-10WHP. This is on a car with a 15% pulley, intake, and exhaust. This is staple for cars that would need this part so it was done with these parts. The testing was done by Randy Webb, and i know he will chime in here to help back up those numbers. This was also a long time ago, when we weren't looking at the temps in and out/pressure drop. Yes these things are important, but EVERYONE here needs to understand one thing about IC's. Bigger is better! In almost every situation you can't go too big! Esspecially with the Mini, there isn't any room to put an IC that is too big.

We have heard about a perticular Front mounted IC for the mini (which uses a much bigger core than ours) and it has a pretty high pressure drop. This may be contrary to the Bigger is better, but in this situation, all the bends, and manifold routing come into play causing a higher pressure drop. But look at the HP gained, if there is a gain over stock, it is working. People sometimes seem to get worked up about all the numbers when the only one that really matters in the HP.

Our original IC gained 8-10 WHP on a 15% car. Since this initial testing done by Randy Webb, we have gone to a thicker bar and plate core, for better cooling and flow, and no cast endtanks. The cast endtanks, compared to the CNC'd endtanks, have a much smoother internal air path. This would add to the amount of air the IC can flow, and also subtract from the pressure drop that occures. Even though the newer IC SHOULD gain more HP than the old one, we still claim 8-10WHP. We don't have any temp data, or efficentcy data, but the HP gain is very repeatable. This also goes to show that our intercooler out performs the stock IC in all catagories (temp change,pressure drop, efficency) excet one, weight. If our intercooler did any of these things worse there wouldn't be any gain. The fact that the IC give you HP tells you that there is nothing bad going on in the engine, its not working harder, it must be coolling the air better, hence the gain in HP.

gmcdonnell,
We have another thread going on about our filter and i discussed some of issues with these. Nothing is really bad about them, they filter the dirt, and flow a good amount air. The only thing is the dirt blocks the air passage which then restrics flow. These filters are used in the japanese car world, but not in the mini world, not sure why. Manufactures may see these filters costing too much and not performing as well as FOAM

Joeyprice & meb,
I hope that JLM, cooperSS, D1JL, and detlman helped answer your question. The easiest way to think about it is any % bigger at the crank is like that same % smaller at the SC. So a 2% bigger crank pulley, will give you a 2% smaller SC. Or if you already have 15% SC pulley, you would now have a 17% pulley.

 

ALTA2,

A little confused;

"Yes these things are important, but EVERY one here needs to understand one thing about IC's. Bigger is better! In almost every situation you can't go to big! Esspecially with the Mini, there isn't any place to put an IC too big. "

I'm lost by the last sentence...but I'm left feeling the biggest IC that will fit is a good thing? Given all the other parameters.

 

JLM,
I would love to debate this!
First, this is part of our post (botton of the response)we did regarding types of filter elements, what we use and why. This is based on a drop in filter so the size isn't a variable. This maybe good info for people who havent seen this.

The size of the filter does matter. The larger, the more surface area, the more possible air flow, the less restriction. Our filter is longer than the normal off the shelf filters people use. We made it the diameter as big as we could with still leaving room around it for air to circulate. The inlet of the filter is 2.75" which is larger than many other filters out there, once again allowing more flow.

Our filter is basically constructed of 2 parts of foam. The cylinder portion and the top. The cylinder portions dimientions are 6.75" tall, and 5" around, or 15.7" wide. That makes the SA 105.98 sq-in. The top or cap is a 4" round disc which has a SA of 12.6 sq-in. Totaling 118.58 sq-in. How does this compare to the other???

So i have given you the main reasons why our filter is the way it is, and below is the reason why we choose foam. Do you have any data on thier filter?


!!!!PREVIOUS POST!!!
Recently, we have customers call us and ask weather or not we would sell our intake without the FOAM filter. We of course ask "why?" The response is "I really want the better K&N type, not the foam." There seems to be a misconception regarding all air filters. Lets explain the pluses and minus of all of them. And then we will answer some of the posts I have read over the last couple of weeks. We will be comparing flat panel filter to keep the surface area the same amongst them.

STOCK paper filters
These types of filters consist of a pleated low density ( low so the air can pass through it) paper like material, with a rubber surround. They are fast and cheap to make, which is why all OEM filters are constructed this way. The benefit of the filter is that is cleans really really well, by blocking the dirt going through the paper. The problem is flow with these filters. Since the paper has to be dense enough to block the small particles, the flow really suffers.

PAPER: OK flow, Excellent cleaning, Poor flow when dirty.

Cotton Gauze filters (K&N type)
These filters have a great name and a huge marketing scheme behind them and that is part of the reason why so many people think they are the best. These filters are constructed similarly to the stock paper type, they are pleated to get more flow area and cleaning area. The main difference is that the pleated material they use consists of a much more open element. This is how the K&N type get more flow from their filters. When they are new, the Cotton/Gauze is very plain to see because they are white in color under the steel mesh that holds it in place. Once there is OIL on the filter, out comes that red-ish pink-ish color(oil can be other colors). Since the element they are using is much more open than the OEM type, they use this oil to collect the dirt. This works great at giving you higher flow for more HP (open element) and the cleaning (oil) needed to keep the engine in working order. But the down fall is as it gets dirty, it starts to block the passages ways through the filter causing a loss in HP. This is when you have to clean the filter to get back the HP. Being there are many of these filters copied over seas, I have seen many that are the red, or blue colors that are a direct rip-off off the K&N type. There is one thing that I would be worried about with some of thess....OIL. Many of them have no oil at all! The cotton material is colored to the red-ish/pink-ish color

K&N type Excellent flow, Excellent cleaning, ok flow after dirty.

FOAM filters (Alta type)
Foam filters are constructed of a simple layer of open cell foam. The foam can be varied in a couple of ways, by adding layers and by changing the density of the foam. Similar to the K&N type, one of the side is held in place with a steel mesh. The density and layers of the foam can be varied in order to change how much restriction the filter has. This is something that other filters can't do very easily. The foam is oiled similar to the K&N type to catch the dirt. When dirt enters the filter, it can't just go straight through it. Since the foam cells are random in their placement, the only way dirt can go through the filter is by making turns. When the dirt makes a turn it runs into the oiled foam and stays put. Basically the foam filters CATCH dirt, not block it like the other types. The beauty to this type of filter is that when it gets dirty the dirt doesn't block the air passage, causing a restriction. This is because of the multiple air paths that still exist once it is dirty. The oil that is used in a foam filter I much much thicker and stickier than the oil used in the K&N type. It is actually stringy, which is part of what makes the dirt stay put.

FOAM filters- Excellent flow, Excellent cleaning, and Excellent flow when dirty.

COMMENTS MADE BY NAM MEMBERS

" We also looked at different materials in the filter element, and the look
of the testing rigs filter element with foam was scary.....so no foam in the ........"
"a very extensive test lab with some amazing equipment allowing them to test flow, particle intrusion in parts per million etc. The foam element did not do very well at all, and that is what I based my statement on......"

I would guess the foam filter used in the test mentioned above had little or no oil in it. With what was said above, this company (though we are not affiliated with them) has a great video of foam at work.
http://www.trueflow.com/filtertest/high.htm

"This is kinda old news though, isn't it guys?
It's been said that "Paper Filters" do the best filtering, but restrict flow the most. Cotton filters like k&n flow better than Paper, almost as well as foam and do good job of filtering. Foam filters flow the same as Cotton except better in higher rpm, but do not filter as well. Also, flow rate doesn't suffer when foam get's dirty. "

The "doesn't filter as well", is the only thing wrong with this statement. The above video is a great example why. Also look at the ATV industry, they all use Foam filter specifically for their cleaning/non clogging benefit.

"If the BMP filter size is the same as MiniMania's, it will fit in place of the Alta filter, a little tight, but fits"

I am not sure why people would spend the extra money to replace a high quality foam filter with a K&N type. There really is NO benefit.

There are companies built around both foam & K&N type filters. Both of them believe they have the best product. If you were in the ATV world, you would be all about the foam and how it is so much better. In the auto industry It all about the K&N type. This is from the great marketing they have done over the years beating into peoples heads how the K&N filter is the best. I guess it is time for us to start the beating about foam!

 

meb,
What i was trying to explain is, on the MINI, the "TOO BIG of an IC" is never going to happen. There just isn't enough room. So your thoughts are correct. My wording could have been better.

 

Okay, got it Thanks! When I write in a hurry, I do not make much sense...either.

 

I can comment about filter materials based on personal experience.

My last CAI was a K&N cone type with a cotton filtering element that required oil for reasons posted above. This particular filter resided behind the front bumper and just ahead of the plastic fender liner, slightly below horizontal wheel centerline. I had to remove the front bumper every 3,000 - 5,000 miles to clean the filter because I could feel the power loss - every 5-6 weeks for my driving routine.

I had a foam type filter on another car, same engine, same location. I had the option of coating the foam element in a very sticky substance (meant for rally applications). I tried this coating once. Although I could not really feel a difference when dirty, the amount of dirt that came out of the filter with and without the sticky substance appeared to be the same for the same drive time and conditions. I did not weigh the dirt so this wasn't scientific. It was based upon a deliberate, visual experiment. FYI

 

Do you reccomend the Alta control arms for a car that is tracked AND used as a daily driver. Are the Heim joints going to be too stiff?

 

Sorry to get a little off topic about the CAIs but, is the 2% crank pulley noticeable on a stock MCS? How much HP gain do you estimate?

 

the M7 filter is from cotton, maybe from a company named S&B(?) and appears to be of similar size to the Alta. They have made much of its superior flow qualities compared to anything else on the market.

 

meb,
Your experice is pretty common. People with many miles on thier foam filter don't feel a difference before or after cleaning. That tells you the foam is doing the job, flowing when dirty, and cleaning the air.

JLM,
I am somewhat familiar with the M7 filter, in that it is a K&N/cotton type filter. But it is going to have the charateristics as i described earlier. When dirty, less flow.

You say it appears to be similar size?? Do you know the size of the filter? You also say "They have made much of its superior flow qualities compared to anything else on the market." Do they back this up with anything? Other than just saying we went to a cotton filter manufacture and they showed us how bad they worked. The problem with this is of course a cotton filter manufacture is going to show the foam isn't as good.

I know you don't have anything to do with them, just trying to get all the info to compare intake to intake and filter to filter.


RallyMINI,
We have never had anyone complain about the control arms being rough, or loud or anything. We have put 15K miles on our MINI with them and the NVH has never been a problem. You would think with a sphearical bearing like we use there would be, but there isn't. This may be do to the fact, that the bumps are twisting the rod and pushing on the shock, not pushing a direction that won't move the rod end, like a side load. Hard to explain, but in my mind in makes sense

JCKoopaS,
The boost gained with the 2% crank pulley is the same weather you had a 2% smaller SC pulley. So there would be gain because of the boost increase. Roughly 1 PSI in boost is what you would see. You would gain HP from the lighter weight, and from the increase in boost. How much, that is a good question.

 

here are some bits from M7:

After long discussions with our filter Mfg. we decided to go with cotton element. I must admit I was surprised by their findings as I have been running a foam element ( pipercross viper ) for over 2 years now . They were very persuasive in showing that the protection offered by the current foam filters available for the mini was not as good as what can be achieved with cotton. The offered to do a particle test to show the " numbers " and we might take them up on that when someone retires one of the other type for a AGS system. In any event we are going with cotton based on their expertise.
11x5x3.25 inches

 

What is the spring rates for your springs?

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=39371

 

I have had years of experience with oiled foam air filters used in chainsaws. Now this is a really dirty environment. Foam filters stop the dirt, as witnessed by how clean the intake is on the clean side of the filter. The foam filters maintain air flow inspite of incredible of dirt on the outside. Both paper elements and woven cloth filters exhibit severe drop-off in preformance and require more frequent service than foam elements.

Another advantage to the foam element is that it can be easily cleaned, re-oiled and re-installed. Pleated paper must be replaced. Woven fabric elements allow fine dust thru the filter.

The same is true of motorcycle air filters. Off-road bikes continually operate in an incredibly hostile environment. Foam is the material of choice.

Give me oiled foam every time, thank you very much.

JOHO

 

Would a 2% crank pulley allow me rev a little more freely? (rpms going up and down quicker) Will a 15% pulley promote a more floaty revving engine? (the stock one is already pretty slow to rev up and down)

 

Is this one new design?



..and this is old?

 

JLM,
Bilbo baggins is saying what i have said all along. Foam cleans as good if not better than the cotton, but flows the same when dirty. I wonder if the filter in the "filter test" M7's filter manufacturer used, was un-oiled? This i can see causing dirt to escape the filter making it look bad. On their size, since theirs in an weird oval shape, i would like to know the true size. Those dimensions you gave me are as if it were a rectangle.

By using my best judgement and using the dimensions you gave me, the volume of their filter is roughly 90 sq-in. This is just measuring the actually filtering surface, not the black rubber area.

Our filter is roughly 119 sq-in. This again is just the filtering surface area. I think theirs is a little less because of the .25" rubber lip aroudn the top and bottom.

If you are concerned with air flow, the air has to enter the filter from the sides then do a sharp turn to get through it to the throttle body. With this offset filter like they use, the air will always favor flowing through one part of the filter more than another. Once again, with the K&N type filter, that one spot will get clogged up first and start to hinder the flow.

I don't want to tell M7 how to make thier part better, i just want inform people the reason why we use the filter we use and why ours is better.

In the end, the only way to compare intakes to intake is on a stock car and on the dyno. Hopefully soon they will do this!

dominicminicoopers,
Spring rates are a really hard thing to quote. At what load height, would you like to compare? How does the manufacture measure this you are wanting to compare to? The problem with springs for OEM cars, is that they are not measure in a consistant way. If you measure the spring at its free height, the rate will be significantly less that at ride height. This is true on our springs because our springs have a few "dead" coils which touch when at ride hieght. This helps the spring stay in the perch when the wheels are off the ground. So the rate there is much less than at ride height. Many spring manufactures don't have dead coils so their rate is totally different.

It comes down to there isn't any consistant way to say "our rate is X". I can tell you our rate is higher than stock at the ride height, but it is not so high that the car is jumpy or bouncey. Basically they are not so stiff that the vavleing the shocks are not over come by the stiffness of the springs. This is an important aspect when it comes to the longevity of the struts.

JCKoopaS,
The crank pulley weather or not it is a 2% or our regular lightened pulley, will make the engine rev freer, simply because of the weight that is remove from the crank. Doing a 17% SC pulley or a 15% and a 2% will give you the same boost, but the 2% crank pulley will allow your engine to rev freer.

 

MyPocketRocket,
The top one is the newest design. Cast endtanks, Bar and PLate core. The bottom one is the original design with the tube and fin core and CNC'd tanks.

 

When testing an IC, isn't it more important to know the pressure drop and the efficiency compared to stock, rather than the HP gain while strapped on a dyno? Of course a larger intercooler with a greater mass will serve as a better heat sink than the stock intercooler. But, that intercooler has to shed that heat to the ambient air, a situation not encountered on the dyno.

Isn't the real point of a replacement IC to improve the transfer of heat from the charge air to the ambient and if so, why don't you measure the efficiency using the universally accepted formula to do so:

Ei = (inlet - outlet)/(inlet - ambient)

 

"When testing an IC, isn't it more important to know the pressure drop and the efficiency compared to stock, rather than the HP gain while strapped on a dyno?"

YES and NO. We could make our IC with ulta high density fins, on the inside and out to make the efficiency close to 100%. But that same IC will loose HP because of the restriction of the fins. The fins we use are the same density we use on IC's that support 500+HP. This balance of fin density vs. pressure drop is something we have somewhat perfected. On these really large cores the pressure drop we see is in the 2psi range or less.

"Of course a larger intercooler with a greater mass will serve as a better heat sink than the stock intercooler. But, that intercooler has to shed that heat to the ambient air, a situation not encountered on the dyno."

Actually it is the same on the dyno, i am not sure how it can be different. If anything in our situation, the Dyno is sometimes worse, in that the air flowing through the IC doesn't increase with speed. The air temp being blown over the IC is from the outside, so it is the same ambient temp as it would be driving down the road.

"Isn't the real point of a replacement IC to improve the transfer of heat from the charge air to the ambient and if so"

No, that is just one reason. The main reason to replace your IC with a bigger one is to keep your engine in a safe running order. Things like lowering your EGT's, gaining boost pressure (because it is cooler air, and less pressure drop) , getting rid of knock or detonation, are a few of reasons.

In the end the ONLY thing that matters is the HP gained. The HP gained shows the IC does all those things correct.
The cooler the air-the more HP,
The less pressure drop-the more HP
The lower the EGT's-the safer the car runs and more HP can be added safely.
The less knock prone the engine is the more timing can be added or fuel be removed, which all gains you HP.
HP is not just temp related, CFM and the things mentioned above all matter. Lets take that near 100% efficient IC and see what HP it makes. Most likely it will be much less than the stocker. This is why temp isn't the only reason.

"why don't you measure the efficiency using the universally accepted formula to do so"

I never said we NEVER will do this. Since we did this so long ago, we thought people wouldn't need these numbers, we thought people would just want to know what HP they gain from it, which is the better question. We gained the HP we thought we would. Looking back it would be nice to have done that to better compare ours to others in the pressure drop/effeciency. We know how people like numbers!

Again, we can make an IC with virtually ZERO pressure drop, or we can make one that has near 100% efficiency, but in the end the HP gained is the most important part. It shows how all aspects of the part comes together.

Andy, i know some of these things you know already, just trying to educate everyone that is reading this.

 

this may sound stupid but here goes anyway.

What is the pressure drop on a stock intercooler ? Or did you mean there is a 2 psi drop between the stock one and the alta?

 

detlman,
Not a stupid question at all. When i mentioned 2psi drop this is on a totally different core we make for another car. I was trying to give people an idea that the pressure drop on a really big IC (this one is 28"x9.25"x3.5") can be had with good balance of fin density.

 

Alta 2

ive looked into crank pulley for awhile now, and i got a few questions...

with reguarding to a vib dampener... ive read almost all the pages on the argument but my main concern is just drivability, will it induce anything weird if im driving normally? will i run belts if i go 2% overdrive... i already got a 15% pulley? i have a very big concern regarding reliability, i do autocross and track the car, with some red-line shifts in between... will i be running belts like water?

also.. what kinda gains am i lookin at?

 

So, if you DID test the efficiency and pressure drop of both the stock IC as well as your replacement, then would you mind sharing those results and the conditions under which you measured them?

 

Thank you for your response. This is good to know. Since you asked...What is the weakest and stiffest rate of your spring? And what is it at normal ride-height?