sorry 2hear that man!!!

 

I also have not received any actual dyno charts, just the comparison table.

nonetheless I gladly donated my $10 to allow continuation of this thread, with some actual data, and more importantly to give certain folks the opportunity to continue to post more useless comments

it's all good...

 

Discodan...I appologise if you contributed and did not get your data. But now that Dr. Obnxs has publicized the data (in the other thread), I see no reason to not release the comprehensive data under this thread...as soon as I get them from Chad.

 

Sid I don't think anyone means it to be, as you said sophomoric, I think it's that there was so much hype surrounding it and blah blah blah...that if M7 had just made it and said

"it makes 6 WHP and more over it changes the whole personality of your Mini, here's link to the sounds"

no one woulda thought anything, it's woulda just been another choice in the runing when you buy an intake...but it was talked up and talked up and promises were made and none kept...

What you guys did and put together was and is awsome! I hope this continues with our community so that people who don't have as much expirence with tuning can see factual results to help in thier desicions. Not cause it's all that matters to everyone. jsut cause it's good to have all the info.

 

i plan on getting all the data out there to show HP and TQ are each 100 RMP for each run. it just takes some time to down load, and i am book up with installs all week here so i hope to be working on it at night and get the info out this week.:smile:

 

You're right...I was a little harsh. But let's get over the same old rhetorics of "what M7 did wrong". We have data now so let's stick to "what do we make of this".

 

glad to have helped this cause. and look forward to seeing the results PUBLICLY posted here and over on MINI2. Sid, Chad, and JS... i ain't mad at ya! good job you guys and to all who contributed here on NAM, hope this starts a trend in more customer run dynos with help from others because these nembers will eventually benefit us all.

 

It's nice to see validation for both Pilo's claimed performance of 6-7 whp:

http://www.piloracing.com/shop/prodd...SINTAKE&cat=21

MSFITOY's testing showed an average gain for the Pilo of 6.2 whp.

... and Alta's claimed performance of 10 whp:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=41274

MSFITOY's testing showed an average gain for the Alta of 10.6 whp.

As for M7's claim that " So what can you expect performance wise from the AGS, as it outflows any system currently on the market by a margin." ... welll ...

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...2&postcount=43

 

Here's the I way I look at this...you guys want to compare apples to apples? use ONLY the first three runs of each test. You get:

-stock, 148.4hp 141.5 torque
-Pilo, 154.6hp 145.5 torque
-Alta, 159.0hp 146.0 torque
-AGS, 154.6hp 147.0 torque

Now what do you see?

 

That the Alta makes 10.6 whp while the others make 6.2 whp? Torque improvements are much smaller, ranging from 4.0 for the Pilo to 5.5 for the AGS? Seeing the curves will definietly help shed more light on the situation.

 

I see you looking at selective bits of data to reach the conclusion you want to

 

I said that the actual curves which reveal where the torque occurs are really what's important to me. Also how fast will the engine "spool" up.......some would say throttle response. I break that down to two distinct categories. How fast does the engine get to red line and how well can you modulate the power......is it sensitive to subtle input as well as WOT?


This stuff is not apparent from the almighty top HP #..........

 

Not really. Now that we have potentially more data than ever about each, we can begin to discern more closely based on realistic desires. I absolutely agree that torque and curves should now be used to make up people's minds.

 

Yes, but that's not what he said - he said 'only look at the first runs' - which doesn't give you proper data samples. It's only looking at the data you want to see, to support your intended result. For example, what happens if you DON'T only look at the first runs? Different result. Get it?

 

So, what gear were the runs completed under? Was the same gear used for all? I hope so... Also, what max rpm did you guys go to? Again, I hope the same...

 

We know from other testing that the flow potential of the AGS tube is 20% more than stock. And now we see that it's not making the power (in this test) that CAIs are getting that don't change the tube. Here are some possibilities....

1) The TB to SC tube isn't that big of a constraint. Maybe a 12" diameter pipe between the TB and SC won't show any improvement either. This begs the question about what ELSE is needed to take advantage of the higher flow potential.... Larger TB? Ported SC, Intake runners or head? Pully? Free flow exhaust?

2) Maybe the AGS filter area is more of a limitiation than the AGS tube is a benefit. Look at the area of the AGS vs HAI for input.....

Anyway, it's looking like for a near stock car, the AGS isn't the huge win all the discussions had anticipated. But it CAN flow more air..... So what's it take to take advantage of that, or is the capacity even needed at all?

Matt

 

BAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Way back when, I logged the upstream air pressure (at the mouth of the supercharger) in both stock and 15% pulley condition, using the stock intake with stock paper filter at about 2500 miles. At WOT, as the revs climb, the absolute pressure starts off near atmospheric and at 6500 rpm reads:

0% Pulley: 912 mbar
15% Pulley: 881 mbar

That shows that the difference in pressure drop between stock pulley and 15% pulley is only 31 mbar or 0.04 psi. If any of the components upstream of the supercharger were acting as a great bottleneck once airflow was greatly increased by the 15% pulley, I'd expect this difference to be much greater.

Just going by looks alone, it LOOKS like the AGS tube would be less restrictive than the stock one. However, it also LOOKS like the AGS air filter has a much smaller surface area than the rest of the CAI's on the market. Some adventuresome soul should do a test of the AGS with no filter, or with just a short velocity stack attached to the TB. :smile:

 

But typical of some here . . .

Come on TOY, your to much of an optimist, the reality has proven different time after time.

 

What ever makes you happy Do you have a useful point besides trying to irritate me? You need to go back and read why I suggest only the first three runs to be valid if you want to compare them fairly.

Yes Andy, we considered testing the AGS without the filter but time didn't allow. We would then have to test the Alta tube without the filter and the Pilo without the...well...Pilo

 

You were expecting a useful point?

You may as well ask for pigs to fly.

 

You're right...I don't know why I bother sometimes. To think I put Msfitoy through this kinda crap weather just to get this kinda grief. Those who know me, know Msfit just doesn't get driven in the rain for anything

 

My understanding is that it is all about the exhaust manifold/headercat back system, which is woefully underdeveloped stock. If you can't get the air out, how are you going to get more air in?????

 

Twincharging ???

 

Wait, all of the MINI's involved in this test have black wheels? Now this changes everything!