In the last sentence are you claiming the test was rigged? Not cool.
Run #2 only went to 103mph - did he rig the stock one, too?

From what I've seen so far - on this car, in otherwise stock config. the intakes are a stones throw away from each other. People can puff chests over 1 or 2 HP or torque deltas, but reality is the deltas are so small as to be insignificant.

 

No, I ask outright: did not reaching the redline affect the upper reaches? Have you seen a dyno? You either run til redline or lift at xxxx rpms. The Alta power goes down a lot at 105 like the other tests that reach 105 [that is the ECU cutting off fuel, I think]. The AGS's power does NOT fall like that, and it only goes to 104. Meaning, either he lifted [and the question becomes WHEN?] or the ECU has two redlines AND behaviors at redline. Take your pick. Anyone else notice this??

 

i don't really care about the whole time to speed thing... can someone please post the graphs of the actual horsepower and torque figures... i would like to see the power curves... you know the things that actually matter... i could care less if the alta makes 12 more peak horsepower if it actually lost 4 horsepower for the first 6k rpm (this is meerly an exageration to prove a point) at the same rate i would like to see how much more if any bottom end the ags made...


all in all... this is fun stuff im glad someone finally took the time to dyno everything... all fun stuff... remember why we all have the cars... to have fun

 

You're kiddn right? Then why bother with modifications?

 

Man, time to speed is the bottom line, and the reason I visit this forum a few times a day Horsepower and torque figures, as with data-logging, supply us with information that leads us to believe they will be faster, or reach a certain speed with less elapsed time...

 

In this spirit, why isn't anyone else chiming in? Haha. This information changes everything....

 

This whole thread is turning into a joke. For those of us who are only looking for saavy comments and not childish rants, I guess this is not the place to be. Whine, Whine Whine.

If you buy a product that offers no quantitative backup and the future results then differ with your reality, then you need to fess up and admit it. By the way, I have done this to myself at times over the years and let me tell you it is hard to admit to ones self.

I still think that this test is commendable, valid and in the spirit of what this forum is supposed to be in providing to its members, but until someone has enough nerve after this thread to test a car that has much better flow characateristics, the results must be:

No significance difference with a reasonably stock car

 

hey im here.....i see the point!! its really hard to judge whats going on w/out understanding all of the facts it seems people are not getting the thread cuz its not beign read all the way through

 

Agreed!
Don't understand why anyone would disagree; some people seem to be claiming that "0.03secs" is actually a noticeable result!

I have a new question to everyone.
What is the cost benefit of these different products?
Obviously the performance is NEARLY IDENTICAL for each. From a quick web browse, I see:
The Pilo is $129.
The Alta is $200 (from WebbMotorSports).
The M7 AGS is between $299 and $399.

So apparently the Pilo gives the best "bang for the buck". Anyone disagree?


I am definitely not one to sing $$$ above everything else (if I was, I would not have the JCW intake on my MINI), but for many people the cost benefit is very important.

 

Got it - I read 'made' as intentional vs. 'caused'.
The third possibility is an error factor of 1% between the car ECU and the dyno CPU.


In any case, if you look at the time deltas in the final MPHs, it doesn't look like he lifted -
100-101 .24sec
101-102 .24sec
102-103 .25sec
103-104 .26sec

which corresponds with run 13, which went to 105
100-101 .25sec
101-102 .25sec
102-103 .25sec
103-104 .25sec
104-105 .28sec

The timing is similar on the Alta runs as well. I did notice the HP drop at 105, which does look like ECU cutoff. From looking at the numbers, any variation is statistically insignificant.

 

Cooper S, $20,950 168
SRT-4, $21,195 230
Colbalt SS, $21,995 205

Dollar per horse:

Cooper S, $124.7
SRT-4, $92.2
Colbalt SS, $107.3


We're all wasting our time here since we don't know how to spend our money wisely to begin with. I'm going with a SRT-4 and kick your penny pinchn Mini a$$ :smile:

 

MCS+JCW ?27000? 210 ... 128.6/hp

 

Re-read my post. I didn't change your quote at all. I replied to you, using language that I thought you would understand. Read it again.

 

I'm not sure you noticed this but MSFITOY wrote: "You might've notice that this data is incomplete and does not include all the runs"

He posted (in order): 2,4,6,6,9,11,13,15

To make use of this data, we need to see runs:

1,2,3 (stock)

4,5,6 (pilo)

7,8,9 (alta)

10,11,12 (ags)

It is foolhardy to attempt to draw conclusions by cherrypicking runs from within these since there is variation from run to run for each intake. Wait til MSFITOY is able to post ALL of the runs so they can be averaged within each intake test.

 

No, it really isn't! Look, let me remind you:

strongest Alta showing: Alta 3 [run 9!] 161.7hp 147.7lbft
strongest AGS showing: AGS 2 [run 11!] 155.4hp 147lbft

Those correspond nicely with the dyno runner's notes and the [higher resolution!] data used by me, just now. These are the runs I compared. Now, knowing that many runs were not available, I compared on the best basis possible: best run. If you don't like it, that's fine, BUT you better acknowledge that I used a common standard and THEREFORE MY CALCULATIONS ARE MEANINGFUL. Thanks . Next excuse, Andy?

 

there is something bothering me that no one has mentioned and maybe doesn't matter....but......whenever I reset my ECU it takes my car at least 200 miles of hard driving with a lot of WOT to teach the car that I want it to perform. The ECU has adaptive properties. When I clear my ECU, my car runs very puny and it has to adapt. It seems to me that you are not giving the ECU the time it needs to adapt and then optimize the performance of any of the intakes. Could it be that the ECU could adapt to the intakes to make better power than recorded in the test and further differentiate itself from the others?

One comment. The margin of difference is not enough for me to rip off my Alta and put on the AGS but if I were looking at this as a new purchase I might go with the AGS....like I went with the Miltek even though there are others that dyno more power. I liked the construction, the "note" and the reputation of the company.

Also, the price quoted on the Alta is without the "tube," was the test done with or w/o the tube?

what about the heat shield on the AGS?

 

I have a suspicion that the average information will be very similar, albeit with some extra variance.

 

honeslty, if were talking differences of 2-5 hp b/w the cais we will not notice the difference on the road.

Unless ur tracking the car, then fine u want every little hp possible, but for 90% who dont track, 4-5 diffence on a cai? who cares!

Ultimately, i feel the issue should be: what HP differences the manufacturer claims, vs what we have seen via dynos, tests, etc. and try to identify reasons for differences b/w the two - not always possible but hey im sure theres a reason

Just my 2c.

 

You do notice torque delivery, as it determines general 'character' of your car's powerband. More torque means less hesitance, especially down low. I'm pretty sure that you will feel the low-end power of the AGS, because literally everyone I know (>5!!!) who has driven with it has been surprised by how smooth and quickly the car accelerates. I personally like more power down low because fact is that's where my car is most times. NOT at/near redline.

 

Here are them all on one sheet:


Excel sheet:
http://www.chipamp.com/diyaudio/mini-dyno.xls

1,2,3 (stock)
4,5,6 (pilo)
7,8,9 (alta)
10,11,12 (ags)

Assuming 13 and 15 are the additional ags runs...

--
Brian

 

It would be an exageration to say that a tenth of a second quicker 0-60 is dramatically faster, but it would put you out front by a noticeable distance. If you're interested in that kind of thing, it could be worth it.

The time to reach 60 mph is an important benchmark. For me, throttle response and mid-range power are even more important than a peak HP or Torque number. It's all about useable power. For example, I don't use the 6500-7000 rpm range all that much when compared to the 4000-6500 range. If the AGS wins in that range, it's probably my first choice.

Is AGS worth the extra money for the product and the extra labor on the install? Hmmm... that's a question we'll all have our own opinions on. But it could be.
What I'd be interested to see is a comparison of the average times for accelerating from 60-80 & 60-100. To me that would be a meaningful expression of the power increases these intakes make. I think he data is there to generate these comparisons. [ingsoc - can you help a brother out on this?]

 

60-80 and 60-100 would be a great and simple test to use an average on, because the data points would be limited, but they're not available to me yet. Anyways, here's the data for each intake on the fastest runs:

60-80:
AGS, run 11: reaches 80 in 9.07 s. and 60 in 5.04 s., so 60-80 in 4.03 s.
ALTA, run 9: reaches 80 in 9.16 s. and 60 in 5.13 s., so 60-80 in 4.03 s.

60-100:
AGS, run 11: reaches 100 in 13.56 s. and 60 in 5.04 s., so 60-100 in 8.52 s.
ALTA, run 9: reaches 100 in 13.6 s. and 60 in 5.13 s., so 60-100 in 8.47 s.

The ALTA seems to be catching up at 100, but the AGS is still the fastest to 100.

 

FWIW, at 100 mph, 0.04 secs. is just under 6 feet. That is just about .43 MINI lengths .

 

you know this thread is funny...part of me is like NOOO MAKE IT STOOOOP SOMEBODY PLEEEAAASSSEE!!

and yet....look at it....it has really got so many people chruning numbers....and theories and and and....it's GREAT!!!

WOO HOO!!

really...

interesting stuff...

 

So I plotted up some.... Data as posted so far.....





And I looked at best runs available....




Yeah, I know that it's not all the data....

And it's supposed to be color coded...
Black = stock
Red = AGS
Yellow = Alta
Blue = Pilo

And for torque, it's basically HP/RPM, so I just divided the HP by the speed, it's good for relative numbers....

Have fun!

Matt

ps, sorry for the screwed up HP labels...