not going to waste time arguing on this (irrevelant issue) , but if u can seriously feel a difference between 2 cars from 5hp - bravo

At the end of the day, id jsut wanna see if the AGS is worth all this hype.

 

Thanks Matt. The only way to do a reasonable comparison is to have each represented on the same graph. Easy enough to make the numbers say what you want them to if you try, but I think you've made a good, comparable chart.

Looks like quite a horse race! I actually like it that each comes by their (similar) power via different methods. Variety is good!

 

now your talking my language this is what is important to me.

 

My post #337 touched on this but went ignored. When I am driving I don't care (much) about the extreme top. I have a 19% and try to stay away from red line. If I had an imaginary friend in a car next to me and we are cruising at say 45 (on a track of course) and he jumped on it how fast would my car respond to the now WOT condition. The faster the car gets to red line the better. This may be over simplification but speed to red line is the deal as long as it modulates well enough to be a dailey driver

 

The Alta was run with the tube ($90). JS's Mini ran quite strong inspite clearing the ECU. My Mini doesn't suffer from ECU resets either.

 

So, then this test has achieved a result we can all agree on. Aftermarket intakes increase the whine factor on a MINI Cooper S.





You might be right, but in the 200 miles it takes your ECU to learn things so many other variables would have changed when you take the car back to the dyno. While resetting the ECU before running with a new intake, at least you're being consistent and running each intake with the same ECU setting. As we should all know, no dyno run is ever going to be a perfect recreation of on road conditions. The key is to reduce the variables so that each run can be completed in as close to exact conditions as the one before. So while the ECU setting may take 200 miles to learn, if it was only reset once, or not at all, then its adaptive qualities would have been constantly changing with each run done, and not from the same starting point.

 

so the conclusions are:

for a stock motor, and compared to stock:
torque maxes are so close for all the intakes, they are indistinguishable (1/144 is only .7%);
hp is +10 Alta; +6 Pilo. +4AGS; (a differential of 6/160=3.7%).

max hp increase was 10/160=6%; not bad for an intake only change.

My guess is that for an intake design like the AGS, you might see a relative improvement on a better breathing car. Next test: head, pulley, header as the baseline.

as far as all the flutter about 0-60 times, get your cars out on the dragstrip and post some real world results comparing intakes.

 

Won't it be hillarious to see the excuses, after the next dyno round shows the same results! LOL

 

Thanks for posting your spreadsheet. I crunched it further by figuring out the RPM:MPH multiplier based on the quoted HP & Tq numbers for each run.
I still say it's foolish to draw conclusions from cherry-picked runs within the groups, but we don't have any other data so far. Here's my spreadsheet with runs 2,4,6,and 11.

http://www.ross-tech.net/andy/mini/i...ieintake01.xls

Here's some graphs. First, HP and Tq vs RPM for each intake:



Looks like ALL of the aftermarket intakes deliver very similar performance over stock, across the RPM band. The 3 intakes' curves really don't begin to separate until after 6k rpm, where the Alta takes the lead.

Next is a graph of the the torque gains for each intake compared to stock, as well as a curve showing the torque difference between the Alta and M7:



Average torque gains from 2690 rpm to 6927 rpm (the common ground between those four tests) are as follows:

Pilo: 6.99 lb-ft
Alta: 7.36 lb-ft
M7: 6.38 lb-ft

There are 64 data points for each run (from 2690 rpm to 6927 rpm). Comparing the Alta and M7, the Alta beats the M7 in 49 of these, and the M7 beats the Alta in 15 of these.

Again, having data for all 3 runs from each intake would allow averaging for smoother graphs and would help eliminate variations due to noise. From the data shown in those four runs so far though, I don't see how anyone can claim that the M7 beats the Alta, let alone the Pilo.

 

So, would an AGS hooked up to an Alta intake be better?

 

Andy, I think you've made your own error in analysis in treating your data like a discrete set. Acceleration is not discrete but CONTINUOUS and must be treated that way. If you pay close attention to the data that I presented AND the way that I presented it, you will notice a clear but subtle difference between what I did and what you did- discrete data points cannot be analyzed like CONTINOUS variables in order to extrapolate performance over the run. I used TIME because I know that time is a continuous state function and using time avoids the pitfalls of using individual discrete points alone- in essence, if you know the time from start to finish, you can't have ANY error due to sampling (only beginning and ending conditions are utilized).

You used discrete 'points in time' and cite an absolute number of cases where xyz happens, but you fail to consider that a car accelerating spends less time at higher speed than it does at lower speeds. You will need to re-draw your graph with a higher proportion of space taken up by the lower speeds in order to approximate the process of acceleration. This will help to reflect what we all know empirically, that the speed of accelerating is more dependent on low end power than high end power. You would need a logarithmic-type curve to directly compare the data you chose to compare.

If you go strictly by time, like I did, you don't have any inherent error due to sampling. You have direct, deductive data. Please reconsider your data analysis methods. You are violating your own statistical rules (don't draw conclusions based on incomplete, discrete data when your set is continuous.)

 

I don't follow your reasoning. If you start each run at the same speed (40 mph) and end at the same speed (103 mph), you have:

Stock: 14.44s
Pilo: 13.23s
Alta: 13.21s
M7: 13.29s

It looks to me like the finishing order is still the same as shown in my graphs.

You can't use data from speeds below 40 or above 103 since data points don't exist there for the 4 intake configurations, so you would not be comparing apples to oranges.

 

Again, looking at just the Alta and M7 using time and speed, from:

40-50: Alta faster than M7 (2.09s -vs- 2.10s)
50-60: Tied at 1.94s
60-70: Tied at 1.98s
70-80: Tied at 2.05s
80-90: Tied at 2.17s
90-100: Alta faster than M7 (2.32s -vs- 2.27s)

 

What makes you think I'm going to waste anymore of my time for you guys?

 

You CAN compare below 40 based solely on the continuous variable- time. The dyno is run by matching the revs to a standard, then beginning logging on the computer and simultaneously jumping on it. Maybe the initial throttle response is faster with the AGS, and it makes up time there. Regardless, the time is what the time is- a state function that can be compared to speed to calculate acceleration accurately. Even lacking the measurements that were below parameters.

 

You would have to custom fabricate a tube, because the throttle body is at a different location.

 

If the Alta either ties or beats the M7 in every section, then how is it that they both reach 101 mph within .03 s of each other - with the AGS being the faster of the two? Also, if the Alta is making much more hp than the AGS at the top end, then where is the AGS making it up if your torque figures are basically identical between the two?

 

Have you actually seen/operated a dyno?

Okay, you and I decide to race. I'm going 50, you're going 60. We both floor it at the same time and stop when we each hit 100. You got there first. You win! Yay! :impatient

 

Andy, look at the data. You imply that the AGS got a headstart. Much the opposite:

The ALTA went from 39 to 40 in .32 s with 54.71 hp at 39. The AGS went from 39 to 40 in .68 s. and with a power of N/A at 39, meaning the throttle was off for a significant amt. of the interval. So, by any measure, it was the ALTA which got the jump. Now, even supposing [wrongly, as I just showed, the ALTA got the jump at first] that the run was fair, the AGS pulls even at 90 mph [10.24 s. 40 to 90, whereas ALTA takes 10.23s.]. Clearly, therefore, even with the ALTA's jump off the line, the AGS makes more power up through 90 mph because it PULLS even. Quod erat demonstratum.

If you started them off the line, and each got an equal jump, this data shows that the AGS would pull early on. Perhaps it would even pull up top.

 

What Andy and The DR. finally hit on is that using the start time to end time doens't work. The ONLY way to compare numbers is by using the speed (which is RPM) and what HP they all make at the same speeds. The guy running the dyno could have hit START sooner or later on all the intakes cause the start time to be off making one intake look faster to 60MHP. The real case is what Andy stated that comparing 40-104MPH and the time each took to get there will show which is quicker.

In a drag race the intake with the most WHP (under the curve) gets down to the end quicker. Saying that one intake on these dyno runs got to 104MPH quicker than another doesn't work.

comparing the 40-104MPH
pilo (2runs) gets there in 13.82 and 13.85sec.
Alta, (1 run)13.45 sec
AGS (3 runs)13.55, 14.17, 14.56

This shows which car will be quicker.

 

I don't follow you. It takes 12.73s for the Alta to go from 40 mph to 101 mph. It takes 12.80s for the M7 to go from 40 mph to 101 mph.

 

I think your time would be better spent arguing about what the best way is to help the people who lost everything they own, and who's lives were destroyed by the hurricanes. Instead you are arguing about pointless, useless information that really makes absolutely NO difference in anyone's lives. Thinking in terms of the grand scheme of things, who cares?

It just really bums me out I guess...

 

amen

 

ingsoc,
Your post was made while i was still typing. PLease don't think i am arguing against you.

Some other things i found is that if you take the 50,60,80,100MPH and compare the WHP numbers (average of the above and below numbers) you get:
AGS ALTA
50MPH 93.06 92.99
60MPH 112.42 112.47
80MPH 139.13 139.13
100MPH 154.27 158.96

Basically this shows that one car with the ALTA and one car with the AGS will be neck and neck until 6000. So neither one has more low end power than the other, only one has more power above 6000. In a drag race since about 30% of your time spent above 6000, one car will be faster, but not by much.

Love the great data people put together, it is fun to see how everone interpets it differently. I believe Randy finish his data on his AGS, PILO, HAI, stock, ALTA comparo. People should start bugging him to release it.

 

Like I said....