What the hell are you talking about? Where have I criticized the work that you did? I haven't suggested dyno manipulation at all. Go back and re-read my posts in this thread and then give me a public apology.

 

Did you notice that this test was done with the hood open?

 

....

 

If you put real error bars on the numbers, the strongest claim would be that there's a hint of what you say, but to be honest with the measurement, the noise seems to be about 2 hp peak to peak, but I've no clue on the repeatability, nor the differences do to unmeasured state of the car....

If you look at all the runs, the fall off in power isn't at the same spot, nor is the take up of power, even for the same intake.

Probably the right thing to do is just accrue more data, but right now there aren't really good enough statistics to differentiate among them with confidence.

They all do real good, for such a small modification.

Here's food for thought....

Will the cooperative spirit survive to other shoot-outs?

Or will the hassle and crap factors win and no one will bother......

I got $10 worth of information, about -$3 worth of grief, and about $5 worth of fun, so I'm only out $8 , so I'd be happy to chip in again....

Matt

 

The hood open only helps give the other types a bit of an advantage as others brought out, thanks for mentioning it . Ours functions with the ram like effect of the air being forced thru the front of the grill. That is why is is important to open that area on top of the radiator as much as possible which was not done during this test. This is all on the assumption that they had some fans facing the front of the car.The AGS will be more effective in a real world situation more so than on a dyno. We actually designed it with that in mind more than dyyno runs

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

Someone, somewhere in this dramatic and spellbinding saga of a thread said something like "the greater air volume delivery of the AGS would yield a greater benefit with a better than stock exhaust system". The theory, as I understand it (and I am a novice in these matters) is that the less restricted exhaust will allow air to flow more easily out of the engine. This, I presume, is supposed to allow the engine to accept more air on its intake. But doesn't this assume that the ability of the engine to "process" air is limited only by the ability of it to shoot it out the exhaust? Doesn't the engine itself have some limited capacity to process air?

To clarify: my question is,

Suppose you are filling a bathtub with a firehose and the water is draining out through a 3" wide drain connected to a 3" wide pipe. Is changing the exhaust system like changing the pipe diameter to 6" but keeping the drain diameter at 3"?

Sorry for the elementary question and the simplistic analogy but I am trying to make some sense of some of the statements being made.

 

Sid:

While I appreciate both the initiative and the effort that you have put into this, I also appreciate Andy's interpolation of your data for the rest of us to digest.

There are a couple of posters on this thread who have been condescending to you, from what I can see, Andy has not been one of them.

You've managed to maintain your composure while fending off 20 pages of a mixed bag of comments. Walk away from the thread for the weekend and let the monkeys throw crap on each other for a couple of days.

You've been on the board for a while so it should come as no surprise that your dyno testing was met with so much controversy.

Go enjoy your family for the weekend. This will be here when you comeback.

 

think of resistors. So even if the head is the main constriction, then improving the exhaust would still yield some benefit.

But it's not that simple... Motors use the inertia of gas pulses (well designed ones do, anyway), to stuff more air in and out of the cylender. This is the world of cam timing, lobe overlap, runner tuning length and diameter etc..... It gets messy.

And TonyB saw a drop in peak boost when he went to his straight exhaust. So it's not just conjecture.

but the implication of your question is correct, it's best to attack the improvevments in a balenced way. It would be stupid to put huge injectors on a stock car, for example... But it would be smarter if one had better flow and a pully.

Matt

 

So you're saying, Dr O., that the engine is more like a series connection of resistors in which each of the various elements (intake, injectors, exhaust, etc.) have a certain resistance value yielding (in summation) a "total resistance" for the engine as a system.

So, changing out one part (again - simplistically) like, say, the exhaust, for a "lower resistance" one would yield a lower total resistance and better throughput or power. Is that it?

Interesting...

 

Randy,
All due respect, I ask again.....what where your internal readings when you did your tests.......where the gains larger than what we have seen.....what gains do youe expect from your intake at "standard atmoshperic*" conditions (* aviation standard)

Bob

 

I have a saying that I use with my partner and employees,

"It is much easier to critique than to create" Bob B 1985

If you don't believe this try taking Sid's role for the next "community" test. Be that person and then you will have a better feel for what all this takes.

The sound you hear is my one man standing ovation for Sid, Chad, JS, et al for "creating" this test and giving up their time for all of us.....you are all welcome to join me.

If nothing else, this is a pioneering effort. I hope this is the seed of many more such "tests" and others are encouraged by the appreciation and support and not discouraged by all the BS that gets lobbed your way.

Thanks again

 

Try this analogy on for size: think of your engine as a big air pump. This test has focused on the intake side, but there is the exhaust side, as well as the processing aspect (head). The fundamental trick is to maximize air flow through the engine, and then match up the appropriate amount of fuel to the amount of air.

 

So is that why you don't dyno your own product?

 

mature

 

I tried to go down this path earlier but did not express it well. Each piece of the "circuit" interacts uniquely in a "unique" environment. The only way to really know which unit will perform better in your car is to try it. I think it is safe to say that these results are indicative of how these intakes will work in a stock car.....but who is to say how these these intakes will behave in a heavily modified car. My post was about the ported SC that on a stock car netted 14 more whp but lost 4 whp on a modded car.

 

That's a good point, Spider. Did anyone come up with a plausible explanation for that result (lost hp)?

 

There's one problem with the series resistor analogy. The components of the intake and exhaust system are generally open in the center, it's just the size and bends that cause restriction (the intercooler core, the air filter media itself, and the catalytic convertor matrix are exceptions to this). A resistor acts more like a piece of foam stuck in the pipe. The denser the foam, the greater the resistance.

Each piece of the intake system may or may not pose an actual restriction to the airflow at the flow rates seen in the MCS.

 

I think water.....air is a fluid

 

Okay, let's take water then. Suppose you have a swimming pool with a drain at the bottom. You have three 50-ft lengths of 1/2" garden hose attached to it, going horizontally away from the pool. The water flows out the end of the hose, 150-ft away from the pool at a certain rate, depending on the height of the water level. Now, replace the middle section of hose with a 1" hose. You have reduced the drag in that middle section since 1" pipe has proportionally less surface area of pipe. But, does the water actually flow out any faster? The water now encounters an obstacle when it gets to the end of that 1" section and has to neck down to 1/2" again. Overall flow rate may actually be worse with the 1" section in place, compared to just leaving it 1/2" all the way through. The only way to determine whether it has improved is through testing of the complete system, before and after that change.

The same applies to engines. If you replace a component (like the supercharger inlet pipe) with a larger one, that doesn't necessarily mean that overall flow will improve. The only way to determine whether it has improved is through testing of the complete system, before and after that change.

 

also factor in the venturi effects....and the equation keeps growing...

 

Concur!

Why must a few continually descend to juvinile barbs? Just get a freak’n life already!

The threads where everyone called names over the AGS are elsewhere… Wanna go back and howl some more, then go ahead. But don't trash up this excellent thread & the efforts of Sid et al. If you’re skeptical, then fine.

Sorry for getting O/T, rightous, but I'm pissed off… had enough of the snide remarks.

 

Andy, there is a fundamental problem with your analogy. Yes, increasing pipe size MAY increase resistance by creating turbulence BUT you forget one important thing. The AGS flows more than 20% more air. Remember? It was proven. So, the thing is, the AGS [your 'larger pipe'] actually has LESS resistance over its course. Pressure = Flow x Resistance. The AGS has more flow at the same pressure, hence LESS resistance. So, your analogy and analysis can be CATEGORICALLY refuted. The AGS has less resistance over its course and will therefore _by application of relevant physics (P=I*R)_ produce LESS resistance over the circuit if all of the other 'pipes' are kept as they were. Try to understand this. You can only begin to properly analyze with a) all facts and b) all theory.

As someone has suggested, in the absence of data, there is no way to interpret findings. What data we have shows that the AGS flows BETTER [has less resistance]. Our interpretations, therefore, must always jive the data in hand, otherwise they are purely fallacious.

 

OK

Is it just me, or are we going in circles here? If I recall correctly it seemed as though Andy felt the filter area of the AGS was possibly the restrictive point. He didn't dispute the flow of the tube.

Taking this into consideration I understand Andy's analgy to mean that the AGS filter is the first portion of hose. The AGS tube with its greater flow is equivalent to the better flowing middle portion of hose.

Agree?

The disagreements I see are with the manner of graphing the data - who's is 'more' correct in the context of this test.

 

You also forgot that they ONLY FLOWED THE TUBE not the tube with air filter so your argument is moot.

 

Try to understand this. All of the other pipes were NOT kept as they were. The "AGS System" has a filter stuck to the throttle body that is different from stock, and different from the other aftermarket ones. That makes it NOT the same. Go find a picture of the AGS, a picture of the stock system, and study them until you see what I'm talking about.