Neither have I, but I also have no idea why you even brought that up! :confused:

"Under the Curve" Question....
 

First, i agree that there are a lot of factors that go into a choice, and for me the hassle of an install is one of them. I built a turbo kit from scratch, installing an AGS would not be a big deal. I just don't WANT to tear apart the front end for it. (nothing against the system or its results, just not for me)

Anyway, based on this down & dirt photoshop overlay of the stock & Alta intake (the AGS & are close enough for this question, I also added some vertical lines to help see the RPM ranges):

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...rt_overlay.jpg


...It looks to me that the alta out shines the stock intake from 3000-4000, and then after 6000. To my eye, it looks like the stock intake is doing pretty well in the 4000-6000 range, beating the Alta. Granted, we are not talking 30 HP here, but the line is where the line is.

I am keeping in mind that this is a stock MCS, and that the air demands of a modded car will be different, and that a dyno graph does account for throttle response, etc.

Was this felt by any of the testers? Any comments? I know i have added things to other cars that change the sound and it can often feel faster.

Thanks!!!

-jac

"Larry Clemens]Alta wins Bang/buck/installation"

Well that might be the case if you are afraid of ruining your manicure. I was looking at the instructions for install and it does not look like there is anything really complicated for the average enthusiast. Of course if your selection of tools is not deep enough to include a phillips head screw driver , 8,10 and 13mm sockets and maby a pair of diagonal cutters you might be in trouble but if that is the case you aren't much of a car guy anyway and better stay with the average program.

John

True enough, the AGS install isn't all that demanding particularly for anyone who has twisted a wrench but it would be annoying if unanticipated, ie trip to the dealer. I am more performance oriented vs bling (nothing against bling) so the real question comes to how the HAI stacks up vs the AGS? Perhaps my assumption that HAI is easier R&R and less $$ is wrong?

mike

Every time I wander into the PerfMods forum, crap like this reminds me of why I tend to stay away. Why do you guys have to be so pointlessly annoying? All he was saying was that the Alta was easier to install than the AGS - not that either one was a big deal. Does every TMMZ thread have to devolve into a train wreck, or are you guys going to grow up at some point? :roll:

For comparison's sake, here's the AGS vs. Alta from this TMMZ Shootout. As you can see, I selected the same areas, and the images line up...

There is some definite variance seen. The AGS is on top basically everywhere, it seems. Note, at the end of the AGS run, the operator lets off earlier than with the Alta...

oops!....image here:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co..._alta.gif?8246

Just to clarify, that guys is neither TMMZ or M|U.... :)

fishbulb, it looks like there's something wrong with that graph. There's no way the Alta will have less torque than the stock system after 4k rpm. That's where the stock system starts loosing breath and the aftermarket units make their power.

I think this was a valiant effort :thumbsup: which I found interesting. From a prose standpoint, there might have been a little bit of editorializing, but all in all, it was worthwhile and I must say thank you for going to all the trouble you did. I agree, it would have been interesting to see the stock intake reinstalled and a final run done and published separately to see the level of variance over the course of the day. That said, in the end I think those that would seek a definitive result are rushing windmills. To my mind, there are far too many variables (ambient, humidity, pressure, tire temp, tire pressure, blah, blah, blah) involved to ever get THE answer. Rather you got AN answer which probably has general applicability to those interested in. I think anyone seeking an answer that states something to the effect that CAI X delivers preciesely 6.2HP more than stock is bound to be disappointed. I think your testing demonstrates generally that there is a benefit to these systems over stock and that there is some variance to the level of benefit these systems deliver. To my mind thats about the best that can be achieved and it certainly has had an influence on what I intend to install.

Not to digress too far, but the fervor here reminds me of some discussions around the use of G-sum for driver analysis. Sure you can put your car on a skid pad an get a baseline for how much lateral G it will generate, but corners in the real world have camber and simply because you max'ed your G load says nothing about the line you were on. Nevertheless, in relative terms it can be a useful measure. To my mind, this test was a more accurate (not a precise) measure of the relative merits of these devices which I found quite interesting.

I hope people read our response with out thinking anything negative. In fact this test is a great start of future things to come. As some of the other forum members have seen there are some things that can be done better next time. Mainly the amount of runs and ECU resets. With all of these intakes, more consistant HP and a higher numbers would have been seen.

Many people think the ECU adapts to your driving style. This something all OEM manufactures say, but its not really true. The ECU adapts itself to fuel the car correctly(long term and short term fuel, off boost only) and some changes to the maximum allowed timing for the differnent octane gas in the car. One person who really beats their car up isn't going to have a specially tuned ECU for those situations where as the grocery getter has a lower HP car. That just doesn't happen.

An ECU reset before each install is a great way for all cars to start with a base, then the ECU will retune itself to it optium parameters. But there is no way 2 runs will show this. All cars could have benifited from 4 runs or more.

Also why were our other dyno plots not included in our response we gave to you? There is a dyno plot from 2 different NAM members with all the same intakes in this test. I don't feel as though we should post them here, but we can?? We sent you these to give you another comparo of our findings and other NAM members findings of the same basic test.

Again, we love the results, but some methods could be improved to make the results a little more consistant. The normal +or- 2WHP from run to run would change the results quite bit.

Can you provide the initial runs also? Runs #1, not just #2.

When is the exhaust test going to start?

Very well said :thumbsup: . We agree that there will never be an ultimate test that decides which one is the perfect choice, but we do hope that we can provided a little more information so that people are able to make a more informed decision on which intake to get. As we said, we encourage others to share their dynos and stories of their experience with their intakes so that, as a community, we can create a bank of information for other owners. Sorta like a pot-luck of information....you put in what you can, and then take what you need/want. No one can ever provide the absolute truth...but sharing information can help in the decision making process :thumbsup: If we can get a glimpse into the true merits of these parts we feel that it can help the community :grin: :thumbsup:

Again, very well stated. Thank you :)

Why is there a loss in torque? In alll the dyno runs we and othe NAM members have done, NEVER is there a loss in anything, HP or TQ.

Again love the results, i can't give you and the other NAM members that have done this test before enough credit.

I would just like to thank you for participating in the shootout, since i personally haven't already. We like to think of this as a starting point too. I hope that we can move forward in to future. I think the future holds a lot of good things :) . Your (and other's) opinions/suggestions regarding the testing process are much appreciated and will help in these future endeavours.


I may be mistaken, but the link you included in the response is included in the response section. It links to the thread that was here on NAM presented by a NAM member(s).

Like i said above, any/all cinstructive criticism is greatly appreciated....it should help in improvements

This has been looked into...and we shall see. There are a few problems such as uninstallation after each run due to the possible heat of the exhuast after a few runs, and the sheer number of exhausts available....but that doesnt necessarily mean its gonna stop us....time will tell, and you will certainly be asked to participate again :) :thumbsup:

First, thanks to everyone who put this test together and got these numbers published. Looks like it was some work and of course expence for the tests.. Big thanks all!

Second, as a non-biased auto-enthusiast I see these numbers differently than what I've been reading in these responces.. not to start any debates/arguements, but let me summerize what I see:

1) in every day driving the stock seems to be comparible if not superior than the aftermarket. It appears to be an actual loss of torque and even HP in the 300 - 4500 range.

2) As one report has stated, (I will not mention the tuning house as it's not a fan-favorite here) "Pressure tests of the stock air box resulted in a NEGATIVE 13 mbar measurement at 90 mph" this is in that precious 4500rpm+ range that the JCW intake will actually open up. Seems this to be short-coming of the stock box, possibly the only short-coming.

3) I'd be interested to see the numbers of the JCW and DINAN intakes which are "closed" boxes, but open to the cowl air-induction that would theoretically rectify the problem from 4500RPM on.

4) Outside of the louder SC whine, an intake only upgrade doesn't seem like much of an upgrade for the money, especially for daily driving. Hmmm Yea Stock! ? :razz:

Just my thoughts for the day, thanks for reading.

As another Performance Mods lurker, I'd like to say thanks to the testers. I think I had a family gathering the day this was going on - I would have liked to have been there so I could hear the differences between intakes. The noise seems to be the major differentiator between them.

The bottom line seems to be that CAIs don't do much to increase objective measures of performance (at least by themselves without additional mods). Even with additional runs, there wouldn't be more than maybe 2 more horsepower to be gained compared to the runs posted, right?

Depends on where you look for data...
 

Some sites quote ~7, to more than 10 for the same intake.

Making accurate, controlled measurements is a real ***** on these cars.

Matt

Would a flying 1/4-mile be a better way to measure the perfomance gains?

Maybe a straightaway where you start in 2nd gear at 2,000 rpm then accelerate through the 1/4-mile (or maybe even longer)?

By starting at a low RPM and measuring speed at intervals, we would get some idea of the tractability and low-rpm power gains, but the rest of the run would give us the overall picture.

I suppose a standing 1/4-mile would do it, too, but at a race track the cars could do a succession of laps to get up to speed and easily do the timed run on a straightaway during each lap.

Obviously that would be much harder to coordinate than a dyno-day, but it would be more fun!

RallyMini,
My bad it wasn't highlighted very well, missed it. We include 4 other charts and that is the other thing i was asking about.

I agree, the exhaust test will either by time consuming or some eliminations of certain ones will be needed in oder to fit them in.

Aaron,
Exactly, this is what the test shows. But (big but) all other tests we have done as have others have, show different. Not one single loss in HP or torque anywhere! Some of the graphs we supplied, show a stock intake, then Alta panel, and up to the complete intake. Even the panel gained a solid 3WHP and 2Ft-lb's of torqe across the board.

What i was kind of getting at earlier is that these tests/methods make all intakes not so applealing. From one of the competitors stand points, their intake made almost nothing (using a +or- 2HP) when we have seen, as i am sure they have also, far more than this. In fact it could be quite damaging to them when they truly have a product that has been proven to make HP and perform the way they claim.

Test like this are never going to make everyone happy, but adding some details and taking time setting tests up can eliminate any arguments for or against things or how things were done.

Again not complaining, just looking out for the future tests and vendors that may want to participate in the future tests. If everyone can get worked out a way that appeases everyone, then more and more vendors will participate and more and more fun will be had with these tests.

This seems to confirm that dyno tests are inconclusive except for large gains. With respect to intakes, I would rather see pressure drop with respect to CFM flow, or as a secondary measurement, drop versus RPM at WOT.

Installation = time = $$$$ (Economics 101). Bang/buck/installation = basic division. (4th grade) I guess I'll stay with the "average program."

Then again, the best bang/buck ratio has to be the K&N panel in the stock box, which, according to Alta, makes 3WHP and 2 ft-lbs (for $40), and 5-minute installation time, with zero chance of warranty issues...

Paper filters are restrictive, even in the JCW version.

or a 35 dollar HAI.

Loudness (? = coolness) is directly proportional to installation time and overall cost (Street Acoustics 1.0003). In the old days, we would on occasion remove the air cleaner from the carburetor of the family car. This was a common practice before a date or when you were going to cruise a drive-in...:razz: That sucking sound was awesome and we thought it impressed the babes. Furthermore, it didn't cost anything! Wait a minute, that contradicts the lessons from SA 1.0003!! But, there is a way for this phenomenon to be consistant with the basic principle. If one takes off the air cleaner without some barrier to prevent road dust/chips/grime from getting into the carb, then the overall cost in $$ could be quite substantial...:lol:

I've never heard a Mini with a HAI. For any of you out there in NAMland who have the HAI, your comments on the acoustic factor would be appreciated. Thanks...