I like it....
 

Rippin' good mod!

But I too was curious about power gains. So I bought ANOTHER 1550, and a stock air filter. I'll do some testing when a few more things are out of the way....

Matt

I've never heard an Alta or other Air intake mod, but the supercharger sounds wonderful (much louder than stock), and whoever tags along for a ride sings along as the revs rise.

Negative. Think back. We didn't remove the top - we flipped it over, thereby maintaining the filtering of the stock crap filter and gaining the glorious sucking sound provided by a Carter 2-barrel carb at full honk.

Depends on if it was Dad's car...
 

or mine!

Matt

It seems being a casual observer of the thread and searching through numerous other topics on dynoing that none of the people who wrote this article have any experience with dynoing cars. This might have something to do with the results of the tests. :confused:

I did a search for intake sounds and found this link .
John

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ight=ags+sound

Care to explain?:confused:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=60143
if you look at the dyno runs in this post, all done on the same car within minutes, you see more variation than here between intakes. to get definitive results, several runs need to be made per intake untill some sort of consistentcy is seen.
probably what he meant about dyno experience.

JLM,
Great example.

Oldrick,
Your deduction of just buy the ALTA panel filter over the other intakes in the shootout, is exactly my point. But if you use the data we have on the same car with the complete system you will change you mind.

Right, but you guys are overlooking the fact that the "3WHP and 2 ft-lbs" figures were generated using a different testing process, one that would likely yield higher numbers across the board. As stated in the article and earlier by me, these numbers are only good when compared against each other, and should NOT be used to compare against other results from other dyno days. As I also stated in the article, we were far more interested in the relative data than the absolute numbers, another statement some may be overlooking.

The only way to truly verify that the panel filter produces more HP than the intakes would be to have included it in our testing, to rule out the inherent differences in our test and whichever test came up with "3WHP and 2 ft-lbs" for the panel filter. My guess would be that the panel filter would sit at the bottom of the gains list if it were to be included in our testing, which really wouldn't be far from the truth, in my opinon.

Perhaps the most important statement that has been overlooked in the article is this one:

As is generally the case on NAM, many of you seem to have jumped straight to the dyno figures without taking into consideration the primary reason for writing the article in the first place. It was written to provide a complete critique of all considerations that should be taken into account for all intakes involved, and included testing and dyno figures only for use as a loose comparison between the intakes tested. The only reason the dyno and testing sections grew to be so large in this article is because I know how you guys are when it comes to numbers, so I figured I would outline our procedures for testing.

In an ideal world, yes, we would have been able to take 3-5 dyno pulls per intake, spend the extra six hours to remove the AGS/return to baseline/retest baseline/reinstall AGS, gain access to a climate-controlled wind tunnel, check temperatures across the entire block and carefully ensure that every molecule in the engine was vibrating in harmony for every test... you get the idea.

In reality, no matter what pains are taken to remove as many variables as possible, there will always be someone for whom the procedure, and therefore results, will not be satisfactory. The dyno numbers were provided only for the purpose of comparison between intakes that were tested in that session, so if our procedure was not to your liking, I leave it to you to develop a NAM standard for dyno testing procedures. In doing so, bear in mind, dyno tests and independent installation sessions are most certainly neither free nor cheap, so unfortunately, a compromise between time, price, and scientific accuracy must always be reached.

Regardless of how you feel about the article, I do thank you for taking the time to read it, and I will most certainly take all of your comments to heart, for better or for worse. :thumbsup:

I completely agree with iDiaz.

These figures provided by Alta2 are indicative at best, and not to be compared with anything, since Alta2 did not describe their methodology. As far as I can tell from their web site, they don't provide any performance data, aside from a few unsupported marketing claims.

Nothing against Alta particularly, but most of the aftermarket stuff sold for cars is sold this way - more hype than substance, and little testing ever documented. Much of aftermarket auto engineering seems to be done by the "looks good, let's sell it" method.

My personal conclusion from these tests is that any intake makes about the same power, although the sound may vary. A couple HP difference for a few hundred dollars more doesn't even tempt me, personally. I figure I got about half the potential benefit of the best of the intakes for $40 on my mildly-modified car.

I doubt that these intakes would make nearly as much power if the driver's ears were plugged...:razz: :razz:

Personally I don't buy noise, I try to get rid of it, so my buying decisions are not the same as a lot of others.

IF you assume a 2% error,
 

which isn't that bad, then you have the Helix result being meaningless, the Alta result being close to meaningless, and the M7 result just starting to raise it's head above the noise!

Seems to me, you can't have it both ways. Either the measurement was flawed, making the error bars smear the result into nothingness, or close to it, or every other measurement out there is BS.

Seems the construction of the measurement cursed the results to this amount of discussion. While the goals were noble, the results have a high degree of uncertainty, which means that the conculsions are weak. That's just the statistics of measurement, and isn't based on a bias towards one product or another.

That's why most measurements quote both the number, and the confidence level. IF the baseline is accurate to 2 HP, and each measuement is accurate to 2 hp (one sigma), then a comparison of two measurements is accurate to 2.8 hp (sum of squares in random errors). 2 hp is a bit over 1% error.

Matt

By no means are we bashing the tests, more like constructive critisism. An extra 2 or more runs is all that was needed, and the extra 5 minutes a car.

You mentioned that in reality, not everyone is going to be happy with whatever testing procedure you do. Well that can be nearly eliminated by threads like this. From this we can all get a better idea as to what the general publlic wants to see to really define what to do and what not to do.

For Alta:
-We would like to see more runs to allow the ECU to adapt to the freshly recet ECU, suggest 4-5.
-Remove paricipating vendors from getting involved with, dynoing, testing area, installation, scheduling or anything that could effect the outcome.

Even though you say this didn't effect anything (with Will being with M7 and a large part of the test and setup), it may be hard for future tests when one of the lead designers of the said part, is controling the test, and was in charge of the test. I am not saying this effect results this time, but something to keep all future vendors happy.

Again we are happy with the results, and we would like to thank everyone for their hard work. I can't wait to see the next part that is decided to test. Exhuast, header, pulley? We are ready.

I hope people don't take what we are saying as complaints. We are just sticking out for everyone. Sometimes tone, and attitude is lost, and taken the wrong way, when writing an email.

Actually, I just wanted to clarify. Will and I being there was just for fun. It just happened to coincide with our vacation, so we went. He was not an M7 employee then anyway. We spent most of the day taking pics, hanging out with people, eating donuts and just having fun. Will was not in charge of the test. Hollis did pretty much all the work himself and he put a lot into it. We just showed up to hang out with friends. During most of the installation of the AGS, we were walking down the street to enjoy some So Cal gas stations tacos :lol: The installations were done by a guy that runs a shop in San Diego and has no affiliation with TMMZ, MU or any vendors.

We watched the car get on the dyno and saw the results but of course, had no control over them. We went to meet up with friends... we did and it was a wonderful vacation. Besides the fact that Will is a very fair and rational person who prides himself on scientific accuracy and truth. He would never do such a thing as to sway anything in his favor. I know Will quite well and if anything he had anything to do with performed badly, it would just encourage him to improve, never, ever to drive him to sway results. I don't see how you could do that with a dyno anyway. Not that any foul play was suggested, but the thought that it could be suggest makes me kinda sad.

This test was Hollis's work, he set everything up and then Ivan did the writing.

I just wanted to be sure that was known.

Of course this whole thing is a learning experience. If MU decides to do more shootouts, they will use different and better methods each time.

Yah, you guys are definitely not bashing. I thank you for keeping the criticism constructive. It's much better to build on things rather than tear them down in an attempt to start all over :) :thumbsup: . I dont know if everyone will ever be happy (life just doesnt seem to work that way :rzz:)...but i do think this is the best path to pleasing the majority of people. :)


As Jenn very nicely stated (Hey jenn! :)), most of the work was performed by Hollis, and the article was written by Ivan (idiaz). Both of these people are members of Motoring|Underground, so a reference to future tests would probably be in reference of M|U. Will (now an M7 employee) was unable to join the M|U team because in an attempt to avoid any sort of biases, our rules state that members must have no affiliation with any company or group that could possibly bias them in any form. The full rules are on our site if you are interested for any reason. So, any interfering from Will (not that he would ever do that....hes a very fair, analytical, and smart guy, i don't mean to say otherwise) would not be a concern for future M|U shootouts :thumbsup:

We shall see whats up next....all of those sound like good ideas. I can't wait :)

I would like to emphasize that no one should feel that Alta is bashing or anything, they are just sharing their opinions so that everyone can learn from the experience :) If anyone else has any constructive criticism, please feel free to share as Alta has....we care about everyone's opinions:) :thumbsup:

Cheers and happy motoring :cool:

Hia Andrew :thumbsup:

:waves:

Unfortunately, you are right. One dyno run can't be compared to another in a way that any concrete conclusions can be drawn. Life would be much easier if you could get a concrete calculation of HP that would be true any time it was tested.

You can still use all of the dyno runs in your decision, it just can't be used as a comparison as that would be comparing apples and oranges.

Yah, hype is a lot of ALL of marketing. Thinking how amazing that pizza sounds and looks on those TV commercials. Regardless of how good it might be once you bite into it, its never the same as the beautiful glistening chesse on the TV :lol: :lol: :razz: Honestly, there isn't anything wrong with hype as long as you are aware that it is present. You can read any claims from any company (car oriented or not), and as long as you treat them as claims as opposed to facts, you will be fine. Problems arise when people begin to think that the claims are absolute truths. This is not to say that all claims are false, I'm just saying that at first you should be aware its character as a claim.

This is great! And its exactly what we hoped the article would do. You have read through everything and come to your own conclusion concerning which intake you are looking at. You decided what was important to you and have used the given information to figure out what will be best for you. And you are very right.....other people will have other "buying decisions", and luckily there are lots of options for that exact reason :) .

hahahahaha, and next you will tell me that my red car wont make near as much power when my eyes are closed.... :razz: :razz: :razz:

We appreciate your comments. Yours and the others on this thread are beneficial to planning future events. I would like to thank you again for participating.

I did have to make compromises when planning the evaluations. We wanted to make this "open to the public." In doing so, we limited the pulls to 2 for each intake. The limitation of time was a consideration as well as the forseen criticism if more pulls had been made. Increasing to 4 pulls would have added more than 5 minutes of time. We did end up turning away cars.

We were also planning on the possibility of lower HP from each of the intakes. Often when testing intakes, the tested car has other modifications that use the increased flow. By using a stock car, the true benefits of an intake are not readily seen on the dyno, as the dyno does not show the improvements in throttle response and other associated driving improvements. Ivan paid considerable attention to pointing out the limitations of this dyno scenario in the article.

I appreciate your concern. And as I stated in the opening post (and others have posted here), Will did not have any participation in the scheduling, planning nor testing of the intakes. He was present, and all vendors were invited to attend or have representatives attend. As this is a concern we will obviously consider this for future evaluations. My primary consideration was makinig this test available for all to see. Obviously, it is not as effective if only one vendor is able to attend.

Again thank you for the comments. They are helpful for everyone to see.

Quick thing: Detlman works in partnership with Fireball Tim Racing, and he's on M|U. How does that figure?

wow. anytime a test is posted, regardless of the work that someone puts into it, it is immediately disputed by somone who ownes or sells a competing product. This bickering is getting sad.

How about this.. screw the dyno, and goto the track.. what do all these "tested" numbers mean if there no real-world data to apply it to? Who cares what it can pull on the dyno, what can it do on the track????? you know, where it matters...

It's making me be happier with the stock airbox, because that's the only one that's not in dispute..


aaaaaaaaaahhhh... this is starting to sound like a temple of VTech ***** session...

the rule:

We feel that his status as a member of FTR creates no bias that would affect any of our features on the site. An M7 employee, however, would.

As i said before...the rules are posted if you ever want to read them :)

I think you're missing the point.
 

The numbers here lack significant statistical validity, and the proper use of control wasn't performed. The simple choice to limit each product to two pulls made sure of this. I don't have any affiliation with any of the vendors, other than being a customer of all but Helix.

So does that mean that my criticsm of testing technique are any more valid than Jeff from Alta?

Facts are facts. The uncertainty in measurement is large, the deltas low, and if one displayed confidence bands on these numbers (like X plus or minus Y), you'd find that while the intentions of the test are good, the numbers have very little statistical significance.

Matt, a non-vendor.

I know the rule- I'm on M|U every so often, as you know. But, FTR has its own performance parts coming out in the near future. They are already hyping them. So....it seems that very soon you will have another 'conflict of interest' in the public eye. If in fact that's an issue to you or to the vendors...

Do you really suppose that track times are MORE consistent than simple dyno runs? That's hardly the case, imo. At least on the dyno the variables can be relatively controlled!

As far as I know, Fireball Tim Racing doesn't sell any products. When they do, this issue will be handled accordingly. In m|u, and unlike TMMZ, we've made a differentiation between µ team members and staff members. Detlman is a µ team member, and has no involvement whatsoever in the online magazine department of the organization.

Even if FTR did sell products, how would Detlman's involvement compromise the results, considering we didn't test anything from FTR?