Drivetrain The TEAMMIGHTYMINIZ Intake Shootout presented by motoring|underground
#76
I like it....
Originally Posted by RECOOP
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...
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
#77
Originally Posted by RECOOP
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...
#78
Originally Posted by RECOOP
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... That sucking sound was awesome and we thought it impressed the babes. Furthermore, it didn't cost anything!
#79
Depends on if it was Dad's car...
Originally Posted by Bradley99
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.
Matt
#80
#81
Originally Posted by Soul Coughing
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.
John
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ight=ags+sound
#82
Originally Posted by coopa25
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.
#83
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.
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.
Last edited by jlm; 01-31-2006 at 07:55 AM.
#84
#85
Originally Posted by ALTA2
Originally Posted by Rick
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...
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.
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:
Originally Posted by Ivan Diaz
Before we get into the final judgment on these fine intakes, I must stress one important fact: Dynamometers provide two measurements, our good friends Torque and his trusty stablemate, Horsepower. They cannot measure the throttle response, driveability, sound, and grins provided by sheer driving enjoyment in the real world, on warm tarmac.
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.
#86
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...
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.
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...
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.
#87
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
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
#88
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.
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.
#89
6th Gear
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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.
#90
Originally Posted by ALTA2
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ALTA2
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.
Originally Posted by ALTA2
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.
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.
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
Cheers and happy motoring
#92
Originally Posted by OldRick
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by OldRick
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.
Originally Posted by OldRick
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.
....
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.
....
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.
Originally Posted by OldRick
I doubt that these intakes would make nearly as much power if the driver's ears were plugged...
#93
Originally Posted by ALTA2
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ALTA2
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.
-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 thank you for the comments. They are helpful for everyone to see.
#94
Originally Posted by RallyMINI
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
#95
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...
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...
#96
Originally Posted by ingsoc
Quick thing: Detlman works in partnership with Fireball Tim Racing, and he's on M|U. How does that figure?
Due to the confidential nature of much of the content in the µ private forums, membership with other similar organizations and/or vendor employment/affiliations may subject your membership to review.
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
#97
I think you're missing the point.
Originally Posted by Aaron_NH-MCS
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...
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...
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.
#98
Originally Posted by RallyMINI
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
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
#99
Originally Posted by Aaron_NH-MCS
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...
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...
#100
Originally Posted by ingsoc
Quick thing: Detlman works in partnership with Fireball Tim Racing, and he's on M|U. How does that figure?
Even if FTR did sell products, how would Detlman's involvement compromise the results, considering we didn't test anything from FTR?