I think the key here, obehave, is that you stated from the very first thread that the test was by no means the be all and end all of comparisons, and that it was actually flawed. Thank you for doing that. I read all of the **** contests and participate in few of them, and I think that your position that the test was the test and nothing more should leave you immune to anyone's ****. You know, a **** shield.

Let's get some more tests to compare to this one!

mb

 

I thought I was saying it's all good

That's what the whole Depends joke was about.


Comedy is hard.................

 

Just have to make sure the measurement technique is sound. Now, the way I'd put it is that most numbers posted mean less than they could because of flawed technique, leading to pissing contests over meaningless deltas!

But that's just me.....

Matt

 

Hey, nothing is perfect in this world! To have everyone in this community to help out, give their opinions and spend the time to get us data and so forth is a treat to have!

Garrett

 

Sorry, but why all of a sudden is this a "pissing contest" anyway?

I guess I should have known better then to post my thoughts here as it obviously seems now that this thread was meant to bait and trap, and it looks like I was the sucker. Seems it was even insinuated by the originator of this thread that I was not the prime game he was waiting for. The fact that I 'only' question what this thread was really about and then got blasted by the original poster for doing so is just plan weird. I was only going on what 'he' actually posted, that there were flaws in the testing and that it should not be considered as a dependable test. My question at that point was then , why would you post the data without FIRST claiming this? That's all that was meant by my first post here.
But, the fact remains that I was basically attack for asking. So, what does this mean here with this forum? That questions can't be asked?
Maybe this is how things are over on Mini 2, but I really hope not here on NAM. Seems that the original poster knows more about me then I do. Sorry, I don't remember the "Twincharged thread" I really don't... But I find it interesting that he does.

I hate feeling like I need to just stay quiet here on NAM, and not share my thoughts. But if this is how it's going to be then that last thing I want to do is worry about getting baited again.

 

there were talks about whining, and end of winter blues.... I didn't think there was anything to it, but maybe there is (what do I know, I live in CA!)

Never stop sharing, and don't let the flamers get you down!

IF the adventurous stop posting, then the only thing left here will be flaming toasters (Funny, but doesn't tell you how to make the car faster) and the search function, for nuggets of info posted in the past.....

Matt

 

Onasled, I never said it was a pissing contest, I stated lets not turn it into one! One of the things I hate most is when people start tearing each others throats and flamers! And by no means am I calling any of you flamers or claiming you guys are nothing good to this community! Onasled, like i have stated before, we are lucky to have someone like you in this community offering your opinion, advice and knowledge to help others! I would also hate for NAM to turn into something that it is not. We are here to speak our minds and help out. That is why i love it here and spend all of my mini needs on here as well! Again, I am in no way bashing anyone and the last thing I would want is for people to bash me and take me for a grain of salt!

Garrett

 

Good point.

Much is in the presentation.
That's why I made it clear my "data" was flawed from the first post.
That seems to have been very well accepted. Yeah!!

If I'd presented this same minimal data as some kind of valid test comparison I'd have, rightly, been handed my glutes in a handbag

 

I thought I had cleared all this up. Guess not.
Expecting a negative response and posting anyway is not the same as baiting. Post #10 I thought would have thought made this obvious.

Since your post is so horribly inaccurate and it's hard to think it isn't intended as an attack, I'll just let my part die here.

Now my personal request to a mod here is to remove any and all of the negative posts in this thread, yes mine included, and lets get this back to what it should be. Just a discussion.
I would appreciate that. Not that I regret anything I've said but it definitely adds no value to the thread. TIA

 

Yes, I agree! Back on to the orginal discussion! People with the HDI, post us some numbers of before and after if possible!

Garrett

 

Yes please do.
Now if I were wealthy I can assure you I would have done more work. Consider that the little bit I had done cost me $125 in dyno fees and $210 for the intake ( and let's not forget the $600 worth of brakes I had installed ) it should be easy to see that I really didn't have the money.
Or maybe enough money

Add to that not having brought the BIM-COM frickin idiot!!! and it's a given there won't be satisfactory testing.

Now.
Somebody spot me several hundred dollars and spell out in the most minute detail what will satisfy everyone here and I'll gladly arrange to have my car spanked for a day.

 

Perhaps signing an agreement to be able to spend a predetermined amount of money prior to any technical posting would eleminate this type of inadequately funded postings?

 

I too had the Webb HDI intake installed this past weekend, along with a 15% pulley and Milltek exhaust. Does my car feel faster?, YES!!! Is it faster? YES!!! I did not dyno my car afterwards so I don't have a flag to wave around as the PROOF so many of you require. My opinion is my opinion, that is all. Do I like what I purchsed? ABSOLUTELY!!! Buyers remorse? NEVER!!! Is my car better than yours? YES, because it's mine. This is my opinion, yours probably differs. I don't need any proof of that.

WWHD

What would Homer do?

 

that you're happy with you purchase. But I, for one, get really bothered by poor testing technique, that is further compounded by the results being paraded around like it's some sort of gospel! That's not the case here, but when I rag on testing method, or total lack of statistical relevance, it's pretty much always due to

1) Poor measurement technique.
2) Compounded by poor interpretation of results.
3) Compounded further by an inibility to understand basic math and measurement.

These are the issues that do, and should, get flamed.

Matt

 

Ok, back to the topic on hand (and trying not to throw any gas on the fire)... While the testing can't be said to be without some sort of error, it is kept at a minimum. The only other additional part of the HDI dyno was the new bushings and warmer intake temperature. Correct me if I'm wrong but bushings should really only affect the initial surge of power (just as the engine torques). They reduce the movement of the engine so there should be more power transmitted to the wheels. Once they reach their maximum flex, no matter what bushings you use (Powerflex or stock), shouldn't the power transmitted through them should be the same?

Either way, both intakes look like they will be a great addition to a MCS.

 

My happiness cannot be measured by any standard acceptable to everyone. It's not that cut and dry. Data, schmata, I'm satisfied, you'll never be. Can I prove it, we'll see.

 

I was out doing more testing earlier today. Two runs, right after each other, differed by over 5 WHP.

Make of it what you want, but it is very hard to get better than a 2% accuracy to any testing result on these cars. And for the math challenged, that's about 3 HP. For single pull measurments, getting deltas of less than 5-8 hp are close to meaningless as well. Ask Willy69 how much variation he's seeing in his quest for the perfect stock header mod.

HomerJ, I don't know which person your refering to. I'm very satisfied. But I also like testing results to mean something. Data schmata? you've got to be kidding! Don't you want to know if something is more effective per dollar spent BEFORE you spend it? Or do you just have money to burn?

And yes, either one of these intakes will do a great job.

Matt

 

Isn't the reason that a second run usually shows poorer hp due to the heatsoak of our engines, I think that would explain the 5WHP difference.

To me, this seems like a decent test. By no means is it perfect, but who's going to buy two brand new intakes and test them holding everything constant by manipulating the atmosphere.

It seems like the HDI still puts down more power than the Alta. It's questionable how much, but it's still more and since both are similar prices...

The whole test shakes down to this.

Webb HDI:
Advantage - motor mounts? new?
Disadvantage - new?

Alta:
Advantage - cooler testing temperature; older?
Disadvantage - older?

The age of the intake and the motor mounts both have questionable effects on the test. The one absolute thing that we know is the the HDI run in a hotter testing temperature.

Some people have raised the fact that the Alta's run was cut off before the HDI. Well, just cut it off before the Alta stops. As obehave said, it doesn't just throw out the whole run before the end of the Alta. That's like throwing away bread that has some mold on part of it...

The peak hp of the HDI isn't really pertinent then since it's reached at a higher RPM that the Alta never reached. Without that, the gains of the HDI are minimal and are basically similar to the Alta, BUT it is 12 degrees hotter, so same power with a hotter ambient temperature.

 

if the Alta run had been continued to higher rpm (same as the Webb), it would not have shown more hp the way I read the graph.

 

To get some repeatability in numbers......

1) Coolent temps must be the same.
2) Heat soak should be minimized. I've found that more than a 5 degree C change in post IC air temps can effect the run.
3) even doing this, you'll find that the standard deviation of peak HP is still hard to get down to less than 3% for most testing.
4) because of timing retard, which is worst at red-line, the peak numbers jump around a bunch more than you think. If you look at 40-60 MPH times (in second, where red-line is around 70 MPH) will have differences in the hundredths of seconds.
5) For a lot of testing, the hp and torque curves pretty much overlap until somewhere north of 6000 RPM.
6) for the stuff I'm doing, I typically do at least 4 runs per car state, and if I through out the ones that have too much heat soak, I'm getting standard deviations of 2.5% plus in peak HP.

Here's some data that I'll be posting shortly....

State.......Ave Peak HP..... St Dev.....Ave 40-60 times.... St Dev
Stock..........166.4.............2.4.............2 .66.................0.05
Mod A.........166.8..............2.8............2.65.. ................0.05
Mod B.........171.9..............3.9.............2.61. ................0.04

It took 6 good runs for the stock numbers, and 5 for each of the mods I was looking at. So 16 runs to get numbers with that type of uncertainty. What I've learned in all the testing I've been doing is that getting good numbers from our cars is really a lot of work. And if you just look at single dyno pulls (I was using G-Techs, where I got real world air flow, at least), getting deltas of less than about 10 HP is somewhat suspect. Unless you use data logging to ensure that the IATs are similar at the start of the pull (no heat soak) and that coolant temps are stable.

Don't know if anyone really cares about this, but those that want to know HP deltas to less than 5 HP really should!

Matt

ps, I had to use 100 octane gas for these tests, as the 91 crap they sell here in CA had timing retard as much as 11 degrees!

 

I'm curious about this as well.
I've heard but never seen data that bushings put more HP to the wheels. My thnking is like yours. It will to a point.

It was pointed out that adding the bushings invalidated the HP results so it's not just you and I that have heard this. Is there a basis in fact? If there is I've never seen it.

Yes, the Alta and the HDI are both very good intakes.

 

I tried selling the doughnuts for a dollar a piece but I think you were about the only taker.

Eveyone else was just a taker of doughnuts

 

Since they are stiffer, the force put to the wheels in the very first instant will be bigger. But after they're both loaded, the force (and hence the HP) will be exactly the same.

Matt

 

Good stuff and very believable results.
I've seen and read about variances that large on engine dynos where there are far less variables than a rolling dyno.

Just a tidbit.

The first run they did on my MINI they didn't run a fan on the IC
After some information was exchanged They ran a decent fan pointed at the IC.
There was an almost 15 HP improvement. Nice.
The run after that ( I convinced them to toss the first run due to the fan thing) I pulled 179 give or take a few tenths.
Since they only printed out the highest output run I don't have that number for sure. So the 180 HP figure was really the middle of 3 runs.

 

Obe: You make me laugh