Joe Z Intake Pipe Dyno Results
09-02-10, 01:54 PM
#1
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe Z Intake Pipe Dyno Results
I got my car dyno'ed last week for a baseline, got the Joe Z Intake installed by Tommy @ Music Box, drove a bit over 200 miles, and I just got my car dynoed again to see the results. The mechanic, Raymond at R1 Motors, actually owns an IS 250 (well, it's his wife's), and was very skeptical about the intake pipe. Some of his thoughts were 1) OEM plastic vs metal with plastic more non-conductive of heat, 2) OEM, even with a resonator, "could" be better designed, and 3) it's just a pipe.
Well, we got hooked up and dynoed the car not once (first 2 sets), but twice (cooldown than another 2-3 sets). Sorry for the crappy cellphone picture, I forgot my flash drive so I'll need to go back and get an export which I'll post later.
272.54 - Baseline stock, 102 degrees ambient
265.53 - Second dyno run, 92 degrees ambient
261.77 - First dyno run, 92 degrees ambient
I'll post the full export graph when I get back, but it'll show the same figures as above. Yes, the intake actually made a full 10 whp worse the first run, and it was actually 10 degrees hotter the week before! Raymond restated his original thoughts, but he was going to give me the benefit of the doubt and give me another set of dyno runs after a cooldown (dyno'ing isn't cheap). Well, we let it cool down, his friend joins in and we chat for 15 minutes or so while the high power fan does its work. Another go, hp is a bit better, but still is 7 whp worse than the stock intake. After reviewing the rpm/torque graph (yes, I will post it later!), it looks like RPM up toe 3,000 is roughly the same on stock vs Joe Z Intake, but from 3,000 to 6,000 the Joe Z did worse.
Overall, I'm just shocked, and I don't know what went wrong. Did Tommy not install it correctly? Did I not put enough miles into the car for the ECU to pick it up? Defective unit? Do most people modify only the pipe or are they doing the intake box too? caymandive did dyno over 4 years ago and showed some performance increases (https://www.clublexus.com/forums/per...ly-tested.html). It's hard to say but with it being 10 degrees cooler between baseline and today's run, AND the graph's showing the power difference, I don't know what to say. I'll be going to the track in 3 hours, and I'll see what the slipsheets say...
Well, we got hooked up and dynoed the car not once (first 2 sets), but twice (cooldown than another 2-3 sets). Sorry for the crappy cellphone picture, I forgot my flash drive so I'll need to go back and get an export which I'll post later.
272.54 - Baseline stock, 102 degrees ambient
265.53 - Second dyno run, 92 degrees ambient
261.77 - First dyno run, 92 degrees ambient
I'll post the full export graph when I get back, but it'll show the same figures as above. Yes, the intake actually made a full 10 whp worse the first run, and it was actually 10 degrees hotter the week before! Raymond restated his original thoughts, but he was going to give me the benefit of the doubt and give me another set of dyno runs after a cooldown (dyno'ing isn't cheap). Well, we let it cool down, his friend joins in and we chat for 15 minutes or so while the high power fan does its work. Another go, hp is a bit better, but still is 7 whp worse than the stock intake. After reviewing the rpm/torque graph (yes, I will post it later!), it looks like RPM up toe 3,000 is roughly the same on stock vs Joe Z Intake, but from 3,000 to 6,000 the Joe Z did worse.
Overall, I'm just shocked, and I don't know what went wrong. Did Tommy not install it correctly? Did I not put enough miles into the car for the ECU to pick it up? Defective unit? Do most people modify only the pipe or are they doing the intake box too? caymandive did dyno over 4 years ago and showed some performance increases (https://www.clublexus.com/forums/per...ly-tested.html). It's hard to say but with it being 10 degrees cooler between baseline and today's run, AND the graph's showing the power difference, I don't know what to say. I'll be going to the track in 3 hours, and I'll see what the slipsheets say...
Last edited by Raralith; 09-02-10 at 01:58 PM.
09-02-10, 10:14 PM
#2
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got back from the drag strip, and here are some numbers to compare from stock vs Joe Z Intake. Weather wise, last week was around 99 degrees and ending at 75 degrees while this week was around 91 degrees and ended in 79 degrees. This gave a very, very minor edge for today's run.
08/26/2010 Irwindale 1/8 Mile Drag, 99 degree start with 75 degree end
8.817
8.978
8.895
8.875
8.987
9.079
9.096
8.882
9.392*
8.92
8.785
8.84
8.962 average, *9.392 was just a bad run so it should be removed from the average so the 11 run average is 8.923
09/02/2010 Irwindale 1/8 Mile Drag, 99 degree start with 79 degree end
8.817
8.793
8.846
8.954
8.88
8.895
8.874
8.972
8.867
9.114*
8.827
8.922%
8.867%
8.901, *9.114 was also a bad run so will be removed from the average so the 11 run average is 8.882
% = Running 22 PSI, didn't like it
8.923 average 11 run stock intake vs 8.882 average 11 run Joe Z intake, the Joe Z takes the day shaving .042 which is 0.471% better than the previous week. With a stock 272 hp from my baseline, a 0.471% increase in time is 1.28 hp increase.
08/26/2010 Irwindale 1/8 Mile Drag, 99 degree start with 75 degree end
8.817
8.978
8.895
8.875
8.987
9.079
9.096
8.882
9.392*
8.92
8.785
8.84
8.962 average, *9.392 was just a bad run so it should be removed from the average so the 11 run average is 8.923
09/02/2010 Irwindale 1/8 Mile Drag, 99 degree start with 79 degree end
8.817
8.793
8.846
8.954
8.88
8.895
8.874
8.972
8.867
9.114*
8.827
8.922%
8.867%
8.901, *9.114 was also a bad run so will be removed from the average so the 11 run average is 8.882
% = Running 22 PSI, didn't like it
8.923 average 11 run stock intake vs 8.882 average 11 run Joe Z intake, the Joe Z takes the day shaving .042 which is 0.471% better than the previous week. With a stock 272 hp from my baseline, a 0.471% increase in time is 1.28 hp increase.
09-02-10, 11:26 PM
#3
Statistically speaking, you are indeed justified in throwing out those 2 outliers at the 95% confidence interval using dixon's q test.
I will say, however, that the difference in means (8.882 to 8.923) is scientifically not significant at the 95% confidence interval. This is easily shown by performing a t test.
The computed t value for your set of data came out to be 1.40. Because this t value is less than the critical t value to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. the null hypothesis being that the difference in means between the two samples is due to random chance) at the 95% confidence interval not only for a two-tailed paradigm (t-critical = 2.16) but also for a one tailed paradigm (where it's easier to reject the null hypothesis given that the critical t value is lower, in this case t-crit = 1.77), you can safely say that the difference in means is not statistically significant. In statistical lingo, we say you cannot reject the null hypothesis.
What this means is that at the 95% confidence interval, you can make the assertion that the difference in means between the two groups (8.882 on 9/2/10 and 8.923 on 8/26/10) can be attributed to random chance alone. Statistically speaking, it is not a significant difference.
The bottom line is, regardless of the fiasco with the dyno results, the combination of the Joe Z intake plus all other extraneous variables that you were not able to control (slightly lower temperature, perhaps slightly different humidity, different traction, etc.) did not cause a significant difference in your 1/8 mile runs.
On the other hand, if there was a significant difference, because you did not (and really, cannot) control all potentially confounding variables properly, you couldn't make the case either way that it was the Joe Z intake that provided increase in performance.
In any case, it doesn't actually matter, because no statistically significant reduction in 1/8 mile times was achieved.
Forgive me if I'm preaching to the choir here with my overzealous explanation of the Student's t test.
Hope this helps.
By the way, I thought it would be interesting to do a t test for your actual dyno figures -
I assumed you did just a single baseline dyno run, so the first group involves the single data point 272.54 (n=1)
The second data set (dyno with JoeZ intake) includes two data points - 261.77 and 265.53 (n=2)
Despite the fact that the difference appears large at first glance, given that the sample size is so small, even this difference turns out to not be statistically significant -
Pvalue (one tailed) = .112
Pvalue (two tailed) = .224
Strictly speaking in science if we expect the change of a variable to move the mean in a particular direction, it's appropriate to use a one tailed t test paradigm.
In this case, however, we expected the JoeZ intake to increase - not decrease - mean HP, so using the two tailed P value is likely more appropriate given that the result was opposite of what we expected. But even if we go ahead and use the easier to reject the null hypothesis one tailed P value, we still cannot say - at the 95% confidence interval - that the difference in means is significant because .112 > .05 (and really, we should be considering the fact that .224 > .05 if you want to be super strict about discerning significant from non-significant results).
The fact of the matter is this - if you want to be able to claim statistical significance (at the 95% confidence interval which is almost universally accepted as the standard in science) you need to have a much larger sample size for both groups. That is, you need to take, say, at least 4 or 5 baseline dynos and 4-5 dynos with the Joe Z intake (n=4-5) if you want to be able to detect such a small change in HP as being statistically significant.
I pulled the number "4-5" out of my ***, to be honest, but the point is, you cannot truly tell whether the difference between 272 and [(261.77+265.53)/2] is statistically significant given that your sample size is so small for your baseline dyno data set (n=1) and the change in means we're trying to detect (on the order of 10 HP) is so small as well.
If you go to your local shop and do a single baseline dyno and get, say, 270 whp, and then you slap on some intake X and you do another single dyno and get 273 HP, given these laws of statistics, the information you received is, actually, utterly useless because you cannot claim statistical significance to that difference of 3 HP with just a single run.
I will say, however, that the difference in means (8.882 to 8.923) is scientifically not significant at the 95% confidence interval. This is easily shown by performing a t test.
The computed t value for your set of data came out to be 1.40. Because this t value is less than the critical t value to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. the null hypothesis being that the difference in means between the two samples is due to random chance) at the 95% confidence interval not only for a two-tailed paradigm (t-critical = 2.16) but also for a one tailed paradigm (where it's easier to reject the null hypothesis given that the critical t value is lower, in this case t-crit = 1.77), you can safely say that the difference in means is not statistically significant. In statistical lingo, we say you cannot reject the null hypothesis.
What this means is that at the 95% confidence interval, you can make the assertion that the difference in means between the two groups (8.882 on 9/2/10 and 8.923 on 8/26/10) can be attributed to random chance alone. Statistically speaking, it is not a significant difference.
The bottom line is, regardless of the fiasco with the dyno results, the combination of the Joe Z intake plus all other extraneous variables that you were not able to control (slightly lower temperature, perhaps slightly different humidity, different traction, etc.) did not cause a significant difference in your 1/8 mile runs.
On the other hand, if there was a significant difference, because you did not (and really, cannot) control all potentially confounding variables properly, you couldn't make the case either way that it was the Joe Z intake that provided increase in performance.
In any case, it doesn't actually matter, because no statistically significant reduction in 1/8 mile times was achieved.
Forgive me if I'm preaching to the choir here with my overzealous explanation of the Student's t test.
Hope this helps.
By the way, I thought it would be interesting to do a t test for your actual dyno figures -
I assumed you did just a single baseline dyno run, so the first group involves the single data point 272.54 (n=1)
The second data set (dyno with JoeZ intake) includes two data points - 261.77 and 265.53 (n=2)
Despite the fact that the difference appears large at first glance, given that the sample size is so small, even this difference turns out to not be statistically significant -
Pvalue (one tailed) = .112
Pvalue (two tailed) = .224
Strictly speaking in science if we expect the change of a variable to move the mean in a particular direction, it's appropriate to use a one tailed t test paradigm.
In this case, however, we expected the JoeZ intake to increase - not decrease - mean HP, so using the two tailed P value is likely more appropriate given that the result was opposite of what we expected. But even if we go ahead and use the easier to reject the null hypothesis one tailed P value, we still cannot say - at the 95% confidence interval - that the difference in means is significant because .112 > .05 (and really, we should be considering the fact that .224 > .05 if you want to be super strict about discerning significant from non-significant results).
The fact of the matter is this - if you want to be able to claim statistical significance (at the 95% confidence interval which is almost universally accepted as the standard in science) you need to have a much larger sample size for both groups. That is, you need to take, say, at least 4 or 5 baseline dynos and 4-5 dynos with the Joe Z intake (n=4-5) if you want to be able to detect such a small change in HP as being statistically significant.
I pulled the number "4-5" out of my ***, to be honest, but the point is, you cannot truly tell whether the difference between 272 and [(261.77+265.53)/2] is statistically significant given that your sample size is so small for your baseline dyno data set (n=1) and the change in means we're trying to detect (on the order of 10 HP) is so small as well.
If you go to your local shop and do a single baseline dyno and get, say, 270 whp, and then you slap on some intake X and you do another single dyno and get 273 HP, given these laws of statistics, the information you received is, actually, utterly useless because you cannot claim statistical significance to that difference of 3 HP with just a single run.
09-02-10, 11:51 PM
#4
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting math.
As fort he sample, I had 4 baseline run's, and they were posted in my racing journal (link in sig) and in this thread -> https://www.clublexus.com/forums/per...rain-loss.html
As for the Joe Z intake runs, I had 2 tries with 3 runs each, 1 of each got thrown out though so I have 4 figures from the Joe Z intake. While a dyno's in general would be hard pressed to find such small hp gains, what bothered me the most was that the baseline run was in a much hotter environment while the Joe Z intake was not yet the stock did better when comparing 4 baseline runs to 4 Joe Z intake runs. I guess something else that bothered me is that I shelled out good money to get these dyno test done, and the conclusion to me is that it's moot and I wasted my money.
As fort he sample, I had 4 baseline run's, and they were posted in my racing journal (link in sig) and in this thread -> https://www.clublexus.com/forums/per...rain-loss.html
As for the Joe Z intake runs, I had 2 tries with 3 runs each, 1 of each got thrown out though so I have 4 figures from the Joe Z intake. While a dyno's in general would be hard pressed to find such small hp gains, what bothered me the most was that the baseline run was in a much hotter environment while the Joe Z intake was not yet the stock did better when comparing 4 baseline runs to 4 Joe Z intake runs. I guess something else that bothered me is that I shelled out good money to get these dyno test done, and the conclusion to me is that it's moot and I wasted my money.
09-03-10, 12:28 AM
#5
4 baseline dyno runs is perfect. I performed another t test comparing the following two sets of data
Set 1 (baseline figures): 271.48, 270.38, 271.14, 272.54
and
Set 2 (JoeZ figures): 265.53, 261.77
The result?
Two tailed P value = .004395 which is < .05, thus this result is significant. We don't even need the remaining two JoeZ dyno figures.
But the bottom line is, because you had 4 baseline dyno runs and they were so consistent, the 265 and 261 with JoeZ do indeed turn out to be statistically significant.
The reduction in HP after you installed the JoeZ intake is statistically significant and is not simply due to random chance.
So now the question is - was it really the JoeZ intake that caused the reduction in HP, or was it some other potentially confounding variable?
We already know that temperature worked to increase whp figures when you ran with the JoeZ intake, so clearly temperature could not have caused that difference.
Bottom line is, something caused that statistically significant difference, and assuming the mechanic is pretty good at keeping things consistent, your results indicate that the JoeZ intake did, indeed, result in a loss of horsepower.
I think it's now fair to postulate whether or not this is due to improper installation or defective part or what have you.
Set 1 (baseline figures): 271.48, 270.38, 271.14, 272.54
and
Set 2 (JoeZ figures): 265.53, 261.77
The result?
Two tailed P value = .004395 which is < .05, thus this result is significant. We don't even need the remaining two JoeZ dyno figures.
But the bottom line is, because you had 4 baseline dyno runs and they were so consistent, the 265 and 261 with JoeZ do indeed turn out to be statistically significant.
The reduction in HP after you installed the JoeZ intake is statistically significant and is not simply due to random chance.
So now the question is - was it really the JoeZ intake that caused the reduction in HP, or was it some other potentially confounding variable?
We already know that temperature worked to increase whp figures when you ran with the JoeZ intake, so clearly temperature could not have caused that difference.
Bottom line is, something caused that statistically significant difference, and assuming the mechanic is pretty good at keeping things consistent, your results indicate that the JoeZ intake did, indeed, result in a loss of horsepower.
I think it's now fair to postulate whether or not this is due to improper installation or defective part or what have you.
09-03-10, 12:25 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Under an IS F since 2008
Posts: 13,441
Received 1,063 Likes
on
586 Posts
Hello Joseph,
Did you lose my cell number?? LoL
But honestly, there are so many ways this can Go...
First and foremost the IS will see gains off approx. 5rwhp on an IS350 and approx 6rwhp on an IS250 Manual..
It has been proven over and over independently many times by many members.
It's also possible that your base numbers are a bit too high and something may gone wrong with that high of a base #.
What kind of Dyno? What gear was it Dyno’d in?? Did the operator know how to hold the gear?? Was Trac & Vsc turned off??
What kind of air filter are you running??
Were any accessories left ON by accident, like A/C, etc ??
I am very confident your install was done properly and I am very confident your intake is not defective.
I personally QC every intake before it is boxed..
When you get back into town I will be happy to go over all your concerns.
Best Regards
Joe Z
Did you lose my cell number?? LoL
But honestly, there are so many ways this can Go...
First and foremost the IS will see gains off approx. 5rwhp on an IS350 and approx 6rwhp on an IS250 Manual..
It has been proven over and over independently many times by many members.
It's also possible that your base numbers are a bit too high and something may gone wrong with that high of a base #.
What kind of Dyno? What gear was it Dyno’d in?? Did the operator know how to hold the gear?? Was Trac & Vsc turned off??
What kind of air filter are you running??
Were any accessories left ON by accident, like A/C, etc ??
I am very confident your install was done properly and I am very confident your intake is not defective.
I personally QC every intake before it is boxed..
When you get back into town I will be happy to go over all your concerns.
Best Regards
Joe Z
Last edited by Joe Z; 09-03-10 at 12:42 PM.
09-03-10, 01:40 PM
#7
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Joe, no I didn't lose your number, but I didn't want to bother you. I guess now I know that I can :P
To answer a few of your questions though. There's deinately a lot of people with the Joe Z intake pipe, but when using the search function, I've only seen caymandive's dyno results that had just intake (not intake and exhaust combo). That's why I was so shocked that I could have possibility lost hp on the dynojet itself.
It's also possible that your base numbers are a bit too high and something may gone wrong with that high of a base #. I've got 4 base runs, all of them are pretty close together.
What kind of Dyno? What gear was it Dyno’d in?? Did the operator know how to hold the gear?? Was Trac & Vsc turned off?? This was a Dynojet and while I'm deinfately not comparing a Dynojet's results to a Mustang dyno either; I'm also going to the same place. As for the gear and operator, I'm not really sure, but I'm pretty certain he knows what he is doing. I actually found the mechanic through someone posting on the SoCal portion for a group dynojet because he's been going there for 6+ years or soemthing. The Trac & Vsc were turned off, and I personally stepped up to ensure that both lights were on.
What kind of air filter are you running?? I am running the stock air filter, everything OEM except for the Joe Z intake pipe. I wasn't too sure if I the intake pipe need a different filter housing, but when I used the search function, it seemed (maybe I got it wrong) it was the pipe only.
Were any accessories left ON by accident, like A/C, etc ?? Everything was turned off, and everything stayed exactly the same the first and second runs. I did a double check before I got onto the lift on both.
Here are the dyno results:
This was the dyno run yesterday showing only the Joe Z intake pipe; run 9 is out of place on the graph. As I said earlier, I got a set of runs in, results were 261 and 261. We took a small break so the engine could cool, and the second set of results were 264 and 265.
Here's the best stock intake run vs the best Joe Z intake run. It looks almost exactly the same, but you can see at the higher RPM's, the stock starts to move ahead.
Here are all 8 runs, and you can see that all top 4 are in the 270-272 range which is with the stock intake. You can see a pretty small gap between the runs too on the hp and torque portions.
Here are the conditions when all the runs were done. Notice that the first 4 stock runs 5-10 degrees hotter than the last 4 Joe Z intakes. Also, if I am correct about the SAE, the first 4 runs were more "challenging" at a 1.02 compared to runs 4-7 which had a factor of 1.01, and only did run number 8 hit 1.02. Humidity had a difference, but 6% vs 17%, these are pretty low. Tempetature vs humidty, I would think that tempetature would be a much more relavent factor, but I could be completely wrong.
Again, I've read a lot of results saying the 5 whp from the Joe Z intake compared to stock, but I just didn't get those numbers. Is it the dyno operator? I don't think so as it is the same person, he has done this many times, and he has done dyno's for members on these very forms. Is it the dynojet itself or the SAE correction factors? I don't believe so and the numbers seem to show that too. I just cannot understand how I could have had a decrease, it just makes no sense to me.
To answer a few of your questions though. There's deinately a lot of people with the Joe Z intake pipe, but when using the search function, I've only seen caymandive's dyno results that had just intake (not intake and exhaust combo). That's why I was so shocked that I could have possibility lost hp on the dynojet itself.
It's also possible that your base numbers are a bit too high and something may gone wrong with that high of a base #. I've got 4 base runs, all of them are pretty close together.
What kind of Dyno? What gear was it Dyno’d in?? Did the operator know how to hold the gear?? Was Trac & Vsc turned off?? This was a Dynojet and while I'm deinfately not comparing a Dynojet's results to a Mustang dyno either; I'm also going to the same place. As for the gear and operator, I'm not really sure, but I'm pretty certain he knows what he is doing. I actually found the mechanic through someone posting on the SoCal portion for a group dynojet because he's been going there for 6+ years or soemthing. The Trac & Vsc were turned off, and I personally stepped up to ensure that both lights were on.
What kind of air filter are you running?? I am running the stock air filter, everything OEM except for the Joe Z intake pipe. I wasn't too sure if I the intake pipe need a different filter housing, but when I used the search function, it seemed (maybe I got it wrong) it was the pipe only.
Were any accessories left ON by accident, like A/C, etc ?? Everything was turned off, and everything stayed exactly the same the first and second runs. I did a double check before I got onto the lift on both.
Here are the dyno results:
This was the dyno run yesterday showing only the Joe Z intake pipe; run 9 is out of place on the graph. As I said earlier, I got a set of runs in, results were 261 and 261. We took a small break so the engine could cool, and the second set of results were 264 and 265.
Here's the best stock intake run vs the best Joe Z intake run. It looks almost exactly the same, but you can see at the higher RPM's, the stock starts to move ahead.
Here are all 8 runs, and you can see that all top 4 are in the 270-272 range which is with the stock intake. You can see a pretty small gap between the runs too on the hp and torque portions.
Here are the conditions when all the runs were done. Notice that the first 4 stock runs 5-10 degrees hotter than the last 4 Joe Z intakes. Also, if I am correct about the SAE, the first 4 runs were more "challenging" at a 1.02 compared to runs 4-7 which had a factor of 1.01, and only did run number 8 hit 1.02. Humidity had a difference, but 6% vs 17%, these are pretty low. Tempetature vs humidty, I would think that tempetature would be a much more relavent factor, but I could be completely wrong.
Again, I've read a lot of results saying the 5 whp from the Joe Z intake compared to stock, but I just didn't get those numbers. Is it the dyno operator? I don't think so as it is the same person, he has done this many times, and he has done dyno's for members on these very forms. Is it the dynojet itself or the SAE correction factors? I don't believe so and the numbers seem to show that too. I just cannot understand how I could have had a decrease, it just makes no sense to me.
Trending Topics
09-03-10, 01:48 PM
#8
Hey Joe, no I didn't lose your number, but I didn't want to bother you. I guess now I know that I can :P
To answer a few of your questions though. There's deinately a lot of people with the Joe Z intake pipe, but when using the search function, I've only seen caymandive's dyno results that had just intake (not intake and exhaust combo). That's why I was so shocked that I could have possibility lost hp on the dynojet itself.
It's also possible that your base numbers are a bit too high and something may gone wrong with that high of a base #. I've got 4 base runs, all of them are pretty close together.
What kind of Dyno? What gear was it Dyno’d in?? Did the operator know how to hold the gear?? Was Trac & Vsc turned off?? This was a Dynojet and while I'm deinfately not comparing a Dynojet's results to a Mustang dyno either; I'm also going to the same place. As for the gear and operator, I'm not really sure, but I'm pretty certain he knows what he is doing. I actually found the mechanic through someone posting on the SoCal portion for a group dynojet because he's been going there for 6+ years or soemthing. The Trac & Vsc were turned off, and I personally stepped up to ensure that both lights were on.
What kind of air filter are you running?? I am running the stock air filter, everything OEM except for the Joe Z intake pipe. I wasn't too sure if I the intake pipe need a different filter housing, but when I used the search function, it seemed (maybe I got it wrong) it was the pipe only.
Were any accessories left ON by accident, like A/C, etc ?? Everything was turned off, and everything stayed exactly the same the first and second runs. I did a double check before I got onto the lift on both.
Here are the dyno results:
This was the dyno run yesterday showing only the Joe Z intake pipe; run 9 is out of place on the graph. As I said earlier, I got a set of runs in, results were 261 and 261. We took a small break so the engine could cool, and the second set of results were 264 and 265.
Here's the best stock intake run vs the best Joe Z intake run. It looks almost exactly the same, but you can see at the higher RPM's, the stock starts to move ahead.
Here are all 8 runs, and you can see that all top 4 are in the 270-272 range which is with the stock intake. You can see a pretty small gap between the runs too on the hp and torque portions.
Here are the conditions when all the runs were done. Notice that the first 4 stock runs 5-10 degrees hotter than the last 4 Joe Z intakes. Also, if I am correct about the SAE, the first 4 runs were more "challenging" at a 1.02 compared to runs 4-7 which had a factor of 1.01, and only did run number 8 hit 1.02. Humidity had a difference, but 6% vs 17%, these are pretty low. Tempetature vs humidty, I would think that tempetature would be a much more relavent factor, but I could be completely wrong.
Again, I've read a lot of results saying the 5 whp from the Joe Z intake compared to stock, but I just didn't get those numbers. Is it the dyno operator? I don't think so as it is the same person, he has done this many times, and he has done dyno's for members on these very forms. Is it the dynojet itself or the SAE correction factors? I don't believe so and the numbers seem to show that too. I just cannot understand how I could have had a decrease, it just makes no sense to me.
To answer a few of your questions though. There's deinately a lot of people with the Joe Z intake pipe, but when using the search function, I've only seen caymandive's dyno results that had just intake (not intake and exhaust combo). That's why I was so shocked that I could have possibility lost hp on the dynojet itself.
It's also possible that your base numbers are a bit too high and something may gone wrong with that high of a base #. I've got 4 base runs, all of them are pretty close together.
What kind of Dyno? What gear was it Dyno’d in?? Did the operator know how to hold the gear?? Was Trac & Vsc turned off?? This was a Dynojet and while I'm deinfately not comparing a Dynojet's results to a Mustang dyno either; I'm also going to the same place. As for the gear and operator, I'm not really sure, but I'm pretty certain he knows what he is doing. I actually found the mechanic through someone posting on the SoCal portion for a group dynojet because he's been going there for 6+ years or soemthing. The Trac & Vsc were turned off, and I personally stepped up to ensure that both lights were on.
What kind of air filter are you running?? I am running the stock air filter, everything OEM except for the Joe Z intake pipe. I wasn't too sure if I the intake pipe need a different filter housing, but when I used the search function, it seemed (maybe I got it wrong) it was the pipe only.
Were any accessories left ON by accident, like A/C, etc ?? Everything was turned off, and everything stayed exactly the same the first and second runs. I did a double check before I got onto the lift on both.
Here are the dyno results:
This was the dyno run yesterday showing only the Joe Z intake pipe; run 9 is out of place on the graph. As I said earlier, I got a set of runs in, results were 261 and 261. We took a small break so the engine could cool, and the second set of results were 264 and 265.
Here's the best stock intake run vs the best Joe Z intake run. It looks almost exactly the same, but you can see at the higher RPM's, the stock starts to move ahead.
Here are all 8 runs, and you can see that all top 4 are in the 270-272 range which is with the stock intake. You can see a pretty small gap between the runs too on the hp and torque portions.
Here are the conditions when all the runs were done. Notice that the first 4 stock runs 5-10 degrees hotter than the last 4 Joe Z intakes. Also, if I am correct about the SAE, the first 4 runs were more "challenging" at a 1.02 compared to runs 4-7 which had a factor of 1.01, and only did run number 8 hit 1.02. Humidity had a difference, but 6% vs 17%, these are pretty low. Tempetature vs humidty, I would think that tempetature would be a much more relavent factor, but I could be completely wrong.
Again, I've read a lot of results saying the 5 whp from the Joe Z intake compared to stock, but I just didn't get those numbers. Is it the dyno operator? I don't think so as it is the same person, he has done this many times, and he has done dyno's for members on these very forms. Is it the dynojet itself or the SAE correction factors? I don't believe so and the numbers seem to show that too. I just cannot understand how I could have had a decrease, it just makes no sense to me.
Density altitude is a function of both temperature and humidity, but temperature is far and away the more important of the two variables (between temperature and humidity).
09-03-10, 02:09 PM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Under an IS F since 2008
Posts: 13,441
Received 1,063 Likes
on
586 Posts
Again, I've read a lot of results saying the 5 whp from the Joe Z intake compared to stock, but I just didn't get those numbers. Is it the dyno operator? I don't think so as it is the same person, he has done this many times, and he has done dyno's for members on these very forms. Is it the dynojet itself or the SAE correction factors? I don't believe so and the numbers seem to show that too. I just cannot understand how I could have had a decrease, it just makes no sense to me.
I can only check your install and highly recommend some more base dyno's.
(before full exhaust install)
Most Dynojets yield an avg of 265 rwhp for bone stock IS350's.. dyno'd properly in 4th gear...
Joe Z
09-03-10, 03:58 PM
#11
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe, I'm tempted to get more baselines before I install the Joe Z exhaust that I bought from you, but the cost of 2 dyno runs is more expensive than the intake itself. The only way I can see getting the most accurate data is reinstalling the stock intake ($20 from Tommy), drive it for maybe 300 miles this time for the ECU can get a good handle of it, dyno ($80), switch back to the Joe Z intake ($20), another 300 miles for the ECU, and than another dyno ($80). And than I still need to get the exhaust installed and another dyno run, but I plan to get that done anyways.
My original intention was to validate and maybe quantify how much this intake can do. I would love to provide additional knowledge for these forums, but I really don't want to pay another $200 when I've already got 8 runs already. That and The Pursuit is 1 month away so time is getting limited, and doing all these test will require almost 1,000 miles of driving (300 for each dyno for the ECU).
For those that are hesitant, please be aware that I would gladly pay $100 for the additional sound you get at the 3,000+ RPM range. In addition, unless you will be pushing your car to the limit like drag racing or tracking (which I do), you should not be able to tell any difference; going WOT on a freeway is no where near pushing your car. This is, of course, my opinion on this.
My original intention was to validate and maybe quantify how much this intake can do. I would love to provide additional knowledge for these forums, but I really don't want to pay another $200 when I've already got 8 runs already. That and The Pursuit is 1 month away so time is getting limited, and doing all these test will require almost 1,000 miles of driving (300 for each dyno for the ECU).
For those that are hesitant, please be aware that I would gladly pay $100 for the additional sound you get at the 3,000+ RPM range. In addition, unless you will be pushing your car to the limit like drag racing or tracking (which I do), you should not be able to tell any difference; going WOT on a freeway is no where near pushing your car. This is, of course, my opinion on this.
