ISFSCOTT

Next Thursday night is the plan, I will let you know.

JDMV8

iTrader: (6)

Looks like my comment was misconstrued. I didn't say do dyno pulls in a high gear. I didn't say reset the ECU right before the dyno run. I actually said quite the opposite. I sense a language barrier?
Driving around for hours wasn't intended to heat-soak the intake...that cooled it down...driving around was meant for the ECU to learn, in general terms. Yes, we monitored intake temps as well, and performed heat-soaked runs as well as cooled-down "cheating" runs.

I have no intention to name-call or meet your temperament with opposing emotion. I'm simply providing logic because I rather not have the CL community be misled.
Have fun, dyno/dragstrip veteran!

Joker4096

iTrader: (2)

Are you still going this Thursday? What about Runday Sunday? Weather should be good.

F_Throttle

I read it the same as you intended.. OP should check out the ECU tune threads to draw the connection.

ISFSCOTT

Here you go fellas:

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...ml#post9686616

RRRacing

iTrader: (1)

With all due respect, unless the folks doing the testing made sure that the intake air temps were the same for stock intake vs. K&N, you can easily explain an 18hp dyno variation with a 15-20F degree difference in intake air temps.

If you look at the dyno setup, there is just one fan blowing straight at the radiator.

With the stock intake, unless there are very strong fans pointed at the entire front of the car it will heat soak.

If you have 80F ambient temps, a stock airbox will easily see 110-120F IATs during the dyno run because of insufficient airflow to the front of the car. The airbox will draw in hot air from the flapper door as there is no airflow to the passenger side fender area because of insufficient airflow.

Under REAL WORLD driving conditions this would never happen, as the airbox would draw cool air from the fender area. This is one of the reasons I recommend removing the passenger side cover during a dyno run, and directly blowing cool air at the airbox flapper door and snorkel.

If you install an open K&N air filter, it will be less sensitive to heat soak on the dyno since your hood is open. In the real world (when your hood is closed), K&N intakes are poorly shielded from the engine compartment heat and will typically see higher IAT's.

Here is a great article on the effect of IAT on HP numbers:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...-lying-feature


Making 18hp on an ISF is hard work... so the notion that making 18hp is as easy as bolting on a cone filter is a bit ridiculous given the extensive testing we have conducted in the course of tuning the ISF and making literally hundreds of dyno and street runs.

One other note about these magazines... we have approached them to feature our ISF supercharger and they express no interest, yet they would rather feature an ISF with a K&N cone filter.... I wonder why?

Rafi

ISF4life

iTrader: (30)

AHAHAHAHAHAHHA well said Rafi .

jspecvtec

iTrader: (4)

You said it better than I did 👍🏼

ISFSCOTT

Lets go line by line here so I do not miss anything. The folks doing the testing was me and my friend who owns the shop.

Intake air temps were checked with a handheld IR gun that I use to use when I raced my Mustang often. It is of course not as accurate as a thermocouple and gauge set up but pretty close, certainly close enough for a mostly stock street car. When I used to check my IAT via the AEM set up on my race car against the handheld IR gun it was within a very close margin. IAT's just wasn't mentioned here as it was over kill for the masses for a cold air intake for a low production vehicle. I guess for what the magazine was given and what the actually printed they wanted to keep it brief, they also did not use my car in the cover photo for some dumb reason. Maybe it would have been better to ask if I checked the temps instead of lecture about it ?

The one fan in the pic was left there because it was not in the way for the photo as the other large fan that was moved for the photos was because it did not make for a sexy photo. lol Aka, two fans were used. And if we had no fans in the photo that question would have been asked and discussed to nausea.

IAT comments are kinda mute now I guess because there was two fans in use and temps were checked ?

Two dyno runs were made with the hood down and second fan removed, nominal change was shown on those runs on the dyno therefore not added to the article, again this article is reaching a specific target market and that market mostly has no idea what IAT's are nor cares. We also made a run in third gear as the other article on some other site did with this cold air intake for some odd reason. We had a big drop off in power with the third gear pull, it also was not used in the article.

I agree it is a poor heat shield design but I also made my own little mod as seen in the pics I posted ( see page two of this thread ) allowing air from the factory under hood scoop to be directed to the cone filter via the snorkel that is left behind on the factory box that K&N does not have you remove like I did. This also did not make their article. lol I am in the process of getting some peel and stick heat deflecting tape that I found at SEMA a few weeks ago, I will report back on that as soon as they send it to me.

Don't know why you find it ridiculous as it is right here on paper and the drop in et's lend to amount of extra hp made and extra tq made under the curve equals .2-.3 tenths in the quarter mile. There would be no other way to drop .23 in the quarter mile ( density altitude adjusted ) without making another about 20 rwhp and additional TQ under the curve. I seem to be one of few that is running low 1.9 60 ft. times on a mostly stock ISF and the additional power made would lend to that happening.

I too have made 100's of pulls on this very dyno on a few of my cars so its not foreign to me. Do you use a weighted / loaded Mustang Dyno or similar or one that does not load the car ?

As far as not being able to get anyone to bite on your supercharger article, I kind of get why. It is a low production car that few know how to tune which means your supercharger appeals to a very small and very particular market. Where as a simple bolt on cold air kit that is also low in cost stretches across a much broader market and requires no tuning or possible fuel system changes that your supercharger probably requires. Thankfully my brother has a ton of connections in the industry and built a car for SEMA last year on mostly donated parts in exchange for online publicity. Maybe talk to my brother to see if he can get your foot in the door with someone, let me know.

RRRacing

iTrader: (1)

So you are using an IR gun to measure air temps?

IR gun will not measure air temperatures. IR temperature measurement depends on the emissivity of the object you are pointing at, it is really measuring the temperature of a surface, not air temperature.

You want actual intake air temps as measured by the car's IAT sensor, which is very easy to do using any OBD logger.

Have you seen our "Tuned Intake?" We went to tremendous lengths to make an intake for the ISF that actually makes power... and even with everything we did, most we got was about 10-12hp... and even that was ONLY with header equipped cars.

Compared to a K&N intake, our intake is better in every way:

(1) We use a 88mm MAF housing, versus 80mm stock housing on the K&N
(2) We spent tremendous amount of time rescaling the MAF and load maps and tuning the ISF specifically for the higher flowing intake.
(3) We use a bigger filter (also K&N)
(4) We use a larger and better flowing velocity stack
(5) We went to much greater lengths to shield our intake to reduce heat soak from the engine bay.
(6) We even went through the trouble of purchasing an RCF 84mm throttlebody for $800 and adapted it to the ISF intake manifold -- and even that didn't make any power!

So with all the great lengths we took to design an intake, we still only claim about 10-12 hp, and even that is ONLY on header equipped cars. Without headers, I don't care how free-flowing the intake is, it will not outperform the stock airbox -- because the stock airbox does not become a restriction until you open up the exhaust side with headers.

I am sorry if I come across as critical here, but please understand my frustration when I see bogus claims from K&N or AFe. And I am not saying you are lying (although they know better and probably are lying). Often times in science and engineering the data shows what the researcher wants it to show, AFe recently claimed 15hp from their RCF intake... TOTAL BS! We are the only company to tune the RCF, we have done a tremendous amount of development on this car, and I can tell you there is no way their intake makes any power either.

So I guess we are just dumb... we spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on intake development and net 10-12hp... and K&N/AFe bolt on a cone filter and make 18hp

We have a DynoJet 424x AWD dyno with 5 one HP frontal fans and we always dyno the car by observing critical ECU data to ensure repeatability of our results.

Give me any dyno, especially a Mustang, Dynapack, or dynocomp, and we can easily show you a 30-40hp variation in dyno results on the same ISF. And I am not saying its all intentional, some of it is just normal test variability due to lack of control over test inputs.

-Rafi

RR Racing Tuned Intake



PS. Regarding drag times and 60ft times... I am not a big expert on drag racing, but my best 60ft time was 1.91sec making 530whp on Hoosier drag radials, so clearly there are other variables involved here other than just power.

Meanstreak

ISFScott - I'm a little confused about the density altitude correction you referenced. There are several calculators on the web available and when you plug in the numbers, they correct to sea level for apples to apples comparisons. I used this site: http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...calculator.php which has a handy tool to choose your date and track and it will pull up the weather info automatically. So when I put in your baseline run which was on 10-21-16 around 7:00PM, it pulls in the following info:

Air Temp: 78F
Pressure: 29.83
Rel. Humidity: 76%
Density Altitude: 1675'

Your best run of 12.826 @ 111.09 corrects to 12.585 @ 113.3

Comparison runs were on 11/20 around 1:00PM:

Air Temp: 68F
Pressure: 30.13
RH: 21%
Density Altitude: 435'

Best run of 12.568 @ 113.53 corrects to 12.535 @ 113.8

Based on this the difference in DA explains the improved times and MPH. You noted DA on your timeslips but that doesn't seem to match up to the DA based on the measured atmospheric conditions. Thanks for putting this comparison together I'm just trying to make sure I understand the analysis correctly.

ISFSCOTT

Dont know what to tell you dude. I have been drag racing since 1990 and have fabbed plenty of my own parts over the years. One thing I have noticed with this ISF crowd is most don't have much of any drag racing in their background ( which is ok ) and this intake debate is one that works everyone up. The IR works it's just not as accurate as I said before, I have dedicated gauges on my race car to measure IAT so I get how it works. With regards to all the time you have spent on your intake and the small gains you have seen, don't know what to tell you. I don't appreciate the bogus claims because I was there to help with the install, dynoing the car, and I made all the passes at the track. But I understand why you would leary given the time you have spent on your intake. I made dyno and track runs before and after the install in very similar conditions and also corrected the times with density altitude measurements to keep all equal. There is no other mod or variable in play to drop my times from 12.82 to 12.56, none. That drop in et would be right in line with a stock motor gaining about 20 rwhp and especially the rwtq under the curve that was picked up. The mph pick up in the quarter mile also points to hp gains of around 20. If I put on a cold air intake and headers and only got 12 more rwhp I would be pissed quite honestly. Typically headers on a street car are good for at least 20 unless they were designed very well from the factory. Your 11.74
run above should be in the low 1.8 60ft time. A 2.1 means you are either spinning on the hit or are staging very deep. I am
all ears on how you think I could have dropped my times almost .3 (three tenths) because on my end there are no other variables or tricks being played.

jspecvtec

iTrader: (4)

Who said headers and intake gets you 12whp? Rafi meant their rrr tuned intake gets 12whp over baseline F that already has headers and it's not possibly the KN cone makes 20whp alone

RRRacing

iTrader: (1)

If you look at the shear number of variables involved in taking your car down the drag strip vs. dynoing the car under stable data-logged conditions with adequate cooling, it would go by the dyno test any day.

The K&N intake is nothing new, its been around for the past 8 years!

The 10-12hp gains we are getting with our intake are above the gains we had from a tuned header car. gains for headers+intake vs stock gutted manifolds+intake are more like 20-24hp.

Dan from MA is running 11.7 ET with 1.7 60ft time with our tune/headers/intake.

IR does not work for measuring intake air temps, and its not accurate at all for measuring air temps, period.

When you perform a dyno comparison and you want to do it right, you need to datalog the actual IAT's on every run, and you will see what I am talking about.

While you are on the dyno, you can open the airbox and remove the filter entirely, and you won't make any more power -- the stock airbox is not a restriction.

The RCF, which makes about 50hp more than the ISF uses the same airbox!!! Even with the RCF, we extensively tested aftermarket intakes and guess what? NO GAINS!

I will say something more about the K&N intake... I have datalogged a few ISF's that were running this setup, and on both cars I noticed lower KCLV's than stock airbox cars. This was done in the summertime where heat soak would be a bigger issue than it is now.

Rafi

ISFSCOTT

You still skirted my question of why after the K&N mod and after making numerous runs before and after the mod to squeeze the best time out of it before and after I am .25 quicker after with no other variables at play and even adjusting the runs on the density altitude program I have. A 10 rwhp that you claim I should be getting at the most would not account for .25 at the track maybe a tenth at the most. I even went through the laborious task of having the same 93 octane gas, gas level, tire pressure, engine temp, and shift mode to recreate the same scenario. All runs on my worn out factory Bridgestones too. I am not talking bench racing on a dyno or datalogging, I am talking real world et's adjusted for altitude, temp, humidity, and barometric pressure. I care less what any dyno shows, as you say dynos have variables just as yours could, timeslips don't lie. When I go back next time I will be on new street that res which will allow me to footbrake the car to a higher rpm on launch which will get me a lower 60 ft and any time saved in the first 60ft doubles what you drop on the big end. So anothwe .05 saved is going to net me another .10 off my overall time. I'll also mix in some E85 and go down there without a full tank for a max effort run without any other mods.. I won't spend the money and minimal gains on headers or full exhaust. I am also going to wrap the air inlet pipe with heat deflecting material to keep IAT's down more. Maybe I'll play with closing in the cone filter more since we both agree the K&N design isn't great. My goal was to get the car to 12.6 with simple stuff and the already beat that with one mod so I am happy with it.