Limey

What's the brand of the filter ?

WeaponR_Ray

For those of you worried or questioning A/F ratios, here's a very good article regarding the subject:


http://www.bristoldyno.com/tech/airfuel.htm

A/F readings are very subjective, especially on a dyno run like this, where the wideband is taking samples from the end of the exhaust system. A look at the first set of dynos and the second round will show that. It's interesting that Injen's A/F readings were rich during the first tests, yet they're off the chart lean for nearly 25% of the second round runs. Maybe we could have made more power with a richer mixture, sure...but if this dyno graph is correct, it just shows that the Secret Weapon intake is doing what it was designed to, push the maximum amount of air into the engine in a smooth, consistant manner. I'm willing to bet that some minor tuning with a Camcon or Emanage would give results that would defintely raise some eyebrows, but that's a whole other thread.

sensay

ray you should make a cold air extension for all your short-ram owners that might like the extra hp, wouldnt b hard at all...

freeflowing

i'm no engine guru or nothing but something doesnt seem right especially with the air/fuel reading........it doesnt look like the ecu had enough time to learn the proper mixture to me.

interesting info..... but when your talking about horsepower/tq gain: humidity, temperature and altitude also play a part not just air flow.


Cole,

Where was this dyno done???
im curious to know what the were conditions of the enviroment when this test was performed i know you stated you placed a fan 3 feet or so away form the car with a fan speed @ 35mph . it would make your numebers more scientifically sound if you recorded this information and helpful some some who live in different regions of the USA.

-Keith-

l bracket goes on the lowest bolt towards the rear of the car straight down to where one of the stock intake bolts would bolt up.

tcengel

Again, this is because the ECU had to relearn the A/F mixture while running on a dyno with no resistance. This test is invalid unless the ecu has a chence to relearn on the street.

senseiturtle

How about we use these numbers for what they are...



instead of flaming the guy who's doing us a favor.

tcengel

Not sure where that came from, nobody is flamming anybody. We all appreciate this testing and I even bought a Greddy exhaust from GSC because of their testing.

You can't just take the numbers for what they are when they show a product to be dangerous for your car. If you are testing someones product and advertising it, you have the responsibility to do it correctly. We have noticed a flaw in the testing and are asking them to re-test, that is all.

rhythmnsmoke

ALL the intakes were subjective to the same environment. It dosen't matter if the ECU learned the intake or not, if the ECU was given the SAME amount of time for every intake....ECU learning this and that becomes irrelevant in my book.

Petem

i have to tell you guys.. i have been keeping up with this thread... and no matter what i read.. there i nothing so far that i have read that has convinced me that the ECU needs to learn anything....

from what everyone keeps saying.. the ECU does not reapond to the reading that it is given until it decides it's wants too..? i need that explained to me.. becuase if you change the intake to one that breaths better.. the MAF will see more airflow... it then reports that to the ECU... the ECU will take that reading along with all of the other sensors and inject the proper amount of fuel... did it learn anythng. YEAH.. "immediatly".. when it "immediatly" was told by the MAF that more air was being drawn in..

from every post that i have read talking about driving for 15 or more minutes so it learns.... it just does not make sence.... this would imply that the ECU wait for 15 minutes to decide to make the proper adjustment...

another thing... everyone is complaining that you need to install it and run it for awhile.. but what if the test had to be run on 2 different days.. then everyone would then complain that "hey maybe the conditions were different" because it was done over 2 different days.. i mean really.. what will it take to make everyone happy... im glad that this was done period... the manufactures of these products may not be happy with the numbers.. but from what i can tell they all were tested using the same method which is exactly what you want.. if someone wants to spend the amount of time these guys have spent to test it a different way then go at it..

these numbers should be taken as reference... i would not expect that test done in california would yield the same numbers on the exact same dynoif it was done in florida...

tcengel

Too bad it's not that easy. There is alot more than air and fuel in the equation. No offense, but maybe you should do some research before you give your uninformed opinion.

Jarrod123

would that take care of the low end loss?

Petem

really...?? than why do you not elaberate for those of us with uniformed opinions as to why... i did not get offiended but statements like that with absolutely no explaination as to your reasoning leads me to belive that maybe there are more uniformed people than just me...

yes.. i know there is alot more than just air fuel... that is why i stated above that it take the reading from ALL the other sensors to determine the running conditions of the engine.. but to imply that the computer will take any more amount of time than a few millisecond to determine what the operating condition of the engine is with out stating the reasoning behind it is just as bad

tcengel

I could write you an entire book, but I won't because I don't want to completely hijack this thread.

Simple: The ecu adjusts to conditions to create an ideal A/F ratio, ideal timing etc. This car is not running under normal conditions due to the free spinning dyno drum. So, the ECU can run a leaner mixture and more aggressive timing. Therefore, these are not realworld results.

Think of it this way. Try running up a steep hill, your body automatically breaths heavier to bring more oxygen (fuel) into your lungs.
Now run down the hill and you'll notice your breathing less because you require less oxygen (fuel), this is a crude example of load. Your car works the same way, somewhat. This is a very crude example, but the best I could think of at the time.

Petem

very good.. i think i see where you are coming from... so the issue with these tests is the DYNO equipment itself then...? i understand that the ECU would adjust differently with a load put on it.. however.. running it on the street then putting it back on the dyno would accomplish nothing... since your back to having no load on the engine again.. the ECU would/should be adjusting and running the engine to the current conditions not to conditions that it saw 15 to 30 minutes before, under load..

tcengel

As long as the ECU learns on the street, it shouldn't change that much on one dyno run except for maybe adding a little timing.
Think of it this way, if the ECU just easily learned everything, why would you need to reset it after adding a mod?

Limey

ECU's look at more than just immediate input, they also look at patterns, and averages.

If they adjusted real-time to every quirk or deviation from the norm it would be erratic and overly sensative.

Ecu's have cycles, as mentioned above BMW's cycle every 50 miles or so, TC's are similar, it takes a while for the ECU to learn that the new MAF readings are in fact normal and adjust everything accordingly.

These days engines really are very clever.

freeflowing

then tell me why the air/fuel mixture look funny if the ecu has learned anything. just like in drag racing different times of day create different readings that really what i was really saying. if he did the testing at night or in the morning then of course the numbers are going to look great because most thats when the most oxygen is present in our atmosphere...did cole and the guys measure the flow rate at all?????

how about testing during three different times a day for each intake so it paints a conclusive picture thats all im saying so there can't be a doubt the accuracy of his test. also tengen is right the test should simulate a load of running on the street if possible.

I dont have an intake yet but i was thinking of buying the either a waepon r or the injen intake so in no way am i defending either company.. companies make claims about their products all the time and sometimes somebody catches them in a lie.

by the way i appreciate cole and the rest of guys for showing the scionlife community the results...theres no room for flaming in my life just constructive thinking

ColeGSC

i think that maybe people are getting to far away from what the test was supposed to provide.

This test provides a horsepower number based on 4 runs on a dyno. The test was not conducted to show the EXACT hp numbers of specific intakes under normal driving conditions. All this test provides is comparison between different intakes tested under the same circumstances. The results are meant to be interpreted as proportional.

If you are looking for real world applications for specific intakes, we would be happy to install a bung on our tc and run a wideband right out of the headers to show actual A/F for in town and highway driving....all we ask for in return is 400$ for the wideband unit and 65$ an hour for labor after that point....plus gas.....and food for us. I'm obviously kidding...but you get the idea

The A/F graphs where put in there to give you an idea of why one intake made more or less hp than another. They cannot be representative of what the A/F ratios of that car would be under normal driving conditions, ie. less than WOT at all times.

Limey

I think if nothing else you can see trends in the data.

Personally, I'll work on the assumption that these results indicate the trend that would probably be reflected after normal driving conditions and full ecu learning.

Good results will stay good.
Bad results will stay bad.