Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

I posted this in another thread, but I thought others might be interested in the info:

I did several dyno pulls @MMS, with mediocre results. Since I was only testing out new parts I ran closed exhaust, 20psi in the tires, unlocked converter, etc. I also put a couple gallons of 103 in the tank.

Baseline was 385rwhp

Reverse flow EWP / Burger shortbelt yielded 391rwhp (gain from 5000rpm-7000rpm only)

Adding 4 degrees of timing the car pinged and power stayed around the same (next run took timing back out)

Putting a borrowed FIPK in place of my lid/filter (with hood open, and fan in front) yielded 394rwhp

Running open MAF with a short extension produced 391rwhp

I did several pulls of each at various times during the session (thanks again Derek!), so the numbers above are an average of my results. Since the gains are so small I didn't bother taking any printouts home with me.

So I get ~6rwhp from burger shortbelt, EWP, and reverse flow. (shrug). My car was one of those cars that picked up 0rwhp with the underdrive pulley as well, maybe it just came with really efficient accessories from the factory? <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> I'll be track testing ~March 10th, looking for better results.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Terry Burger ]</p>

Ron@Vengeance

iTrader: (51)

Terry, did you by chance dyno that FIPK kit with the hood closed?

The Juggernaut

iTrader: (7)

How many pulls did you make with each?
Are those average or peak?

The Juggernaut

iTrader: (7)

Sorry Terry, saw the info near the bottom. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

Cammin, I didn't but in my case I don't think it would have mattered. I had my FRA lower airbox on the car at the time. I was going to, but ran out of time.

I think the FIPK with FRA to get more cool air in the engine compartment will be worth 2-4rwhp HP over the lid/filter, at the 400rwhp hp level.

WeatherGuy

Terry,

Did I read that right? The FIPK outdynoed (by the skin of it's teeth) an open MAF? The only thing I can figure is that the FIPK induction and ducting from element to the MAF must be smoothing out the flow = decreased turbulence.

BTW, were the dyno numbers for the open MAF and FIPK inclusive of the EWP and shortbelt? Or were they the only mods above baseline?

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

The lid/filter and open MAF were the same, while the partial FIPK was worth another 2-3 hp from 5000+. The FIPK runs included the EWP/shortbelt. All in all it seems to me that the FIPK is mostly hype. Unfortunatly I'm a sucker for cheap mods, even if I know they don't work. I'm fortunate they were out of stock at the time. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

Max@Cartek

[quote]I also put a couple gallons of 103 in the tank.
<hr></blockquote>

So why did you put 103 octane in the tank? Are you running high compression? - Max

P.S.- Is that a JPR water pump or your own setup?

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

Its my own EWP setup. I used a little 103 octane because I run 11.3:1 cr and have problems with timing (I only run 24-25 degrees of advance). Even with the EWP, 103, and 29 degrees the car was pinging and didn't make any more power. =/

Poltergeist

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>Even with the EWP, 103, and 29 degrees the car was pinging and didn't make any more power. =/</strong><hr></blockquote>

If your car was pinging how do you know the FIPK would not have made any more HP? Wouldn't pinging cut into any possible increase with the additional mods? <img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0">

blackhawk2000

When you added 4 degrees, and it knocked, why didn't you take away 1 degree at a time until it stopped?

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

[quote]
When you added 4 degrees, and it knocked, why didn't you take away 1 degree at a time until it stopped?
<hr></blockquote>

Because I had already been down that road and knew where it lead. If the reverse flow EWP would not allow me to run 4 degrees of timing wo/ ping its of no benefit in that regard.

[quote]
If your car was pinging how do you know the FIPK would not have made any more HP? Wouldn't pinging cut into any possible increase with the additional mods?
<hr></blockquote>

The FIPK was with 25 degrees of timing and no pinging. Sorry guys it didn't make much more power on my car.

Dave Jones

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>Cammin, I didn't but in my case I don't think it would have mattered. I had my FRA lower airbox on the car at the time. I was going to, but ran out of time.

I think the FIPK with FRA to get more cool air in the engine compartment will be worth 2-4rwhp HP over the lid/filter, at the 400rwhp hp level.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Someone -- I don't remember who -- posted results of a test where they put temp sensors in the engine compartment. They found that when the car was moving, the air at the standard airbox opening was at the same temperature as the outside air. In other words, the !FRA does not introduce cooler air, as just about everyone believes it does.

MysticZ28

F8LPony did the same thing Steve200SS did. He used ATAP to take the IAT temp readings off of a lid with !FRA and saw the same thing Steve did. At idle the temp went up to around 110* but as soon as you start moving the temp quickly dropped to ambient - I believe this was the exact same result that Steve got with the FIPK.

I don't believe the !FRA or FTRA for that matter introduce air that is any cooler than what the stock intake or just a lid provide. They just simply introduce more air.

Steve1969LS1

iTrader: (1)

Yep, that was me.. tested for hours and hours with Autotap.. on the fwy.. side streets..stopped in traffic..

When car is moving IAT is at ambient outside air temp (within a couple degrees).. when you stop it climbs.. when you go again it quickly drops.. Same with a lid except its a little slower to rise when you stop (insulating effect of lid?) but its also slower to cool back down when you start moving (same insulating effect)..

So Terry made 3hp with the FIPK over an aftermarket lid.. i still think thats good.. a gain is a gain and besides Terrys car already makes more hp so its most likely a "diminishing returns" sort of deal.. after all he made no extra HP with the pulley <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0"> Wow, I should go try to get a job with K&N.. lol

Tim98TA

iTrader: (7)

[quote]Originally posted by Dave Jones:
<strong>In other words, the !FRA does not introduce cooler air, as just about everyone believes it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
EXACTLY!!!!! There is no possible way for a FTRA or FIPK or anything else to introduce colder air to the engine, because there is no air that is colder than the ambient air outside. They simply introduce a better/stronger flow of air.
Remember that the FTRA is picking up air that is coming right off the pavement. That air is warmer than the air that is hitting your hood. You want cooler air than the FTRA, get a ram-air hood and open that sucker up.

Tim

Poltergeist

Terry, thanks for clearing up about the pinging.

But another question. When you went with a straight MAF, no filter at all, you lost 3HP. Do you think it's possible that you may be running lean? With the FIPK being more of a restriction then a straight MAF could it have richened up the A/F ratio and that's why you lost the 3HP? Just seems wierd removing a restriction and losing power.

thanks

WeatherGuy

[quote]Originally posted by Poltergeist:
<strong>Terry, thanks for clearing up about the pinging.

But another question. When you went with a straight MAF, no filter at all, you lost 3HP. Do you think it's possible that you may be running lean? With the FIPK being more of a restriction then a straight MAF could it have richened up the A/F ratio and that's why you lost the 3HP? Just seems wierd removing a restriction and losing power.

thanks</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll let Terry answer the question, but two additional hypotheses come to my mind:

1) Some kind of natural dyno sampling variation, though the averaging of the runs kind of goes against this.

2) Directed airflow into the MAF through the FIPK construction may be reducing induction turbulence = slightly greater net air flow. Such a result may be counterintuitive, but is entirely possible based on boundary layer fluid dynamics and flow turbulence considerations. The smooth tubing after the MAF also help.

Other than that, a change in the A/F ratio might be a good guess also.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: WeatherGuy ]</p>

Kenny H

When we port our MAFs, and take the 'fins' out, yes we are allowing more flow, BUT we are reducing the flow rate I would think? Its the same idea of watering your grass with a garden hose, if the opening 2", a certain amount of water will come out. Now, if you put your finger over a portion of the opening the same amouth of water will be able to come out as long as you are not creating too much of a bottleneck, and the water comes out much harder. This is why I'm not so sure a ported MAF is good, it slows velocity. Take the screen off, yes, port it, no. Maybe I am wrong here guys?

Poltergeist

[quote]Originally posted by WeatherGuy:
<strong>

2) Directed airflow into the MAF through the FIPK construction may be reducing induction turbulence = slightly greater net air flow. Such a result may be counterintuitive, but is entirely possible based on boundary layer fluid dynamics and flow turbulence considerations. The smooth tubing after the MAF also help.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm, hadn't thought about air turbulence. Then I guess another question for Terry would be if he's running a ported MAF or not?