eldrego Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Any word on the fitment with RacerX fmic piping? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick4dr Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Any word on the fitment with RacerX fmic piping? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk should fit fine, it appears, the racersx stays tucked in tight to the head, atleast on mine. more concerned with will this intake bolt up to a AVO 3in inlet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimmSpeed Posted September 9, 2015 Author Share Posted September 9, 2015 Can we start the group buy now? So once they're back from powder-coating they can ship immediately. That is the most amazing an efficient idea EVer. ^^Yes Please can we?? I Want!^^ I'm ready. Any color doesn't matter as long as it's grimmspeed!! I'm due on EFI dyno in about 3 weeks. Would love this on before then ����. Agree with TheMonaLisa! Well, two reasons why we're not going to do that: We wanna wrap up the 2015-16 WRX intake group buy. Running multiple intake group buys can make the guys a little crazy on top of our regular work. Handling things one at a time really makes things more efficient, and less likely for mistakes. AND, it really doesn't speed anything up either because in the group buy when we have product ready to go, we ship as soon as payment is received, so you win either way. 3 weeks might be cutting it close though, I'll try and figure out if that is feasible. Any word on the fitment with RacerX fmic piping? Please see where this is discussed on page 1. I can not confirm fitment as I've never installed an LGT intake on a car with that piping. It looks like there is a chance, but if so I believe it'll be extremely close. should fit fine, it appears, the racersx stays tucked in tight to the head, atleast on mine. more concerned with will this intake bolt up to a AVO 3in inlet? Please see where this is discussed on page 2, and maybe a little on 3. It will, but you're not going to be able to just slip the intake into the inlet I don't believe, nor should you. I recommend a 3in to 3in hump hose coupler, and probably a short run of 3in tubing to clamp the coupler and the inlet together (or else the clamps will have nothing to clamp against. Chase Engineering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahr_side Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Best proof? Not necessarily, I would say that it is different proof. I fail to see the difference in measuring the pressure differential between the airbox or filter and the compressor housing, and measuring the pressure differential of actual boost output between runs. I understand your thinking here, I just don't agree. Final manifold relative pressure depends on a few other parameters outside of the pressure drop over the intake. Slightly leaner AFR or less timing is more heat energy in the exhaust and higher turbine speed, which is more boost. When testing N/A intakes, such as the BRZ/FR-S we certainly do use our differential pressure manometer as we obviously have no boost to measure on the dyno. Yes, but as mentioned, using MRP as the final yardstick ignores other important parameters However, the refresh rate on our Manometer isn't nearly as good as the sensor on the dyno, and we can't log it against RPM, but rather against time. That's an equipment issue, not a problem with methodology. I guess I'm confused on your second part, because I certainly am saying that the claim that there is a certain power level in which an intake becomes useful IS BS, because even at stock power levels a decrease in restriction before the turbo is a good thing. And the general claim I've seen over and over that "an intake does nothing before 300whp" certainly can not be true for all instances, as this is proof right here of the opposite. Sorry, but I still disagree with this conclusion. It's well known that resistance to flow increases at the square of flow speed. There's definitely a kink in the curve where resistance increases much more rapidly, and therefore flow levels below this point just aren't affected that much. Where is this point on the stock intake? Why has no-one just run their intake on a flow bench against the stock one to find out? And with that said, there is no claim made by us at all that an aftermarket intake isn't better than stock. We'll continue to stand by the ideal that so long as you're decreasing restriction between the turbo inlet and before the air filter, you're offering a benefit. So I'm not sure where you thought we claimed those are mutually exclusive things, or that we at all agree with the idea that the stock intake is good to a certain power figure. So our intake can be better than current offerings, and be better than the stock intake as well, to clear up any weird semantics misinterpretations. It's not really a semantics issue. I read your statements as: 1. The stock intake is restrictive at all power levels. 2. To claim that aftermarket intakes are not an improvement over stock at lower power levels is nonsense. 3. Our intake is better than all other intakes. Those points seem to point to all aftermarket intakes flowing better than stock, which I don't agree with, or that these claims which were made in the last ten years you state you weren't making intakes are nonsense because your intake wasn't included in the comparisons. I'd rather have engineers dabbling in sales talk than the other way 'round, so don't take it to heart. Here is some good proof that with our intake a lower WGDC is required to hit the same boost as with the stock intake, tested by a third party and with a forum member present. Again, no, because other factors influence MRP other than WGDC, and the presence of forum members who appear to be neither engineers nor tuners doesn't mean much to me. No disrespect to Derp intended. I'm not necessarily surprised that the K&N doesn't either, as the piping diameter is smaller than the entire stock intake tract, and the only possible benefit would come from a less restrictive filter, but with probably a hit for a less sealed design than stock. Agree, and add the K&N filter area isn't even that large, and I also feel washable filters cannot be washed completely clean, which means they slowly accumulate dirt that would be tossed with a replaceable paper element. And I 100% agree with you, we're certainly not first to market with offering an intake for these cars, in fact we're about 10 years late. But that's why we're able to see the shortcomings of everything that has been released, and make a design that doesn't have the same compromises. And we haven't made an individual claim that our intake is better than X because it offers x.xx PSI less restriction, but rather that we've described it in it's total form. In that it offers an OEM-like MAF curve, a decrease in restriction, MAF sensor heat shielding, and looks a heck of a lot better. And only one of those points is opinion Fair point. Thanks. Obligatory '[URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2008-gh8-238668.html?t=238668"]build thread[/URL]' Increased capacity to 2.7 liters, still turbo, but no longer need spark plugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimmSpeed Posted September 9, 2015 Author Share Posted September 9, 2015 I understand your thinking here, I just don't agree. Final manifold relative pressure depends on a few other parameters outside of the pressure drop over the intake. Slightly leaner AFR or less timing is more heat energy in the exhaust and higher turbine speed, which is more boost. Yes, but as mentioned, using MRP as the final yardstick ignores other important parameters You're absolutely right, except if you take a look at the testing information I've provided its abundantly clear that the AFR isn't even slightly leaner, it's identical. And timing was not changed at all. I know that your next point is going to be: but scaling the MAF ends up effectively changing the timing, which it does, but not nearly enough to influence boost to this amount. That's an equipment issue, not a problem with methodology. You're right, it is an equipment issue, so we choose to use the equipment that would do a better job of conveying data. This is valid because we've already established that our methodology is sound, for the exact reasons I've already mentioned. Sorry, but I still disagree with this conclusion. It's well known that resistance to flow increases at the square of flow speed. There's definitely a kink in the curve where resistance increases much more rapidly, and therefore flow levels below this point just aren't affected that much. Where is this point on the stock intake? Why has no-one just run their intake on a flow bench against the stock one to find out? I'm sorry that you disagree with our conclusion. I'm very interested in seeing your data set when you perform the same testing using your preferred methodology! It's not really a semantics issue. I read your statements as: 1. The stock intake is restrictive at all power levels. 2. To claim that aftermarket intakes are not an improvement over stock at lower power levels is nonsense. 3. Our intake is better than all other intakes. Those points seem to point to all aftermarket intakes flowing better than stock, which I don't agree with, or that these claims which were made in the last ten years you state you weren't making intakes are nonsense because your intake wasn't included in the comparisons. I'd rather have engineers dabbling in sales talk than the other way 'round, so don't take it to heart. I'm happy to see you got that straightened out then. Again, no, because other factors influence MRP other than WGDC, and the presence of forum members who appear to be neither engineers nor tuners doesn't mean much to me. No disrespect to Derp intended. The point of including derp is simply for if an individual were to refute that our testing wasn't 3rd party, or that we used methodology or techniques to "sweeten the results," you have a trust-worthy witness to the contrary. Agree, and add the K&N filter area isn't even that large, and I also feel washable filters cannot be washed completely clean, which means they slowly accumulate dirt that would be tossed with a replaceable paper element. That's a theory I'd like to see some data on. And more importantly what low restriction air filters are made of paper? You can't have your cake an eat it too... Fair point. Thanks. No problem, take care now! Chase Engineering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahr_side Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Sure, when I'm trying to sell intakes to people I will be sure to test them on a flow bench first. In the meantime, why would I spend that much money to prove a great many intakes do not flow any better than stock, especially when no longer new? I actually feel you've put in a lot of effort on this product, compared to most of those out there, and I would actually think about using it myself or even recommending the GS item to customers. I've talked about 100 owners of stock turbo cars out of buying intakes to date, and convinced at least 50 more to ditch a garbage intake and reinstall the stock system. How about going the extra yard and testing your intake on a flow bench against the stock one? Measure the vacuum required to hit given flow rates that match the capability of the stock turbo and a few popular upgrades. I totally understand why you wouldn't run against competitor products, even when yours is better, but surely there's no reason to risk upsetting Subaru. I wish more intakes would use easily available disposable paper filters. There are lots of them available for commercial vehicles that are large, flow very well, are easily available and are very cheap. Obligatory '[URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2008-gh8-238668.html?t=238668"]build thread[/URL]' Increased capacity to 2.7 liters, still turbo, but no longer need spark plugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derp Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm offended. At the end of the day, I provided a test platform, got a badass hookup on a pro tune, and get some bling for my engine bay. and it now makes awesome tuner car fwoosh sounds. y'all can debate the finer points of the doodiddly and the wingwong and the flowstuff and the potato ratio all day long It IS interesting to read! I could suck start a snow blower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick4dr Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 this might just be the most educating thread ive read to date. I love passionate companies and passionate enthusiasts both private and the figure behind the companies. all i Know is we win in the end as a community great wealthes of data are being collected. and only progress comes from data collection! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahr_side Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 ...some bling for my engine bay. and it now makes awesome tuner car fwoosh sounds. Thanks Derp. I wish more people were this honest about why they bought an intake and what it did! Sent from some electronic device. Obligatory '[URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2008-gh8-238668.html?t=238668"]build thread[/URL]' Increased capacity to 2.7 liters, still turbo, but no longer need spark plugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMonaLisa Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I'll be the first here to admit that I'm buying this predominately for amazing turbo sounds. Maybe, just maybe, then I won't have to keeping listening to Supras on YouTube as I'll get my fix driving my own car. Also there will be a small performance bump, looks good under the hood, I'm a Grimmspeed fanboy, ect. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derp Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Thanks Derp. I wish more people were this honest about why they bought an intake and what it did! Sent from some electronic device. *shrug* dyno seemed to show more power after intake install. He pro tuned the car on the stock one, then we installed the intake and it made more hp. At the end of the day though, idgaf, for reasons stated I could suck start a snow blower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicknetzel Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 The car we used was a forum member's (derp) and was equipped with an uppipe, downpipe, catback, and intercooler as far as performance modifications go. The car sees the occasional track day, and has 147k on the engine. Our tuner (Shane @ DB Performance) not only tunes race cars as well as road cars, but does racing himself. Keeping this motor intact was number one priority, so that means a good track tune, which is substantially more conservative than a street tune. Quick question regarding boost targets during the tune and how it might influence results others could see. I am assuming that keeping it conservative would suggest that you did not max out the turbo's capability in terms of boost. On my tune, with your awesome giant intercooler, my tuner was only able to push my boost to about 16.5 psi before it ran out of steam, so to speak. I'm assuming if we are tuned in a way that maximizes what the stock turbo can do, we won't be seeing the increase in PSI on the top end, but only that boost could come on a bit earlier. Is that an accurate understanding? Also, derp, if you're bored, feel free to record a video of those turbo sounds for the rest of us to hear while we're waiting for the release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated Too luchadorjose Posted September 10, 2015 I Donated Too Share Posted September 10, 2015 Quick question regarding boost targets during the tune and how it might influence results others could see. I am assuming that keeping it conservative would suggest that you did not max out the turbo's capability in terms of boost. On my tune, with your awesome giant intercooler, my tuner was only able to push my boost to about 16.5 psi before it ran out of steam, so to speak. I'm assuming if we are tuned in a way that maximizes what the stock turbo can do, we won't be seeing the increase in PSI on the top end, but only that boost could come on a bit earlier. Is that an accurate understanding? Also, derp, if you're bored, feel free to record a video of those turbo sounds for the rest of us to hear while we're waiting for the release. Boost is only part of how airflow is defined, remember. There's also temperature. The two together give you the actual quantity of air. That's how guys with 30R turbos run 18psi and make more power than our VF46 on 20psi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicknetzel Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Boost is only part of how airflow is defined, remember. There's also temperature. The two together give you the actual quantity of air. That's how guys with 30R turbos run 18psi and make more power than our VF46 on 20psi Yep - I agree and understand gas laws well (I actually teach chem). This is why I wasn't sad when I dropped boost with the addition of the awesome GS TMIC. Though, to be honest, I think in your example the difference in the turbo is same pressure with a higher amount of air due to a higher flowing turbo, rather than a temperature change. In regards to the temperature, I'm not sure that it will be changing so much with this though, since the stock airbox actually has some decent ducting for fresh air to it. My question is more to the potential of introducing more quantity of air with less restriction if the turbo can only flow so much anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboboost Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 There's a number of technical posts here. I just want to buy things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimmSpeed Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share Posted September 10, 2015 Sure, when I'm trying to sell intakes to people I will be sure to test them on a flow bench first. In the meantime, why would I spend that much money to prove a great many intakes do not flow any better than stock, especially when no longer new? I actually feel you've put in a lot of effort on this product, compared to most of those out there, and I would actually think about using it myself or even recommending the GS item to customers. I've talked about 100 owners of stock turbo cars out of buying intakes to date, and convinced at least 50 more to ditch a garbage intake and reinstall the stock system. How about going the extra yard and testing your intake on a flow bench against the stock one? Measure the vacuum required to hit given flow rates that match the capability of the stock turbo and a few popular upgrades. I totally understand why you wouldn't run against competitor products, even when yours is better, but surely there's no reason to risk upsetting Subaru. I wish more intakes would use easily available disposable paper filters. There are lots of them available for commercial vehicles that are large, flow very well, are easily available and are very cheap. GrimmSpeed got it's start as a porting company, and we've only just discontinued our porting service a year ago.. However, we still do have a flow bench. And if time were infinite and free we would perform all the testing in the world, instead of only testing what people who buy the product typically ask about: How much power did it make, how much boost did it add, how was the air to fuel ratio, how is the MAF curve, what does it take to safely run on my car, etc. This is what 99% of people are interested in, and what actually makes sense. I'm sure you can understand. And with that said, Matt said if he has time and space, he'll pull out the flow bench for ol' times sake, and do some testing with the intake. That's no promises though, just an "if we find time between the 13 projects we're working on" test. We also appreciate the kind words. I'm sure you've never seen any of the other development threads that I've started but I am the biggest skeptic there is on so many car parts. I didn't start in research and development, i started in speed shops, where I've seen junk over and over. Expensive junk too. I used to be the first person to tell you not to buy an intake, but now with the research and data from 4 successful designs, we know what works and what doesn't. If something doesn't work, we won't sell it, and we'll move on to something that does. What we've come up with works for everyone at least on one or more levels (performance, aesthetics, sounds, tunability), and as you've said we've put in a lot of work to develop this "package." I'm offended. At the end of the day, I provided a test platform, got a badass hookup on a pro tune, and get some bling for my engine bay. and it now makes awesome tuner car fwoosh sounds. y'all can debate the finer points of the doodiddly and the wingwong and the flowstuff and the potato ratio all day long It IS interesting to read! We know better than to upset your delicate genius derp this might just be the most educating thread ive read to date. I love passionate companies and passionate enthusiasts both private and the figure behind the companies. all i Know is we win in the end as a community great wealthes of data are being collected. and only progress comes from data collection! We're all enthusiasts, we're all curious people, and we're all for transparency in design. We're certainly not going to get rich selling LGT intakes, we have something that works well and we want to be able to share it with the community. I feel like the relationship between most performance manufacturers and customers is: "Here is a new part, buy this part, it works, trust us." And that's fine if that's all you need, or if you're a trusting person who's never been burned before. Me personally, I put my skeptic pants on, and want to ask questions from the people who did the design and testing, if any... Oh, and we love you too <3 I'll be the first here to admit that I'm buying this predominately for amazing turbo sounds. Maybe, just maybe, then I won't have to keeping listening to Supras on YouTube as I'll get my fix driving my own car. Also there will be a small performance bump, looks good under the hood, I'm a Grimmspeed fanboy, ect. Nailed it. I drive a near stock 04 FXT, and it's no where near as satisfying to drive as our GrimmSpeed intake-equipped WRX. I wouldn't mind it so much if my FXT at least sounded fast while it was going slow Thanks again for the continued support! Quick question regarding boost targets during the tune and how it might influence results others could see. I am assuming that keeping it conservative would suggest that you did not max out the turbo's capability in terms of boost. On my tune, with your awesome giant intercooler, my tuner was only able to push my boost to about 16.5 psi before it ran out of steam, so to speak. I'm assuming if we are tuned in a way that maximizes what the stock turbo can do, we won't be seeing the increase in PSI on the top end, but only that boost could come on a bit earlier. Is that an accurate understanding? Also, derp, if you're bored, feel free to record a video of those turbo sounds for the rest of us to hear while we're waiting for the release. Well, derp's desire to not run any more boost is the main reason why we didn't. That's why I can't provide any more data as to what would happen at a higher boost level. The tuner (Shane@DB Performance) I believe didn't think there would be any problem with 18-20psi, and I trust everything he says because his experience outnumbers all of us, but it's still something that unless I see the data, I won't call it true. But to answer your question in a basic math problem: Under all circumstances: Lets say the turbo is outputting 16psi, with an intake that has 2 psi of restriction, that means that the turbo is doing the equivalent "work" of 18psi. Under the same circumstances with an intake that offers only 1 psi of restriction the turbo only has to produce 17psi of boost to output 16psi. It's up to you and your tuner to decide what to do with that. So if you've figured out how to make a maximum amount of boost on stock intake, theory says you'd be able to make one psi more than that with an intake that was 1 psi less restrictive. But that's not the question you want to ask, because at this theoretical max boost figure you've already turned your turbo into a hairdryer. Why do we care that our turbo is only having to produce 1 less psi of boost to output the exact same boost pressure as before? Because the less restriction a turbo sees, and the less work it has to do means the less heat added to the system. I hope that answers the question as I just got massively sidetracked solving an issue in house, but I think I said everything I wanted to. Boost is only part of how airflow is defined, remember. There's also temperature. The two together give you the actual quantity of air. That's how guys with 30R turbos run 18psi and make more power than our VF46 on 20psi Exact-a-mundo, and a difference in volume and restriction. Yep - I agree and understand gas laws well (I actually teach chem). This is why I wasn't sad when I dropped boost with the addition of the awesome GS TMIC. Though, to be honest, I think in your example the difference in the turbo is same pressure with a higher amount of air due to a higher flowing turbo, rather than a temperature change. In regards to the temperature, I'm not sure that it will be changing so much with this though, since the stock airbox actually has some decent ducting for fresh air to it. My question is more to the potential of introducing more quantity of air with less restriction if the turbo can only flow so much anyway. The goal isn't necessarily a larger "quantity" of air, but less restriction (I'm sure you've read my response a few quotes up by the time you get to this). Which is why that with a turbo that can "only flow so much anyway" it makes sense to decrease as much restriction as you can. With efficiency falling off so fast you really want anything you can get to decrease the amount of heat in the charge air. There's a number of technical posts here. I just want to buy things. I got some things.... Got some money? Chase Engineering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicknetzel Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 But that's not the question you want to ask, because at this theoretical max boost figure you've already turned your turbo into a hairdryer. Why do we care that our turbo is only having to produce 1 less psi of boost to output the exact same boost pressure as before? Because the less restriction a turbo sees, and the less work it has to do means the less heat added to the system. I hope that answers the question as I just got massively sidetracked solving an issue in house, but I think I said everything I wanted to. The goal isn't necessarily a larger "quantity" of air, but less restriction (I'm sure you've read my response a few quotes up by the time you get to this). Which is why that with a turbo that can "only flow so much anyway" it makes sense to decrease as much restriction as you can. With efficiency falling off so fast you really want anything you can get to decrease the amount of heat in the charge air. So - pressure and amount of air are at play, and that part was clear in my mind, but I wasn't thinking through how the front end efficiency for the turbo could benefit making the turbo work less to get the same result. Makes sense to me. Sorry to keep you away from your duties... I just like to science. Thanks, Chase! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboboost Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I got some things.... Got some money? Chase Engineering Sure. Roll out with the GB. Show me yours and I'll show you mine. But seriously, love the ongoing support and camaraderie. These types of relationships are why our 6-10 year-old cars still have such a devout enthusiast following. Good stuff, forreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahr_side Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Chase, you've credited me with several statements or questions made by others. Could you correct that please? Sent from some electronic device. Obligatory '[URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2008-gh8-238668.html?t=238668"]build thread[/URL]' Increased capacity to 2.7 liters, still turbo, but no longer need spark plugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun506 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Anywhere we can just put our names to be notified when the group buy starts or an expected date? I don't want to miss it but I also don't want to have to check here every day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derp Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Chase, you've credited me with several statements or questions made by others. Could you correct that please? Sent from some electronic device. You sure are living up to your title I could suck start a snow blower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadvw Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 subscribed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannya Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 My man Art from GS is at it again! Lets get us some Exterior Aesthetics in the works! We need Over Fenders ASAP! Your Braddah from the 808~Kai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex0856 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I don't understand any of this I just like GrimmSpeed parts. Sub'd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahr_side Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 What are the chances of getting an intake for the 5th gen, something like a snowball in hell? I could really use a nice intake for this build. Obligatory '[URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2008-gh8-238668.html?t=238668"]build thread[/URL]' Increased capacity to 2.7 liters, still turbo, but no longer need spark plugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.