Independent testing of the Grimmspeed Intake

[GrimmSpeed]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to independently dyno test the GrimmSpeed intake, and I see a lot of good discussion going on here, and some unfortunate negative discussion here. Also everyone who has contributed their own personal findings, thank you for doing so!

 

Well, the good news is that we did nearly the exact same testing as TA did, but the bad news is that our results are a little different. Please familiarize yourself with that testing from our "any interest" thread:

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5226340&postcount=103

 

And so you don't have to switch back and forth between threads, the dyno testing that we showed:

 

http://www.grimmspeed.com/content/images/intake_legacygt_dyno_1.jpg

 

I hope people took the time to read through our test data, because here a few people mention that we claimed gains of "20/20" or that we didn't include AFR. So please take a minute to read through the testing that was performed that we reported.

 

The cars tested are very similar. The main difference being our vehicle had a GrimmSpeed TMIC, and a VF40. The other tested car has a VF52, and TGV deletes, all other modifications look the same. Our testing was also independent as I had nothing to do with it, or to influence it, and we had a forum member present as it was his car. The testing procedure is even somewhat similar, but unfortunately where it differs is probably why we have very different results.

 

We started with a car that had an road tune on it, with stock airbox and filter, this is dyno run 1. Our tuner started from scratch, and protuned the car over the next 5 full pulls (partials were not recorded), until he determined there was not going to be more in it without knock, or by adding more boost. That is run 5. It's pretty easy to see that the car was making considerable gains over the tune that it drove in on, and that the tuner did not sandbag the results. The next run was 0 change to the tune at all, and the addition of the GrimmSpeed intake ONLY. Boost, spool, and power were immediately up, as would be expected. The car was also half a point lean from where the tuner likes them to be, so he backed out of the pull. He applied the 12% MAF scale, and the AFRs were now exactly the same as on the stock airbox protuned run. The power gains can be seen everywhere and are typically around 5/5+ horsepower and torque with no changes to the tune. No knock, no pulled timing. This was exactly what was requested by the forum for testing, and shows a performance change from the intake only. That is why gains are minimal, and indicative of additional performance available depending on how you want to tune your car.

 

So lets address everything else:

 

Of course it gets hot on the dyno!!! The car isn't moving at all, so it will be immediately handicapped compared to one with a stock airbox and snorkel as far as IATs go. This is amplified with the fact that the hood is closed, and the TMIC blower is abysmal to say the least. I understand that under regular driving operation the hood is not open, but these fans are simply not even close to the mass of air that the car sees moving at speed. It seems that the TMIC never even had a chance with a single blower blowing at it from 5 feet away, and about a foot above it. I don't see any other blowers blowing through the radiator either, which gives a 0 percent chance of moving any air through the engine bay.

 

This pretty much guarantees that the inlet air is nothing but the hot air from the the header and up pipe area. Is it going to be very hot? Of course! I also understand that different fan set ups were attempted, but it should be extremely clear that these fan set ups are no where near close to the car driving at even 30mph, let alone 60+mph. I will post a picture of the fan set up used by DB Performance, which is still not even close to the huge fan set ups that some places have, but at least has a provision for directing air through the TMIC, just like would happen on the road. I suspect that this is one of the reasons for different results, especially when you consider the fact that the GS intake was dyno'd last, and most likely on a very very heat soaked intercooler.

 

Another thing that jumps out immediately is the boost and spool differences between the testing we witnessed, and this testing. When we performed testing all pulls started at 2000rpm. This consistency is what allows you to see the 200+rpm increase in spool (evidence of a decrease in restriction). However, in the reported testing the car doesn't even go to WOT and start spooling until 250rpm later than the baseline. That makes it very difficult to see an increase in spool if it is handicapped from the start.

 

However, the part that makes the least sense is why peak boost is lower with our less restrictive intake. Our testing showed the opposite, and in this thread two other members have reported the exact same findings that we have. An increase in spool, and an increase in boost of nearly a psi (.8psi). The TA testing shows the increase in boost at the top end of the rpms, but not at the beginning of the pull. I would suspect that this is a loss in air density from a very hot TMIC, or some other testing issue, as that portion simply doesnt make sense.

 

As far as IATs: First I'd like to note that not including the snorkel was definitely not an oversight, and to say that adding it is easy is misunderstood at best. We have posted a lot about why we didn't include it, and why the airbox and intake work together as an entire system (which can be found in the "any interest" thread), but speaking purely from an IAT perspective, all the info is right here in this thread. The cruising temperatures with this intake are typically between 5-10 degF above ambient, which is about as close to stock as it gets. This is ideal for 99.95% of what your car does, and only not ideal for the .05% or less that it spends on the dyno However, we have shown that there is still no problem tuning the vehicle on the dyno, even on a 91 degF day!

 

The road temperature data posted by TA shows some good IAT data. The pull starts at 63 degF from the airbox, and 61 degF for the snorkel run, and they end at 55 and 54degF, respectively. The maximum the delta ever is, is 4 degrees, and the slope of the temperature change in the airbox run is greater than that of the snorkel run. The scaling of the graph certainly does a good job of making it look like its a HUGE difference, when it's actually only 3-4 degrees, and shows no data of what ambient is. So, on the dyno temperatures increase toward the end of the run, and in real life they decrease.

 

So all this data posted is useful, but it's interpreting it correctly that is tripping people up. If the intake is able to make gains over the stock airbox while being significantly hotter, then when the temperatures are normalized (real life cruising) it can be expected that the potential for power is greater than what is reported. The main tell of this is the arbitrary timing table, pulling timing, the weird boost and spool discrepancy, and the inadequate cooling setup. The other things I'd be interested in hear are what the DAMs were for each pull, and what fuel was used.

 

I'll post a picture of the dyno setup initially posted, vs the dyno setup that was used during the testing we reported. I appreciate the discussion, and I appreciate that others are posting their own data as well, which is very helpful. Now put down the pitchforks, and take a closer look at the testing procedures, setups, and data.

 

Chase

Engineering

[covertrussian]

Excellent points, I didn't even see the little fan they used for TMIC inlet, only saw the one to the right of the right wheel.

 

I suspect that this is one of the reasons for different results, especially when you consider the fact that the GS intake was dyno'd last, and most likely on a very very heat soaked intercooler.

 

This is why I believe in A-B-A testing, sticking the stock intake back on for 3 more pulls would show true results with all parts heat soaked.

[Th3Franz]

I was going to post some concerns with the test methods but Chase@grimmspeed beat me to it and did a great explanation. Based on my tuning experience and use of multiple dynos for tuning TMIC cars, I wanted to chime in on a few points.

 

1. Starting RPM for a pull affects boost response. In the TA data, you see that one pull was started at 2000 RPM, the other at 2500 RPM. Alternatively, GS's data is very consistent at the starting RPM.

 

2. Cars heat soak very easily on a dyno. on TMIC cars, it's even worse. Airflow on a dyno is nowhere near the level experienced on the road at highway speed. Multiple fans are needed, and a fan directly supplying air through the TMIC is a must. A heatsoaked intercooler will drop the power and confounds the test.

 

3. IAT on the road is good data. A difference of 2-3F between the GS and stock intake systems is not substantial. They both show the IAT drop with vehicle speed, which is good.

 

4. With stock turbo, the TQ/HP gains are not large. 5-10 tq/hp is to be expected depending on the type of filter used and the overall design. What a dyno does not show is transient boost response. In my experience, a less restrictive intake shows quicker boost response in on and off throttle conditions, which is the bigger advantage.

 

5. The SPT intake should have been compared also.

[xtea]

So Chase, how bad of an idea is it to modify the snorkel and airbox and seal them together?

[Tuning Alliance]

I was going to post some concerns with the test methods but Chase@grimmspeed beat me to it and did a great explanation. Based on my tuning experience and use of multiple dynos for tuning TMIC cars, I wanted to chime in on a few points.

 

1. Starting RPM for a pull affects boost response. In the TA data, you see that one pull was started at 2000 RPM, the other at 2500 RPM. Alternatively, GS's data is very consistent at the starting RPM.

 

2. Cars heat soak very easily on a dyno. on TMIC cars, it's even worse. Airflow on a dyno is nowhere near the level experienced on the road at highway speed. Multiple fans are needed, and a fan directly supplying air through the TMIC is a must. A heatsoaked intercooler will drop the power and confounds the test.

 

3. IAT on the road is good data. A difference of 2-3F between the GS and stock intake systems is not substantial. They both show the IAT drop with vehicle speed, which is good.

 

4. With stock turbo, the TQ/HP gains are not large. 5-10 tq/hp is to be expected depending on the type of filter used and the overall design. What a dyno does not show is transient boost response. In my experience, a less restrictive intake shows quicker boost response in on and off throttle conditions, which is the bigger advantage.

 

5. The SPT intake should have been compared also.

 

2. I've tuned hundreds on cars on this dyno. With fan on the TMIC, fans in front, etc. If heat is a problem I will see knock. I had no issues with the stock intake. One fan went into the the TMIC scoop, and one went into the radiator. I see lots of issues with ebay short ram intakes pulling air right off the radiator. We ran it with the hood closed to simulate actual conditions. Do you drive around with your hood open?

 

3. This is not stock vs Grimmspeed. Both cases were with the GS intake, one had the GS air box removed and stock air duct installed. The other (hotter) was with the air box installed, and stock duct removed. Sorry I was not clear on this I will edit the first post.

[Tuning Alliance]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to independently dyno test the GrimmSpeed intake, and I see a lot of good discussion going on here, and some unfortunate negative discussion here. Also everyone who has contributed their own personal findings, thank you for doing so!

 

Well, the good news is that we did nearly the exact same testing as TA did, but the bad news is that our results are a little different. Please familiarize yourself with that testing from our "any interest" thread:

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5226340&postcount=103

 

And so you don't have to switch back and forth between threads, the dyno testing that we showed:

 

http://www.grimmspeed.com/content/images/intake_legacygt_dyno_1.jpg

 

I hope people took the time to read through our test data, because here a few people mention that we claimed gains of "20/20" or that we didn't include AFR. So please take a minute to read through the testing that was performed that we reported.

 

The cars tested are very similar. The main difference being our vehicle had a GrimmSpeed TMIC, and a VF40. The other tested car has a VF52, and TGV deletes, all other modifications look the same. Our testing was also independent as I had nothing to do with it, or to influence it, and we had a forum member present as it was his car. The testing procedure is even somewhat similar, but unfortunately where it differs is probably why we have very different results.

 

We started with a car that had an road tune on it, with stock airbox and filter, this is dyno run 1. Our tuner started from scratch, and protuned the car over the next 5 full pulls (partials were not recorded), until he determined there was not going to be more in it without knock, or by adding more boost. That is run 5. It's pretty easy to see that the car was making considerable gains over the tune that it drove in on, and that the tuner did not sandbag the results. The next run was 0 change to the tune at all, and the addition of the GrimmSpeed intake ONLY. Boost, spool, and power were immediately up, as would be expected. The car was also half a point lean from where the tuner likes them to be, so he backed out of the pull. He applied the 12% MAF scale, and the AFRs were now exactly the same as on the stock airbox protuned run. The power gains can be seen everywhere and are typically around 5/5+ horsepower and torque with no changes to the tune. No knock, no pulled timing. This was exactly what was requested by the forum for testing, and shows a performance change from the intake only. That is why gains are minimal, and indicative of additional performance available depending on how you want to tune your car.

 

So lets address everything else:

 

Of course it gets hot on the dyno!!! The car isn't moving at all, so it will be immediately handicapped compared to one with a stock airbox and snorkel as far as IATs go. This is amplified with the fact that the hood is closed, and the TMIC blower is abysmal to say the least. I understand that under regular driving operation the hood is not open, but these fans are simply not even close to the mass of air that the car sees moving at speed. It seems that the TMIC never even had a chance with a single blower blowing at it from 5 feet away, and about a foot above it. I don't see any other blowers blowing through the radiator either, which gives a 0 percent chance of moving any air through the engine bay.

 

This pretty much guarantees that the inlet air is nothing but the hot air from the the header and up pipe area. Is it going to be very hot? Of course! I also understand that different fan set ups were attempted, but it should be extremely clear that these fan set ups are no where near close to the car driving at even 30mph, let alone 60+mph. I will post a picture of the fan set up used by DB Performance, which is still not even close to the huge fan set ups that some places have, but at least has a provision for directing air through the TMIC, just like would happen on the road. I suspect that this is one of the reasons for different results, especially when you consider the fact that the GS intake was dyno'd last, and most likely on a very very heat soaked intercooler.

 

Another thing that jumps out immediately is the boost and spool differences between the testing we witnessed, and this testing. When we performed testing all pulls started at 2000rpm. This consistency is what allows you to see the 200+rpm increase in spool (evidence of a decrease in restriction). However, in the reported testing the car doesn't even go to WOT and start spooling until 250rpm later than the baseline. That makes it very difficult to see an increase in spool if it is handicapped from the start.

 

However, the part that makes the least sense is why peak boost is lower with our less restrictive intake. Our testing showed the opposite, and in this thread two other members have reported the exact same findings that we have. An increase in spool, and an increase in boost of nearly a psi (.8psi). The TA testing shows the increase in boost at the top end of the rpms, but not at the beginning of the pull. I would suspect that this is a loss in air density from a very hot TMIC, or some other testing issue, as that portion simply doesnt make sense.

 

As far as IATs: First I'd like to note that not including the snorkel was definitely not an oversight, and to say that adding it is easy is misunderstood at best. We have posted a lot about why we didn't include it, and why the airbox and intake work together as an entire system (which can be found in the "any interest" thread), but speaking purely from an IAT perspective, all the info is right here in this thread. The cruising temperatures with this intake are typically between 5-10 degF above ambient, which is about as close to stock as it gets. This is ideal for 99.95% of what your car does, and only not ideal for the .05% or less that it spends on the dyno However, we have shown that there is still no problem tuning the vehicle on the dyno, even on a 91 degF day!

 

The road temperature data posted by TA shows some good IAT data. The pull starts at 63 degF from the airbox, and 61 degF for the snorkel run, and they end at 55 and 54degF, respectively. The maximum the delta ever is, is 4 degrees, and the slope of the temperature change in the airbox run is greater than that of the snorkel run. The scaling of the graph certainly does a good job of making it look like its a HUGE difference, when it's actually only 3-4 degrees, and shows no data of what ambient is. So, on the dyno temperatures increase toward the end of the run, and in real life they decrease.

 

So all this data posted is useful, but it's interpreting it correctly that is tripping people up. If the intake is able to make gains over the stock airbox while being significantly hotter, then when the temperatures are normalized (real life cruising) it can be expected that the potential for power is greater than what is reported. The main tell of this is the arbitrary timing table, pulling timing, the weird boost and spool discrepancy, and the inadequate cooling setup. The other things I'd be interested in hear are what the DAMs were for each pull, and what fuel was used.

 

I'll post a picture of the dyno setup initially posted, vs the dyno setup that was used during the testing we reported. I appreciate the discussion, and I appreciate that others are posting their own data as well, which is very helpful. Now put down the pitchforks, and take a closer look at the testing procedures, setups, and data.

 

Chase

Engineering

 

I'd be glad to A-B-A retest with the intake. Would like to test the TMIC too! Send some over.

[Tuning Alliance]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to independently dyno test the GrimmSpeed intake, and I see a lot of good discussion going on here, and some unfortunate negative discussion here. Also everyone who has contributed their own personal findings, thank you for doing so!

 

Well, the good news is that we did nearly the exact same testing as TA did, but the bad news is that our results are a little different. Please familiarize yourself with that testing from our "any interest" thread:

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5226340&postcount=103

 

And so you don't have to switch back and forth between threads, the dyno testing that we showed:

 

http://www.grimmspeed.com/content/images/intake_legacygt_dyno_1.jpg

 

I hope people took the time to read through our test data, because here a few people mention that we claimed gains of "20/20" or that we didn't include AFR. So please take a minute to read through the testing that was performed that we reported.

 

The cars tested are very similar. The main difference being our vehicle had a GrimmSpeed TMIC, and a VF40. The other tested car has a VF52, and TGV deletes, all other modifications look the same. Our testing was also independent as I had nothing to do with it, or to influence it, and we had a forum member present as it was his car. The testing procedure is even somewhat similar, but unfortunately where it differs is probably why we have very different results.

 

We started with a car that had an road tune on it, with stock airbox and filter, this is dyno run 1. Our tuner started from scratch, and protuned the car over the next 5 full pulls (partials were not recorded), until he determined there was not going to be more in it without knock, or by adding more boost. That is run 5. It's pretty easy to see that the car was making considerable gains over the tune that it drove in on, and that the tuner did not sandbag the results. The next run was 0 change to the tune at all, and the addition of the GrimmSpeed intake ONLY. Boost, spool, and power were immediately up, as would be expected. The car was also half a point lean from where the tuner likes them to be, so he backed out of the pull. He applied the 12% MAF scale, and the AFRs were now exactly the same as on the stock airbox protuned run. The power gains can be seen everywhere and are typically around 5/5+ horsepower and torque with no changes to the tune. No knock, no pulled timing. This was exactly what was requested by the forum for testing, and shows a performance change from the intake only. That is why gains are minimal, and indicative of additional performance available depending on how you want to tune your car.

 

So lets address everything else:

 

Of course it gets hot on the dyno!!! The car isn't moving at all, so it will be immediately handicapped compared to one with a stock airbox and snorkel as far as IATs go. This is amplified with the fact that the hood is closed, and the TMIC blower is abysmal to say the least. I understand that under regular driving operation the hood is not open, but these fans are simply not even close to the mass of air that the car sees moving at speed. It seems that the TMIC never even had a chance with a single blower blowing at it from 5 feet away, and about a foot above it. I don't see any other blowers blowing through the radiator either, which gives a 0 percent chance of moving any air through the engine bay.

 

This pretty much guarantees that the inlet air is nothing but the hot air from the the header and up pipe area. Is it going to be very hot? Of course! I also understand that different fan set ups were attempted, but it should be extremely clear that these fan set ups are no where near close to the car driving at even 30mph, let alone 60+mph. I will post a picture of the fan set up used by DB Performance, which is still not even close to the huge fan set ups that some places have, but at least has a provision for directing air through the TMIC, just like would happen on the road. I suspect that this is one of the reasons for different results, especially when you consider the fact that the GS intake was dyno'd last, and most likely on a very very heat soaked intercooler.

 

Another thing that jumps out immediately is the boost and spool differences between the testing we witnessed, and this testing. When we performed testing all pulls started at 2000rpm. This consistency is what allows you to see the 200+rpm increase in spool (evidence of a decrease in restriction). However, in the reported testing the car doesn't even go to WOT and start spooling until 250rpm later than the baseline. That makes it very difficult to see an increase in spool if it is handicapped from the start.

 

However, the part that makes the least sense is why peak boost is lower with our less restrictive intake. Our testing showed the opposite, and in this thread two other members have reported the exact same findings that we have. An increase in spool, and an increase in boost of nearly a psi (.8psi). The TA testing shows the increase in boost at the top end of the rpms, but not at the beginning of the pull. I would suspect that this is a loss in air density from a very hot TMIC, or some other testing issue, as that portion simply doesnt make sense.

I believe the reduced peak boost is likely due to a hotter wastegate spring, the tmic was at acceptable temps. Spring gets hot and softer.

As far as IATs: First I'd like to note that not including the snorkel was definitely not an oversight, and to say that adding it is easy is misunderstood at best. We have posted a lot about why we didn't include it, and why the airbox and intake work together as an entire system (which can be found in the "any interest" thread), but speaking purely from an IAT perspective, all the info is right here in this thread. The cruising temperatures with this intake are typically between 5-10 degF above ambient, which is about as close to stock as it gets. This is ideal for 99.95% of what your car does, and only not ideal for the .05% or less that it spends on the dyno However, we have shown that there is still no problem tuning the vehicle on the dyno, even on a 91 degF day!

If your 10 degrees over ambient and 91F your 101, during a pull it will likely climb 3f and a loss of power will occur unless that ignition intake temp trims were altered.

The road temperature data posted by TA shows some good IAT data. The pull starts at 63 degF from the airbox, and 61 degF for the snorkel run, and they end at 55 and 54degF, respectively. The maximum the delta ever is, is 4 degrees, and the slope of the temperature change in the airbox run is greater than that of the snorkel run. The scaling of the graph certainly does a good job of making it look like its a HUGE difference, when it's actually only 3-4 degrees, and shows no data of what ambient is. So, on the dyno temperatures increase toward the end of the run, and in real life they decrease. Ambient was 50-52F, but I'd prefer cooler temps if available. With a hole in the air box with the stock duct feeding it would certainly benefit.

So all this data posted is useful, but it's interpreting it correctly that is tripping people up. If the intake is able to make gains over the stock airbox while being significantly hotter, then when the temperatures are normalized (real life cruising) it can be expected that the potential for power is greater than what is reported. The main tell of this is the arbitrary timing table, pulling timing, the weird boost and spool discrepancy, and the inadequate cooling setup. The other things I'd be interested in hear are what the DAMs were for each pull, and what fuel was used. The only difference was when I happened to hit the pedal, varied from 2200-2400rpm. I was often waiting for IAT to be reasonable... You would be interested in the DAM? It was 1.0 for all runs. I even went as far to post the exact timing used, show me other tuners posting there timing curves.

 

I'll post a picture of the dyno setup initially posted, vs the dyno setup that was used during the testing we reported. I appreciate the discussion, and I appreciate that others are posting their own data as well, which is very helpful. Now put down the pitchforks, and take a closer look at the testing procedures, setups, and data. Testing was as fair as I could make it, if you want to scrutinize my work have at it. I have no incentive to m hype or talk down about your products. IAT's were a problem on the dyno.

 

Chase

Engineering

 

 

 

At the end of the day this is a great product, I just wish the factory air duct was used. I think it would reduce IAT's on the dyno, in traffic, and while moving less than 30 mph.

[TheMonaLisa]

At the end of the day this is a great product, I just wish the factory air duct was used. I think it would reduce IAT's on the dyno, in traffic, and while moving less than 30 mph.

 

 

You should try removing the crappy stock heat shields and heat wrapping your manifolds, cross pipe, up pipe. I bet it makes a difference on IAT.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tuning Alliance]

You should try removing the crappy stock heat shields and heat wrapping your manifolds, cross pipe, up pipe. I bet it makes a difference on IAT.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

With or without the air duct feeding it. Updating first with time table of runs and IAT and etc.

[wicknetzel]

2. I've tuned hundreds on cars on this dyno. With fan on the TMIC, fans in front, etc. If heat is a problem I will see knock. I had no issues with the stock intake. One fan went into the the TMIC scoop, and one went into the radiator. I see lots of issues with ebay short ram intakes pulling air right off the radiator. We ran it with the hood closed to simulate actual conditions. Do you drive around with your hood open?

 

In all of your pictures/videos on your website, youtube, and facebook except for couple, you have the hoods open on the cars you are tuning... so the results from those hundreds of cars wouldn't be compared to the ones from here where you have the hood closed.

 

If you wanted to "simulate actual conditions" then you'd have to go much further than a few fans and the hood closed on a dyno.

 

 

 

My own quick update for more data... I monitored IATs this morning on my way to work. Drive is a variety of residential roads (slow with stop signs, traffic lights, and school buses) and highway. IATs were almost always 1-4 degrees above ambient on the residential with a max of 7 degrees above ambient while waiting behind a school bus. Temps came down quickly from there. On the highway, I was within 2 degrees of ambient regardless of RPM. If anything, my car should be worse because I never replaced any sort of heat shields on my exhaust manifolds after installing my uppipe.

[turboboost]

Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a slight negative shift in tone here. We should keep in mind that Tuning Alliance, rather generously, provided a free service to the rest of us by testing the GS intake and furthering this discussion by providing an additional data point, which is something we were all looking for. There may be some disagreements regarding controls/design (it's not like dyno sessions are regulated like FDA clinical trials anyhow), but it's generating a good discussion. Let's keep this thread productive, and hopefully others will chime in with their real-world experience.

[Tuning Alliance]

In all of your pictures/videos on your website, youtube, and facebook except for couple, you have the hoods open on the cars you are tuning... so the results from those hundreds of cars wouldn't be compared to the ones from here where you have the hood closed.

 

If you wanted to "simulate actual conditions" then you'd have to go much further than a few fans and the hood closed on a dyno.

 

 

 

My own quick update for more data... I monitored IATs this morning on my way to work. Drive is a variety of residential roads (slow with stop signs, traffic lights, and school buses) and highway. IATs were almost always 1-4 degrees above ambient on the residential with a max of 7 degrees above ambient while waiting behind a school bus. Temps came down quickly from there. On the highway, I was within 2 degrees of ambient regardless of RPM. If anything, my car should be worse because I never replaced any sort of heat shields on my exhaust manifolds after installing my uppipe.

 

We have recently swithced to pointing the fan into the scoop to avoid bending fins on the intercooler. I will make a duct at some point, but that does require the hood to be open. As your highly critical of the fan positioning, what do you propose to get "actual" conditions? A 30 mph breeze across the entire front of the car is just not practial.

 

I'm glad your IAT temps are okay, but its also been pretty cool out. I happen to sit in traffic everyday and in the summer with A/C on sitting in traffic you should revisit your IAT data collection.

 

The reality is that this intake is not all that different from all the other intakes out there. The factory inlet tube is quite small and necks down to 2.4". The stock intake is larger than the inlet tube (~2.75") and thus is unlikely to be the major restriction in the intake side. The filter element itself is likely the biggest contributor to how the system flows. So if you believe you need a intake larger that 2.75" to feed a 2.4" inlet then great. I simply do not think it has a large impact.

 

Perhaps a head to head vs Cobb, Perrin, and AEM is in order.

[Tuning Alliance]

Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a slight negative shift in tone here. We should keep in mind that Tuning Alliance, rather generously, provided a free service to the rest of us by testing the GS intake and furthering this discussion by providing an additional data point, which is something we were all looking for. There may be some disagreements regarding controls/design (it's not like dyno sessions are regulated like FDA clinical trials anyhow), but it's generating a good discussion. Let's keep this thread productive, and hopefully others will chime in with their real-world experience.

 

Thank you. I do feel a bit under fire. I am just trying to provide a non biased view. Looking at the data provided by others I felt it wasn't showing all the cards. A degree or two of timing or minor differences in AFR play a big part in how much a car will put down. So I wanted an even playing field.

 

The FRS/BRZ GS intake works with the factory snorkel. So why wouldn't they do the same for these cars? Look at all those green streamers blowing in there...

 

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server5000/8fmm9av/products/353/images/1655/intake_subaru_0814_wrxsti_16_original__05180.1430764395.1280.1280.jpg?c=2http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server5000/8fmm9av/products/344/images/1540/intake_ft86_15_original__42360.1418137073.1280.1280.jpg?c=2

[GrimmSpeed]

So Chase, how bad of an idea is it to modify the snorkel and airbox and seal them together?

 

If you could, please read my previous posts. You're certainly welcome to give it a shot, but you'd be trying something that was not the original design intent, or was tested. If lowering your IATs on the dyno is your main concern, I say give it a shot, but you might be chasing after an unrealistic airflow condition.

 

I believe the reduced peak boost is likely due to a hotter wastegate spring, the tmic was at acceptable temps. Spring gets hot and softer.

 

There are two issues I see here that don't make sense. If that is true, then how come there is still an increase in boost pressure at the end of the run, but not the beginning? It's not as if the spring would cool toward the end of the run.

 

And if the engine was so hot that it was actually affecting the wastegate spring, wouldn't it be affecting everything else? And it would be a very very good indicator that the TMIC, which is right above it, is very very hot as well.

 

From an analytical standpoint, it just doesn't make sense.

 

If your 10 degrees over ambient and 91F your 101, during a pull it will likely climb 3f and a loss of power will occur unless that ignition intake temp trims were altered.

 

That's true, but the ignition intake temp trims were not altered, as I described already, as run 6 was a hardware change only, and run 7 was with a 12% global MAF scale. Yet we still saw the increase in boost pressure, spool, and output over the stock airbox.

 

Ambient was 50-52F, but I'd prefer cooler temps if available. With a hole in the air box with the stock duct feeding it would certainly benefit.

 

Strongly agree that it would make a substantial difference on the dyno on back to back runs. However, through on the road testing it was determined that it is not necessary, and would require design sacrifices in order to function as intended. When choosing consistent and accurate MAF readings and less restriction over a 5 degree (or less) decrease in IATs at speed we took the obvious choice.

 

The only difference was when I happened to hit the pedal, varied from 2200-2400rpm. I was often waiting for IAT to be reasonable... You would be interested in the DAM? It was 1.0 for all runs. I even went as far to post the exact timing used, show me other tuners posting there timing curves.

 

I understand that, however when testing an intake, especially with important things as it's boost and spool characteristics, starting a run 200rpms later with an intake that spools 200rpms sooner makes it difficult to show consistent data. The tuner that did the testing for us did not have the same issues, which is why we have repeatable data.

 

Testing was as fair as I could make it, if you want to scrutinize my work have at it. I have no incentive to m hype or talk down about your products. IAT's were a problem on the dyno.

 

I understand that you worked hard to make it as fair as you could, and we appreciate your efforts, as well as to provide results for people interested.

 

However, if you really do have no incentive to talk down about our products I don't understand why you were posting on our thread on facebook last night about the BRZ intake, and how it heatsoaks and needs a fresh air provision. Not only is that false, but we're relatively certain you've never tested a BRZ intake. That's where I'm confused. Obviously writing that could be damaging to our sales and reputation, and the main issue is that it's about a product you've never even tested. What is the incentive there?

 

I could however understand that you probably overlooked the major details, like the picture and title of the post.

 

At the end of the day this is a great product, I just wish the factory air duct was used. I think it would reduce IAT's on the dyno, in traffic, and while moving less than 30 mph.

 

We appreciate that! However, we saw no issues on the dyno as far as IATs (same as you saw in your first two pulls), and rarely is engine performance an issue in traffic

 

In all of your pictures/videos on your website, youtube, and facebook except for couple, you have the hoods open on the cars you are tuning... so the results from those hundreds of cars wouldn't be compared to the ones from here where you have the hood closed.

 

If you wanted to "simulate actual conditions" then you'd have to go much further than a few fans and the hood closed on a dyno.

 

 

 

My own quick update for more data... I monitored IATs this morning on my way to work. Drive is a variety of residential roads (slow with stop signs, traffic lights, and school buses) and highway. IATs were almost always 1-4 degrees above ambient on the residential with a max of 7 degrees above ambient while waiting behind a school bus. Temps came down quickly from there. On the highway, I was within 2 degrees of ambient regardless of RPM. If anything, my car should be worse because I never replaced any sort of heat shields on my exhaust manifolds after installing my uppipe.

 

Thanks for mentioning that too wick, as I saw the same thing about the closed hood vs open hood dynoing. In fact, I saw pictures where even a fan was placed directly on the TMIC! From a tuner perspective, if you knew that a car on the road was seeing IATs of around 60-70 degrees you would do your best to replicate that on the dyno, even if it meant opening the hood "and creating an unrealistic condition." To me, an unrealistic condition is one where there is no air flowing anywhere in the engine bay, let alone under the car (which helps evacuate hot engine bay air). Again, in the testing our tuner performed, we were handicapped by the same situation, a serious lack of moving air (two fans for the radiator, one fan with ducting directly on the TMIC), but on a much hotter day, and our results still showed gains in spool, boost, and power.

 

Thank you for continually adding your own IAT data!

 

Also, I appreciate TA posting the run times and IAT data. Even your data shows that the first two pulls with the GrimmSpeed intake were at the same IAT as the drop in filter tests. So it seems that it would have been easy to open the hood, run the fans with the car shut down for more than 6 minutes to get the temperatures back down again for a more realistic back to back test. That would have been much easier to do, and taken less time than it would have to remove the airbox and try to compensate from there. The IATs would have been lower too, as the first two runs showed that it was more than possible to do the runs at the same temperature as the drop in filter.

 

Our testing was actually quite similar in time between runs in some respects.

Run1: 10:22am

Run5: 11:29am

Run6: 11:56am

Run7: 12:01pm

 

So the tuner took a little over an hour to pro-tune the stock airbox, and then there was a 27 minute cool down while I installed the intake, and then 5 more minutes to do a MAF scale and the next pull. I don't understand why our two runs showed power gains immediately, while yours reportedly didn't despite our test vehicles being so similar, with the main difference being tune.

 

Chase

Engineering

[wicknetzel]

We have recently swithced to pointing the fan into the scoop to avoid bending fins on the intercooler. I will make a duct at some point, but that does require the hood to be open. My point was that what you've done in the past here doesn't apply anymoreAs your highly critical of the fan positioning, what do you propose to get "actual" conditions? A 30 mph breeze across the entire front of the car is just not practial. I can see how it might not be practical to make a 30 mph breeze over the whole front of the car, but that doesn't mean you can just shut the hood and call it more real world... not trying to be a jerk, just pointing out that it's not making the conditions realistic. You asked another poster if they drove with their hood open to be sarcastic, but you also don't drive 75 standing in place. A dyno is not meant to reflect real world conditions.

 

I'm glad your IAT temps are okay, but its also been pretty cool out. I happen to sit in traffic everyday and in the summer with A/C on sitting in traffic you should revisit your IAT data collection. I will, and appreciate this though (genuinely). Do keep in mind others in warmer areas have posted similar results in higher temperatures

 

The reality is that this intake is not all that different from all the other intakes out there. The factory inlet tube is quite small and necks down to 2.4". The stock intake is larger than the inlet tube (~2.75") and thus is unlikely to be the major restriction in the intake side. The filter element itself is likely the biggest contributor to how the system flows. So if you believe you need a intake larger that 2.75" to feed a 2.4" inlet then great. I simply do not think it has a large impact. I actually went into this whole thing watching GS develop it just hoping that it wouldn't hinder a stock car. I bought it for plans down the road of larger turbo and turbo inlet, but installed it since they got positive results even on the stock turbo/inlet setup.

 

Perhaps a head to head vs Cobb, Perrin, and AEM is in order. This would be awesome if you can manage to keep all the variables well controlled

 

Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed a slight negative shift in tone here. We should keep in mind that Tuning Alliance, rather generously, provided a free service to the rest of us by testing the GS intake and furthering this discussion by providing an additional data point, which is something we were all looking for. There may be some disagreements regarding controls/design (it's not like dyno sessions are regulated like FDA clinical trials anyhow), but it's generating a good discussion. Let's keep this thread productive, and hopefully others will chime in with their real-world experience.

 

Thank you. I do feel a bit under fire. I am just trying to provide a non biased view. Looking at the data provided by others I felt it wasn't showing all the cards. A degree or two of timing or minor differences in AFR play a big part in how much a car will put down. So I wanted an even playing field.

 

Please don't confuse asking logical questions with trying to be negative. I've tried very hard to avoid any personal attacks with my comments. I'm a scientist and I like to see good science. At the end of the day, TA never actually posted a test of the complete intake system. I take issue with coming to conclusions without complete data... and I'm sorry, but this hasn't had complete data.

 

The FRS/BRZ GS intake works with the factory snorkel. So why wouldn't they do the same for these cars? Look at all those green streamers blowing in there...

 

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server5000/8fmm9av/products/353/images/1655/intake_subaru_0814_wrxsti_16_original__05180.1430764395.1280.1280.jpg?c=2http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server5000/8fmm9av/products/344/images/1540/intake_ft86_15_original__42360.1418137073.1280.1280.jpg?c=2Look at the difference in the airbox design. The BRZ airbox is a different shape, so airflow is going to behave differently.

 

At the end of the day - my story is this... you have to accept people being critical and asking questions if you are going to go after a well respected vendor's product and say it isn't effective. You have to have good, reproducible, hard data for something like that. Please understand that I'm not trying to offend anyone... I see this as something that if left incomplete could hurt a vendor who could EASILY could ignore our small part of the market, but continues to provide us with great, American made parts.

[TheMonaLisa]

I believe GS chose not to keep the stock air duct because it directed air at the back of the filter, disrupting the desired airflow. They also reported the fender to be a sufficient cold air source. From the various road testing that other have conducted this has been confirmed. So the stock air duct is not necessary in normal driving conditions. Tuning Alliance demonstrated the intake makes power when it receives the proper air flow (which on a dyno seems to require temporary removal of the heat shield). So when you put the two halves of the puzzle together you get a quality product that is confirmed to have gains.

 

In the end it seems more challenging to test this intake on a dyno than anyone originally expected due to airflow challenges. Tuning Alliance did a good job and should be commended for volunteering his time and resources. I see absolutely zero reason for GS or TA to receive negative feedback. Thanks to you both!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris GTO TT]

Right but then they go on to claim the increased flow is cancelled out by the increased intake air temperature because that's what they saw on their dyno. However that claim cannot be supported based on real world driving observations by multiple sources.

 

They basically claim it's a piece of junk because it had high IAT on the dyno. Most cars will have significantly higher IAT on the dyno because you simply cannot replicate adequate air flow unless you are in a wind tunnel.

[magnusonsubie]

you simply cannot replicate adequate air flow unless you are in a wind tunnel.

 

So we should start doing all testing with the dyno in a wind tunnel and that way we can see if our "aero mods" are functional as well!

[Chris GTO TT]

No I'm not trying to claim that either. I'm just saying the dyno is a tool (a very important one for proper tuning) but it's not the definitive answer to everything.

[turboboost]

Just scheduled an EFI retune for 11/14 AM (if anyone wants to meet up). Will report back with the results. Only differences from my last tune to this one will be a GS LWCP and intake.

[Tuning Alliance]

Right but then they go on to claim the increased flow is cancelled out by the increased intake air temperature because that's what they saw on their dyno. However that claim cannot be supported based on real world driving observations by multiple sources.

 

They basically claim it's a piece of junk because it had high IAT on the dyno. Most cars will have significantly higher IAT on the dyno because you simply cannot replicate adequate air flow unless you are in a wind tunnel.

 

Real world driving conditions in fall weather, with zero power readings to confirm anything.

 

I never said it was a "junk". Most cars? The stock intake was fine on the dyno. The intake doesnt require massive airflow, but having a path to fresh air of any kind would help. The fender well doesnt have any positive source of airflow. They included the ducting for the BRZ, but not the wrx/lgt. Yes, it is a different shape. So I guess its okay to have turbulence in the brz intake but not the wrx.

 

I could go through the data they provided which has much larger holes. Large differences in AFR, no timing data, and increases in boost. All done on a non load bearing dyno. Look how the boost hits later, and drops like a rock, aka no load. My plot show boosting holding to ~14psi by redline, but theres are under ~10 psi:eek:.

 

What do you cars see on the street. I hope you get more then 10 psi up there.

[wicknetzel]

I could go through the data they provided which has much larger holes. Large differences in AFR, no timing data, and increases in boost. All done on a non load bearing dyno. Look how the boost hits later, and drops like a rock, aka no load. My plot show boosting holding to ~14psi by redline, but theres are under ~10 psi:eek:.

 

What do you cars see on the street. I hope you get more then 10 psi up there.

 

 

I want to address your comment about their data here for a second (and again... I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm suggesting you reread). If you read their description between run 005 and run 006, it's only a scaling of the MAF by a global 12% and swap from the stock intake to the GS unit. The AFR between these runs is almost IDENTICAL. The different AFRs were where they were showing what the OTS tune looked like (poor) and why you shouldn't run the intake untuned (again, poor). You would expect those results to not look as good.

 

It would be cool to see their timing tables, but they didn't change them at all, so at the end of the day, it's not really telling you a ton of information about how the stock compares to the GS one.

 

Lastly, you cannot compare the boost in your setup to theirs. Your customer had a vf52, theirs had the stock vf40. The vf40 tapers off much more markedly than the vf52.

[GrimmSpeed]

Real world driving conditions in fall weather, with zero power readings to confirm anything.

 

I never said it was a "junk". Most cars? The stock intake was fine on the dyno. The intake doesnt require massive airflow, but having a path to fresh air of any kind would help. The fender well doesnt have any positive source of airflow. They included the ducting for the BRZ, but not the wrx/lgt. Yes, it is a different shape. So I guess its okay to have turbulence in the brz intake but not the wrx.

 

I could go through the data they provided which has much larger holes. Large differences in AFR, no timing data, and increases in boost. All done on a non load bearing dyno. Look how the boost hits later, and drops like a rock, aka no load. My plot show boosting holding to ~14psi by redline, but theres are under ~10 psi:eek:.

 

What do you cars see on the street. I hope you get more then 10 psi up there.

 

I want to address your comment about their data here for a second (and again... I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm suggesting you reread). If you read their description between run 005 and run 006, it's only a scaling of the MAF by a global 12% and swap from the stock intake to the GS unit. The AFR between these runs is almost IDENTICAL. The different AFRs were where they were showing what the OTS tune looked like (poor) and why you shouldn't run the intake untuned (again, poor). You would expect those results to not look as good.

 

It would be cool to see their timing tables, but they didn't change them at all, so at the end of the day, it's not really telling you a ton of information about how the stock compares to the GS one.

 

Lastly, you cannot compare the boost in your setup to theirs. Your customer had a vf52, theirs had the stock vf40. The vf40 tapers off much more markedly than the vf52.

 

I feel like I'm continually repeating myself here, and even wicknetzel is now!

 

So I'll do it again

 

The BRZ intake (which has nothing to do with this car, but we'll touch on it quickly) has a fresh air snorkel. It is included because in extensive testing it was found to be a source of positive pressure, and when we were dyno testing prototypes we found that if we excluded the snorkel that the intake barely made power over stock. And we posted all the info, including data from competitor's intakes and the various prototypes. It's all in this thread:

 

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50492

 

Now, in testing the WRX and LGT, we were able to determine that without the snorkel the vehicles made power and behaved as expected. It really is that simple. If in testing we found that the car needed the snorkel to create power we would have redesigned the intake to include it. Comparing one to the other without any data is completely useless. Luckily we have that data.

 

Wicknetzel already covered this too, but I'm a little disappointed that you haven't even pretended to look at our data or testing procedure or it would be very clear.

 

The AFRs between stock airbox protuned and GrimmSpeed intake + same tune with 12% MAF scale could not be any closer. Not even a tenth of a point different anywhere.

 

No timing data? Don't need to, because we didn't change anything from the two runs. As we've stated, this test was to show a hardware change only, to see what the results would be. This isolates the tune as a variable. We could have completed run 6 and shown massive gains, but the AFRs were half a point different so it wasn't fair, thus the tuner pulled out.

 

Increases in boost? Yes!!! This was the point of changing only hardware. A decrease in restriction in front of the turbo lends to an increase in boost out of the turbo. An increase in spool shows this as well. That was the major data from our testing.

 

We didn't use a load bearing dyno?

.... A Dyno Dynamics absolutely is a load bearing dyno.

 

Boost tapering towards 10psi at redline? Pretty common for a vf40...

 

It's extremely unfortunate that you're no longer interested in communicating with us directly or continuing with constructive discussion. I'm especially interested about your views on the unnecessary, false, and negative facebook posts you put on our BRZ thread still. The worst thing that can come out of this is that people miss out on an awesome product that actually works, and you miss out on some awesome tuning work. Unfortunately me repeating myself multiple times isn't working, but if you're interested in ever discussing testing or GrimmSpeed products you can call me personally and I'd be more than happy to help.

 

612 379 0000

Chase

Engineering

[luchadorjose]

if you're interested in ever discussing testing or GrimmSpeed products you can call me personally and I'd be more than happy to help.

 

612 379 0000

Chase

Engineering

 

OH MY GOD I HAVE CHASE'S PHONE NUMBER NOW

 

-the biggest grimmspeed fan EVAR

[762x39]

On a totally unrelated subject, I love the way the absence of the snorkel cleans up the engine bay and lets you focus your eyes on all of the other engine bling!