I can't take it anymore ...I gotta ask man...
Why do you put "mac," in front of every post you make? We know who's posting.
I can't take it anymore ...I gotta ask man...
Lucky you. Can we get a video with you driving it to see how it sounds? I want to do a intake but don't have time to fab it. Maybe once I start working remote daily then I can do it.paranoidjack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:16 pmPopped the hood of my new ride and took a closer look today. Interesting what I found....looks like someone made a Stillen kit "fit" the car. They did a pretty good job with the finish work. I prefer to make all my own factory mods myself, but I may just leave this alone! Sounds nice under throttle.
Interesting but no thanks. They still use the ribbed hoses, plus not a big fan of CAI in these cars. I like my HPS hoses, plus 9.5 HP gain (stock tune) according to their dyno from March 2016:paranoidjack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:16 pmPopped the hood of my new ride and took a closer look today. Interesting what I found....looks like someone made a Stillen kit "fit" the car. They did a pretty good job with the finish work. I prefer to make all my own factory mods myself, but I may just leave this alone! Sounds nice under throttle.
I'm leaving the country for 3 weeks staring tomorrow but if no one provides you with a clip, I can send you one when I get back.DoN_BLaZe34 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:04 amAnyone have a video that captures the sound of these? Still debating them, though I can't find the black ones anywhere
Agreed. Though I put the HPS tubes on, I don't anticipate any difference. There is a change in sound note for the better - but if the manufacturers of a 50k-70k car could improve performance with some $200 silicon, they would. Also agreed the location that the custom intakes on my car are not as cold as the factory inlet. I'm not sure how much difference it would make, but I do love how the HPS tubes look!Larz wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:10 amMaybe I'm thick but consider this. CAI = COLD air intake. The stock version of the car obtains air from the very front of the car (the coolest air possible). When you bypass that, no matter what design you use, you are obtaining air from the hot engine bay - even if you use insulated tubes, K&N filters, etc - the air comes from the hottest part of the engine bay. While these after market pieces look brilliant, they can't make a noticeable gain in any way (10hp = nothing). Common sense and science out-weighs any claims made by the people who make these things. Just do or not, but do it for the looks and don't expect any 'wow! what a difference' results.
Secondly, I personally don't go round showing people my engine bay so the only person who will see this added bling is me (and my mechanic).
For the most part, I agree. However, 10 hp does not equal nothing, it equals 10 hp. (actually up to 9.5 hp, according to the M56 dyno, which BTW, Ilya verified by actually talking to the folks at HPS due to some skepticism) Not bad in the grand scheme of things for a simple bolt on mod. But, in a stock car already making 420 hp at the crank, like you said you won't notice it...however, with a custom exhaust and tune, it will make a difference in the overall performance, which is why I bought a set for my car.Larz wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:10 amMaybe I'm thick but consider this. CAI = COLD air intake. The stock version of the car obtains air from the very front of the car (the coolest air possible). When you bypass that, no matter what design you use, you are obtaining air from the hot engine bay - even if you use insulated tubes, K&N filters, etc - the air comes from the hottest part of the engine bay. While these after market pieces look brilliant, they can't make a noticeable gain in any way (10hp = nothing). Common sense and science out-weighs any claims made by the people who make these things. Just do or not, but do it for the looks and don't expect any 'wow! what a difference' results.
Secondly, I personally don't go round showing people my engine bay so the only person who will see this added bling is me (and my mechanic).
The dyno results posted by HPS were done on a M56. Yeah it sounded bogus at first which is why Ilya actually called and spoke with them. The gains are for a stock M56. You don't need a custom exhaust or tune to get it. Will you notice it? - not really since the car is already making 420 hp at the crank, but it's there.EdBwoy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:41 pmI know this has been going on for a while and the closest we have to an objective before/after dyno is DKASM37's results. Thanks for sharing.
I see the words "OEM" and "restrictive" thrown around quite a lot when it comes to engine performance. I mostly disagree with any aftermarket manufacturers that use them to claim superior performance to OEM, but then I partly agree but have to ask, "restrictive in what aspect?"
The 4 key components to your modern engine-managed, fuel-injected vehicle that maintain proper air/fuel balance are :
1. MAF - mass airflow sensor, emphasis on Mass
2. MAP - manifold absolute pressure sensor
3. ECU - or ECM. The computer with look-up tables for what parameters the engine should run under
4. O2 sensor - monitor the exhaust gases
These ultimately want the appropriate mass of oxygen to be used to burn the appropriate mass of fuel. The MAF approximates, the MAP sensor fine-tunes, and the oxygen sensor gives feedback (closed loop) as to how well the prior sensors did their jobs, based on the ECU's written guidelines.
I simply see no way to trick the computer to milk any more power out of air that has already been metered. Either introduce a leak or more oxygen after the MAF sensor, but again, you'll get a check engine light/code after the other 2 sensors report the discrepancy.
Air intake tubes leave the factory the way they do for various reasons - noise levels, airflow characteristics, etc... but I almost guarantee if Nissan could squeeze 10 more horses by using $200 hoses, they would have bought it by the mile and paid cents to the Dollar on it. Again, as reported in this thread and elsewhere, a smoother, straight-shot intake tube made of a different material will result in different acoustics and it seems most current owners actually like the modified sound.
I'd buy the tube for looks or sound, but without any accompanying exhaust and tuning mods, I wouldn't expect a single pony increase.
The exhaust and tuning stuff is part of another discussion, but look at the intake snorkel of your car. Its intake area isn't very large, is it? For a naturally aspirated engine, whether you make the tube longer, intake colder, throttle body and tube larger or the filter less restrictive, the cylinders will ask for the same volume of air by way of vacuum and the MAF will meter the mass of this air as it passes it and the ECM will correct as necessary. You know, unless the ECM maps have been messed with by tuning.
Another thing that will be saved for a different discussion is the real gains of tuning. Manufacturers establish a tune based on the 3 pillars of a production engine:
1. Power
2. Fuel economy
3. Emissions
Aftermarket tunes can definitely squeeze higher numbers out of one or two of these above, but I don't know how much consideration is given to the last factor... or to reliability/ longevity.
I'd like to conclude by saying that if your car feels more enjoyable to you due to a change or 2 that you made, then that's mostly what matters.
Well said. I always appreciate feedback, as it's always good to hear other opinions. I've learned a lot from reading other posts, so keep 'em coming. My understanding of the HPS dyno results (from what Ilya posted in the 1st page of this thread) is that they did run multiple tests to confirm the gains; not only on this model but a Honda Civic as well. Maybe he can elaborate more on the actual conversation. I do agree that a lot of folks buy these, as well as modifying their exhaust and intake, and expect to be thrown back in their seats. If anything, without a tune, you can actually decrease the efficiency and performance if you alter the intake and exhaust air flow too much.EdBwoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:44 amThanks for responding armybrat. These days I refrain from posting too much wondering if there was some kind of technical glitch blocking my posts or if I was just rubbing people off the wrong way with my discussions... because most of my technical contributions seem to get ignored around here... But it seems you and the other posters are saying pretty much what I said.
I agree and stated you could squeeze more power by doing one or 2 things. There are several reasons the engine is limited to what it is - NVH, emissions, fuel economy, reliability/longevity and of course the cost of development. A lot of analysis and modeling goes into the decision to not throw 700 hp into a commuter VK56VD. Can it handle it? Yes. Can they guarantee it will run for 350,000 miles without major failure and still be "affordable"? Will it still keep the same targeted driving dynamics? Hmmmm...
We simply can't have it all, but yes, I agree that various aspects of performance can be improved while sacrificing others.
What I disagree with is that changing this specific tube is guaranteed to give a power increase under objective testing. That's just not the way our engines work... especially less effective for our intake manifold design and direct injected engines.
I am no pro at dyno-tuning but I know enough to know that I can get the same bone stock vehicle on the same dyno to swing 5% in torque, hence horsepower numbers. When 30 comparative data points have been collected, now we are talking.
I will be glad to see some objective data from a dyno run, and I will stand on this same ground and say I have been proven wrong. (I always side with the facts)... And I will go back to my school to demand a refund for misleading me, including in my coursework of internal combustion engines.
My goal was not to say don't do it. Rather, my purpose was to educate so that people don't come with big expectations on power.
But I know and respect that people modify their cars for different reasons, and as long as the owner is happy, I'm happy for them.
Unfortunately I can't answer your questions, but I like seeing data.
They rent out their dyno by the hour (you can either utilise the in-house tuner or bring your own), and I got a friends-of-the-business discount for helping them organise their drag racing events every year, so it was $100 for me.
Just doubled checked that today, not Mustang. Dynojet. And a 19% loss from crank to wheel isn't bad considering the car was built as a luxury sedan, not a sports car. How restrictive the stock exhaust is should be the biggest indicator of that.Ilya wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:16 pmNo CAI available for the V8. Only these tubes.
For the dyno, IIRC Mustang dynos read higher always. That being said, the difference between 420 crank and 340 wheel HP is pretty drastic...I would have expected the V8 to be more in the neighborhood of 375whp stock.
A plenum spacer would be a good idea as well. The only reason I'm looking into a full intake fab is to switch from screen filters to conical. I know there's not much of a performance difference there, but it would be more aesthetically pleasing. Plus, I got the Stillen Z-tube for my old FX35 and had to get a filter cone; the louder intake woosh was very satisfying.
ken in az wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:03 pm.... Also, the cold air "scoop" or whatever you want to call it definitely made a difference for the better and is not a restriction. Observing both the MAP and MAF sensors, either on or off, there was no difference in the MAF reading, MAP reading, not Horsepower. Actually with it off I lost HP, down like 5-8hp depending on the run.
...
If you want to go with the K&N filters I have 2 of them that I had for a little while that I kept after trading. Just let me know, they would be cheap for anyone on here.Pakitullanc wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 12:20 pmSo did it make a difference after installing on stock M56. I have read mixed reviews. Don't want to drop $200 unless I feel more power. Also thinking of buying K&N drop air filter in the stock box.