New Miata Junk 2 Intake
09-15-2017, 11:23 PM
#41
Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 5,166
Total Cats: 855
If that's a turbo it's a really pathetic one. 80 ft-lbs at 2500? 100 at 3500? Peak torque at 6250?
Maybe it's a centrifugal supercharger running 8-ish pounds of boost. Doesn't look like any turbo Miata dyno plot I've ever seen.
--Ian
Maybe it's a centrifugal supercharger running 8-ish pounds of boost. Doesn't look like any turbo Miata dyno plot I've ever seen.
--Ian
Reply
0
0
09-16-2017, 12:24 AM
#43
Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 5,166
Total Cats: 855
I don't think the type of forced induction is likely to be relevant to the question of how effective this manifold is, though.
--Ian
Reply
0
0
09-16-2017, 11:16 AM
#47
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Fucking Jersey
Posts: 3,890
Total Cats: 143
Is the limiting factor for folks at home (i.e. not 949/TSE) doing this A/B testing money and time?
Would folks be interested in chipping in a few bucks to crowdsource dyno time etc for folks with reputable setups doing A/B testing? Might be a bit rough because of needing to adjust the tune between runs for optimizing setup, but if enough of us chip in some beer money that could help give us the data we've all been interested in.
Would folks be interested in chipping in a few bucks to crowdsource dyno time etc for folks with reputable setups doing A/B testing? Might be a bit rough because of needing to adjust the tune between runs for optimizing setup, but if enough of us chip in some beer money that could help give us the data we've all been interested in.
Reply
0
0
09-16-2017, 01:42 PM
#51
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
based on that dyno: how is it a flat-top killer?
like seriously, what fucktard trying to market this thing thought that was a good dyno plot to use? how about running it to 7200 and showing 20hp gains, not 7.
like seriously, what fucktard trying to market this thing thought that was a good dyno plot to use? how about running it to 7200 and showing 20hp gains, not 7.
Reply
1
1
09-16-2017, 05:19 PM
#54
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 80
Total Cats: 4
By my thinking, this thing will provide little to no benefit on the MSM running VTCS and a factory ecu. First, the ecu will complain when the VTCS is deleted and because it has a factory rev limit at 6500, the gains normally realized at higher RPMs with this or a square top, cannot happen.
Reply
0
0
09-16-2017, 06:42 PM
#58
Ok, aside from the obvious features, I can see two additional benefits here.
The ability to screw a gm iat sensor directly into the upper plenum for more accurate temp readings and eliminating the failure point of the soft hose adapter that my fm intercooler elbow uses to mount the sensor.
Also, you can add spacers to adjust plenum volume. The way this is oriented there should be miles of clearance for this.
The ability to screw a gm iat sensor directly into the upper plenum for more accurate temp readings and eliminating the failure point of the soft hose adapter that my fm intercooler elbow uses to mount the sensor.
Also, you can add spacers to adjust plenum volume. The way this is oriented there should be miles of clearance for this.
Reply
0
0
09-16-2017, 06:52 PM
#59
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
The issues with A/B testing go beyond the simple "it's expensive" issue. The A/B test results on setup A is going to vary drastically from the A/B test results on setup B. This part is going to see different gains on a stock-ECU BP05 vs. a built VVT head vs. a low-boost Rotrex vs. an SR20 T25 at 12psi vs. a built E85-fueled EFR6758. Add in the variable of which of four different OEM manifolds you are testing against, plus the variables of which header, how much power, what fuel, etc, and there are easily hundreds of different combinations, all of which will see slightly different effects. So you can spend hundreds of dollars generating an A/B test that is only relevant for maybe 5% of the market that you're trying to provide that data to. Of the other 95%, maybe 30% of them will end up misconstruing that data. At the end of the day, you're out of pocket for dyno time and labor and you have a net loss in actual accurate info being disseminated.
This creates a serious issue for a company like Skunk2, which is why I don't necessarily fault them for not publishing charts. They could publish 100% legitimate charts, and the Internet Hive Mind would still run amok with them, claiming that the tiny gain seen on an NA car "isn't worthwhile for a 400whp turbo car", and so on and so forth. There's virtually no upside for them to publish that data.
So yeah, I won't bother doing a true A/B for that reason. No manifold swaps on the dyno for me. I will get my current setup dialed in on the squaretop, and I will take the car back to the dyno with the Skunk2 setup on a different day. I'll try to control for as much as I can (same/similar ambient conditions, SAE correction, same Dynojet, no other changes), but I'm not going to try to generate scientific data that will be irrelevant for 90% of users.
This creates a serious issue for a company like Skunk2, which is why I don't necessarily fault them for not publishing charts. They could publish 100% legitimate charts, and the Internet Hive Mind would still run amok with them, claiming that the tiny gain seen on an NA car "isn't worthwhile for a 400whp turbo car", and so on and so forth. There's virtually no upside for them to publish that data.
So yeah, I won't bother doing a true A/B for that reason. No manifold swaps on the dyno for me. I will get my current setup dialed in on the squaretop, and I will take the car back to the dyno with the Skunk2 setup on a different day. I'll try to control for as much as I can (same/similar ambient conditions, SAE correction, same Dynojet, no other changes), but I'm not going to try to generate scientific data that will be irrelevant for 90% of users.
Reply
1
1
09-16-2017, 08:24 PM
#60
Ok, aside from the obvious features, I can see two additional benefits here.
The ability to screw a gm iat sensor directly into the upper plenum for more accurate temp readings and eliminating the failure point of the soft hose adapter that my fm intercooler elbow uses to mount the sensor.
Also, you can add spacers to adjust plenum volume. The way this is oriented there should be miles of clearance for this.
The ability to screw a gm iat sensor directly into the upper plenum for more accurate temp readings and eliminating the failure point of the soft hose adapter that my fm intercooler elbow uses to mount the sensor.
Also, you can add spacers to adjust plenum volume. The way this is oriented there should be miles of clearance for this.
The issues with A/B testing go beyond the simple "it's expensive" issue. The A/B test results on setup A is going to vary drastically from the A/B test results on setup B. This part is going to see different gains on a stock-ECU BP05 vs. a built VVT head vs. a low-boost Rotrex vs. an SR20 T25 at 12psi vs. a built E85-fueled EFR6758. Add in the variable of which of four different OEM manifolds you are testing against, plus the variables of which header, how much power, what fuel, etc, and there are easily hundreds of different combinations, all of which will see slightly different effects. So you can spend hundreds of dollars generating an A/B test that is only relevant for maybe 5% of the market that you're trying to provide that data to. Of the other 95%, maybe 30% of them will end up misconstruing that data. At the end of the day, you're out of pocket for dyno time and labor and you have a net loss in actual accurate info being disseminated.
This creates a serious issue for a company like Skunk2, which is why I don't necessarily fault them for not publishing charts. They could publish 100% legitimate charts, and the Internet Hive Mind would still run amok with them, claiming that the tiny gain seen on an NA car "isn't worthwhile for a 400whp turbo car", and so on and so forth. There's virtually no upside for them to publish that data.
So yeah, I won't bother doing a true A/B for that reason. No manifold swaps on the dyno for me. I will get my current setup dialed in on the squaretop, and I will take the car back to the dyno with the Skunk2 setup on a different day. I'll try to control for as much as I can (same/similar ambient conditions, SAE correction, same Dynojet, no other changes), but I'm not going to try to generate scientific data that will be irrelevant for 90% of users.
This creates a serious issue for a company like Skunk2, which is why I don't necessarily fault them for not publishing charts. They could publish 100% legitimate charts, and the Internet Hive Mind would still run amok with them, claiming that the tiny gain seen on an NA car "isn't worthwhile for a 400whp turbo car", and so on and so forth. There's virtually no upside for them to publish that data.
So yeah, I won't bother doing a true A/B for that reason. No manifold swaps on the dyno for me. I will get my current setup dialed in on the squaretop, and I will take the car back to the dyno with the Skunk2 setup on a different day. I'll try to control for as much as I can (same/similar ambient conditions, SAE correction, same Dynojet, no other changes), but I'm not going to try to generate scientific data that will be irrelevant for 90% of users.
but then Bill went and made the "flattop killer" claim and now the hive mind is still gonna have a field day with it
Reply
0
0
