Just got mine and installed my BNR S3 and as far as I know its no different then previous versions.

I Like my AFR ~11.8, I could scale it back a hair more but i'm pretty close on that 2nd log.

I thought 10.5* was ok for 93. What do you think I can get to on 93?

I've had mine over a year, I wasn't aware of an updated version either.

I think what Lex is getting at is that your calibration may be hiding a boost leak.

tapawhat

Well I don't think thats it, I just instaled the HTP 1 piese with new couplers, checked all my EBCS lines and I'm running a top mount with upgraded boost tubes. On top of that my WGD tapers town as I maintain my 20psi.

Same boat here, but in switching to a hybrid tune, I started hitting limits indicating a leak even though I held boost just fine.

It doesn't hurt to test.

tapawhat

If his AFRs match his targets then a boost leak is less likely but perhaps a very high content of ethanol in the fuel could be at play here.

Also in terms of timing you shouldn't be basing it on what people say - you should explore the maximum values for your vehicle. I'm willing to bet there's a good amount more left on the table in terms of timing even on 93.

All the pumps in Alabama say at least 10% e pretty much.

My full 3" intake in red wrinkle just arrived! Along with a delicious Cherry Tootsie Roll Pop that is already in my belly. It's one good looking piece and I can't wait to install it. Thanks Katie and everyone else at HTP!

@HTP;

Can you guys please post the inner diameter of your MAF housings for the 3" and 3.5" intakes?

I am getting a quite a few customers here that have issues with the MAF cals. From my calculations the ID of these intakes is somewhere around 2.75." The ID should be measured right where the MAF sensor sits, not where the pipe is bead rolled - so measure further in than the bead rolled section.

Also people that have these can you please measure the ID with some calipers? I want to settle this and get some MAF cals out for people to use and stop the confusion. A MAF cal for a 3" ID MAF won't work well at all for a 2.75" ID MAF.

Also when you powder coat these, do you powder coat the inside of the pipes as well?

I'll measure mine first thing in the morning. And as far as I remember there was no PC inside.

I just measured my 3" and it measured 2.801 before the honeycomb. I'm glad you brought this up, as I was just scaling my MAF for a 3" intake. I'll scale it for a 2.8" MAF housing and report back after I install the intake.

They don't powder coat the inside, but there is a small amount of overspray. I doubt it is enough to change the ID.

I can't wait to get this intake installed though, the build quality is top notch and the powder coating is flawless.

Alright, so I am noticing a trend with these intakes.

The MAF curves are not similar to other intakes. If you take a 3" MAF cal and scale it for 2.87" you end up with a 0.915 scaling factor.

However this factor is not enough for the higher flow regions (WOT). In some areas there it appears that the intake needs to be scaled 0.80. That honeycomb is taking up some of the pipe cross section but it is difficult to quantify.

With the gen1 cars it was easier to see if the MAF was off in the upper RPM since there were no WOT trims. With the gen2 it is a lot more difficult to do such a MAF cal due to the WOT trims.

A lot of people are reporting very rich conditions at WOT and skewing the curve in the upper regions this way indicates something is up. @HTP; have you one a complete MAF cal for your intake? I am starting to understand what is going on but if you had some data it would really help clear up some of the problems.

@GODspeed7;, see Lex's post above.

God speed7 and I will have something for the 3" intake asap and will post it once it is dialed in.

@Lex; I am seeing the same thing. I was after Godspeed7 for a possible boost leak. LOL (sorry godspeed7)

Lol from you rob?!?! FORGET ABOUT IT!!! Your my boy!


Tapatalk LIKE A BOSS!

Yup they all looked like boost leaks to me as well the MAF was so far off in the upper end. It is very strange to have to scale that curve in a piecewise manner; this shouldn't be the case because unless done on a bench it is hard to get it right on the car with such open breakpoints.

A little late to the G/S discussion, but at 25 psi on my 3071 i see 380 - 390 G/s... still waiting on @HTP; to release that 4" ...

Thats weird, I've seen 380 @20psi on my S3. How could that be?

@Lex; do you have a first gen car you can run in full time closed loop?

Right now, I only have a gen2 and even though we would pick up some trim info and a basic curve shape, the owner will have to deal with some wacky ignition advance.

That i agree with Lex, something somewhere isnt right on your set up. Not saying its bad or wrong or dangerous you know, dont mean to cause any alarm, but something definetly seems off...

Suspected boost leak... That sounds familiar, lol.

tapawhat

Obviously something seems off but my logs are super clean except for unusually high g/s

Yup something is off and the strange thing is that different cars are off by different amounts. What is worse is that the higher the airflow the more off the curve becomes. Ugh. Sorry for the guys chasing boost leaks. We'll get this sorted.

+1 ^^^ LOL.

I find it odd that at 20 psi and 93 octane alone you're running a Higher IDC than i was at 23 psi on 4 gallons of E85... i was barely in the Mid 80's at a 12.4 AFR, but you're seeing over 90 at an 11.8 on 93. I hate to come in here and sound like i'm the one that figured everything out because lex pretty much already nailed it :/ off MAF curve, or more ethanol in the fuel than we're lead to believe. Interesting.

I just chocked it up to finkle being over worked and under paid just like me. He says boost leak on high side, I said impossible! Lol unless those stock DP bolts are backing themselves out which I doubt since they are hard as hell to break loose, has to be another problem! Can't wait to be a test dummy as long as my car doesn't blow up!


Tapatalk LIKE A BOSS!

Not on my watch!

I'm having my car smoked right now to definitively rule out a leak and will report back when I pick up my ride.

On the 2 piece bikini model, I'm measuring 2.846" ID.

tapawhat

Something is definitely weird and I know i'm no pro but i'm no noob either. If my MAF curve was so of then how am I at a most of a .2 variance of my commanded WOT AFR? My cruising LTFT's were pulling ~9 with the 3" Sure cal from @Lex; so I made a revision last night and scaled it back a tad. Every adjustment I've made to the WOT range the AFR's have responded accordingly so does that still mean on over scaled, I feel like I'd be super lean if I went with that assumption and kept scailing back the curve.

As for a boost leak, again AFR in spec, WGD barely working to hold my 20 and decreasing through the range. I'll do a test this weekend and report back.

well the 390 g/s log was pig rich, almost 10.5, which would mean an off MAF cal, however your other log was running more consitant high 11's and making about ~370 g/s which seems much more reasonable... still a tad high i feel but much better. Granted i believe you're on a speed6 and i've never tuned one, maybe you guys just generate that much more load which reflects in your maf cal.

That 390 in the mid high 10's was the 3"Sure cal untouched. I've since made 2 revisions to the WOT range. My loads have been as high as 2.7 tapering to maybe 2.2/2.3 by redline. I can do another log tonight and post, I'm very curious about this.

Yeah just checked my last set of logs and again, 25 psi im only hitting max 2.65 load. The awd must have something to do with it im guessing.

There is an inconsistency that bothers me. I have an MS6 that the following MAF cal works well for for the HTP 3"

At the same time, one of the MS3s is almost getting MAF cut (4.85V) at 22psi on the BNR which essentially means the intake up top acts like a COBB SRI.

I am asking these guys if the have the straightener and if both intakes are powdercoated.

That green is awesome!

-Derrick

i plugged that curve into my old 3" maf tune, and that MAF curve is substantially less than the 3" curve i was running. Do you really think the powdercoating would take up THAT much of the ID?

Can one of you guys with the intake take a picture straight on looking into the intake to have a good look at this straightener?

I'll have to wait till I get home tonight and see how that compares to how I've scaled mine so far. I'd be glad to send it to you if you wanted another example.

No, the pipe is smaller to begin with, and the straightener is probably adding to the problem.

like it would be diverting air away from the MAF at high load so it reads less? or just the fact its taking up space?

The honeycome style is def taking up space.

Duh, brain fart i forgot they use honeycombs. i was thinking it was like the Sure, corksport... ones that have like a crosshairs design. Was thinking if it wasnt pointing exactly straight it could push air away from the sensor but that apparently isnt the case.

Just throwing this out there. Lex and finkle are going to be the experts here, but I have seen a few mentions of OL trimming in here and references to Gen2 vs Gen1 vs MS6 differences. Obvioulsy @Lex; has tuned a ton more cars than I, but I know for a fact my MS6 does at least some OL trimming.

Been running a 3/10 E85/93 mix since summer, now it is dead of winter in MN so we are surely on E70. I have also gone to 2.5/10.5 recently and no matter what, my WOT OL trims are always spot on my 12.0 target. Even when I first started running E way back, I think I started by dumping 2gal in a full tank and made no adjustments to the tune. Still was hitting WOT targets like a boss.

Just wondering if this could be contributing to some of the discrepencies, especially with JDW1 and his high flow numbers

@Lex; Here is the picture you asked for. It's not the clearest but hopefully this will help.

Gen2s adjust at WOT for sure right after a flash. Gen1 MS3s take a while but also appear to adjust after some time. MS6s seem to adjust as well but after a bit of time.

Overall none of them seem to adjust more than 10-12% above or below the MAF curve.
As I get more data I will post but I must say I'm a little miffed by this issue. Inserting a honeycomb, not having a 3" ID as implied by the name really affects the fluid dynamics of the pipe and MAF curve and not in a nice way.

How is that mesh held in there and how deep is it? Is there a lip holding it in??

An inch deep and looks like glue and a lip right behind the straightner hold it in.

The honeycombs look crushed. It should look like shown below. Also that lip and glue are further affecting the MAF reading which may explain the inconsistency.

http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/.../honeycomb.jpg

It definitely is on the outside..

I digress, @HTP; if you have a MAF cal developed for the intakes please post it or provide some information. It will be very helpful is putting the data we have together and getting a solid MAF cal for these intakes.

The local that you are tuning was in yesterday and had 3 very bad boost leaks.

When Jarod comes in he will post up a calibration.

Matt

Where were the boost leaks? Because I am also having problems and have not touched the hot side of the turbo. Stock DP, stock intercooler.


Tapatalk LIKE A BOSS!

Which local is that? PM me if you like please.

FWIW, @JDW1; I'd suggest waiting to see what core MAF Cal numbers are posted by HTP later, and if the talented ones here like lex don't rip them to shreds, then you should use those numbers and simply re-do your MAF Cal from scratch just to see where you end up.

Couldn't hurt and is easy enough to do.

And, of course, the usual old stand-by's of being sure that you've got no leaks, either pre or post turbo (ninja edit: intake & exhaust) and the MAF is good etc.

If it stays funky you might want to take an afternoon and reinstall your old intake set-up and map just to be sure everything returns to known good values, verify the mechanical end of things, then reinstall the HTP taking the opportunity to be doubly sure of the install being good.

I think the MAF Cal. problems are caused more by the slightly smaller ID than anything else. I think the problems you're having with top-end MAF cals may be caused by the honeycomb though. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the honeycomb style air straighter hindered flow slightly in the top end vs the "cross hair" style air straightener. Although, despite these "problems", it seems like people are still getting decent gains with these intakes.

I have one of these intakes. And although I am I more asked with the build quality for the most part, the gain I THOUGHT I noticed might be subjective. We will see what everything looks like when we get stuff dialed in.


Tapatalk LIKE A BOSS!

It may be that we aren't picking up as many G/s as we originally thought, but quite a few have picked up at least 10WHP. So that has nothing to do with whether or not the mass airflow numbers are correct.

10whp is definitely the ballpark that I have seen with larger intakes 3"+ on the K04 and this is what I posted a long time ago. 30whp on the other hand is a little optimistic.

So basically after reading all this:

I've been chasing leaks in two cars for nothing
I'm about to cut holes in my honeycomb straightner
3" doesn't really mean 3"
And all this ridiculous extra HP is coming from this lex tuned BNR and not from my ALMOST 3" intake.

WOW what a day.

~2.8" isn't even that much bigger than the stock MAF housing is it? I know this is kind of the general trend (doesn't the JBR 3.5" have an ACTUAL ID of 3.3-something?)... but it still is a bit disappointing. Intake diameter should definitely be advertised using ID numbers.

I'll measure my Cpe intake tomorrow to check also

Our intake MAF ID's are as follows:

3.0" - 2.87"
3.5" - 3.37"
4.0" - 3.83"

The original post and our website will updated.

Matt

Boost leak test done. 0 leaks found.

tapawhat

Have you guys considered using a larger diameter honeycomb style straightener, the holes seem quite small. I bet your losing a good chunk of space for air to flow because of this. It might be necessary to use a honeycomb that small on the larger intakes, but on the smaller one, im sure exceptions can be made.

Well part of the problem is that the bare pipe they are using is probably sold by the OD, not the ID. So it is a 3" pipe, but the ID is 2.87". I really doubt that .130" is going to make a very big difference in air flow or power output.

This is probably why people going from a Stock size MAF to the 3.5" are seeing pretty big gains. That's a jump of about .7", where as the jump from stock to 2.87" is only about .2".

The MAF size isn't the only thing that matters here though. The whole entire intake is a larger diameter surely flows more than stock and most SRI+TIP combos. The MAF really only needs to be larger if you've maxed out your current MAF housing in terms of flow.

Has anyone measured the ID of the SURE ID300? It is made from solid chunk of billet as far as I know, so it probably has an ID of 3.00".

They post the MAF housing being ID of 3" but it looks like everything behind it goes down to stock size.

This is SURE's stand alone 3" MAF, where it connects to TIP is more like 2.75 (taken from other thread).
Attachment 90334


Tappin

Assuming the I.D. of the 3" HTP is 2.8", the area of the HTP housing is about 14% larger than stock.

On the stock maf curve, that buys you about 45 g/s more mass airflow before pegging the maf sensor.

(some rough assumptions made to arrive @ this #, but a good estimate).

Increasing the piping diameter all the way to the turbo will certainly help. There is no questioning that here.

What is going on here however is that the MAF curve itself does not match other MAF curves in the voltage -> mass airflow relationship.

Ideally you can scale any MAF housing to any other MAF housing by knowing both their diameters. All that the MAF sensor does is "sample" a part of the airstream. So the percentage that it samples is proportional to the cross sectional area of the pipe.

When scaling an existing MAF table to the HTP intake (whether using 3" or 2.87" as the diameter) it becomes clear that the scaling factor is not the same across the board. This means that the voltage -> mass airflow relationship is different with these intakes and it is likely related to the honeycomb and pieces in place to hold it in like the glue and pipe bead.

I am personally not a fan of hacking MAF curves too much on a vehicle simply because you can run yourself into tuning something really wacky that can backfire (tuning around a leak or some other issue). On top of this we get such few breakpoints in the car with trims acting all the time that it really is hacking up the curve in a piecewise fashion and this is where a lot of people have become stumped with this intake.

However, if the curve has to be piecewise scaled, this can still be done as long as it is consistent from one intake to the next. This has not come out of the woodwork just yet because we don't know if people were having leaks or if it was the MAF cal - this is why I must go back on the importance of a solid MAF cal that is scalable because then you can properly diagnose other issues such as leaks.

It would be good to hear back from HTP with some of their own in-house MAF cals so that we can compare and see if we find something that consistently works well on their intakes.

Sigh. Intake just arrived. Sad I cannot put it on. Hope this gets figured out soon.

tappy-tap-tappytalk

And THIS my friend is why I am ecstatic you are tuning my car.

Why not? I've been going back and forth with Lex tuning my car with this intake and there's no reason why you can't run it. Im even racing with mine this weekend.

My tune is being worked on as this plays out. I don't usually go full on with a part unless I know for sure I wont an issue.

tappy-tap-tappytalk

This is odd to hear. If Faeker was going racing, I would not want him to run an intake on which I wasn't 100% sure he was not running rich and I knew his car was 100% dialed in.

I don't know the entire story (and respect Lex's decision), nor do I want to turn this into "tuner wars", but I asked Faeker to wait to install the intake until Godspeed7 gives me some data from his.

I posted a beta CAL for the HTP 3" here if you want to try it or take a look.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...ntakes-124734/

Rob, I've had quite a few cars that I've tuned with this intake and I am using data from several - both gen1 and gen2. If the datalogs look good (the due diligence is there) there's no reason to not drive the car.

TBH, I know your data to be 100% reliable, but have not looked @ that thread until yesterday.

I sometimes feel as if I should put in the work rather than gank an maf curve from you.

Seems a little "hackish" to me, but I guess I need to get over that.

@faeker; if you'd like, I can insert Lex's values into your map and you can install your intake.

100% up to you.

My Cpe nano intake measured in at 2.72" ID, my HTP tip measured 2.83" ID

Rob, still plenty of work to do. That's a starting point and tweaks here and there may be needed. It's just a reasonable starting point and if the intakes are consistent this should be safe to run the car on.

Let's do it up rob. I'm down for guinea pigging today.

tappy-tap-tappytalk

@Lex; i remember you saying you had a curve that worked perfect on a BNR spd6 with this intake, but that same curve didnt work on a BNR spd3 or something like that. Are there drastic inconsistancies between different vehicles running these same intakes? Honey combs are not exactly rigid, they're quite fragile. Is it possible that the honey combs are getting bent / mishaped somehow during production / shipping / instillation, whichever and thats whats causing these weird readings since basically no two intakes would flow the same?

for instance, say my intake has a perfect ideal honeycomb, and you base a maf cal off my car. You then take that same MAF cal and put it on someones car with janky fins, and their computer thinks they are getting more air flow than they actually are which explains why they're getting High g/s readings but not making the equivilant power?

Since we outsource our tuning, and will not have him available to us until Monday, I need as much info from you as possible. Who are the customers that are having issues? I know of 3 that you are tuning (1 local to us), please PM me this. Since you say that there are inconsistencies between our intakes, I need to know exactly what data leads you to that conclusion (logs please) so that our tuner can address it. If there is a problem with one of our products, we want to get to the bottom of it immediately. On Monday we will be using our original test intake as well as several others from the shelf to verify whether there are any inconsistencies or not. This will take out the differences from one cars setup to another, and focus on the whether every intake is performing the same as it did during testing.

Per my conversation with our tuner this morning, he scales the maf, then tunes any points that don't fall in line. He didn't have much time to talk since they have a subaru dyno day in full swing. Though, he said it was completely crazy to just scale across the board and expect for everything to be perfect, which I am sure you just aren't doing with your tunes. He also said that our intakes are reading the airflow differently due to the honeycomb and he adjusts the tunes accordingly. It was a lengthy process to dial in at first, but its not expected that this product will be a drop in. I will post up a calibration as soon as possible, and go one further. We will start posting all data from development from our products including dyno results (not virtual dyno). I await your pm.

Matt

Yes there can be some inconsistencies there for sure. However I don't know how large these can be until we see lots of cars. For now, I'd use what I posted as a starting point and make some tweaks if needed. I consider a MAF cal that keeps LTFTs withing +/-8% and WOT +/-0.2AFR decent on a gen1. On a gen2 the ECU will adjust at WOT so you will hit targets until you are more than 10% off at WOT.

Matt I don't have the time to get all this data and logs to you. I have posted a MAF cal that seems to be close and that I have derived from several vehicles.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...ntakes-124734/

If you have your own MAF cal or want to use what I posted you can check for consistency (ie swap several intakes on the same car), learn trims, verify WOT if a gen1, then this would be a good check and something you can post. The consistency data is very important.

Also be aware even the air filter will affect MAF calibration - especially at low airflow rates.

Also, don't take this as a criticism. I am helping you and the users of these intakes have an easier time with the tune and install.

Since this is about mine I'm curious about this as well. I was apparently flowing above average with my Cobb SF on there as well, seeing ~25-40 more g/s with the HTP

My LTFT and WOT AFR's are in those ranges with some revisions I made on my own from your Sure cal (guys scared to put an intake on make me chuckle a bit, MAF cal is tuning 101). I'm almost curious enough to reset the ecu and flash your beta values and cross my fingers.

Don't cross your fingers - it's easy to monitor this. Just watch AFRs as you're getting into WOT. If they are within 0.2 of your targets they are safe. At low loads and idle you need to put some miles on the car to learn LTFTs.

I know I can monitor it but I compared your beta scale to the one I revised and there was a good bit less g/s at the top of it and like I said, my WOT AFR's are already ~11.7 +/- .2.

Wouldn't setting up a FTCL map be a pretty good way to figure something like this out? You'll be able to see trims for every breakpoint/MAF reading and adjust accordingly. It'll probably give us a better look into what is going on with this intake. Has anyone tried that yet?

I have a gen2 running ftcl now (the equivalent of full time closed loop / as good as it gets on a gen2 LOL).

As soon as he gets me the data, I will be happy to post it.

A European MS6 was spot on with those values at WOT and that's as close as I can get to your particular car/setup. Up to you if you want to try.

Hopefully it gets all sorted soon! Intake coming tomorrow :D

I'm trying rob! You sent me the map the morning of my off day! Lol so I haven't driven to work or anywhere for that matter. Should have the miles done by today or tomorrow!


Tapatalk LIKE A BOSS!

I'm going to be installing mine today, assuming it stops raining, so I'll post some logs later. I'll be using a MAF cal scaled for a 2.8" MAF housing, so hopefully that works out.

No problem. It really is not a HUGE rush.

Just a little rush? Lol


Tapatalk LIKE A BOSS!

What is your starting MAF cal that you are scaling?

almost done installing mine. I'll load up the map after I'm done and get some miles on it. I'll post the logs I pull later today. FWIW, I'm sick as shit. I've been sick all week with what may have been the flu. It's also colder than my wife's shoulder today. I'm getting this done though because I want to lend a hand in regards to getting this intake calibration solid. I'm no tuner for sure, but I'll put some manual labor in to help get this right.

I'll post it up when I get to my house. I'll post the scaled one as well.

I don't know a whole lot about tuning but I have a 3.5" coming for my Pu next week. I have a test pipe plus the mods in my sig. Would I be safe to start off with the usual MAF CAL scaling process? If I can help in any way to get data for the 3.5" on a gen 2 let me know. ( Side note: I'm hoping to sign up for a Stratified Tune in a month or so, should I just wait to install the intake then?)

Well the weather did me in. It started snowing as I finished up the work. If the roads are clear tomorrow I'll get a couple logs done.

tappy-tap-tappytalk

I would suggest waiting until you can get tuned for it. This isn't a plug and play part.

tappy-tap-tappytalk

@HTP; already posted the actual ID of the 3.5" intake, so now we have a better starting point. I'd scale the MAF for the ID they posted and then continue with normal a MAF Cal process. Just be sure to keep an eye on AFRs during WOT runs, as that seems to be the place where people are having problems. A WOT MAF Cal will probably be necessary, based on what @Lex; has been saying.


That isn't really true. You can throw it on and tune for it just like any other intake. It may take a little more work and require a little more caution, but it really isn't that big of a deal.

if it takes any work, then it's not plug and play. Cobb, Sure, CS, K&N all make intakes that are plug and play. When we have to tune for a bigger diameter, then it goes beyond the pnp namesake. Me personally, I love having to tune for my parts. It makes my car feel more personal. BTW, did you get your logs loaded up yet? I'm curious to see how things came out.

^^^^What are your thoughts @Lex; about waiting until I start my tune or just dive in and watch my parameters as I go?

FWIW, Smoogs12 is running a 4" version of this intake, which was easy enough to dial in.

Personally, if you aren't self tuning, I would always wait to install a different diameter intake until the person creating your maps is ready.

Changing the maf diameter and mass airflow readings has an effect on calculated load and of course, fueling in general.

If that last part was directed at me, then no. I'm at work until 5:30 today. Then I'll be throwing on my intake and doing some logging. The WOT pulls will probably be very late tonight, as the area I do them dies down around 12-1AM.