Intakes Now Available!

[JDW1]

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

[Lex]

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.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Lex Sorry for the guys chasing boost leaks. We'll get this sorted.

+1 ^^^ LOL.

[Voltwings]

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.

[GODspeed7]

Originally Posted by Lex 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.

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!

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by GODspeed7 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!

[aldekei]

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

[JDW1]

Originally Posted by Voltwings 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.

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.

[Voltwings]

Originally Posted by JDW1 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.

[JDW1]

Originally Posted by Voltwings 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.

[Voltwings]

Originally Posted by JDW1 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.

[Lex]

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

0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.02288	0.0572	0.08008	0.13728	0.19448	0.27456	0.35464	0.4576	0.56056	0.69784	0.84656	1.00672	1.16688	1.36136	1.56728	1.80752	2.0592	2.33376	2.6312	2.95152	3.30616	3.69512	4.15272	4.62176	5.0908	5.74288	6.267386	6.791893	7.316399	8.233679	8.867039	9.554999	10.34124	11.20392	12.08844	13.09308	14.18508	15.288	16.4892	18.10536	19.14276	20.16924	21.19572	22.23312	23.76192	25.389	27.0816	28.8834	30.75072	32.71632	34.76928	36.89868	39.10452	41.3868	43.76736	46.23528	48.79055	51.44412	54.19596	57.057	59.08812	61.10831	63.13943	66.19703	69.30923	72.48695	75.75204	79.09355	82.53336	86.06051	89.71872	98.20355	102.3095	106.5246	110.838	115.2824	119.8033	124.4006	129.0635	133.8355	138.7277	143.729	148.8614	151.1225	153.3836	155.6446	161.0809	166.7025	172.4683	178.3988	184.4631	190.6716	197.0242	203.5313	210.1825	216.9779	223.8968	230.9496	238.1568	245.5184	253.0242	260.705	268.5506	276.5608	284.7462	293.1065	301.6316	310.342	319.2172	328.2777	334.1381	343.4851	352.9951	362.6888	372.5862	382.6671	392.9315	403.4099	414.0719	424.9377

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.

[CorkSport]

Originally Posted by beachshoer Just installed my Granny Smith Green 3" intake and it looks fantastic. Also......Tootsie Pops Katie? Nice Touch! Ryan was jealous.

That green is awesome!

-Derrick

[Voltwings]

Originally Posted by Lex There is an inconsistency that bothers me. I have an MS6 that the following MAF cal works well for for the HTP 3" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02288 0.0572 0.08008 0.13728 0.19448 0.27456 0.35464 0.4576 0.56056 0.69784 0.84656 1.00672 1.16688 1.36136 1.56728 1.80752 2.0592 2.33376 2.6312 2.95152 3.30616 3.69512 4.15272 4.62176 5.0908 5.74288 6.267386 6.791893 7.316399 8.233679 8.867039 9.554999 10.34124 11.20392 12.08844 13.09308 14.18508 15.288 16.4892 18.10536 19.14276 20.16924 21.19572 22.23312 23.76192 25.389 27.0816 28.8834 30.75072 32.71632 34.76928 36.89868 39.10452 41.3868 43.76736 46.23528 48.79055 51.44412 54.19596 57.057 59.08812 61.10831 63.13943 66.19703 69.30923 72.48695 75.75204 79.09355 82.53336 86.06051 89.71872 98.20355 102.3095 106.5246 110.838 115.2824 119.8033 124.4006 129.0635 133.8355 138.7277 143.729 148.8614 151.1225 153.3836 155.6446 161.0809 166.7025 172.4683 178.3988 184.4631 190.6716 197.0242 203.5313 210.1825 216.9779 223.8968 230.9496 238.1568 245.5184 253.0242 260.705 268.5506 276.5608 284.7462 293.1065 301.6316 310.342 319.2172 328.2777 334.1381 343.4851 352.9951 362.6888 372.5862 382.6671 392.9315 403.4099 414.0719 424.9377 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.

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?

[Lex]

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?

[JDW1]

Originally Posted by Lex There is an inconsistency that bothers me. I have an MS6 that the following MAF cal works well for for the HTP 3" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02288 0.0572 0.08008 0.13728 0.19448 0.27456 0.35464 0.4576 0.56056 0.69784 0.84656 1.00672 1.16688 1.36136 1.56728 1.80752 2.0592 2.33376 2.6312 2.95152 3.30616 3.69512 4.15272 4.62176 5.0908 5.74288 6.267386 6.791893 7.316399 8.233679 8.867039 9.554999 10.34124 11.20392 12.08844 13.09308 14.18508 15.288 16.4892 18.10536 19.14276 20.16924 21.19572 22.23312 23.76192 25.389 27.0816 28.8834 30.75072 32.71632 34.76928 36.89868 39.10452 41.3868 43.76736 46.23528 48.79055 51.44412 54.19596 57.057 59.08812 61.10831 63.13943 66.19703 69.30923 72.48695 75.75204 79.09355 82.53336 86.06051 89.71872 98.20355 102.3095 106.5246 110.838 115.2824 119.8033 124.4006 129.0635 133.8355 138.7277 143.729 148.8614 151.1225 153.3836 155.6446 161.0809 166.7025 172.4683 178.3988 184.4631 190.6716 197.0242 203.5313 210.1825 216.9779 223.8968 230.9496 238.1568 245.5184 253.0242 260.705 268.5506 276.5608 284.7462 293.1065 301.6316 310.342 319.2172 328.2777 334.1381 343.4851 352.9951 362.6888 372.5862 382.6671 392.9315 403.4099 414.0719 424.9377 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.

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.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Voltwings 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?

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

[Voltwings]

Originally Posted by Lex 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?

[JDW1]

The honeycome style is def taking up space.

[Voltwings]

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.

[BigjohnB20]

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

[Cyclops]

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

[Lex]

Originally Posted by BigjohnB20 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

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.

Originally Posted by sidearmer18 @Lex; Here is the picture you asked for. It's not the clearest but hopefully this will help.

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

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Lex 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.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by sidearmer18 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.

[Cyclops]

It definitely is on the outside..

[Lex]

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.

[HTP]

Originally Posted by Lex 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.

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

[GODspeed7]

Originally Posted by HTP 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!

[Lex]

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

[TiGraySpeed6]

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.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Lex 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/n610/BadNoodle2011/honeycomb.jpg[/IMG]

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.

[GODspeed7]

Originally Posted by boost_addict 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!

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by GODspeed7 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.

[Lex]

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.

[beachshoer]

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.

[Dr. Speed]

Originally Posted by Lex 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.

~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.

[KevMS6]

I'll measure my Cpe intake tomorrow to check also

[HTP]

Originally Posted by Dr. Speed ~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.

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

[aldekei]

Boost leak test done. 0 leaks found.

tapawhat