Intakes Now Available!

[Volcom8190]

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.

[sidekick]

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.

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".

[faeker]

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

[DamagedGoods]

Originally Posted by faeker 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).
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1359080892.328000.jpg


Tappin

[rfinkle2]

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).

[Lex]

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.

[faeker]

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

tappy-tap-tappytalk

[beachshoer]

Originally Posted by Lex 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.

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

Originally Posted by faeker Sigh. Intake just arrived. Sad I cannot put it on. Hope this gets figured out soon. tappy-tap-tappytalk

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.

[faeker]

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

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by beachshoer 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.

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.

[Lex]

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

MAF calibrations for bigger intakes

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.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by Lex I posted a beta CAL for the HTP 3" here if you want to try it or take a look. MAF calibrations for bigger intakes 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.

[KevMS6]

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

[Lex]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 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.

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.

[faeker]

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

tappy-tap-tappytalk

[Voltwings]

@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?

[HTP]

Originally Posted by Lex 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.

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

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Voltwings @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?

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.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by HTP 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

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.

MAF calibrations for bigger intakes

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.

[JDW1]

Originally Posted by Voltwings @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 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

Originally Posted by Lex 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.

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.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by JDW1 Since this is about mine I'm surious 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. 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.

[JDW1]

Originally Posted by Lex 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.

[sidekick]

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?

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by boost_addict 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.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by JDW1 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.

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.

[fredricktsang]

Hopefully it gets all sorted soon! Intake coming tomorrow

[GODspeed7]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 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.

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!

[sidekick]

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.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by GODspeed7 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!

No problem. It really is not a HUGE rush.

[GODspeed7]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 No problem. It really is not a HUGE rush.

Just a little rush? Lol


Tapatalk LIKE A BOSS!

[Lex]

Originally Posted by boost_addict 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.

What is your starting MAF cal that you are scaling?

[faeker]

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.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Lex What is your starting MAF cal that you are scaling?

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

[jdmage_mx5]

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?)

[faeker]

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

Originally Posted by jdmage_mx5 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?)

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

tappy-tap-tappytalk

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by jdmage_mx5 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?)

@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.

Originally Posted by HTP 3.5" - 3.37"

Originally Posted by faeker I would suggest waiting until you can get tuned for it. This isn't a plug and play part. tappy-tap-tappytalk

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.

[faeker]

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.

[jdmage_mx5]

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

[rfinkle2]

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.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by faeker 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.

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.