My modified airbox!... (56k warning!) NOW with log results!...

[cupra R con]

yea true!

but iv done a standard run with my car, so i guess urs should be the same! and then if u did a logg after ur air box mod, u could compare, would give you a good rough idea of how much more its sucking!


but then again if ur chipped, its would be a unfair test! and worthless really! lol unless u got hold of the standard airflow on a chipped LCR!

err i really must change that pic, it is of my car, but its a LC, not LCR!
been without my baby for nearly 2 weeks & although i do have access to a good substitute or two i still miss it!
roll on Saturday as she will be looking fine after the front end repaint!

 

[J@mes]

oh ok! lol

 

[J@mes]

did some loggs!!!

lol yea i had a curry so i...


anyways... tbh im a bit dissapointed!

before i got a max of 178.67 g/s @ 6320 rpm.

tonight i got a max of 183.94 g/s @ 6080 rpm.



so a difference of 5.27 g/s BUT it was achieved just over 6k rpm instead of 6.3k rpm.


the only explanation for the poor performance that i can think of is that the air temp was different!

with the standard box, when i did the log, its was 14.5* C but tonight it was 20* C! (a third higher!)

now we all know, the colder it is the more dence the air is, and so therefore if it was 14.5* C tonight, then maybe, just maybe, i would have seen a better result?! am i correct or just wishfull thinking?

i will wait until the weather gets a bit colder and il try and log the airflow again when its 14.5* C to get a more fair comparison!


oh yea.. i used messuring block 3 this time... i may have used meassuring block 2 last time, as i noticed both have "air flow" on them! im not sure! so maybe this is a factor?

as for making the graph using vag scope... well for sum reason it saved the new data to original log file! is this normal? so when i made the new graph i found it very confusing! (as you can tell im new to this vag com lark!) lol.

however this time i opened up the log using excel, and saw it had the data displayed much better for comparison and it had the dates of the loggs too!

heres an edited screen shot...

maybe i could send the actual log to someone who knows what they r doin so they could make some graphs, and explain them?!


so to sum up.... do you think the 5.5* C higher air temp has made a difference!? (hence the poor results?!)


james

 

[wild willy]

James thats an excellent result. 3% increase in mass air flow across the range. Bhp is proportional to mass air flow. No reason why your bhp has not increased by 3%. 3% of aprox 250bhp = 7bhp. None too shabby for simply modding your air box.

 

[J@mes]

James thats an excellent result. 3% increase in mass air flow across the range. Bhp is proportional to mass air flow. No reason why your bhp has not increased by 3%. 3% of aprox 250bhp = 7bhp. None too shabby for simply modding your air box.

cheers!

its just i was hoping for 190 g/s! was i just being too optimistic!?


or is it down to the 5.5* C temp difference? or the fact i used meassuring block 3 instead of 2? (or vice versa!)

 

[wild willy]

Try the same test with a clean standard paper air filter. From the tests i have done the paper filter outflows both the green replacement cartridge and the dynatwist. Not much in it but may push you into the 190's. When you get remapped you'll be well into the 200's i should think with those readings.

 

[J@mes]

the only reason y i bought the green filter element was because i thought it would flow more air, as it should!... being a "performance filter"!

 

[wild willy]

Different cars, different results. maybe my paper filter has a hole in it who knows. Give it a try and post results if u still have your old filter. Simply hover and shake the old filter to clean.
The green filter makes a better induction noise than standard, will last alot longer and is easier to clean than a paper filter so not a waste of money. Experimentation is the key to fun.

 

[LCR mat]

Remeber the ecu works on a torque request so it will pul back when it hits its desired target. as for temps I too would expect them tp make a noticeable difference, however even at 27 degrees ive acheieved 209 g/sec, got 204 g.sec on the RR- the worst place for that kind of thing. haveing slight boost issues at the moment though nothing too bad just a slight dip in boost below requested at mid range only- weirdly tohugh it goes away if you take it to the limiter once or twice . think it maybe a loose jubilee clip(one of them was over tighted for definite, other than that N75 valve. hope to look into it tomorrow.

 

[LCR mat]

email the logs to me(ill pm you email address) I'll put them in graph form like I did with mine the other week. What gear were you using?? I would have said 4th looking at your logs(3rd in the first lot)

 

[LCR mat]

no need to email
:

 

[LCR mat]

Chipped LCR for comparison

 

[LCR mat]

Its worth noting that the modified air box shows grater initial flow due to it having 300rpm more spool up time than the standard box

 

[LCR mat]

http://www.superflow.com/support/support-flowbench-relation-airflow-power.htm
interesting read

 

[Feel]

Nice one James!

Although I'm never sure if you can one "before" and one "after" and just compare them.

Better throttle response?

I think wild_willy was right - I'm wondering how much of the improvement is down to the airbox smoothing and how much is down to the filter...

 

[J@mes]

Remeber the ecu works on a torque request so it will pul back when it hits its desired target. as for temps I too would expect them tp make a noticeable difference, however even at 27 degrees ive acheieved 209 g/sec, got 204 g.sec on the RR- the worst place for that kind of thing...

ok well hopefully the air temp did make a slight difference!

i will try and do some more logging when its colder! (14.5* C to be precise!) bring on the cold weather!

 

[J@mes]

email the logs to me(ill pm you email address) I'll put them in graph form like I did with mine the other week. What gear were you using?? I would have said 4th looking at your logs(3rd in the first lot)

thanks for the logs mat!

how did you do them? (so i know for next time!)


oh yea... i did all the logs in 3rd gear!!!

 

[J@mes]

Its worth noting that the modified air box shows grater initial flow due to it having 300rpm more spool up time than the standard box

yes!

 

[J@mes]

Nice one James!

Although I'm never sure if you can one "before" and one "after" and just compare them.

Better throttle response?

I think wild_willy was right - I'm wondering how much of the improvement is down to the airbox smoothing and how much is down to the filter...

well i think you can do the before and after logs for comparison, as long as you keep the variables consistent to make it a fair test... so really its just the air temp that needs to be the same as far as i know!

which unfortunately were not the same! doh!


throttle response, yea i think it was slightly better, seams to pick up better and rev ever so slightly quicker and better at high 5ks/6k!

its hard to remember cos within 4 days i had my full BlueFlame exhaust system fitted!



as for how much of the improvement is down to the airbox smoothing and to the actual filter, and then theres the improved cold air feed!....

well unless i did a log after and before each stage of mod, i wouldnt know! too much hassel, and im just interested in the "final" result!

 

[J@mes]

mat... i think i used messuring block 3 this time... i may have used meassuring block 2 last time, as i noticed both have "air flow" on them! im not sure! so maybe this is a factor to the results?


would using meassuring block 2 for the standard box and meassuring block 3 for the moddified airbox make a difference to the results????


james

ps. thanks for ur help m8