You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Calling out....
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
SubieKiller3
Banned
- :
- 2008 black mica mazdaspeed mazda 3
see thats where you really messed up. if you ever buy a car that is not stock you should make sure your getting the stock parts with the car. you never know when your gonna need to put the stock airbox on to go to the dealer for a CEL.If I had the stock airbox I'd try it but, this car came with the Cobb and w/o the stock box, sadly.
I'm not feeeling too butt-hurt because I didn't spend my own money for this intake. I would have bought a CAI anyway, given the choice but, I still hoped for something from this intake other than sounding cool. (homework)(drive)
Darth
with that said, i noticed a big difference in power when i put on my cobb intake. only cost $175. i dont know why your having a problem keeping up with your friend. i dont think there is enough evidence here to blame it on your intake. maybe you should let your friend drive your car and you drive his then see what happens?
Darth Vader
Member
The car comes as is and I had to accept that. It's not like I could go and ask Mazda to buy me a new airbox. The car was bought lightly second hand.
Don't get me wrong, the car has no trouble "keeping up with my friend" The cars are both running almost identical times and mph. I can't get ahead but, I'm not majorly falling behind.
Ken
Don't get me wrong, the car has no trouble "keeping up with my friend" The cars are both running almost identical times and mph. I can't get ahead but, I'm not majorly falling behind.
Ken
I do take manufacturer's claims with a grain of salt. I also like to see that things that claim an improvment actually do that, regardless of the number involved.
That was the whole point of me chiming in. You can't possibly make the claim the intake did nothing because you don't have a stock airbox and runs with that stock airbox to make a comparison. Unless you believe that ALL MS3s from the factory, regardless of manufacture date, mileage, etc. produce 263 HP at the crank and have a straight 17% drivetrain loss.
You may not like the driveability or the stupid whooshing noises (yes, I don't love that aspect that much myself but it's bearable) but whether or not it made any difference in power on your MS3 is unknown at this point.
Darth Vader
Member
The "stupid whooshing noises" are actually one of the things I do like...I never claimed I didn't.
None of this stuff can possibly be completely free of error, even the back-to-back dyno run or quarter mile pass ideas people have floated. There's simply too many variables to ensure much greater accuracy in diagnosis than an experienced opinion.
It's essentially irrelevant anyway, this isn't a lab or a scientific experiement, it's a car and a bunch of enthusiast opinions. My opinion is that the SRI isn't worth a whole lot. Others differ, that's fine but, trying to put too fine a point of accuracy on something affected strongly by emotional factors is unrealistic.
Here's something else in terms of a data point. If I reset the ECU, the car runs better in the driveability dep't. As time passes, the slight light throttle flatness at 3K emerges. At the same time, the "whooshing noises" change tone. Push through it and it wails just fine, though.
I'm gonna keep playing with it, building a heat shield box or relocating the filter, just to see what occurs.
Darth Vader
None of this stuff can possibly be completely free of error, even the back-to-back dyno run or quarter mile pass ideas people have floated. There's simply too many variables to ensure much greater accuracy in diagnosis than an experienced opinion.
It's essentially irrelevant anyway, this isn't a lab or a scientific experiement, it's a car and a bunch of enthusiast opinions. My opinion is that the SRI isn't worth a whole lot. Others differ, that's fine but, trying to put too fine a point of accuracy on something affected strongly by emotional factors is unrealistic.
Here's something else in terms of a data point. If I reset the ECU, the car runs better in the driveability dep't. As time passes, the slight light throttle flatness at 3K emerges. At the same time, the "whooshing noises" change tone. Push through it and it wails just fine, though.
I'm gonna keep playing with it, building a heat shield box or relocating the filter, just to see what occurs.
Darth Vader
I'm gonna keep playing with it, building a heat shield box or relocating the filter, just to see what occurs.
Emotional factors wtf?? There's no need to cry about it so I guess you meant subjective factors. Yes, I do hate the annoying whoosh noises but there are a lot of ppl who actually love it - I'm just not one of them. As for the heat shield, you'll probably gain very little to nothing would be my hunch. If you want a starting point, there have been others who have bought the Corksport cold air box and modified that to work with the Cobb SRI. Don't know if they reported any gains with that though as not many have done it.
The reason drivability changes after the reset is because the ECU is re-adjusting the fuel trims, etc. and after a while it'll settle to what it deems as safe or "ideal." That "flat" spot you get with a bone-stock car that has an SRI gets tuned out with engine management like the Cobb AP, CPE standback, etc. The real benefits of the SRI are more apparent up top with probably some sacrifice in the low end. This seems to be the case with most of the cars I've owned after putting in a CAI or SRI without tuning.
the best way to really test this is to get a stock airbox and run that for a month, then put the sri on and run it. If you don't notice any difference between the two then you would be right in saying an SRI is pointless. FYI, stock airboxes are typically available for about $50.00 sometimes less sometimes more. Until that test is done by you, then you can't really give your opinion because you don't have any basis for it.
Darth Vader
Member
Well, yeah, I can actually give my opinion cuz it's just that. Having another speed three around to compare to gives my opinion a tiny touch of validity.
And yeah, by "emotional" factors, I mean "subjective" factors, they are one and the same.
Looks like I'm stirring up some emotional factors with this discussion. (dark)
The Corksport box looks like doing nothing to me, as there no real source of unheated air to it. If it had a big flange off the bottom and a pipe to allow colder air entry and, it was a completely sealed box, it might do something. Funny, that'd make it sort of like a Begi....
I'm playing with some ducting right now to relocate the filter to the lower fenderwell, just to see what that does. If that works better, I'll know a CAI is the answer and I'll save up for one. No difference, I'll stick with the SRI.
I do wish I had a stock airbox to compare to but, I don't. I just have to make do with what I got.
Darth Vader
And yeah, by "emotional" factors, I mean "subjective" factors, they are one and the same.
Looks like I'm stirring up some emotional factors with this discussion. (dark)
The Corksport box looks like doing nothing to me, as there no real source of unheated air to it. If it had a big flange off the bottom and a pipe to allow colder air entry and, it was a completely sealed box, it might do something. Funny, that'd make it sort of like a Begi....
I'm playing with some ducting right now to relocate the filter to the lower fenderwell, just to see what that does. If that works better, I'll know a CAI is the answer and I'll save up for one. No difference, I'll stick with the SRI.
I do wish I had a stock airbox to compare to but, I don't. I just have to make do with what I got.
Darth Vader
Well, yeah, I can actually give my opinion cuz it's just that. Having another speed three around to compare to gives my opinion a tiny touch of validity.
And yeah, by "emotional" factors, I mean "subjective" factors, they are one and the same.
Looks like I'm stirring up some emotional factors with this discussion. (dark)
The Corksport box looks like doing nothing to me, as there no real source of unheated air to it. If it had a big flange off the bottom and a pipe to allow colder air entry and, it was a completely sealed box, it might do something. Funny, that'd make it sort of like a Begi....
I'm playing with some ducting right now to relocate the filter to the lower fenderwell, just to see what that does. If that works better, I'll know a CAI is the answer and I'll save up for one. No difference, I'll stick with the SRI.
I do wish I had a stock airbox to compare to but, I don't. I just have to make do with what I got.
Darth Vader
(hand)
I will say that I was wrong to say you can't offer your opinion. I will also say that your idea of validity is just as off as your opinion on the effectiveness of the SRI. You are not really stirring up any emotional factors here except that it is frustrating trying to attempt to reason with a person that thinks they know all there is to know and won't listen to anybody. Your arguments have been countered and yet you keep going. This isn't the only thread that you have chimed in on and been proven to be basically incorrect.
Please see my sig
Darth Vader
Member
"...proven to be basically incorrect." Countering an opinion with another one doesn't necessarily disprove anything, especially when so many "subjective factors" are involved.
I appreciate your view. I don't agree with it myself but, I seek out countering opinions to my own willingly and read them with interest. I don't take it personally when others disagree and appreciate those, like yourself, that are civil in their disagreement.
I appreciate your view. I don't agree with it myself but, I seek out countering opinions to my own willingly and read them with interest. I don't take it personally when others disagree and appreciate those, like yourself, that are civil in their disagreement.
oaklandopen
Member
are you MS307?
to the OP, instead of testing your car with stock airbox and such against your friend....why didn't you and your friend just switch cars and see if the outcome was the same. maybe he IS a better driver and could get a better timeslip with your car/cobb intake.
Darth Vader
Member
I am actually pretty certain my friend IS a better driver than me. We've competed many times in many kinds of driving challenges and he's done alot better than I have, statisically, over time.
However, I reiterate again the identical mph throughout the runs, all night long. That # is far less affected by driving skill and more by horsepower, especially at this power/speed level.
People's points are well taken that it would be more accurate to do back to back runs with airbox and SRI in the same car but, I have to draw conclusions based on the evidence I have.
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
However, I reiterate again the identical mph throughout the runs, all night long. That # is far less affected by driving skill and more by horsepower, especially at this power/speed level.
People's points are well taken that it would be more accurate to do back to back runs with airbox and SRI in the same car but, I have to draw conclusions based on the evidence I have.
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
Darth, I'm with you on this one, buddy. I know your testing is not scientific and the result may not be repeatable, but it makes sense that if the trap speeds are almost identical, then they cars were probably laying down close to the same power.
You can really mess up your 60 ft times with bad launches and still end up with similar trap speeds in my experience.
I'm not criticizing SRI's. I'm just saying that on that night under those track conditions the SRI's did not seem to produce any real power gains.
Nor am I suggesting that a CAI would do better. Maybe so, maybe not.
BTW: what kind of 60 ft times were you guys hitting? I have found good power once I get in third gear and can trap at 106-107 with good conditions (we are at sea level), but I still can't get below below high 2.2's low 2.3's at 60 ft. These cars are a b**** to launch on the stock tires.
You can really mess up your 60 ft times with bad launches and still end up with similar trap speeds in my experience.
I'm not criticizing SRI's. I'm just saying that on that night under those track conditions the SRI's did not seem to produce any real power gains.
Nor am I suggesting that a CAI would do better. Maybe so, maybe not.
BTW: what kind of 60 ft times were you guys hitting? I have found good power once I get in third gear and can trap at 106-107 with good conditions (we are at sea level), but I still can't get below below high 2.2's low 2.3's at 60 ft. These cars are a b**** to launch on the stock tires.
I am actually pretty certain my friend IS a better driver than me. We've competed many times in many kinds of driving challenges and he's done alot better than I have, statisically, over time.
However, I reiterate again the identical mph throughout the runs, all night long. That # is far less affected by driving skill and more by horsepower, especially at this power/speed level.
People's points are well taken that it would be more accurate to do back to back runs with airbox and SRI in the same car but, I have to draw conclusions based on the evidence I have.
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
While I agree with this statement and msms3's response. My only real problem with this testing is as you stated, these were not tested on the same car. I am a firm believer that one bone stock ms3 will put out more power than another. It is entirely possible, and i think likely, that one of the two cars here is putting out more stock hp. that is why it is so critical that before any conclusions can actually be had here, that both set ups are tested on the same car. until that is done, it really is just a guessing game.
Darth Vader
Member
Absolutey right different examples of the same car can make different power.
My race car, a supercharged 5.0. was what I call a "Wednesday car". It put 198 out stock as a rock. My buddy's (same guy) 5.0 put out what felt like maybe 155. It was what I call a "Monday morning" car.
Nowadays, with production tolerances much tighter than they were and QC more rigourous, variations are FAR less significant. There is variability though, no doubt.
60 foots were in the low 2s, what one expects for a front-drive car with street tires.
You can trap 107 on a stock MS3?
My race car, a supercharged 5.0. was what I call a "Wednesday car". It put 198 out stock as a rock. My buddy's (same guy) 5.0 put out what felt like maybe 155. It was what I call a "Monday morning" car.
Nowadays, with production tolerances much tighter than they were and QC more rigourous, variations are FAR less significant. There is variability though, no doubt.
60 foots were in the low 2s, what one expects for a front-drive car with street tires.
You can trap 107 on a stock MS3?
Nowadays, with production tolerances much tighter than they were and QC more rigourous, variations are FAR less significant. There is variability though, no doubt.
It would have been a lot easier if you had acknowledged this fact earlier so we know you're not a stubborn moron. Having differences of opinion is fine but being stubborn and unwilling to accept reason is another. I would definitely agree with you that with current technology, these variations are getting smaller and smaller but you have to remember that an SRI and most intakes in general yield only about 10 HP on a bone stock car so it's very likely that the intake just evened the tables between you and your friend's MS3.
As for the CS cold airbox, I know it is far from ideal but it could be a good starting point if you want to tinker. You're gonna have to anyway seeing that the opening isn't large enough for the Cobb's intake piping. For 75 bucks, you get a nice solid enclosure for the filter that mounts to stock mounting locations that you can cut and re-route a secondary tract to feed more cold air into it. I still think such a setup won't yield any real benefits other than muffling the sucking sounds which is actually what I really want.
Darth Vader
Member
I can only assume you are referring to the last sentence in the quote, not the one preceeding it.
I just didn't see alot more "reason", in many of the contentions posed, than I was giving in mine. There were other opinions, yes but, the idea that I could be a ton more scientific than I was by doing things differently, given the other uncontrolled variables involved, was somewhat wanting, in my view. That's all, nothing personal, no offense to anyone intended.
You tried out your 'speed at Mission? You're from the same town as me, surprise! (thumb)
I just didn't see alot more "reason", in many of the contentions posed, than I was giving in mine. There were other opinions, yes but, the idea that I could be a ton more scientific than I was by doing things differently, given the other uncontrolled variables involved, was somewhat wanting, in my view. That's all, nothing personal, no offense to anyone intended.
You tried out your 'speed at Mission? You're from the same town as me, surprise! (thumb)
New Posts and Comments
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 114
- Replies
- 4K
- Views
- 935K