Cobb vs. Forge vs. HKS vs TurboXs
- Thread starter HmG_mS3
- Start date
- :
- MazdaSpeed3
These are the ones that Hypertech recommends,
Cold Air Intake Tuning AEM Brute Force, BEGi Cool Air System, Cobb Tuning SF Intake, CorkSport Short Ram, Custom Performance Engineering Xcel Nano Air, Custom Performance Engineering Xcel Cold Air, HKS Racing Suction Intake System, Injen Cold Air, K&N Typhoon, MAZDASPEED Cold Air, Takeda Attack
Cold Air Intake Tuning AEM Brute Force, BEGi Cool Air System, Cobb Tuning SF Intake, CorkSport Short Ram, Custom Performance Engineering Xcel Nano Air, Custom Performance Engineering Xcel Cold Air, HKS Racing Suction Intake System, Injen Cold Air, K&N Typhoon, MAZDASPEED Cold Air, Takeda Attack
5.9-6.1 with current mods. Depends on ambient temp and conditions, such as the presence of wind and which way it may be blowing. I usually just say 6.1, as that is typical even under less than ideal conditions. There are both a pdf and a jpg attached to one of my posts on the previous page of this thread, #11, with an accelometer data log showning a 6.0. That was a good run. I try to use the same level and mostly untraveled location and average the runs in both directions to try to eliminate any variables. Usually works out in the above range. The data logging accelerometer is more accurate in measuring time and speed than a hand held stopwatch and looking at your speedo, but a stopwatch and practice can get you within a tenth.
BTW: Here is an interesting website (not a forum, so mods, please do not delete) with posted 60-100 mph runs for different cars. We don't know the conditions in which each test was done, and there is certainly room to argue about it's absolute accuracy, but it can give anyone a good ballpark comparison to a lot of different cars:
http://www.torquestats.com/
Those are all completely stock cars, as far as I know. Ought to open some eyes about what simple mods can do for our little Speed 3's.
There is a separate tab there for posted results on modified cars, but I don't know how accurate that info really is.
Appears to be geared toward the Eurosport crowd, but interesting comparisons, anywho.
Last edited:
Looks like the kit is $256, fittings and hoses included.
For the money intake and maybe a new motor mount or inserts may be more worth while.
MSMS3
No I don't have any real time data or before and afters, I'm a chump. Butt dyno likes and and strongly feel that my valve is more responsive than the stock was, and I love the sound. But again have no hard data to back anything up. Sounds like you've pretty much squashed the "Stock BPV leaks" myth. To each his own.
Wow 6.1 is moving. As i said i only have an intake and bov, (bov of course helping nothing), but i tried it this morning and what i could tell while freaking out a little i got 9.1. I saw on the other forum that most of our cars in stock form run 40-100 in the 10s so im average i guess. I should have brake boosted before i took off but i had my phone on my lap and when i took off it fell so i had to grab that then shift, and then jump over to the other lane.
The way I do 60-100 is to try to replicate what the technique would be if tested according to the protocols used in the various car mags like Car and Driver, Road and Track, etc. To do that you have to assume that it is an actual launch from a dead stop, like a drag srip launch, but you actually begin the run up in 4th gear slightly above 3,000 rpm. Go WOT there, so you are acutally cooking on full boost well before you get to 60 mph. Then be ready to hit the start button on your stopwatch as your speedometer needle hits 60 and then hit it again when you hit 100. You can experiment and see if you want to hold it in 4th gear, or make a flat shift into 5th at 6,000 rpm. It works out about the same for me, because the time to make the shift cuts the benefit you get from getting back into the fat part of the power band. Try it that way.
My G-Tech Pro RR accelerometer produces identical numbers to that technique, but does require a full launch from first gear to data log and produce the chart. BTW: The better car mags who have automotive engineers doing the testing typically use digital accelerometers to gather the metrics rather than drag strip timers, which could not give you all of those intermediate time, speed, distance intervals. The accelerometers they use are a bit more advanced (and more expensive) than the current generation G-Tech i use, but the results are very close (usually within one tenth of a second). A good acceleometer is an excellent tuning tool, iMHO.
A pure stock gen 1 would typically cover that speed interval using the same technique in the 7.7-8.0 range depending on conditions. A gen 2 similar but maybe a tenth or so slower. Hope this helps.
My G-Tech Pro RR accelerometer produces identical numbers to that technique, but does require a full launch from first gear to data log and produce the chart. BTW: The better car mags who have automotive engineers doing the testing typically use digital accelerometers to gather the metrics rather than drag strip timers, which could not give you all of those intermediate time, speed, distance intervals. The accelerometers they use are a bit more advanced (and more expensive) than the current generation G-Tech i use, but the results are very close (usually within one tenth of a second). A good acceleometer is an excellent tuning tool, iMHO.
A pure stock gen 1 would typically cover that speed interval using the same technique in the 7.7-8.0 range depending on conditions. A gen 2 similar but maybe a tenth or so slower. Hope this helps.
Last edited:
Actually, I switched back to the stock BPV,so far, it seems to be holding boost better and a bit higher than my Forge V1! I am going to test it for a week and see how it goes.
Last edited:
After testing, I put the Forge BPV back in and found that it holds 'more better boost', than my stock BPV. In my case, Forge V1 is beats the stock BPV.
Exactly!
Last edited:
What say ye about Grassroots Motor Sports chart attached here? It compares stock gen 1 MS3 bpv with Forge bpv. In third gear and higher, they found the stock valve held boost higher and longer. That is consistent with my experience that I just can't make the stock valve leak. And with a tune that allow full power in first and second, a quicker release or rise in boost is meaningless in first or second, because the tires just go up in smoke anyway! That's why I stayed with the stock valve. I can't make it leak.
Attachments
I don't dispute your chart at all, but the Forge appears to work better in my application. (drive2) Your insight and knowledge are tops in my book!
