Differing HP claims AP
- Thread starter LionofZion
- Start date
oaklandopen
Member
I like the idea of an aftermarket intercooler (topor front mount) having the ability to both retain more desireable temperatures (especially when talking about top mount heak soak) and bring boost temp down more than stock
Respectfully disagree. Not been shown to be the case if the car is dynoed with the hood down and there is good airflow from the fan(s) through the front grill to the IC, replicating driving conditions. If you try to do ten dyno pulls or something like that in the same day, especially with the hood up so that the fan(s) are not channelling cold air through the grill, and the engine gets heat soaked, maybe true. The stock TMIC performs amazingly well under all but the most extreme conditions. It will heat soak sooner. It will provide less BAT reduction under extreme conditions. But you've really got to push things and push them for a long time to reach that point.
does it not stand to reason that if the car with the upgraded IC pulls better numbers with 0 airflow over X amt of runs vs stock; one with adequate airflow would be that much better? I don't know how many ways you can slice and dice the numbers...but I've seen more logs showing an increase in power with an upgraded IC vs any showing flat/less power with an upgraded IC, all other things being equal. I have always thought, regardless of how you got there, if your dyno shows bigger numbers after an upgrade...you just made more power.
I filmed a 3rd gear pull from 40 to 80mph before and after the FMIC installation. Both videos were made with DSC on and 1/2 tank of gas. You can clearly see with the upgraded IC I was 5-7 thousandth of a second quicker. I made multiple runs with same results. This was before my custom tune of course. I can post the vids if you guys want me to.
Right, if you are talking about thousands of a second...maybe you meant tenths...which, either way, is within margin of error/conditions etc. real proven results, dyno back to back. Actually CP-e just did that...and made more power everywhere on the tach, all other things being equal.
What other things were equal? Where were the fans located? What kind of intake did the car have CAI or SRI and where was ambient air being accessed by the intake? Was the hood up or down? What was fan speed? How much cool down time between runs? How long was each engine allowed to run before and between tests (heat soak periods) Which was tested first? What were ambient temps on that particular day?
Of course CP-e wants to sell product, nothing wrong with that. So they wouldn't dare think of trying to optimize the test conditions to produce the result they wanted, would they?
Don't get me wrong. There are conditions in which an intercooler upgrade can make a positive difference. Those conditions may or may not apply under real world conditions. A hot engine with poor access to cool-down, an already cherry-hot exhaust and turbo with no under hood air flow, no or poor access to outside air flow replicating what would be hitting both the engine air intake and the intercooler, and many other factors can make a big difference in the test results. it's all in the testing protocol and objective application of scientific method to accurately replicate actual driving conditions and to eliminate confounding variables.
I've had several other platforms (Saabs and Volvos) with intercoolers. All of those were FMIC design. I've had a turbo car with no intercooler. I've seen all sorts of results and outcomes with intercooler upgrages, some fantastic, some with no discernable difference and some that made things worse by being the wrong size and by introducing turbo lag (something that would not even show up on a dyno). It's all in the details.
I don't disagree that CP-e's tests may have shown gains on a stationary dyno under the testing protocols they used. I'd like to know what those protocols were. I do not agree that those test results are necessarily indicative of real world experience in daily driving. Let me say that in my experience our little TMIC does surprisingly well until it is really heat soaked or when it is not getting good flow through its underhood scoop and front grill vents. Just one opinion.
And regarding Hugador's third gear pulls, yes, I'd like to see the video(s). I'd also like him to do the testing in fourth gear or higher. Air flow through the IC at 40 mph to 80 mph is a lot less than it would be in say a 60-100 mph pull. That might actually show a clear benefit to the aftermarket IC, but I doubt it would be much different unless the TMIC is pretty heatsoaked and the engine bay super hot.
But I could be wrong.
Returning to the spirit of the OP's orginal post and of this thread, the presence or absence of an IC upgrade is probably not that important in making a tuning option choice, but the conditions in which dyno pulls are made, regardless of the tuning choice, the type of dyno being used and the skill of the operator can make huge difference and can produce very confusing and unreliable conclusions.
I've found use of time, speed, distance measuring devices such as accelerometers or even simple stop watches, when used consistently on the same road surface, tested in both directions, under ambient conditions as close to identical as possible, and proven to be repeatable to be better indicators of power than stationary dyno pulls. But that's just me.
Of course CP-e wants to sell product, nothing wrong with that. So they wouldn't dare think of trying to optimize the test conditions to produce the result they wanted, would they?
Don't get me wrong. There are conditions in which an intercooler upgrade can make a positive difference. Those conditions may or may not apply under real world conditions. A hot engine with poor access to cool-down, an already cherry-hot exhaust and turbo with no under hood air flow, no or poor access to outside air flow replicating what would be hitting both the engine air intake and the intercooler, and many other factors can make a big difference in the test results. it's all in the testing protocol and objective application of scientific method to accurately replicate actual driving conditions and to eliminate confounding variables.
I've had several other platforms (Saabs and Volvos) with intercoolers. All of those were FMIC design. I've had a turbo car with no intercooler. I've seen all sorts of results and outcomes with intercooler upgrages, some fantastic, some with no discernable difference and some that made things worse by being the wrong size and by introducing turbo lag (something that would not even show up on a dyno). It's all in the details.
I don't disagree that CP-e's tests may have shown gains on a stationary dyno under the testing protocols they used. I'd like to know what those protocols were. I do not agree that those test results are necessarily indicative of real world experience in daily driving. Let me say that in my experience our little TMIC does surprisingly well until it is really heat soaked or when it is not getting good flow through its underhood scoop and front grill vents. Just one opinion.
And regarding Hugador's third gear pulls, yes, I'd like to see the video(s). I'd also like him to do the testing in fourth gear or higher. Air flow through the IC at 40 mph to 80 mph is a lot less than it would be in say a 60-100 mph pull. That might actually show a clear benefit to the aftermarket IC, but I doubt it would be much different unless the TMIC is pretty heatsoaked and the engine bay super hot.
But I could be wrong.
Returning to the spirit of the OP's orginal post and of this thread, the presence or absence of an IC upgrade is probably not that important in making a tuning option choice, but the conditions in which dyno pulls are made, regardless of the tuning choice, the type of dyno being used and the skill of the operator can make huge difference and can produce very confusing and unreliable conclusions.
I've found use of time, speed, distance measuring devices such as accelerometers or even simple stop watches, when used consistently on the same road surface, tested in both directions, under ambient conditions as close to identical as possible, and proven to be repeatable to be better indicators of power than stationary dyno pulls. But that's just me.
Last edited:
Sorry OP.
MSMS3, I see what you're saying. I guess I'll go back and say that you were right and I was wrong, to a degree. Under normal conditions like modest DDing, the stock IC is fine. If you are going to do anything outside of that (get aggressive for a decent period of time) at the track or street or wherever, the upgraded IC is going to keep you making the power reliably vs the stocker. I just went and looked at the data from CP-e on their top mount (I posted them on the other forum). I compared run 1 vs run 1 and run 5 vs run 5, figuring that was about as close as we would get for reliable. run 1 stock did better mid-range than cpe, but not as good low & high. by the time run 5 was logged, aftermarket was better throughout the entire rpm.
MSMS3, I see what you're saying. I guess I'll go back and say that you were right and I was wrong, to a degree. Under normal conditions like modest DDing, the stock IC is fine. If you are going to do anything outside of that (get aggressive for a decent period of time) at the track or street or wherever, the upgraded IC is going to keep you making the power reliably vs the stocker. I just went and looked at the data from CP-e on their top mount (I posted them on the other forum). I compared run 1 vs run 1 and run 5 vs run 5, figuring that was about as close as we would get for reliable. run 1 stock did better mid-range than cpe, but not as good low & high. by the time run 5 was logged, aftermarket was better throughout the entire rpm.
No problem, sick_role. I too, see where you are coming from and there is truth in what you say.
I just have a healthy skepticism about vendor and manufacturer claims. They are out to sell product. I don't blame 'em for putting their best foot forward based on trying to optimize the variables.
There is a video I posted on YouTube under my user name that suggests that the TMIC must not have been holding me back much on a warm engine straight and flat highway pull from 40-120 mph in 12.5 seconds. That is about four full seconds quicker than stock. And that was on stock tune before adding the HT, and with just an intake, the catless dp/rp and step colder plugs. That's all. I do push this car pretty hard in this warm summer climate.
I just haven't see this car laying down under full boost and under load due to high BAT's like some of my other turbo cars did, even though those with IC's all had FMIC's. Upgrades helped some of them, not others. Low BAT's do matter. They matter alot and an efficient intercooler is critically important to keep BAT's down.
OP: hope we didn't confuse you. I just don't find comparing different dyno pulls on different cars on different days a very good way to compare mods or measure true gains. Too many variables.
I just have a healthy skepticism about vendor and manufacturer claims. They are out to sell product. I don't blame 'em for putting their best foot forward based on trying to optimize the variables.
There is a video I posted on YouTube under my user name that suggests that the TMIC must not have been holding me back much on a warm engine straight and flat highway pull from 40-120 mph in 12.5 seconds. That is about four full seconds quicker than stock. And that was on stock tune before adding the HT, and with just an intake, the catless dp/rp and step colder plugs. That's all. I do push this car pretty hard in this warm summer climate.
I just haven't see this car laying down under full boost and under load due to high BAT's like some of my other turbo cars did, even though those with IC's all had FMIC's. Upgrades helped some of them, not others. Low BAT's do matter. They matter alot and an efficient intercooler is critically important to keep BAT's down.
OP: hope we didn't confuse you. I just don't find comparing different dyno pulls on different cars on different days a very good way to compare mods or measure true gains. Too many variables.
Last edited:
Yes that's what I meant tenths . My bad. I not trying to prove anything just showing the result of my pulls. First link shows a 5.7 seconds pull while second link shows a 5.2. All pulls that I have done where on different days and time. But the results where the same. Upgraded IC pulls are a bit quicker. Well at least on my car. Both pulls on AP stage1 MAPS as is. No protuning. Half tank of gas with DSC on. Whatever right. lol yeah sorry OP
link1
link2
I realize that the transfer to video can result in times being slightly skewed, depending on recording and playback rates, but Hugador, my stopwatch on those videos shows you a good bit faster than what you claim. The pre-IC upgrade is coming up in 4.70 seconds and the post upgrade is 4.5 seconds (4.49). I've run it several times and am getting the same result on a pretty damn good stopwatch. But the difference between the two runs is only two tenths. How much difference are you claiming? How are you timing those runs? I'm not sure that this proves your theory without multiple pulls and good info about ambient temps and whether you are on the same road, etc. It does show you are making good power with that tune and those mods.
I really liked your second pull to above 100 mph on that first video. I'd like to see whether you picked up any power at higher speeds after the upgrade. Your 60-100 mph time on that pull was 5.7 seconds. So, now you have a custom tune according to your sig. What are the time intervals from 60-100 mph now on a 4th gear pull?
I really liked your second pull to above 100 mph on that first video. I'd like to see whether you picked up any power at higher speeds after the upgrade. Your 60-100 mph time on that pull was 5.7 seconds. So, now you have a custom tune according to your sig. What are the time intervals from 60-100 mph now on a 4th gear pull?
Last edited:
When I get a chance I'll record a 4th gear pull with my current setup. And to answer your question I've done multiple pulls but only kept these ones. Nothing much different from the other ones. I use cell phone stopwatch but I don't think It matters what kind stopwatch I use. Oh and I start timing once the needle hits 40mph. Because I don't go WOT until I hit around 3400rpm.
Last edited:
This is what I did. I took the vids to movie maker program. Then I trim the vids from 40 to 80mph and 4k to rev limiter. Then I just use the time length of video. It's the only way to do it. You can do this as well. This is what I got.
Before IC: 3rd gear pull
40-80mph = 5:74 secs
4k-rev limiter = 5:06 secs
4th gear pull
60-100mph = 6.91 secs
After IC: 3rd gear pull
40-80mph = 5:22 secs
4k-rev limiter = 4.51
Can we move along now with our own conclusions? lol
Before IC: 3rd gear pull
40-80mph = 5:74 secs
4k-rev limiter = 5:06 secs
4th gear pull
60-100mph = 6.91 secs
After IC: 3rd gear pull
40-80mph = 5:22 secs
4k-rev limiter = 4.51
Can we move along now with our own conclusions? lol
Hugador, I'll PM you. I'm getting much different readings. I have two different brands of real stopwatches, one digital the other analog, and check them against each other. Always within one tenth. I also have a pretty good accelerometer (GTech Pro RR) with built in time-speed-distance measurements to .001 second. All three produce the same results. The analog has the greatest variation, but it's only a tenth of a second plus or minus. Your cell phone is not producing the same results. Not even close. Something is not right with your timing results. Believe me, if your video is playing back real time and is not playing back fast, your car is quicker than your cell phone indicates.
Sorry guys for the diversion. Carry on. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming. lol.
Sorry guys for the diversion. Carry on. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming. lol.
Something to think about is the stock Hpfp usually can not keep up once you tack on a Tbe. Most people put a cai/sri and slap on a tbe getting excited about the gains not realising the hpfp is barely keeping up at a WOT leaning out. Im extreamly supprised people running the Ht on stock hpfp with a tbe havent poped more engines...or at least that ive herd of. Anyone running ether Ap or Ht with a Dp/intake or even without a tune run a high risk of going to lean and throwing a rod. It even says on the cobb website if your planning on going with a tbe they suggest you upgrade it. The one nice things about having a AP is you can data log and moniter your Afr,Kr,Fp while trying a new tune. (Upgrading your Tmic or going with a fmic can help reduce Kr aswell) with the addition of the Access Race tuner you can make adjustments to help reduce Kr. That is if you know what your doing. Im not nocking Ht im sure many people love it but i find it hard to belive a 1 or even 2 maps fit all will safely increase power. It sounds like to me the "gains" people are seeing is upping the boost to 18-19psi from a stock 14. The ap base maps are great for a person who doesnt want to screw arround with tuning but for someone who knows how to tune can make adjustments to the map making it more efficent. It basicly comes down to preferance the HT costs less but offers less Ap costs more but you get more options. My Pref would be ap but i like more controle and i like to monitor the engine
I'm tuned at 18/19psi. Haven't open up the exhaust yet and already stock fuel pump can't keep up. Well at least 3rd gear pulls. 4th gear pulls looks okay. Don't worry I have a cp-e hpfpump on order. I agree people should monitor fuel pressure just to be safe.
3rd gear pull. No bueno.
3rd gear pull. No bueno.
COBB Tuning
Member
I want to clarify that the AccessPORT also uses the stock safegaurds that are present in the ECU whenever you use one of our tunes. This is one of the cool features of the AP and ATR, even if you make a custom tune, those features are still there, we do not erase or overwrite them. You can alter the limits of those features, but you cannot eliminate them.
I agree with what you are saying to a point, however, boost control systems are designed with a little bit of backpressure in mind. Take the 2008+ STI for instance, without some backpressure, the stock wastegate is almost useless. Now if you have a big enough wastegate like a tial 44mm, sure, get rid of the backpressure, but not on a stock turbo car, that is one reason why we have cats in our downpipes. As far as the comments on overboosting... you would have to run a turbo outside of its efficiency range all the time in order to do what you are describing. Also, this wouldn,'t really cause an issue with the rods, that is unless you are running WAY too much boost which turns the turbo into a giant hot air gun and you run so lean that you have massive knocking etc. But that would usually spin a bearing and then throw a rod. I have seen bent rods from cylinder pressure, but on BIG turbos.
The bottom line, which I think people are going for, is that an OTS tune is going to give you a nice big bump in power. The way that bump is expresed in a dyno chart really depends on the mods, fuel, dyno and other variables. A lot of the ZOOM ZOOM BOOM issues can be ascribed to early attempts at tuning, normally with heavily modified cars and stock fuel pumps and very heavy right feet! At this point we have refined our calibrations and in some cases, altered the stock ECU logic to make the tunes much more reliable, safe and consistent, something that no one else has done!
