Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday August 29, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Normally Aspirated Powertrain

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2006, 06:24 PM   #176
Matt Monson
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 832
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Teh Ghetto Garage, CO
Vehicle:
99 2.5RS, '85 911
'73 914 and 2012 BRZ

Default

Never believe what you read in magazines. They always get super duper deals or free stuff. I seem to remember reading later somewhere in Subiesport a disclaimer that the price listed on the headwork was actually incorrect.I would say that $1500 is a good solid number to work with for the headwork and then whatever install time...
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Matt Monson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 06:32 PM   #177
G.Subramaniam
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 64528
Join Date: Jun 2004
Default

DPR offers input manifold port and polish as part of Stage 3 head work

Extrude Honed claims to both port and polish intake manifold as well as heads
The Extrude Hone price for heads is about $500
G.Subramaniam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 07:11 PM   #178
Tim Sanderson
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6486
Join Date: May 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: S.E. wisconsin
Vehicle:
00 Impreza 2.5 RS
Blue Ridge Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Subramaniam View Post
DPR offers input manifold port and polish as part of Stage 3 head work

Extrude Honed claims to both port and polish intake manifold as well as heads
The Extrude Hone price for heads is about $500
I've personally seen and held an extrude honed intake manifold. It was for another car but it did have long runners. The results were incredible. Smooth as a babies bottom and opened up nicely the entire length.

expensive but gorgeous.
Tim Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 08:08 PM   #179
MeanEditor
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 123139
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Oregon
Vehicle:
1993 Turbo L Wagon
RED

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Subramaniam View Post
--

The cheapest place I can find for head porting and polishing is DPR, and it costs $1300
Plus the local labor for install is 12 hours which runs $1200
I would like to know how you got away with just $300 to pull and replace heads, and how do I contact Pineapple?

--
VS spicy cams for $499 plus 8 hour install cost of $650 for an approx total of $1,150.


-


--

That price is based on the heads being already removed and dropped off and for very mild porting work. Pineapple did just a little bit of removing of material and generally just cleaned things up. So yes, labor for the motor/install was not included which it should have been I suppose.

The $300 porting price is what Rob quoted me. Pineapple racing usually does rotary stuff but he has been building race cars forever and has quite the knowledge base when it comes to making internal combustion motors go fast. These days he picks and chooses which projects her works on so you can call him and see if he is interested. Pineapple is a friend of the magazine, they did the work and gave a "theoretical" price for what he would charge to do it again. The optional $200 charge in the list is for 5-angle job on the valves but ours were new so he didn't touch them.

If you want to contact Pineapple call them. They are in Portland, OR on Airport Way.
MeanEditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 08:19 PM   #180
G.Subramaniam
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 64528
Join Date: Jun 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Sanderson View Post
I've personally seen and held an extrude honed intake manifold. It was for another car but it did have long runners. The results were incredible. Smooth as a babies bottom and opened up nicely the entire length.

expensive but gorgeous.
Any numbers on hp / torque / mileage improvement ?
G.Subramaniam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 08:19 PM   #181
MeanEditor
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 123139
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Oregon
Vehicle:
1993 Turbo L Wagon
RED

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Olsen View Post
Wow, that's damn impressive, Back Road Runner!


If all dynos take this stuff into consideration then why don't they all spit out the same numbers?

The fact is that drivetrain losses can't be taken into account. There is no way to measure them unless one has a chassis dyno and an engine dyno at hand and can measure the output both ways. The numbers that a chassis dyno spits out are wheel horsepower numbers, that's it. Their relationship to crank horsepower numbers can be guessed at, but there's no way to "use software to take all this into consideration."

Pat
Just let you know. Many dynos try to calculate bhp. It's just that most people who know how to run a dyno, ignore this option or turn it off. But usually if you have someone claiming that they make say 150hp on a car that everyone else makes 100WHP on, chances are they are using one of these dynos OR, the operator did a little fiddeling to make the customer happy. Some shops do this so that the guy that just dropped eleventybillion$$$ is happy when the dyno spits out his "horsepower" figures.
Dastek ALWAYS tries to calculate BHP. You cannot turn that off as fas as I know. I think Mustangs and I know Dynapacks will calculate bhp if you want them to, how do you think there were "dyno proven" 400hp stock turbo STIs?

Also, you need to consider that on some dynos it very much depends on how you setup a dyno that changes the way it reads power. Even the gear you run the car in can change this. So if you run a car in 3rd gear as opposed to 2nd or 4th, it will read differently. Dynapacks will want to know the vehicle weight and the diameter of the wheel/tire. Changing these factors changes hp readings. Also, ramp time or pull duration, will change the way a dyno reads. And a good operator can change these things VERY quickly and make one run to the next seem like nothing has changed on the dyno since, essentially nothing has, just how the computer reads and extrapolates the data.

Last edited by MeanEditor; 10-04-2006 at 08:25 PM.
MeanEditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 11:06 PM   #182
Tim Sanderson
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6486
Join Date: May 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: S.E. wisconsin
Vehicle:
00 Impreza 2.5 RS
Blue Ridge Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Subramaniam View Post
Any numbers on hp / torque / mileage improvement ?

Actually, no. the motor had not been built yet.
Tim Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 12:20 AM   #183
FalconRS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92913
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Crystal Grey Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetItSnow View Post
Please stop diluting the white paper thread with off-topic material!

This was meant to be a reference thread, not a brawling match over dynos. How about a little respect for something that was long overdue, and done correctly?
As I pointed out right here (in this thread):

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...&postcount=127

it wasn't done correctly, nor is it really possible to do it correctly at this point. People keep quoting and linking this "white paper" to those asking questions about N/A power when the fact is, all of those numbers are complete vapor and nowhere near what anybody can actually expect to see. Would have been better off providing a listing of parts available, what will fit what years, and left it at that.

If you're going to use something as a reference, it should be done properly, giving people REALISTIC advice, not listing power figures from each part's full-color fold-out brochure.
FalconRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 01:27 AM   #184
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconRS View Post
...it wasn't done correctly, nor is it really possible to do it correctly at this point. People keep quoting and linking this "white paper" to those asking questions about N/A power when the fact is, all of those numbers are complete vapor and nowhere near what anybody can actually expect to see.
There are a number of dyno tuning threads in this forum that would show that the numbers in this thread are not just vapor. I just went back and re-read the beginning of this thread just to make sure I wasn't out of line. The only questionable number I see in Rally_wgn's initial posts is 10hp for a cat-back exhaust (and the grounding kit 2-4hp, but he specifically said that those are "claimed" gains, so I don't see anything wrong with that statement). Other than that all the numbers seem perfectly legit to me based on my own dyno testing, Matt Monson's dyno testing, Sport Compact Car's dyno testing, Kevin Thomas' dyno testing, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconRS
If you're going to use something as a reference, it should be done properly, giving people REALISTIC advice, not listing power figures from each part's full-color fold-out brochure.
Specifically what numbers do you take issue with? You commented in your earlier post that you can't add all the numbers together and get a total gain, which is something that should be obvious to anyone who's ever read a car magazine or has done any significant research into modifying their car. So what numbers in this thread are wrong?

Pat
Patrick Olsen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 07:52 AM   #185
Rally_wgn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 62629
Join Date: May 2004
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Richmond,VA
Vehicle:
1996 OBS in Green
2.5 N/A w/ full exhaust

Default

Thanks for the defense Pat, I've been too busy to check in here and respond to Falcon's erronous assertions.

Falcon is you think my thread was done incorrectly than go make your own. YOu have said your peace, now get to work.
Rally_wgn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 10:17 AM   #186
FalconRS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92913
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Crystal Grey Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Olsen View Post
Specifically what numbers do you take issue with? You commented in your earlier post that you can't add all the numbers together and get a total gain, which is something that should be obvious to anyone who's ever read a car magazine or has done any significant research into modifying their car. So what numbers in this thread are wrong?
1. I take issue with all the numbers. Aside from the catback and ground kit which are complete vapor numbers, I think virtually all the numbers talked about are significantly high over their real world gains.

2. Not adding all the numbers together being obvious? Guess again. Most of the people asking the questions (newbies) that really need this sort of write up DON'T actually know that. Magazines aren't really any help, as most of the time magazines feature cars with 2-3 times the stock horsepower, and as Matt Monson pointed out, you don't believe a magazine. And as I point out everyday, you don't believe the claims of anyone who has something to gain by them, Vendor and Magazine alike. And all to often I run into a kid with a Civic or a Celica or whatever talking about his car, and his listing off the mods and how much power each one makes on his fingers, then claiming that's what he's now making.

3. The gains vary from model year. You yourself did a lot of great testing on the dyno, specifically your intake test. Unfortunately it's on a 97 with a much more simplistic ECU. The heavily-adaptive ECU's in the post-2000MY cars simply don't react to mods as well. And when you do gain something, generally a little driving adapts out most of the gains you made. Being that most of the newbies coming around these days are sporting 05-06 cars now, this is a significant point that needs mentioning.

4. Another issue I take with your test, that and you did the test with a header on the car, so airflow characteristic of the car was already improved to begin with, opening the door a little wider for the intake itself. This absolutely does affect the results, and was information completely left out of the original post.
FalconRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 10:25 AM   #187
BSDJ
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 78069
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Concord Township, OH
Vehicle:
2008 Mitsu Lancer
Apex Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally_wgn View Post
Falcon is you think my thread was done incorrectly than go make your own. YOu have said your peace, now get to work.
Why did you put "please critique" in the title? It seems obvious that you are NOT open to critique or even the chance that you are wrong.

I'm not siding with anyone, because no one is 100% correct here. But it's very disconcerting to see a quote like that in a thread like this. You made this "white paper" to help people, but you're not even open to the fact that you might be wrong.
BSDJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 11:02 AM   #188
FalconRS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92913
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Crystal Grey Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDJ View Post
Why did you put "please critique" in the title? It seems obvious that you are NOT open to critique or even the chance that you are wrong.

I'm not siding with anyone, because no one is 100% correct here. But it's very disconcerting to see a quote like that in a thread like this. You made this "white paper" to help people, but you're not even open to the fact that you might be wrong.
That, and I did write my own....scroll a few posts up (#127), there's a link to earlier in this thread where I did write my own.
FalconRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 09:08 PM   #189
Rally_wgn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 62629
Join Date: May 2004
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Richmond,VA
Vehicle:
1996 OBS in Green
2.5 N/A w/ full exhaust

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDJ View Post
Why did you put "please critique" in the title? It seems obvious that you are NOT open to critique or even the chance that you are wrong.

I'm not siding with anyone, because no one is 100% correct here. But it's very disconcerting to see a quote like that in a thread like this. You made this "white paper" to help people, but you're not even open to the fact that you might be wrong.

That my friend is an illinformed crock of crap. If you have read any of this thread you will see that I have made changes based on CONSTRUCTIVE critique. FalconRS provided no real evidence that the numbers that I provided based on empirical data was wrong. So basically he was just gripeing. Several of the acknowledged NA gurus here seem to agree.

Additionally Falcon has a reputation of complaining in ppls threads without any subastantial basis. My retort to him was a means of ending his nearly ceaseless complaining.
Rally_wgn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2006, 10:25 AM   #190
LetItSnow
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 38222
Join Date: Jun 2003
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Cicero, NY
Vehicle:
'10 &'12 Foresters
another Miata convert

Default

I preferred the off-topic dyno talk to the weak bickering...

If anything, this thread should be used as a resource for what options are available for N/A performance. While discussions which have taken place have included valuable information, they have also stuffed the thread with material which, as I've said, dilutes it of its original intent. Start bringing frozen foods, major appliances, and a fruit smoothie stand into an auto parts store, and the original mission gets to be a pain in the arse.

Let's try to keep the material in this thread worth reading?
LetItSnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2006, 10:49 AM   #191
FalconRS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92913
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Crystal Grey Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally_wgn View Post
That my friend is an illinformed crock of crap. If you have read any of this thread you will see that I have made changes based on CONSTRUCTIVE critique. FalconRS provided no real evidence that the numbers that I provided based on empirical data was wrong. So basically he was just gripeing. Several of the acknowledged NA gurus here seem to agree.

Additionally Falcon has a reputation of complaining in ppls threads without any subastantial basis. My retort to him was a means of ending his nearly ceaseless complaining.
YOU are the one that provided no real evidence of "empirical" data. Your numbers are real? Show me. I gave you a very good argument as to why your numbers were just plain wrong, in the SubieSport ZtH project car. And as Matt Monson said, even magazines overinflate their numbers. Yet you were still significantly high on yours from the inflated magazine numbers. How did I not provide evidence? If you'll read again, a lot of the guru's you mentioned were agreeing with me after my post a couple pages back.

Reputation of complaining? Really? Where's your "empirical evidence"? I debate facts, based on facts. I do not complain.
FalconRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2006, 12:42 PM   #192
BSDJ
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 78069
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Concord Township, OH
Vehicle:
2008 Mitsu Lancer
Apex Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rally_wgn View Post
That my friend is an illinformed crock of crap. If you have read any of this thread you will see that I have made changes based on CONSTRUCTIVE critique. FalconRS provided no real evidence that the numbers that I provided based on empirical data was wrong. So basically he was just gripeing. Several of the acknowledged NA gurus here seem to agree.

Additionally Falcon has a reputation of complaining in ppls threads without any subastantial basis. My retort to him was a means of ending his nearly ceaseless complaining.
It's not necessarily his job to PROVE you wrong. It's kind of your job to PROVE yourself correct.

Look at it this way - if you say you have data that shows X, and I don't see that data anywhere, it's not my job to prove that data doesn't exist. It's your job to show it to me.

I'm not going to debate you, as it's clear that you're being close-minded. So I'm not going to post any further unless needed. I do appreciate the intent and quality of this thread. It's helpful and useful, even if I don't believe it's 100% correct.
BSDJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2006, 04:44 PM   #193
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconRS View Post
2. Not adding all the numbers together being obvious? Guess again. Most of the people asking the questions (newbies) that really need this sort of write up DON'T actually know that. Magazines aren't really any help, as most of the time magazines feature cars with 2-3 times the stock horsepower, and as Matt Monson pointed out, you don't believe a magazine. And as I point out everyday, you don't believe the claims of anyone who has something to gain by them, Vendor and Magazine alike. And all to often I run into a kid with a Civic or a Celica or whatever talking about his car, and his listing off the mods and how much power each one makes on his fingers, then claiming that's what he's now making.
I guess I'm confused as to which side you're on. You made that big long post, citing the ScoobySport car as an example of how the numbers were wrong, yet you based that claim on the number you generated by adding up all the numbers from this article. So are you a newbie that didn't realize you can't add all those numbers up and expect to actually get that out of the engine? Or were you already aware that that math never works that way in the real world? If it's the latter, then you could have taken the opportunity to say, "Hey, we should put a statement in this white paper explaining how different components work together on the engine, and that the power gains aren't all going to stack on top of one another." Instead, you jumped to the conclusion that all the numbers in this thread are wrong, which I think is the wrong conclusion to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconRS
3. The gains vary from model year. You yourself did a lot of great testing on the dyno, specifically your intake test. Unfortunately it's on a 97 with a much more simplistic ECU. The heavily-adaptive ECU's in the post-2000MY cars simply don't react to mods as well. And when you do gain something, generally a little driving adapts out most of the gains you made. Being that most of the newbies coming around these days are sporting 05-06 cars now, this is a significant point that needs mentioning.
I agree that the gains will vary from year-to-year. I'd love to see some exhaust comparisons using the new OEM equal length header, for instance (although we probably never will, since I think it requires a different oil pan.)

As for the ECUs, this is something that people claim over and over again, but I've never seen anyone actually prove that the ECU "learns around" modifications. I've read a number of threads in which guys say the car "felt slower" after they reset the ECU (or "felt faster" after they reset the ECU), but I haven't seen proof of that - 1/4mi times, dyno results, wideband O2 datalogs, whatever. It may very well be true, I honestly don't know, but I don't see any technical rigor to back up the claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconRS
4. Another issue I take with your test, that and you did the test with a header on the car, so airflow characteristic of the car was already improved to begin with, opening the door a little wider for the intake itself. This absolutely does affect the results, and was information completely left out of the original post.
Sport Compact Car's testing showed even bigger gains on a stock (or very nearly stock) '98 2.5RS. Maybe I'm just too trusting, but I have no reason to doubt their numbers. It's one thing to think there may be more at play when a magazine writes an article saying the new DCSports header for the Civic is awesome - there are thousands upon thousands of Civics out there to market to. I find it hard to believe, though, that SCC was skewing their reporting to generate increased sales of performance parts for the, what, 2000 2.5RSs there were in '98? Was Cobb Tuning lining SCC's pockets with the billions of dollars they're making off Subaru parts? (Hell, Cobb hardly even existed at that point, so maybe it was JC, the company that disappeared?)

I certainly don't think that this "white paper" is the be all, end all of Subaru N/A tuning. By the same token, as I've already said, I don't think any of the numbers claimed in this thread (other than 10hp for a muffler) are wrong - I think they're all +/- 1 or 2hp, which is as close as you can expect to get on this kind of thing. There is definitely more out there to be learned - I dropped a couple intake manifolds off at a machine shop yesterday for flow bench testing just because I want to know if there's any benefit to either of them. I've been hoping to do a dyno comparison of my Injen intake vs. an intake that retains the so-called "torque box" - I have the parts in my garage and just haven't gotten around to fabbing the torque box + Ebay tube intake. If I could I'd combine that testing with throttle body spacer testing, as I'm curious to see if those things really do anything or if the power and mileage claims are BS. Oh, and I have a bored out throttle body to test and those two intake manifolds, too. I don't imagine the bored out TB will do much, but I'd be really interested to see how (if?) the powerband shifts if I put an EJ20G intake (with its longer runners) on the engine. Maybe I'll get to some of this stuff, or maybe the EZ30-R that's sitting in my garage will make all of this moot.

Pat
Patrick Olsen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2006, 08:55 PM   #194
FalconRS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92913
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Crystal Grey Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Olsen View Post
I guess I'm confused as to which side you're on. You made that big long post, citing the ScoobySport car as an example of how the numbers were wrong, yet you based that claim on the number you generated by adding up all the numbers from this article. So are you a newbie that didn't realize you can't add all those numbers up and expect to actually get that out of the engine? Or were you already aware that that math never works that way in the real world? If it's the latter, then you could have taken the opportunity to say, "Hey, we should put a statement in this white paper explaining how different components work together on the engine, and that the power gains aren't all going to stack on top of one another." Instead, you jumped to the conclusion that all the numbers in this thread are wrong, which I think is the wrong conclusion to make.
Good points, something I know I didn't make clear in my original posts. In fact, first post on the very next page (#141) you yourself pointed out to me that you can't add the numbers and get your power, to which I replied that it actually was the whole point of my post, and a big reason why the SubieSport car didn't get close to the numbers of just the bolt-ons in Rally_wgn's list, despite having much more than that list. Matt Monson's statement that magazine numbers are inflated for the guys donating their gear just makes it worse. That Subiesport number may have been 5% or 10% high, but nobody will ever prove it so I'll stick with their number. That is always the danger of claiming "an intake makes X" or "a header makes Y". In relation to what? What are the other factors that might influence X or Y? A header might influence an intake's gain and vice versa. A cam affects what both intake and exhaust sides are doing. A comp'd part for a magazine cover article can work wonders for that car.

Quote:
I agree that the gains will vary from year-to-year. I'd love to see some exhaust comparisons using the new OEM equal length header, for instance (although we probably never will, since I think it requires a different oil pan.)
I agree 100%. I have a theory that the gains with the 06 stocker will be comparable to a previous model with a Borla header, but as yet I can't prove it, nor can anybody else...yet. I've also been begging the '06 guys out there snapping up intakes to get their cars on the dyno, as I have a feeling that the AVLS may really benefit from an intake, unlike most of the other late-model EJ25's.

Quote:
As for the ECUs, this is something that people claim over and over again, but I've never seen anyone actually prove that the ECU "learns around" modifications. I've read a number of threads in which guys say the car "felt slower" after they reset the ECU (or "felt faster" after they reset the ECU), but I haven't seen proof of that - 1/4mi times, dyno results, wideband O2 datalogs, whatever. It may very well be true, I honestly don't know, but I don't see any technical rigor to back up the claims.
Well this definitely does happen. I have no immediate evidence in the Subaru arena. But I did come from the GM side. I had a 98 supercharged Grand Prix and was very deep in that world. A good friend of mine had a 98 as well, but a non-supercharged car, and was a pioneer in the n/a world over there. One day we were at the track, and he had broken into the 14's (about as big a deal as one of us GD's doing it totally n/a), and had been running low 14.8xx's all day, but was having some knock trouble. Having no real method of adjustment, he opted to reset his PCM (ECU). With similar 60-foot times (within 0.1s on either side of his previous runs), his best for the rest of the day was a 15.2. Like Subie's, GM's base map is pretty rich, which was his theory to clean up that knock, as I wasn't about to give up my plugs, which were a couple steps colder than his.

That illustrates that modern ECU's do learn, and this is on 1998 model cars run by technology-challenged General Motors engine management. Since 98 GM has added mod-unfriendly programming like torque management and such and it's simply naive to thing in the 8 years since then the rest of the industry hasn't caught on (and I highly doubt GM was the first kid on the block doing it). Nissan's VQ35 engines have show similar abilities to adapt their way around basic mods to get back down to near-stock output

As for the rest, well, I do think the numbers he quoted at the start are very high, probably anywhere from 1.5 to 2 times what they should be, but I'm coming from a perspective of the newer model cars, whereas if you're looking at the pre-2000 cars you might actually get close to some of those numbers.

I think this thread is actually getting close to some actual truth though. The original post was a good start. Very optimistic, but a good start. Let's just hope that people read past the first page. If by the time they get to page 10, they're starting to think about these things and think about what they want from their car then this thread has done its job.
FalconRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2006, 11:16 PM   #195
cueball89
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 90513
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NY
Vehicle:
2003 wrx wagon
black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Olsen View Post
I've been hoping to do a dyno comparison of my Injen intake vs. an intake that retains the so-called "torque box" - I have the parts in my garage and just haven't gotten around to fabbing the torque box + Ebay tube intake. If I could I'd combine that testing with throttle body spacer testing, as I'm curious to see if those things really do anything or if the power and mileage claims are BS.
Pat
Here is a dyno area 1320 did with there spacer.


The one with more power is with the spacer.

Supporting mods were.
2001 Impreza 2.5RS
AEM intake
5Zigen exhaust
Borla header
AEM underdrive pulley
Magnecor wires.

Does anyone have a link to the scc exhaust article?
cueball89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 12:43 AM   #196
Back Road Runner
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 60082
Join Date: Apr 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minnesota
Vehicle:
2004 Forester STI
Silver

Default

What article? I've have a pile of their magazines sitting on my floor at home. I could scan it for ya? As long as it's not over 2 years old, I probably have it. I recall an exhaust article of some sort. I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for. They did cover some basic ideas. I had an old copy of Hot Rod magazine doing intake tests(different filter designs on top of a 4 barrel carb). They basically proved that linear flow was absolutely key, even above something that would provide more or easier flow. I saw one of their exhaust articles quite some time back as well where they ran a variety of setups showing that bigger wasn't always better. Ah...lots of neat articles over the years. Too bad it would be hard as hell to find any of them.
Back Road Runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 10:48 AM   #197
FalconRS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92913
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Vehicle:
2005 2.5RS Wagon
Crystal Grey Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cueball89 View Post
Here is a dyno area 1320 did with there spacer.

Does anyone have a link to the scc exhaust article?
You clearly did not learn anything from this thread. One of the points mentioned over and over...

Never believe the claims of someone who has something to gain by them.

Area1320 made the spacer, therefore their tests are null and void untill verified by an independent party in the real world. Particularly considering their gains are well within the margin of error on the dyno. They could have very easily taken two dyno passes done without the spacer and got similar "gains"
FalconRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 11:37 AM   #198
cueball89
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 90513
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NY
Vehicle:
2003 wrx wagon
black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Back Road Runner View Post
What article? I've have a pile of their magazines sitting on my floor at home. I could scan it for ya? As long as it's not over 2 years old, I probably have it.
Im not to sure, the article Patrick Olsen is talking about. It might be more than 2 years old, they tested exhausts on a 98rs.
cueball89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 12:33 PM   #199
cueball89
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 90513
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NY
Vehicle:
2003 wrx wagon
black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconRS View Post

Never believe the claims of someone who has something to gain by them.
That is your opinion, and it has been taken into consideration when forming my own. Thank you
cueball89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2006, 03:17 PM   #200
Suburban
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 61237
Join Date: May 2004
Vehicle:
2004 Impreza 2.5 TS
Silver

Default

I've got an 04' TS with automatic with a Mr. Josh Pulley, grounding kit, and Accel Kool Blue Air filter. Probably should mention the Kazera wheels and BFG G-Force Sport tires, since we are talking wheel horsepower. Power is in the low 120s, torque is in the low 130s according to G-Tech Pro SS with the weight set properly. With the PDM intake tube, I get a couple more of each.

The grounding kit did nothing for power. I find it kinda hard to believe that the air filter and pulley got me 20 hp. I didn't do a baseline pull before installing those.

Grounding kit is custom - Stinger 8 gauge, 4 into 1 distribution block, and crimped/soldered gold plated ring terminal. Grounding points - Alternator case, passenger side cylinder head, throttle body, and the bolt with the little ground wire where the plug wires plug into the center of the engine.

Just for kicks, I'm going to throw the stock air filter back in, and do another pull. EDIT: Ahhh! I've been choking the engine for almost a year. I made 3 runs, and found 6 more horses when I put the stock filter back in. Anybody want a "high-flow" filter cheap? That'll teach me not to check mods.

With the PDM tube back on, I should hit 130 horses, if just barely.

Last edited by Suburban; 10-10-2006 at 01:10 AM.
Suburban is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Build-up plans, please critique bongchild Normally Aspirated Powertrain 11 09-27-2005 03:25 PM
OT: Please Critique my resume DrDRum Off-Topic 25 07-20-2005 04:48 PM
Please critique this computer... GarySheehan Off-Topic 67 09-13-2004 06:40 PM
OT please critique my resume suprsubepower Off-Topic 17 03-23-2004 04:15 PM
IT/Developers please critique my resume maaw Off-Topic 9 08-22-2003 03:16 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.