Intakes: Buschur vs. HKS RS
i have come to conclusion that what "elhalisf" trying to say in this thread he have posted is that "He loves the HKS RS". that's the only thing make sense sofar. The End 
Beside elhalisf can you elaborate on what do you mean by saying people don't understand the purpose of this thread?? i'm still confuse?
Beside elhalisf can you elaborate on what do you mean by saying people don't understand the purpose of this thread?? i'm still confuse?
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (171)
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 0
From: Chandler, AZ
Originally Posted by Roberto
You do know that Evoscan fuel trim reporting accuracy has already been publicly called into question right? I suggest you go and read the appropriate forums on this, and not trust what it is reporting to you for fuel trims quite yet. You already stated that you were running leaner right? Thats enough information right there without even getting into whether the fuel trims you think you are seeing are real. From what you reported about your afr leaning out by an entire point with nothing but an intake change (to what is well known as a similar flowing intake system), It’s quite obvious that one of two things is happening. Either that intake is allowing for far more additional air flow than any common intake swap known on the Evo, or your mas curve has been affected by the intake change.
I'll leave it at this... If you actually think your HKS intake is allowing approximately 40 to 49 more cfm over a BR intake setup, you are just mistaken. That's WAY too much for a similar intake setup, and about what it would take to lean your afrs out that much on a static tune based upon a completely unaltered mas curve. It’s just not happening. If it were, we’d be deluged with dyno threads expounding on the consistently measurable gains that intake provides. I’m not seeing even a hint of that trend anywhere in the Evo community.
Believe what you want to.
I'll leave it at this... If you actually think your HKS intake is allowing approximately 40 to 49 more cfm over a BR intake setup, you are just mistaken. That's WAY too much for a similar intake setup, and about what it would take to lean your afrs out that much on a static tune based upon a completely unaltered mas curve. It’s just not happening. If it were, we’d be deluged with dyno threads expounding on the consistently measurable gains that intake provides. I’m not seeing even a hint of that trend anywhere in the Evo community.
Believe what you want to.
moreover, fuel trims should be completley unaffected by the type of intake. i wish that you have taken some time to understand what fuel trims are before arguing again. fuel trims are based on closed loop operation, so no matter how much air your sucking in, no matter how efficient your filter is, your fuel trims will not change. the ecu reads off the O2 sensor in closed loop, so it always readjusts to get 14.7.
the leaner afr's i got are based on the open loop operation at WOT, which are read off a fuel table.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (171)
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 0
From: Chandler, AZ
Originally Posted by vboy425
i have come to conclusion that what "elhalisf" trying to say in this thread he have posted is that "He loves the HKS RS". that's the only thing make sense sofar. The End Beside elhalisf can you elaborate on what do you mean by saying people don't understand the purpose of this thread?? i'm still confuse?
Beside elhalisf can you elaborate on what do you mean by saying people don't understand the purpose of this thread?? i'm still confuse?all i wanted to show is that different intakes require different tunes. obviously the hks rs needs much more fuel at WOT than the buschur. i came to the logical conclusion that the hks rs sucks in more air.
and yes, i like the hks rs. I decided to stick with it because it made my bov louder. the end
Last edited by elhalisf; Jul 27, 2006 at 11:13 PM.
Originally Posted by elhalisf
you and others, are getting the impression that i created this thread to show people how much better the hks RS is over the buschur filter. that was not the statement i was making.
all i wanted to show is that different intakes require different tunes. obviously the hks rs needs much more fuel at WOT than the buschur. i came to the logical conclusion that the hks rs sucks in more air.
and yes, i like the hks rs. I decided to stick with it because it made my bov louder. the end
all i wanted to show is that different intakes require different tunes. obviously the hks rs needs much more fuel at WOT than the buschur. i came to the logical conclusion that the hks rs sucks in more air.
and yes, i like the hks rs. I decided to stick with it because it made my bov louder. the end
i'm not trying to pick on you at all bro, it's just make nosense on anytihn you are saying.
here read what you posted again, i also highlited the key factor.
Intakes: Buschur vs. HKS RS
Originally Posted by elhalisf
Well, up until a couple of weeks ago, I had the buschur filter with the intake pipe. The setup was great and my butt dyno told me it made good power over the stock intake. At that time, I tuned my ecu to 11.8 (dropping by redline) AFR using a zeitronix wideband. Then a couple of weeks ago, I saw this smoking deal on an hks rs intake setup that I was gonna buy to resell. But I thought, what the hey, let me try it on the car. I put it on the car, and, again, the butt dyno tells me there is more power. At that time, I didn’t have the wideband hooked up, so I used the evo scan to datalog knock. No major knock showed up. It also made my 1G BOV sound much louder, so I decided to keep it. Well, I finally hooked up the wideband again, and guess what I see? My AFR hits a max of 12.8 averaging at around 12.5!!! I had to richen up my octane map by about 1 point in every high load table, and now I finally got it down to 11.8 dropping to 11.2 towards redline. This is just to show that you can’t tune all intakes the same.
I like the HKS RS.
I have an e-mail flash and it has been difficult to tune since a/f have been 12's. I had to enrich the mixture 3 times. I guess the tuner did not take into account the HKS RS, which obviously flows better. And oh yeah, it sounds awesome.
I have an e-mail flash and it has been difficult to tune since a/f have been 12's. I had to enrich the mixture 3 times. I guess the tuner did not take into account the HKS RS, which obviously flows better. And oh yeah, it sounds awesome.
Last edited by supersupra; Jul 28, 2006 at 08:22 AM.
Originally Posted by elhalisf
key factor in my first post
"This is just to show that you can’t tune all intakes the same. "
"This is just to show that you can’t tune all intakes the same. "
so why is your title like it that ?? and why did you say HKS RS feel much power over the buschur?? honestly i gave up, i don't want you to feel ike i'm picking on you.
Evolving Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
From: Hawaii
Originally Posted by elhalisf
yes, i have read that malibujack states that he sees different fuel trims with his scanner. however, with the zeitronix, i can see my afr's in real time. wheather its at idle or cruising, it sticks between 14.7-14.8. that tells me right there that the evoscan fuel trims are correct.
moreover, fuel trims should be completley unaffected by the type of intake. i wish that you have taken some time to understand what fuel trims are before arguing again. fuel trims are based on closed loop operation, so no matter how much air your sucking in, no matter how efficient your filter is, your fuel trims will not change. the ecu reads off the O2 sensor in closed loop, so it always readjusts to get 14.7.
the leaner afr's i got are based on the open loop operation at WOT, which are read off a fuel table.
moreover, fuel trims should be completley unaffected by the type of intake. i wish that you have taken some time to understand what fuel trims are before arguing again. fuel trims are based on closed loop operation, so no matter how much air your sucking in, no matter how efficient your filter is, your fuel trims will not change. the ecu reads off the O2 sensor in closed loop, so it always readjusts to get 14.7.
the leaner afr's i got are based on the open loop operation at WOT, which are read off a fuel table.
Originally Posted by vboy425
see here's an example of a good thread it's simple/clear/honest and straight to the point 
Last edited by supersupra; Jul 28, 2006 at 08:40 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tiffer148
Evo Dyno Tuning / Results
30
Oct 31, 2011 09:16 PM
scott88vr6
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain
89
Feb 13, 2011 11:48 AM
TakaseEVOIXSE
Vendor Service / Parts / Tuning Review
16
Mar 20, 2009 11:39 AM