from what I understand with the MAF and stock ecu the newer higher volume consuming intake will make the boost preasure a lil lower while more air volume gets drawn through the maff causing more fuel and less timing but for less boost. So the only proper way to test a true power gain while staying on same map you would need to run the test with speed density.

 

this thread is retarded on so many levels....
so many people here try and try to discredit dave. yet when it's racing season, everyone shuts there mouth. it's winter, it's cold. go wrench on your car, and try to shut dave up on the track, you're wasting your time online. he has no reason to create false results. db doesn't offer a mani. he provided the results so you guys know to be more knowledgable. it sucks getting dooped on your build. just consider yourself more knowledgable when picking up parts.

 

1 Billion percent correct.

 

It will be done on both speed density and MAF
3 different cars.
I just made arrangements today, so that it can be done ALL in one day. The dyno will plot the boost and A/F curve.

 

Edit: Risking vendor vs. vendor attack. In spite of everything else, I refuse to go against Admin rules even though I'm biting through my tongue saying this.

 

So you don't want a way of measuring actual airflow?

 

I am not debating whether speed density is better or not, but you can still make a stock ECU/stock MAF car run the exact same timing curve as it did with the stock manifold.

 

Anybody actually bother taking a hard look at the data Marco posted?

Four things that I noticed:

1. The HP curves are nearly identical until 6200 RPM and in a similar fashion, the timing curves are nearly identical until 6200 RPM (the magnus does actually have about 1 degree more advance in the low RPM range). From 6200 to 7500, the HP curves diverge and the timing changes with it. Timing advance slowly tapers in as the engine speed raises. Runs 5, 7 and 8 all have 3 degrees more advance (on average) then the stock manifold runs by 7500 RPM. I've seen 3 degrees of timing help a car pick up 5mph before, so it's safe to say that the added timing advance may have been a factor here...

2. The Magnus manifold is ran about 5% leaner across the board as the pulsewidth at any given RPM is about 5% lower.

3. If the manifold really did improve volumetric efficiency, I would expect to see a similar change in airflow. Yet the airflow in all 5 runs of data that he posted are nearly identical.

4. If you look at RPM vs. time, the Magnus did make more power across the board and cumulatively, it makes for a half decent improvement in acceleration. I would not attribute this improvement strictly to the manifold though.

I really don't give a crap which way this goes. I would never buy another Magnus product again and I won't hide my distaste for him. But, I am a rational person and I try to be impartial as possible when it comes to testing. I respect what Marco has done by posting all of the runs with data logs. The data logs, in my opinion, show that the manifold did not improve volumetric efficiency. Something did change and the car was running leaner and with more timing advance after the change, but I think a good tune on the stock manifold would have netted the same results as the Magnus intake. I don't think the changes in tune were intentional and likely just a result of some "minuet" detail that was actually more important then maybe believed. Then again, maybe the Magnus lets the motor run more timing advance and a power gain directly from the timing advance afforded by the mod could be seen?

 

If anything showing logs with speed density will give the Magnus product an opportunity to prove that it in fact makes the same, more or less power at the same boost level that is on the other side of the throttle blade. Your still measuring actual airflow, just with a different equation.
My only concern is what the stock computers knock sensor table(s) will do to provide a consistent ignition value based on the load it calculates. The ignition curve on an AEM based unit may be higher or lower based on what the base map and compensation tables are set to.
That is why we will test it with three different variables while providing logs to showcase the effort made to make the power.

 

Thats correct. The three cars will be:

Stock turbo MAF based with basic bolt ons.
50trim with MAF in tact and basic bolt ons.
50 trim with MAP and AEM EMS with basic bolt ons.
Each car will have a comparison done with a STOCK UNPORTED manifold vs. the Magnus unit and a STOCK TB.

Ill post all the runs. Including the ones where the coolant temp may be higher or lower than others. The AEM based vehicle will give a good indication of air temp after the IC as well. That test should give us our best power results and most conclusive information in relation to boost vs. timing vs. fuel.

 

o3whitegsr its as exactly stated, look at how fuel pumps are rated. The higher the volume the lower the preasure rating, its pure physics wich you understand after reading your post in Pauls thread about his intercooler (more volume to fill at same speed lowers preasure) putting the stock MAF ecu into a lower point in the map load cell ie. more timing and less fuel. To make the test equal you would need to reflash the ecu to put it at same timing lvl and fuel lvl to see true results or run test on speed density.

 

See and I was thinking the opposite though that the best way to tune would be to first tune for power on the stock manifold to knock threshold and then do the same on the magnus? Thats why I like to test my parts back to back on pump gas dynos and tune each to their potential. Alot of parts I got didnt make any power until I tuned them because they had raised the ceiling for knock and since I was already on a safe tune and not loosing any timing to knock I wouldnt see the difference. I believe intake manifold was one of the things that had that type of result for me. I'm not trying to tell you how to run your test but throwing another data point out there to consider. It's very difficult to design a test like this.

 

No these points are very informative. The tests done in this fashion would be even more informative. I should clarify again about how the testing procedures will work.
Let me be clear that, I am not going to just dyno the car with the stock mani, then just slap on the Magnus unit. Of course that type of testing will be part of the equation. Without that we wouldn't have a raw comparison or differential between two completely different setups. VE or airflow data behind the valve is crucial to knowing what each manifold is providing and how the engine is processing the airflow. For the most part the cars that will be tested minus the TA car are tuned for a conservative DD application. The same will be done on the Magnus unit. But the whole point why someone would put one on their car it to see if they CAN in fact make more power. So the results of the Magnus unit will be a bit more aggressive. It is the entire reason for testing it in the first place. We have to see if and what the unit brings to the table and if it can provide us with a better way to charge the engine.
I mention that the EMS test will yield better results because for the most part, the car tested will have more efficient modifications as it is track tested and proven. The parts are designed to work with the system. Our goal is to make more usable power on the track. It will be an interesting test because in the end, I have NO reason not to try it. Just like everyone else, I WANT an advantage on the track. Falsifying or not trying to make more peak power is not going to tell me what works.

 

Total CFM, and fuel and spark curves dictate HP. We are not going to the moon here if a given manifold has flaws they will have to be band aided by having to make extreme changes in the fuel and spark curves. As long as the engine can eat x amount of air it will make x amount of HP period. So major changes to the tables would indicate some other issues going on all things being the same ie. engine size, cylinder head and turbo. This is the way its been done for years. Manifold designed, built, dynoed and qualified at Indy in 40 days, second row at Indy, Winner at Texas Motor Speedway It's really not rocket science just common sense.

 

If the given intake manifold and TUNE have to be greatly modified to "catch up", then I agree. But we will cross that bridge if we come upon it.