Magnus V5 vs AMS F1 Intake
Feb 15, 2011, 07:28 PM
#76
No Hammering Dave.
Very true about more load or different style of load letting you see what a car is really doing.
That is one thing that I think would be cool with a MD is to get the load of ours in 4th gear but not the crazy long pull that ends up being less hp out the top. Hard to explain.
I have never been big on peak # my self. That is why I believe in Combo and the biggest thing I have seen to combo is the smallest turbo you need ran as hard as it can which seems to get the biggest power under the curve. This is why when I here about flat TQ curve I think Gay. Means you have no power band.
more load is great for seeing what is going on under the curve but I also think it can be bad in not showing how quick the combo works.
We find this huge on our Turbo Raptors. Because we can dyno them in 4th and make a killer power band but when we get to the sand we get beat by stuff making 10hp less all motor. That is because our bike does 100hp in 2nd Mid 120s in 3rd and over 130hp 4th.
A 500hp car on our Dyno reving 8k in 3rd is about right. Once over 600hp if only reving 8k on a 2.4 then moving to 4th is a good idea. Will get video of Aarons car up later but you can see the 3rd pull is way to short. I told Aaron next time you should do 4th gear because the TQ will jump and maybe the hp.
In the past most of our 600+hp cars were 2.0 and rev close to 10k so 3rd seemed fine but with these 600+hp 2.4 3rd is to short to totally see what is going on.
Very true about more load or different style of load letting you see what a car is really doing.
That is one thing that I think would be cool with a MD is to get the load of ours in 4th gear but not the crazy long pull that ends up being less hp out the top. Hard to explain.
I have never been big on peak # my self. That is why I believe in Combo and the biggest thing I have seen to combo is the smallest turbo you need ran as hard as it can which seems to get the biggest power under the curve. This is why when I here about flat TQ curve I think Gay. Means you have no power band.
more load is great for seeing what is going on under the curve but I also think it can be bad in not showing how quick the combo works.
We find this huge on our Turbo Raptors. Because we can dyno them in 4th and make a killer power band but when we get to the sand we get beat by stuff making 10hp less all motor. That is because our bike does 100hp in 2nd Mid 120s in 3rd and over 130hp 4th.
A 500hp car on our Dyno reving 8k in 3rd is about right. Once over 600hp if only reving 8k on a 2.4 then moving to 4th is a good idea. Will get video of Aarons car up later but you can see the 3rd pull is way to short. I told Aaron next time you should do 4th gear because the TQ will jump and maybe the hp.
In the past most of our 600+hp cars were 2.0 and rev close to 10k so 3rd seemed fine but with these 600+hp 2.4 3rd is to short to totally see what is going on.
I'll get hammered for this but..... I don't think using a Dynojet for testing power under the curve is very good, take a look at Curts curve on a Dynojet and then on our MD. The MD loads the car very close to the street and when you are trying to dyno test a part across the curve I feel that loading is crucial.
Feb 16, 2011, 06:15 AM
#77
I'm going to add something to this but leave names of manufacturers out of it to save turning this into a fight.
As everyone knows I made a lot of hot water testing intakes. Every single intake I tested I spoke to the manufacturer, even the guys I was fighting with. I've done three extensive intake manifold dyno tests to date. People who hate will believe what they want but for those reading I will say I did these tests fairly and more for my own knowledge than anything. Those that know anything about me know I am looking for the best power above anything else, because above all I am in this for the love of the cars.
Anyway, through this testing I NEVER ONCE had any manufacturer with a short runner (ALL runners on these intakes are SHORTER THAN STOCK) and a bigger plenum (ALL plenums on these intakes are LARGER THAN STOCK) tell me that their intake should spool up faster or as fast as a STOCK or PORTED STOCK intake. NOT ONCE. I even made a few extra phone calls to a few of the manufactures to let them know that XXXXX Dyno shop claimed to have seen faster spool on their intake than stock and wanted to let them know I did not see those results. Each time, by each shop I was told "We wouldn't expect you to and can't explain XXXXXXXX Dyno shop's results."
Off the top of my head, the intake testing I did when I was really into the testing was done on a 2 liter. Through this testing I found out there is a drastic difference in how some of these intake perform on a 2 liter VS. a 2.3.
Now I am going to contradict myself. When we developed our intake I took all I learned from testing the other intakes and the flow bench (pretty much worthless) and built ours. Last year at the shootout (I am telling this story before someone else jumps in and does since there were a few hundred witnesses) I was having problems with my car. Crispeed and Emery convinced me to swap the intake manifold. At that time I was running a 2.1 liter in the car. I lost over 40 whp going from our intake back to a standard BR ported stocker AND I gained NO low/mid range. The power in the low/mid was identical, it completely blew my mind.
Do what you'd like with the added input.
As everyone knows I made a lot of hot water testing intakes. Every single intake I tested I spoke to the manufacturer, even the guys I was fighting with. I've done three extensive intake manifold dyno tests to date. People who hate will believe what they want but for those reading I will say I did these tests fairly and more for my own knowledge than anything. Those that know anything about me know I am looking for the best power above anything else, because above all I am in this for the love of the cars.
Anyway, through this testing I NEVER ONCE had any manufacturer with a short runner (ALL runners on these intakes are SHORTER THAN STOCK) and a bigger plenum (ALL plenums on these intakes are LARGER THAN STOCK) tell me that their intake should spool up faster or as fast as a STOCK or PORTED STOCK intake. NOT ONCE. I even made a few extra phone calls to a few of the manufactures to let them know that XXXXX Dyno shop claimed to have seen faster spool on their intake than stock and wanted to let them know I did not see those results. Each time, by each shop I was told "We wouldn't expect you to and can't explain XXXXXXXX Dyno shop's results."
Off the top of my head, the intake testing I did when I was really into the testing was done on a 2 liter. Through this testing I found out there is a drastic difference in how some of these intake perform on a 2 liter VS. a 2.3.
Now I am going to contradict myself. When we developed our intake I took all I learned from testing the other intakes and the flow bench (pretty much worthless) and built ours. Last year at the shootout (I am telling this story before someone else jumps in and does since there were a few hundred witnesses) I was having problems with my car. Crispeed and Emery convinced me to swap the intake manifold. At that time I was running a 2.1 liter in the car. I lost over 40 whp going from our intake back to a standard BR ported stocker AND I gained NO low/mid range. The power in the low/mid was identical, it completely blew my mind.
Do what you'd like with the added input.
Feb 16, 2011, 10:38 AM
#81
I have never seen gain with the Magnus but have not seen loss on the Dyno. Of course a heavy load in 4th could show some loss vs stock.(If it did it would only be in the 5.5k and under) We like the Magnus in the start because on the test cars they appeared to have no notable loss and only gain. All the previous Sheet metal stuff we ran on car prior always had a huge give and take of low end loss vs top end gain.
Feb 16, 2011, 11:45 AM
#83
Hmmm, WTF, never mind. You don't have to comment. I didn't look close and thought that was the ported stock intake as a base. That was the first fabricated intake we built looking at the notes at the bottom. We built 3 fab'd intakes before ending up with our current design.
Feb 16, 2011, 12:09 PM
#84
Its ok and that is a pretty good difference there.
One of our test problems might be we are doing faster spooling 500-600hp cars. So you dont spend much time in the lag area like you would on 37r+ sized turbos. So if were testing intakes on those 800+hp cars how the intake looks would change a ton in the 5-6k range.
One of our test problems might be we are doing faster spooling 500-600hp cars. So you dont spend much time in the lag area like you would on 37r+ sized turbos. So if were testing intakes on those 800+hp cars how the intake looks would change a ton in the 5-6k range.
Feb 16, 2011, 07:37 PM
#90
Yeah Dave,
I don't think anyone can argue that the factory based intake manifolds will be better on spool up and lower RPM power than a short runner big plenum intake. The physics support the data even if its nearly neglible on the tests I've done.. (magnus vs. stock)
I don't think anyone can argue that the factory based intake manifolds will be better on spool up and lower RPM power than a short runner big plenum intake. The physics support the data even if its nearly neglible on the tests I've done.. (magnus vs. stock)