Have you measured the pre-compressor vacuum before and after replacing the factory intake pipe? That is the only way to tell for sure. People with DSMs have done this, and found a difference with larger pipes, even with turbos as small as a 16G.

 

Of coarse of coarse I was sticking with the all practical purpose approach and didnt reduce it down to the quark and neutreno level of air to surface/cross area interaction. But then again shape us evo guys arent milking the 16 g for 28 PSI - for better or worse- former is my pick

 

Simply measuring vacuum before the turbo isn't all that complex, man. So what you are saying is that you really don't know for sure. I don't know for sure, either. But I'd at least measure it before making blanket statements.

Personally, I feel that the 16G on the Evo VIII is probably good for more than the 22 to 23psi I have seen most people run. I saw some great gains by going to 26psi with my Evo III 16G. But the exhaust side of my turbo is very different from that of an Evo VIII 16G. The VIII should do even better up there with the 9.8cm^2 exhaust housing as opposed to my 7cm since pressure in the exhaust housing should be less.

 

Right I personally havent measured it and am not opposed to a bigger diam pipre AFTER the maf- do I think it provides enough HP to make even 5 WHP(AFRs in check now lets not forget a proper tune) or warrent the 200-300 bucks for a 8"pipe, If these little nick nacks were truly power robbers at our mild level of mods the BR cars should be handing all others their ****. They are not. For 1320' those boost levels might be safe but time will tell if we are able to see a little more from the VIII 16 G

 

Get back to what you started this thread about.

You inferred or implied that the SAFC leads to the "Blue Smoke Mod" and blown engines. You also implied it makes a huge difference in the fullness of the powerband.

The EXEDE may perform as advertised. I don't doubt that. But for 300 dollars and the fact its been proven on thousands of cars...it does a great job. A Hallman boost controller and SAFC Ver. 1 can be had for 300 dollars. So back up your statements with how much (in %) the EXEDE outperforms the SAFC in HP numbers and powerband fullness.

 

 

I wouldn't pay $200 for an 8" pipe, either. Then again, I welded up my own 2.5" upper and lower intercooler pipes complete with a throttle-body elbow for $75. I welded up a cold-air intake pipe with leftover pipe and some strap steel I had in my garage after the intercooler install. I'd make my own turbocharger inlet pipe.

Turbocharger compressor maps have the pressure ratio on the vertical scale, not boost. That is the ratio of turbo outlet pressure to turbocharger inlet pressure. If you raise your inlet pressure with a larger pipe (atmospheric is ideal, but you will never get there), you will lower your operating point on the compressor map. That means more efficient compressor operation. That means lower boost temps, which means more air molecules crammed into each cubic centimeter of volume. Every little bit counts.

 

OK agreed

 

So the best you have is odd pictures? No support for your "thesis statement".

Once more:

You inferred or implied that the SAFC leads to the "Blue Smoke Mod" and blown engines. You also implied it makes a huge difference in the fullness of the powerband.

The EXEDE may perform as advertised. I don't doubt that. But for 300 dollars and the fact its been proven on thousands of cars...it does a great job. A Hallman boost controller and SAFC Ver. 1 can be had for 300 dollars. So back up your statements with how much (in %) the EXEDE outperforms the SAFC in HP numbers and powerband fullness.


It takes alot more to build, maintain and tune a top level drag car. 11.6 is nowhere near the "potential" of an Evo (and I'm not strickly referencing to Shiv). I know Al has alot left in his car and so does Shiv (if he choses to use it).

 

NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR!

Fill in the blank: You are a cultural and technical __________.

 

All I have to say is ****-N-A! Do you even have the SAFC? And it really is the best you can buy for anything. I got the xede but I don't know why. I should of got the SAFC it's a much better product and does a LOT more then the XEDE.

 

I have never said anything bad about vishnu's products but with this comment I have to say something. Yes during the dyno day in CO your cars were making 20-35 more ft lbs of tourqe and near the same hp as my safc tuned car. But my car dosn't have cams or camgears in it either, and I have not spent nearly as much money. And for the run-to-run consistency I would be more then happy to go to MAC autosports and get a copy of all my runs that day and show you how my pulls looked. My numbers were always within 5 hp and 5 tq every pull. Now I put down 319whp and 319wtq with only spending $1700 and thats because I bought an expensive ebc because I wanted it. O and since I know you will try to say I was running high boost, my ebc showed that I never spiked over 22.5psi on my dyno runs. Now I have never nocked on your product because it works but I don't expect you to try and use my dyno runs the same day to try and make your product look better. If you keep using me as an example I will post up my dyno results on the same page as one of yours with cams to show the diference. Shiv if you feel that you need to delete my post or edit if because you don't like what I say then I ask you to delete your post's taht refer to my car because they can't even be compard to each other. If you want to compare number bring a car with your turbo back, and exede without cams and then we will look at the power band. Or I could go buy some cams and cam gears and show you what power I will make. Again I don't like you trying to use my car as an example when I have spent half of what your customers spent for almost the same power.

 

Again, you're technically inaccurate and on the verge of being deleted. Comparing your results to Tanner's car (full exhaust with XEDE, no cams, gears, etc,.). Peak hp were similar due to turbo limitations. But torque on Tanners car was considerably higher with far better run to run consistency. I have all the dyno results as well (including those of your car).

Chronohunter's car (the first Stage 1 with cams that we dyno'd) doesn't come into play for the comparision simply because it was running with its cam timing off 1 tooth. The other cars with Stage 1 with cams were making in the 340-345whp range with considerable better torque curves than yours. Please, don't bring this here. If you want to be happy with your purchase (and you should be considering the price you paid for it), do so. But trying suggest that those who invested in a more flexible and tunable engine control sytem wasted their money is a bit silly. This is your last warning. Please tread wisely.

Peace,
Shiv

 

Listen,

The S-AFC works and works well on these cars but the xede works even better. With timing control you are able to run richer A/Fs (Margin of safety) to make the same power as a S-AFC. I have tuned S-AFCs and they are not run to run constant as much as Xede is. If the motor runs hotter then the run before the knock sensor will pull timing with would result in a power loss. With Xede you are able to keep the cyl tempters down and make the power throw Ing advance. IE clean burn. With out the computer pulling away timing because of knock activity.

What most impresses me about Xede is that it does not fight the computer. The power is always constant.

Also it seams you have a strong car witch is great and good gas in you area to make that much TQ and HP with a S-AFC without cam upgreade. I will add that I have never seen Shiv run more then 21lb of boost on stock turbo cars.


Eric

 

I never said anything bad about the xede. I never said it didn't work and I never said that the safc was better. I responded because Shiv is using my car as an example for comparison to his products. I was never asked to be compared to his products and don't appreciate it. I don't want to get into a hp/tq war with vishnu and he shouldn't use my car as an example without asking first.

Josh