Proven Power Dyno Database Thread

[TipsZ]

I will have to locate my chart from Proven Power as well. I did a baseline and another with the JWT pop chargers. However, in my next run I will have GTM resonated Test Pipes and the Agencey Power CBE. The only thing I am not sure about is whether I will need a Y pipe or not...... I have a message to the vendor I purchased the CBE from on Black Friday asking whether this is the case.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by TipsZ

I will have to locate my chart from Proven Power as well. I did a baseline and another with the JWT pop chargers. However, in my next run I will have GTM resonated Test Pipes and the Agencey Power CBE. The only thing I am not sure about is whether I will need a Y pipe or not...... I have a message to the vendor I purchased the CBE from on Black Friday asking whether this is the case.

Did you pick up anything from the pop chargers?

I did think of one (highly unlikely) possiblity of why my intake experiments didn't work: I suppose I might have been outflowing the MAF sensors. If the MAF hits (or even approaches) 5 volts, the ECU will go to 100% duty cycle and that will quench power in a hurry.

One piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis would be if aftermarket intakes tend to ues a wider than stock diameter tube.

The wider diameter will slow down airflow, giving the MAF a lower reading. This would also keep the sensors from hitting 5 volts if it would have done so using the OEM diameter.

Anyone know the inside diameter of their aftermarket intake?

[TipsZ]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Did you pick up anything from the pop chargers?

I did think of one (highly unlikely) possiblity of why my intake experiments didn't work: I suppose I might have been outflowing the MAF sensors. If the MAF hits (or even approaches) 5 volts, the ECU will go to 100% duty cycle and that will quench power in a hurry.

One piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis would be if aftermarket intakes tend to ues a wider than stock diameter tube.

The wider diameter will slow down airflow, giving the MAF a lower reading. This would also keep the sensors from hitting 5 volts if it would have done so using the OEM diameter.

Anyone know the inside diameter of their aftermarket intake?

Actually, Jordo I need to call Proven Power to give you permission. You will see my initial bone stock runs vs. the pop chargers. I actually made gains - between 3 to peak of 7 HP through out the curve. Note, however this was my first of any engine mods. Also, note that I did not have any heat soak period .. so in actuality my gains make sense.

Do you know off hand if my JWT Pop Chargers have a wider circumference compared to the stock tube?

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by TipsZ

Actually, Jordo I need to call Proven Power to give you permission. You will see my initial bone stock runs vs. the pop chargers. I actually made gains - between 3 to peak of 7 HP through out the curve. Note, however this was my first of any engine mods. Also, note that I did not have any heat soak period .. so in actuality my gains make sense.

Do you know off hand if my JWT Pop Chargers have a wider circumference compared to the stock tube?

No clue. OEM inside diameter is about 57 mm or ~2.25 inches

I just spoke to a good friend of mine who tunes Z's and he said (1) The OEM MAF sensors are good to about 600 whp and (2) apparently these sensors are versy sensitive to airflow tumble effects. Thus changing the shape or orientation of anything in front of the MAF sensors will cause misreads, resulting in running either overly rich or lean

So... that is most likely the problem.

In theory with further experimentation I might find something that works, but instead I'm just going to be happy with my current set up as is (for reasons I expand on below...). Glad I experimented, but not interested in continuing the project.

If someone else wants to play around with it, I have the OEM intake MAFS tubes for sale -- perfect for a custom intake project FS: OEM MAFS tubes

The gain of 3 - 7 whp from the pop chargers is on par with the panel filters, and based on the dynos I've seen of other folks, on par with every other intake (double digit claims never seem to pan out unless it is the only modification for whatever reason).

You'd think more could be achieved, but I guess a combination of underhood heat and orientation problems make improving significantly on the factory airboxes more challenging than one might expect.

Yeah, man, if you could ask Darrell to share them with me, that'd be much appreciated. I like data

[Nismoracer]

So does this mean the HPS tubes aren't worth it either? Best thing to do is just get some drop in K&Ns. I noticed a difference from just putting in the drop ins especially up top. Seems to breathe better at the higher rpm range as to before it seemed it bottomed out went flat.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by Nismoracer

So does this mean the HPS tubes aren't worth it either? Best thing to do is just get some drop in K&Ns. I noticed a difference from just putting in the drop ins especially up top. Seems to breathe better at the higher rpm range as to before it seemed it bottomed out went flat.

At this point, I'd say not really. Honestly, I may eventually just sell mine off.

I found at best a 2-3 whp (i.e., ~1%) gain at peak with evidence of a 2-3 whp loss at other points and no change throughout most of the rev range. Never mind the possiblity that such a small change could be due to measurement error...

That's a dubious endorsement at best...

I'd say, the HPS tubes couldn't hurt, but they won't be much of a help over the K&N drop in's alone either.

On a budget, the K&N panel filters by themselves are definitely the way to go.