V8 Intake = Loss of Torque?

[zielritter]

You can see clearer dynos from Abel Racing here:

http://www.genesisowners.com/hyundai-genesis-forum/showthread.php?t=8919

The stock 5.0 put down 328/313 which is 36whp less than Edmunds stock dyno but this can be chalked up to any number of factors and the operator can manipulate the output as well. It looks like Abel used a Dynojet which tend to read high when compared to a Mustang or some other dyno types so the low readings are strange.

Both yours and Abel's numbers put drive train loss in the 20-25% range on OEM stated crank HP, which is reasonable for an automatic transmission on a RWD platform and given what I've seen on other Hyundai dynos (they seem to be a hair "liberal" on their crank HP values compared to peers).

 

[svensk]

So a stock 4.6 puts down 300 even on a dynojet? eesh... Doesn't mean much though like is said previously, but good to see results from mods.

 

[zielritter]

So a stock 4.6 puts down 300 even on a dynojet? eesh... Doesn't mean much though like is said previously, but good to see results from mods.

If the dyno output isn't compensating for environmental factors (humidity, temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc) then you will see off-base numbers comparing different dynos - even the same type of dyno.

Edmunds tested the 4.6 on a Dynojet and put down 321 on a stock Equus.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2011-hyundai-equus-dyno-tested.html

 

[dmitriylm]

So a stock 4.6 puts down 300 even on a dynojet? eesh... Doesn't mean much though like is said previously, but good to see results from mods.

Yeah, the numbers themselves don't mean anything. It's more about comparing gains/losses with mods on the same dyno. You can put the same car on another dyno and get a reading that's 30whp higher.

If we take the 375h hp factory rating and consider 20% loss at the wheels we end up with 300whp which is what I would expect. Edmunds got 321whp which means better than 20% efficiency, an underrated factory engine, a high reading dyno or some combination of these.

 

[dmitriylm]

Both yours and Abel's numbers put drive train loss in the 20-25% range on OEM stated crank HP, which is reasonable for an automatic transmission on a RWD platform and given what I've seen on other Hyundai dynos (they seem to be a hair "liberal" on their crank HP values compared to peers).

I don't know if its very liberal. With the 5.0 rated at 429hp a 20% loss at the wheels would be 343whp. Edmunds managed 364whp which again can be chalked up to better than 20% efficiency, an underrated engine from the factory, a high reading dyno or some combination of these. The 5.0's seem to be putting down whats expected. Stock cars running 13.1 second quarter miles is damn impressive given the weight of the car.

 

[zielritter]

I don't know if its very liberal. With the 5.0 rated at 429hp a 20% loss at the wheels would be 343whp. Edmunds managed 364whp which can be chalked up to better than 20% efficiency, an underrated engine from the factory, a high reading dyno or some combination of these. The 5.0's seem to be putting down whats expected. Stock cars running 13.1 second quarter miles is damn impressive given the weight of the car.

Well, liberal compared to what I see for peers I meant. In that same Edmund's review you see the Nissan, Ford, and Chevy V8's with less HP in some cases putting down more power to the wheels.

Not accusing Hyundai of lying, just saying that other manufacturers seem a bit more conservative in the peak output they quote in sales material. Of course, Hyundai could also just be a bit behind the pack when it comes to minimizing drive train inefficiencies.

 

[dmitriylm]

Well, liberal compared to what I see for peers I meant. In that same Edmund's review you see the Nissan, Ford, and Chevy V8's with less HP in some cases putting down more power to the wheels.

Not accusing Hyundai of lying, just saying that other manufacturers seem a bit more conservative in the peak output they quote in sales material. Of course, Hyundai could also just be a bit behind the pack when it comes to minimizing drive train inefficiencies.

Some manufacturers do underrate their engines. I know BMW is well known for advertising lower than actual output figures which makes for suspiciously low efficiency losses.

 

[svensk]

I don't know if its very liberal. With the 5.0 rated at 429hp a 20% loss at the wheels would be 343whp. Edmunds managed 364whp which again can be chalked up to better than 20% efficiency, an underrated engine from the factory, a high reading dyno or some combination of these. The 5.0's seem to be putting down whats expected. Stock cars running 13.1 second quarter miles is damn impressive given the weight of the car.

One guy on dragtimes.com reported a 13.2@108 time for the 5.0. That's the fastest I've seen. Just a thought for the Mods - we should start a post your track times/show your time slips thread.

 

[dmitriylm]

One guy on dragtimes.com reported a 13.2@108 time for the 5.0. That's the fastest I've seen. Just a thought for the Mods - we should start a post your track times/show your time slips thread.

This site lists 13.1 for the 5.0: http://www.zeroto60times.com/sleeper-cars/

With different gearing the 4.6 and 5.0 would run faster times but these cars aren't about drag racing, they pull very well at higher speeds.

 

[DRS]

Forgot to add my dyno results for you. Runs were performed with ESC enabled, which may impact the numbers a bit. First run was with stock intake, second with k&n drop in, and third with full intake.
View attachment 5538

I should mention that this is for the 4.6, not 5.0...so different tranny and displacement, but given the intake design is the same you would think the results would be parallel.

Hood open or close? If open, ambient temp of the air outside the engine bay? Was the car engine bay fully heat soaked? I have seen too many times open hoods skew the readings on the high side for aftermarket CAI. In real life they draw in much warmer (if designed not to stop that) air that from under the hood. Sometimes well over 150 degrees. That reduces power verses same condition where stock draws in air from outside the bay that is cooler. Thanks

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[dmitriylm]

Hood open or close? If open, ambient temp of the air outside the engine bay? Was the car engine bay fully heat soaked? I have seen too many times open hoods skew the readings on the high side for aftermarket CAI. In real life they draw in much warmer (if designed not to stop that) air that from under the hood. Sometimes well over 150 degrees. That reduces power verses same condition where stock draws in air from outside the bay that is cooler. Thanks

Because the R2C intake I purchased comes with a heatshield that segregates the intake filter from the rest of the engine bay I'm hoping that IAT's will depend mostly on ambient temps. It's the only reason I went with R2C versus building my own with generic bits.

 

[zielritter]

Because the R2C intake I purchased comes with a heatshield that segregates the intake filter from the rest of the engine bay I'm hoping that IAT's will depend mostly on ambient temps. It's the only reason I went with R2C versus building my own since the design is simple.

I did a very nonscientific "feel" test of mine after fighting with the couplers for a few hours. It was palpably cooler in the quartered off filter section compared to the rest of the engine bay. This was only after a 5-10 minute, yet somewhat spirited, drive, however.

I don't know how this differential would hold up over an hour of driving in hot July. I did notice a small gap between the frame and heat shield that should allow air coming up from the bottom to get into the filter area while driving.

 

[dmitriylm]

I did a very nonscientific "feel" test of mine after fighting with the couplers for a few hours. It was palpably cooler in the quartered off filter section compared to the rest of the engine bay. This was only after a 5-10 minute, yet somewhat spirited, drive, however.

I don't know how this differential would hold up over an hour of driving in hot July. I did notice a small gap between the frame and heat shield that should allow air coming up from the bottom to get into the filter area while driving.

Even after a longer driving period you should be fine as the filter area is consistently getting fresh air. The piping may warm up but air is passing through it so fast that it should have a negligible difference.

 

[DRS]

Because the R2C intake I purchased comes with a heatshield that segregates the intake filter from the rest of the engine bay I'm hoping that IAT's will depend mostly on ambient temps. It's the only reason I went with R2C versus building my own with generic bits.

Get that. Take a temp measurement right by the filter in town.. Then move it to on other side of the heat shield and see what , if any, difference.... and let us know. Would help settle the debate.

 

[dmitriylm]

Get that. Take a temp measurement right by the filter in town.. Then move it to on other side of the heat shield and see what , if any, difference.... and let us know. Would help settle the debate.

I'll have to find the time to do it (unless someone wants to do it first!) but you should easily be able to use a bluetooth OBD dongle and the Torque Android app to measure IAT's. I did this on my turbo Genesis Coupe to measure the effectiveness of my aftermarket intercooler. Just log IAT's after driving around and do a few pulls with the heat shield and without. On my Coupe the IAT's were measured at the intake manifold (temp sensor integrated with MAP sensor) so you can clearly see the temperature of air entering the cylinder.

 

[DRS]

I'll have to find the time to do it (unless someone wants to do it first!) but you should easily be able to use a bluetooth OBD dongle and the Torque Android app to measure IAT's. I did this on my turbo Genesis Coupe to measure the effectiveness of my aftermarket intercooler. Just log IAT's after driving around and do a few pulls with the heat shield and without. On my Coupe the IAT's were measured at the intake manifold (temp sensor integrated with MAP sensor) so you can clearly see the temperature of air entering the cylinder.

Good point. It really is the IAT we are wanting as low as possible. Let us know. Appreciate the effort.

 

[Granatelli]

[/URL][/IMG]

Just dyno'd this for one of your members I think he calls himself EvilGen. He asked me to post them for him and he will chime in. Above was his car stone stock.

283.1 @ 5878 RPM & 272.7 Ft/lbs @4902 RPM - All testing done under load on a Mustang dyno

[/URL][/IMG]

I then removed the rear resonator and designed for him a dual air intake system. Please note the 2015 car I worked on had no Mass Airflow Sensors like the picture of the car I see above with a single inlet

Run 1 with new parts - 332 @ 5992 and 321.6 @ 4858

Run 2 as back up run - 332.6 @ 5950 and 319.5 @ 4858



Here is run two - it is almost dead repeating from run one

[/URL][/IMG]

This graph Shows the awesome gains that I would not have thought possible. However look how the intake temps dropped across the board. The car still sounds mellow from Exhaust Pipes. You can definately hear the intake down its not obnoxious.

He left in a hurry to meet his wife but when he comes back I plan to design shield boxes on 3 sides. And I am sure he will post pictures of that as well

Intake and Exhuast was worth 49hp and 46 ft/lbs. So if the other gentleman gained no torque with an intake teh exhuast must be super restrictive - these are right from the dyno and the dyno is correct

 

[Granatelli]

[/URL][/IMG]

Note Temp drops in air

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[dmitriylm]

[/URL][/IMG]

Just dyno'd this for one of your members I think he calls himself EvilGen. He asked me to post them for him and he will chime in. Above was his car stone stock.

283.1 @ 5878 RPM & 272.7 Ft/lbs @4902 RPM - All testing done under load on a Mustang dyno

[/URL][/IMG]

I then removed the rear resonator and designed for him a dual air intake system. Please note the 2015 car I worked on had no Mass Airflow Sensors like the picture of the car I see above with a single inlet

Run 1 with new parts - 332 @ 5992 and 321.6 @ 4858

Run 2 as back up run - 332.6 @ 5950 and 319.5 @ 4858



Here is run two - it is almost dead repeating from run one

[/URL][/IMG]

This graph Shows the awesome gains that I would not have thought possible. However look how the intake temps dropped across the board. The car still sounds mellow from Exhaust Pipes. You can definately hear the intake down its not obnoxious.

He left in a hurry to meet his wife but when he comes back I plan to design shield boxes on 3 sides. And I am sure he will post pictures of that as well

Intake and Exhuast was worth 49hp and 46 ft/lbs. So if the other gentleman gained no torque with an intake teh exhuast must be super restrictive - these are right from the dyno and the dyno is correct

Was this a 4.6 V8 car? Which resonator are you referring to?

 

[daviderle]

This graph Shows the awesome gains that I would not have thought possible. However look how the intake temps dropped across the board. The car still sounds mellow from Exhaust Pipes. You can definately hear the intake down its not obnoxious.

First I would like to thank DevilGen or allowing you to share your three Dyno attempts and I hope he is happy with the ‘sound effects’ and the ‘feeling’ of increased power!

I can tell you that there are few of us on this forum who are obsessed with unlocking the power of the V8 Tau engine and even fewer of us who may understand the intricacies of our ECU programming, that would agree with me to gain 50hp by adding few bolt-ons is highly unlikely, if not impossible without a proper ECU tune! Not to mention, those who studied the ECU would tell you that it does adapt over time (roughly 200 miles) and not instantly!? (Maybe different between 1st Gen R-Spec 5.0 and 2015 5.0, but I very much doubt it!)

However, to get to the meat of the issue, I find some of these results to be suspect and maybe open to interpretation, due to several inconsistencies with these reports:

1 – Some members may know that for a Mustang Dyno, it is absolutely crucial to enter the correct vehicle weight, in these particular tests, the number that was used is off by as much as 900+ pounds (correct weight should be 4588 pounds + the driver), which may explain the abysmal HP numbers noted by all three tests.

2 – You went to great lengths to try to hide the measured MPH for MAX TRQ and HP for all three tests (after / for each TRQ and HP numbers)! Why?

Fortunately for others that I care about on this forum, I have ways…

So I found out that for test 2 and 3 the speed was around 103 MPH which tells me you where in 4th gear for these tests, however for test 1 the speed was around 88 MPH which tells me you were in third gear!

Right there could explain the magical gains noted between test 1 and tests 2 & 3.

Next on the menu; the Mustang Dyno manual clearly states that measurements should be taken with the closest 1:1 ratio gear, which for the Genesis 8sp is actually the 5th gear, should one wishes to get some proper readings!

http://www.mustangdyne.com/mustangd...uploads/downloads/2011/11/QuickStartGuide.pdf

3 – But wait! Look at the 10 degree temperature reading differences I hear you say?

Well from your web site I see you have a fancy AWD Mustang Dyno which undoubtedly has an equally impressive variable exhaust fan(s) connected to the ‘Stag’? If so, I am wondering what effect the exhaust fan speed would have between 88mph and 103mph simulated wind speed at the same RPMs?
Around 10 Degrees or so, I would hasten to guess?

Regardless of your test results, I am sure we all thank you for your efforts and for sharing....

However, only the other day a cars sales man tried to flog me a 5500 miles ‘demo’ car as new!
So please do forgive the ‘stiff upper lip’ and the black humor as it is still work in progress, even after 15 years of being across the pond!