GrimmSpeed Cold Air Intake - New Product Information - Proven 10whp Gain

[2016 Camaro SS]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Thread Hijack
How many seconds before you will have a new product to announce/display/tease us with?

Grimmspeed Turbo Kit.

[F1fletch]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Thread Hijack
How many seconds before you will have a new product to announce/display/tease us with?

I have promised silence so I can say nothing other than

[F1fletch]

Agree with Turdinator's comments above. Car definitely likes the intake, ecu adjusts quickly and the extra pep and better mpg were quantifiable. After Shiv's tune it just got better. For the money, I can't possibly imagine a better intake. Will someone make a better intake for twice the price... Possibly but that is yet to be seen.

[Turdinator]

Originally Posted by 200hp/tonne

Cool.
In the OFT Tune for GS intake thread though, Shiv mentions changes made to MAF scaling as well as some Fuelling tables specific to GS intakes.
You didn't need any scaling or modification at all to anything and everything looks fine?

So far I have only used the stock tune and Shiv's normal stg 1 2.06 tune. The intake ran great with both of those tunes. Smaller fuel trims with the OTS tune than stock.

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Thread Hijack
How many seconds before you will have a new product to announce/display/tease us with?

Originally Posted by F1fletch

I have promised silence so I can say nothing other than

Urgh, Grimmspeed have alread taken a good amount of my money.

[diodelphi]

it is hard to believe 6whp
cosworth software shows no restriction on stock intake?!!!

did you controlled all ecu parameters at both intake test?

[GrimmSpeed]

Originally Posted by diodelphi

it is hard to believe 6whp
cosworth software shows no restriction on stock intake?!!!

did you controlled all ecu parameters at both intake test?

Hey, it should be noted that 6whp was recorded on a dyno dynamics dynamometer, which reads notoriously low. We recorded just shy of 10whp when put on a dynojet, which is what companies typically use to show gains.

It should also be noted that these are independent dynos. While we were at the testing facility, did the physical installation of the intake, and flashing of the ECU, that was all that we did. We did nothing to doctor or inflate these numbers. So if 6hp is hard to believe, then 10hp should be even harder to believe. But believe it, because it's the truth!

Yes, we did control the ECU parameters of both tests, we kept our testing strategy the same for ALL pulls performed. Using OFT and the stock OEM map, all I changed was setting the Ignition Advance Multiplier to 1.0, and flashed to the car. We would then perform 3 dyno pulls in 3rd gear, then 3 dyno pulls in 4th gear, then reset the ECU. All dyno plots shown are in 4th gear.

I'm confused what you mean about the cosworth software showing no restriction on the stock intake. We did a LOT of real world testing of the stock intake, specifically to find the sources of restriction so we knew how to optimize the intake. You can read that testing right here, I think you'll find it to be very thorough:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56358

Also, you can read the entire development of this intake over the course of nearly a year right here:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50492

The first post of the thread was eventually changed to the group buy, but if you go through the pages you'll find ALL of our intake testing, including the early prototypes, the stock intake, stock intake with drop in filter, silicone elbow, modified snorkel, tuning, combinations of all of those things, other company's intakes. We performed over 141 dyno pulls (61 miles at WOT I believe) IN A DAY, and posted the results.

There is tons of information in that thread too,and I think you'll find it very thorough as well. I promise you this is a very well designed intake, with lots of testing made available to you, and not only did it make 10whp on our car over stock with no tune at all (and is infact safe to run without a tune, we have been for 1 year now). On top of that, on an independent tester/tuner's dyno (Shiv@OFT) the intake made an additional nearly 7whp tuned vs untuned.

So check that all info out, because we didn't perform all this testing and nearly a year of development for nothing

Chase
Engineering

[diodelphi]

Originally Posted by GrimmSpeed

Hey, it should be noted that 6whp was recorded on a dyno dynamics dynamometer, which reads notoriously low. We recorded just shy of 10whp when put on a dynojet, which is what companies typically use to show gains.

It should also be noted that these are independent dynos. While we were at the testing facility, did the physical installation of the intake, and flashing of the ECU, that was all that we did. We did nothing to doctor or inflate these numbers. So if 6hp is hard to believe, then 10hp should be even harder to believe. But believe it, because it's the truth!

Yes, we did control the ECU parameters of both tests, we kept our testing strategy the same for ALL pulls performed. Using OFT and the stock OEM map, all I changed was setting the Ignition Advance Multiplier to 1.0, and flashed to the car. We would then perform 3 dyno pulls in 3rd gear, then 3 dyno pulls in 4th gear, then reset the ECU. All dyno plots shown are in 4th gear.

I'm confused what you mean about the cosworth software showing no restriction on the stock intake. We did a LOT of real world testing of the stock intake, specifically to find the sources of restriction so we knew how to optimize the intake. You can read that testing right here, I think you'll find it to be very thorough:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56358

Also, you can read the entire development of this intake over the course of nearly a year right here:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50492

The first post of the thread was eventually changed to the group buy, but if you go through the pages you'll find ALL of our intake testing, including the early prototypes, the stock intake, stock intake with drop in filter, silicone elbow, modified snorkel, tuning, combinations of all of those things, other company's intakes. We performed over 141 dyno pulls (61 miles at WOT I believe) IN A DAY, and posted the results.

There is tons of information in that thread too,and I think you'll find it very thorough as well. I promise you this is a very well designed intake, with lots of testing made available to you, and not only did it make 10whp on our car over stock with no tune at all (and is infact safe to run without a tune, we have been for 1 year now). On top of that, on an independent tester/tuner's dyno (Shiv@OFT) the intake made an additional nearly 7whp tuned vs untuned.

So check that all info out, because we didn't perform all this testing and nearly a year of development for nothing

Chase
Engineering

for correct comparison the only parameter should change in map is the maf scale and other parameters in map should be equal.

did you pulled both dyno in equal temperature?
did you changed no other parameters like cam or ignition?

[GrimmSpeed]

Originally Posted by diodelphi

for correct comparison the only parameter should change in map is the maf scale and other parameters in map should be equal.

did you pulled both dyno in equal temperature?
did you changed no other parameters like cam or ignition?

ALL parameters in the map were equal between pulls.

Changing the MAF scale was not even necessary because we worked hard to make the intake behave as close to stock as possible. In fact in the MAF scale for the intake I believe the HIGHEST correction percentage anywhere was only 4%.

The ignition advance multiplier was forced to 1.0 for two reasons:

1) Consistency. We could perform pulls from stock IAM (i can't remember if it's .7 or .8) until the IAM gets to 1.0. But this is a waste of time, and is a way that some companies can post false dyno numbers (pull 1 being at a lower ignition advance compared to pull 5, thus showing "gains," but actually showing gains from increased ignition timing).

2) Looking for knock. If we do three pulls and the IAM drops, we know we have a problem.

For these reasons and more EVERY SINGLE DYNO YOU SEE should be performed at IAM = 1.0. This is what we did, this is what we do, it is most accurate, and the ONLY thing that we changed in the ECU map from stock.

So no, we didn't change cam or ignition timing, other than forcing the ignition to its "best condition."

Again, all comparison dynos were performed in the same temperature, conditions, dyno, operator, and on the same day.

Let me know if this makes sense to you or if you have any other questions,
Chase
Engineering

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by GrimmSpeed

or if you have any other questions,

Is information about GrimmSpeed's next product for us hidden in this thread?

[Dezoris]

Does not look like oil cooler lines would play nice with that airbox?

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

Does not look like oil cooler lines would play nice with that airbox?

They do not. Another member tried and the fitting off the sand which plate made contact with the airbox under driving conditions.

Maybe that would be a good next product for Grimmspeed to consider

[GrimmSpeed]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Is information about GrimmSpeed's next product for us hidden in this thread?

Sadly it is not, but we are definitely cooking some stuff up alone with some other vehicle projects we've been working on.

Originally Posted by finch1750

They do not. Another member tried and the fitting off the sand which plate made contact with the airbox under driving conditions.

Maybe that would be a good next product for Grimmspeed to consider

One member did note minor contact with what seems to be the standard 45degree fittings. The airbox could most likely be clearanced with a hammer for a bandaid fix. However, banjo style fittings, as well as Skunk2s offering should fit fine.

Chase
Engineering

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by GrimmSpeed

Sadly it is not, but we are definitely cooking some stuff up alone with some other vehicle projects we've been working on.



One member did note minor contact with what seems to be the standard 45degree fittings. The airbox could most likely be clearanced with a hammer for a bandaid fix. However, banjo style fittings, as well as Skunk2s offering should fit fine.

Chase
Engineering

Would denting the box make any performance difference by causing turbulence or something like that?

The skunk2 isn't thermostatic which is tough since I DD and am not FI. But I will look into banjo fittings as that may be a solution. I may also just end up running a Forester style cooler since the lines run off the backside of the sandwhich plate.

[mad_sb]

I said i was gonna stop spending money on NA parts and save up for FI.... thats what I said alright......