Are aftermarket intakes worth it?

[Sellout]

Originally Posted by CSI:86

I think he means 40hp at the crank. A header, with headerback, intake and stage 2 tune should yield around 30whp.

30whp is NOWHERE NEAR 40hp at the crank. Just saying.

[pheoxs]

Originally Posted by Sellout

30whp is NOWHERE NEAR 40hp at the crank. Just saying.

Uhh the car is 200/160whp on most dynos it seems. That's a 20% loss. 40 crank hp with
20% loss is 32 whp. I wouldn't say that's nowhere near 30whp...

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[reeves]

I'm totally satisfied with my >$2500 bolt-on investments for ~30whp (with E85).. it's a very noticeable improvement above 3000 RPM to redline too.. perfect for my 90-mile daily commute, esp. since I easily get better hwy MPGs on 93 octane. Those who say bolt-ons won't do anything for this car obviously haven't tried it.

As far as intakes are concerned, I believe the metal CAI tube does make a difference after you've driven for a while. Once the stock plastic tube heats up, it's NEVER going to cool down again for a long time. A metal CAI will cool down within seconds once you get going.

[StormTrooper]

40hp crank with our current losses would be about 33WHP so i'd say close....197 hp rated 165hp dyno'd average.....

185-195 whp with those mods. a few over 200 w/ E-85

[Sellout]

Originally Posted by pheoxs

Uhh the car is 200/160whp on most dynos it seems. That's a 20% loss. 40 crank hp with
20% loss is 32 whp. I wouldn't say that's nowhere near 30whp...

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Uh huh. the old 20% argument, which has NEVER been proven. The thought that an addition of 20% of the engine's total horsepower can cause the same exact drivetrain to soak up an additional 8 horsepower is senseless.

Take that 20% loss and calculate it with the addition of a vortech kit. You don't come out to the 250ish whp number that they've been proven to make.

Or take FBM's 604whp. Do you honestly believe that engine is making 755 horsepower?

[frslee]

I didn't mind spending $260 on my intake. That's all.

[StormTrooper]

Originally Posted by Sellout

Uh huh. the old 20% argument, which has NEVER been proven. The thought that an addition of 20% of the engine's total horsepower can cause the same exact drivetrain to soak up an additional 8 horsepower is senseless.

Take that 20% loss and calculate it with the addition of a vortech kit. You don't come out to the 250ish whp number that they've been proven to make.

Or take FBM's 604whp. Do you honestly believe that engine is making 755 horsepower?

So are you telling me every auto manufacturer in the history of time lies to make their numbers look better?

300hp v6 camaro gets 240ish whp....12-20% is pretty much standard.
Ours is closer to 18%.

[zooki]

So you're saying that the drivetrain only absorbs a set amount of HP to turn? How much do you think it would take to turn the entire drivetrain of one of our cars? Assuming a manual transmission?

[StormTrooper]

It's not a set number it's friction and rotational mass....

All cars follow the laws of physics. It's not that it takes 40hp to move the car it's the losses incurred.

[zooki]

Sorry, I was directing my question to Sellout.

[Sellout]

Originally Posted by StormTrooper

So are you telling me every auto manufacturer in the history of time lies to make their numbers look better?

300hp v6 camaro gets 240ish whp....12-20% is pretty much standard.
Ours is closer to 18%.

Where did the manufacturers come in? They rate their engines and have nothing to say about what gets to the wheels. They've never made a big deal about wheel HP.

Originally Posted by zooki

So you're saying that the drivetrain only absorbs a set amount of HP to turn? How much do you think it would take to turn the entire drivetrain of one of our cars? Assuming a manual transmission?

I'm not saying it takes a set amount. I'm saying its not anywhere near as simple as a flat percentage. X hp + Y % is much more likely to be the case.

A flat 18 or 20% loss just doesn't make sense. It makes less and less sense as the engine makes more and more HP.

[StormTrooper]

Originally Posted by Sellout

Where did the manufacturers come in? They rate their engines and have nothing to say about what gets to the wheels. They've never made a big deal about wheel HP.



I'm not saying it takes a set amount. I'm saying its not anywhere near as simple as a flat percentage. X hp + Y % is much more likely to be the case.

A flat 18 or 20% loss just doesn't make sense. It makes less and less sense as the engine makes more and more HP.

manufacturers are generally the only time you'd see engine or crank horse power.

yes different engines transmissions and drive lines have different losses which would be affected differently when you add hp. does that mean you still can't simply it down to a %loss....my thoughts are no a flat % is close enough for estimation which is what we are doing.

[Sellout]

Originally Posted by StormTrooper

manufacturers are generally the only time you'd see engine or crank horse power.

yes different engines transmissions and drive lines have different losses which would be affected differently when you add hp. does that mean you still can't simply it down to a %loss....my thoughts are no a flat % is close enough for estimation which is what we are doing.

And I'm saying that it's asinine to assume that a drivetrain with nothing changed is going to suddenly soak up an additional 8 horsepower from a moderate increase in power.

I never mentioned different engines and different drivetrains. I said the same engine and drivetrain soaking up more power linearly as you increase power doesn't work. The math just doesn't add up. That dog don't hunt.

As you go higher in engine power, the numbers get more absurd. If you take the 20% that someone mentioned earlier, Full Blown has to be making 755hp to get to 604 at the rear. The engine is making a whole lot more power for sure, but a transmission that hasn't changed can't suddenly soak up 70% of the car's original horsepower number just because the engine is making more. More power will be turned into heat as it's lost through friction for sure, but you're talking about 112 kilowatts of lost power.

It isn't a flat horsepower number, but it's also not a flat percentage. With the way the numbers get more and more absurd as the horsepower increases, it's probably a whole lot closer to a flat horsepower number than anyone wants to admit. Which would make an increase of 40 crank HP come out to a whole lot closer to 40 rwhp than to 30 rwhp.

[zooki]

Originally Posted by Sellout

And I'm saying that it's asinine to assume that a drivetrain with nothing changed is going to suddenly soak up an additional 8 horsepower from a moderate increase in power.

I never mentioned different engines and different drivetrains. I said the same engine and drivetrain soaking up more power linearly as you increase power doesn't work. The math just doesn't add up. That dog don't hunt.

As you go higher in engine power, the numbers get more absurd. If you take the 20% that someone mentioned earlier, Full Blown has to be making 755hp to get to 604 at the rear. The engine is making a whole lot more power for sure, but a transmission that hasn't changed can't suddenly soak up 70% of the car's original horsepower number just because the engine is making more. More power will be turned into heat as it's lost through friction for sure, but you're talking about 112 kilowatts of lost power.

It isn't a flat horsepower number, but it's also not a flat percentage. With the way the numbers get more and more absurd as the horsepower increases, it's probably a whole lot closer to a flat horsepower number than anyone wants to admit. Which would make an increase of 40 crank HP come out to a whole lot closer to 40 rwhp than to 30 rwhp.

It will soak up more horsepower because you're trying to turn the same amount of mass(the drivetrain plus the rollers on the dyno) quicker. The inertial resistance increases the faster you try to accelerate it.
Theoretically, think of it this way, I could probably put a bar on the end of the crank and turn the motor over when the car is in gear on the chassis rollers. I may be able to go from 0 to 1 RPM if I'm lucky. The drivetrain and the rollers are providing resistance, but I can apply enough force to make it turn. Now, it I try to turn it'd rom 0 up to 6000 RPM the resistance suddenly gets a lot harder, and I have to expend a lot more energy to get it to 6000 RPM. Everything drivetrain wise is the same, but the amount of power needed over the same amount of time has increased because I have to overcome the inertia to get the motor to a higher RPM. Every drivetrain is efficient at a different rate, but all things being the same the rate remain constant.