|
|
11-16-2011, 07:16 PM | #45 |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
9580
Rep 10,875
Posts |
I sincerely apologize for the gap you’ve seen in our release of the data. Our decision to hold the dyno data was not a decision we made in an attempt to conceal truthful data, but rather one based on our view that the data we gathered was sufficiently corrupt, to the point where it could not be considered reliable.
Several factors played into the decision to hold our gathered data: First, the normal DynoJet dyno facility we used was booked for over a month. In an attempt to gather data despite this, we went to a facility with a Dyno Dynamics dyno that is notorious in the Chicagoland area for reading extremely low. Second, the M3 we used for testing delivered extremely low results, even before modifications were applied. Upon dyno testing the M3 we realized that it’s sub-280hp power level was extremely low, even on this Dyno Dynamcis machine. The owner of the car went to several other facilities later in the same week and found that his car was vastly underperforming in completely factory form. Although he got the issue corrected in time, this process took him and BMW quite a bit of time. Our window for testing the piece had passed at this point. Third, the graph delivered to us was small, difficult to read, and generated with very old software that made the graph impossible to scale. Again, if we had worked with our normal facility (AMS Performance), we could have created a much more useable data set. Overall, the data set we generated during our testing was found to be inconclusive. We did see a gain in power throughout the RPM band, but because we faced several issues during testing we felt that our findings were not reliable enough to publish. Our testing did reveal an approximately 9hp gain at peak, but again, this is not a number we wished to quote given the surrounding circumstances. I hope that this clears up some of the questions people had. Your concerns were valid, and this is something we should have addressed earlier. Here is the graph we did generate, just for the record:
__________________
Last edited by IND-Distribution; 11-16-2011 at 07:25 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-20-2011, 04:11 PM | #46 |
Enthusiast
84
Rep 224
Posts |
It is in my opinion that aftermarket intakes and drop-in filters do increase horsepower by about 8-10hp.
However, the only difference between a intake and drop-in filter is that you may get an additional 2 hp with an intake system as well as you will be able to hear the aftermarket intake system a little more, which some people may like. Be aware of cheap intakes as there are some intake's known in the past to heat soak and actually loose horsepower over the stock set-up after long preiods of use. Either way, you cannot go wrong with a company like IND. They carry good products. A drop-in filter is my personal preference! |
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2011, 01:47 AM | #47 |
Private First Class
7
Rep 121
Posts |
i came out from a tech institute, let me say in short and easy way of understanding,
Engine is made out of ONLY sucking lets say for instance... 10lbs of air per sec. so..dont matter how big you change the intake, go short or long same that going to filters too.everything you changed is waste of money. because engine is only made out of sucking 10lbs of air per sec. Intake = look cool,sound louder,it does help air flow=burn more gas = peak of hp increase that you wont feel. still dont believe me? then why bmw/nissan/toyota/ect. techs dont use after martket filters?i dont think they are stupid. they are master techs!! GOD OF CARS! if you go FI thats different story now. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-17-2011, 12:45 PM | #49 | |
Banned
46
Rep 663
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-17-2011, 03:55 PM | #50 | |
Lieutenant
30
Rep 521
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-17-2011, 05:35 PM | #51 |
4th down; 4th quarter? Renegade.
87
Rep 3,850
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|