+10 HP Zimbu 3.0 V6 airbox mod (with logs to prove it)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I first posted this up in my 3.0 development thread http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...ds-and-tuning)

However, I felt that it deserved it's own thread in case anyone was searching for 3.0 intake mods.

So with no further adieu, I present to you all....

the follow up mod to the Zingo airbox mod....

The Zimbu mod!!!!

As I've maintained all along, there had to be a way to improve on the stock induction system.

Turns out it's pretty simple actually, all you need is

1) a 90 deg 2 in plumbing elbow and threaded coupler


2) a 3 in to 2 in rubber transition (actually, a tapered silicon coupler would be best if you can fine one) and


3) some 3 in metal dryer ducting.


Then, you pop out the lower fog light, run the ducting down from the airbox, secure it and VOILA! a second ram air entrance in a high pressure zone.

***EDIT, here's some updated pictures with the ducting painted***



As you can see from this before and after comparison, the gains are substantial. 7-8 g/sec on the top end and absolutely no losses.

Or, to put it another way, the airflow I was seeing at 10-15C today was the same as I was logging at -15C during the winter months.


By my calculations, 7 g/sec divided by 161 g/sec = 4.3% increase. Apply this to a conservative stock value of 220 CHP and that works out to 10 CHP max gains at redline.

Not bad for $25 and an afternoon's work

[blitz2190]

Why not leave the fog light and put the new intake behind the vent, of course if you hit a good sized puddle you have a good chance to hydro seize your engine. Creative idea non the less with decent gains for the money.

[diagnosticator]

There are a couple of ways to evaluate the effects of your mods to the airbox that are more accurate measures. The first way is to measure the air pressure in the air box before the filter element, using a U tube water manometer. At 60 mph, there should be a significant increase of air pressure in the air box in inches water column, inH2O. One end of the U tube is inserted into the air box, the other end is placed outside the air box. The U tube mounted to a flat supporting board with an inch scale attached between the U legs, is hung inside the car. Or you can buy an inexpensive U tube manometer. A more expensive option is to get a Dwyer Magnahelic low pressure gage.

The other way is to use a calculated HP measurement program that measures or determines acceleration rate over a defined distance. Then get the car weighed at a truck scale or dump or other means to use with the acceleration rate and distance to determine the HP required to develop the acceleration rate over the interval distance. The result will be HP at the wheels.

If in addition to your air flow measured method, one of the suggested alternatives will either agree or not with the first method. If there is poor or no agreement, then you need to reevaluate the results.

[PreciseD]

Home Depot racing at its finest.....

[texasboy21]

Use automotive supplies (intake ducting, any silicone or aluminium elbow) instead.

[vinny.dtw]

B6 forums hits an all time low. lol Sorry Zimbu. haha

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Use automotive supplies (intake ducting, any silicone or aluminium elbow) instead.

I do agree with the silicon transition part as you can get it with a nice taper which would create a venturi effect and serve to increase the air velocity. That said I did radius the 90 deg step on the 2-3 in transition, so I don't know that I would see a massive gain if I went to a tapered silicon transition joint. That said, I may still get a better transition piece just to be sure I'm not losing out.

As for the automotive supply ducting, I disagree. The ribbed metal ducting that I used is about as smooth an internal surface as you can get. Plus, it holds it's shape. This is important as you need to make a really hard 90 deg bend to get from the foglight to the airbox.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

B6 forums hits an all time low. lol Sorry Zimbu. haha

Meh, I say you can't argue with results In terms of appearance, all you need to do is shoot some flat black on the ducting and you'd never see it. I'll probably do that in any event. I'll post some pics to show what it looks like.

Personally, for the gains I saw I'm more than happy to sacrifice a foglight which does virtually nothing for my lighting situation. As you can see, my foglights are useless as they're all yellowed anyway, so I may even pull the other fog light just to have the two sides matching.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

There are a couple of ways to evaluate the effects of your mods to the airbox that are more accurate measures. The first way is to measure the air pressure in the air box before the filter element, using a U tube water manometer. At 60 mph, there should be a significant increase of air pressure in the air box in inches water column, inH2O. One end of the U tube is inserted into the air box, the other end is placed outside the air box. The U tube mounted to a flat supporting board with an inch scale attached between the U legs, is hung inside the car. Or you can buy an inexpensive U tube manometer. A more expensive option is to get a Dwyer Magnahelic low pressure gage.

The other way is to use a calculated HP measurement program that measures or determines acceleration rate over a defined distance. Then get the car weighed at a truck scale or dump or other means to use with the acceleration rate and distance to determine the HP required to develop the acceleration rate over the interval distance. The result will be HP at the wheels.

If in addition to your air flow measured method, one of the suggested alternatives will either agree or not with the first method. If there is poor or no agreement, then you need to reevaluate the results.

Lol, far to complicated. The easiest way would be to block the duct and do a couple of highway pulls. Stop, take it out and do some pulls without.

While I do have a good app which measures HP based on mass X acceleration, I personally feel that MAF values are the better metric. The reason being is that HP measurements can be affected by things like wind, road grade fuel load, calibration issues, etc.... Plus, HP runs are only based on individual pulls.

MAF values on the other hand can be gathered and aggregated over time and are much more precise as they are measured by the ECU.

That said, the data I used was solid. Every time I start the car I have torque running on my phone which is mounted in a cradle at eye level. So I know exactly what my peak MAF values are for a given set of environmental values. 159-162 g/sec has been a peak value for the last 30-60 days ever since springtime temps have hit. So the delta of 7-8 g/sec is accurate.

In addition, the pre-ducting values I used were an aggregate of about 500-1000 data points taken with ME7Logger at 10-13c IAT in the same geographical region as the ones I used for the post ducting values (the post-ducting values were also taken at 10-13C).

Finally, let's use a bit of common sense. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that you could pick up 10HP from adding a second ram air intake source which draws from the highest pressure area on the car.

What really impresses me about the new airflow figures are the shapes of the curves. As you can see from the pre-ducting values, the airflow with the stock airbox just hits a brick wall at about 6500 RPM. However, with the addition of the foglight duct, the curve still wants to keep rising past 7000 RPM.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Why not leave the fog light and put the new intake behind the vent, of course if you hit a good sized puddle you have a good chance to hydro seize your engine. Creative idea non the less with decent gains for the money.

You could do it that way, however you need to add another hard 90 bend. Drawing from the fog light gives you a straight shot at the airbox.

Also, little to no chance of hydro locking as the airbox still draws from the stock location. So even if you submerged the foglight, the engine would draw from the path of least resistance which is the top snorkel.

Yes, there would be a tiny bit of draw on the water from the bumper, but for the amount of vacuum needed to draw a column of water vs a column of air, the effect on the water would be negligible.

[Luxus Panzer]

PVC melts at high temps and creates Chlorine gas in the process....if I am not mistaken.

[tchuck]

Lol, far to complicated. The easiest way would be to block the duct and do a couple of highway pulls. Stop, take it out and do some pulls without.

While I do have a good app which measures HP based on mass X acceleration, I personally feel that MAF values are the better metric. The reason being is that HP measurements can be affected by things like wind, road grade fuel load, calibration issues, etc.... Plus, HP runs are only based on individual pulls.

MAF values on the other hand can be gathered and aggregated over time and are much more precise as they are measured by the ECU.

That said, the data I used was solid. Every time I start the car I have torque running on my phone which is mounted in a cradle at eye level. So I know exactly what my peak MAF values are for a given set of environmental values. 159-162 g/sec has been a peak value for the last 30-60 days ever since springtime temps have hit. So the delta of 7-8 g/sec is accurate.

In addition, the pre-ducting values I used were an aggregate of about 500-1000 data points taken with ME7Logger at 10-13c IAT in the same geographical region as the ones I used for the post ducting values (the post-ducting values were also taken at 10-13C).

Finally, let's use a bit of common sense. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that you could pick up 10HP from adding a second ram air intake source which draws from the highest pressure area on the car.

What really impresses me about the new airflow figures are the shapes of the curves. As you can see from the pre-ducting values, the airflow with the stock airbox just hits a brick wall at about 6500 RPM. However, with the addition of the foglight duct, the curve still wants to keep rising past 7000 RPM.

Ugh. Where to begin.

1) You need more than two readings for any sort of legit comparison. How do we know that small variation before 6700rpm wouldn't exist with the oem configuration? Mean values. Do five runs of each and plot the averages.

2) Maf readings are highly subject to air temperature. Saying that all these runs were done "from 10-13 degrees C" is tantamount to saying "the air temperature fluctuated by 10-30%". That's a big deal when you're claiming a 10% gain.

3) The fact that the oem plot actually decreases above 6800rpm makes me think you let off the throttle on that run. You should include throttle position data to compare. Also, why do your maf plots look so much smoother than all the others online?

4) The peak output of your engine is not at the redline, so an increase of air intake there does not equate to a 10% increase in peak power for your engine. Peak power is closer to 6300 for the 3.0 (peak torque is around 4700rpm.), and in that location your amazing gains are closer to 2%, which is hardly compelling and completely believably within the normal variation between two runs. Again, mean values will address this issue. Finally, take special note of the fact that with the oem configuration the peak HP figures for the 3.0 do NOT reside in the same rpm as the peak maf readings. There are more pieces to the puzzle than the one you like best.

5) Does "the pre-ducting values I used were an aggregate of about 500-1000 data points taken with ME7Logger at 10-13c IAT in the same geographical region as the ones I used for the post ducting values" mean that you used some googled data to generate that red line? Or are you just muddying the waters by being really verbose about the logging resolution? You've definitely implied that the graph was generated using data that you acquired with your car. Is that not the case?

6) The reason people use dynos and flow benches is to eliminate external variables. A really slight headwind could skew these numbers a lot. Again, mean values.

7) Claiming this "mod" makes 10hp is the result of heavily flawed logic. You cant measure a 10% increase in a random area and apply that increase to another measurement at a different area. A 10% reduction in weight doesn't make you 10% faster around a track just like a 10% increase in air at one rpm doesn't equate to a 10% increase in power at another rpm.

8) Dont take this as an insult but that thing really looks like shit. Its fine if its a prototype but you really should clean it up before giving people a list of things to buy. This isnt junkyard wars. You can spend more than 5min in home depot looking for appropriate parts.

Finally, to leave this thread on a positive note, here is a constructive suggestion. Figure out if you even have a problem before you rape a hardware store trying to solve it. You can measure the pressure in the airbox like diagnosticator said, to see if there is increased vacuum at higher rpm (which would indicate a restrictive intake tract), you can rent some time on a flow bench or a dyno, you could even look at afr readings to see if you're running lean at higher rpm range. Anything would be more reasonable than "Ive always maintained there had to be a way to improve the stock intake". That jsut begs the question "why do you think that?" To which the only answer I see here is that you want to be able to improve it. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to improve something, but without any sort of evidence as to a problem Im a little confused as to what exactly you think you're trying to fix.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

1) You need more than two readings for any sort of legit comparison. How do we know that small variation before 6700rpm wouldn't exist with the oem configuration? Mean values. Do five runs of each and plot the averages.

2) Maf readings are highly subject to air temperature. Saying that all these runs were done "from 10-13 degrees C" is tantamount to saying "the air temperature fluctuated by 10-30%". That's a big deal when you're claiming a 10% gain.

3) The fact that the oem plot actually decreases above 6800rpm makes me think you let off the throttle on that run. You should include throttle position data to compare. Also, why do your maf plots look so much smoother than all the others online?

4) The peak output of your engine is not at the redline, so an increase of air intake there does not equate to a 10% increase in peak power for your engine. Peak power is closer to 6300 for the 3.0 (peak torque is around 4700rpm.), and in that location your amazing gains are closer to 2%, which is hardly compelling and completely believably within the normal variation between two runs. Again, mean values will address this issue. Finally, take special note of the fact that with the oem configuration the peak HP figures for the 3.0 do NOT reside in the same rpm as the peak maf readings. There are more pieces to the puzzle than the one you like best.

5) Does "the pre-ducting values I used were an aggregate of about 500-1000 data points taken with ME7Logger at 10-13c IAT in the same geographical region as the ones I used for the post ducting values" mean that you used some googled data to generate that red line? Or are you just muddying the waters by being really verbose about the logging resolution? You've definitely implied that the graph was generated using data that you acquired with your car. Is that not the case?

6) The reason people use dynos and flow benches is to eliminate external variables. A really slight headwind could skew these numbers a lot. Again, mean values.

7) Claiming this "mod" makes 10hp is the result of heavily flawed logic. You cant measure a 10% increase in a random area and apply that increase to another measurement at a different area. A 10% reduction in weight doesn't make you 10% faster around a track just like a 10% increase in air at one rpm doesn't equate to a 10% increase in power at another rpm.

8) Dont take this as an insult but that thing really looks like shit. Its fine if its a prototype but you really should clean it up before giving people a list of things to buy. This isnt junkyard wars. You can spend more than 5min in home depot looking for appropriate parts.

Finally, to leave this thread on a positive note, here is a constructive suggestion. Figure out if you even have a problem before you rape a hardware store trying to solve it. You can measure the pressure in the airbox like diagnosticator said, to see if there is increased vacuum at higher rpm (which would indicate a restrictive intake tract), you can rent some time on a flow bench or a dyno, you could even look at afr readings to see if you're running lean at higher rpm range. Anything would be more reasonable than "Ive always maintained there had to be a way to improve the stock intake". That jsut begs the question "why do you think that?" To which the only answer I see here is that you want to be able to improve it. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to improve something, but without any sort of evidence as to a problem Im a little confused as to what exactly you think you're trying to fix.

Seriously??? Your 'arguments' are nothing but a mix of speculation, selective reasoning and unsupported 'facts' compounded by monumental ignorance and a complete inability to comprehend the English language.

Now, before I tear your 'arguments' apart, I want to get this out of the way first.

Tim, I don't like you. In fact, I have a special sort of disdain for you. I can tell by the way you lay out your arguments. I'm going to guess that you fancy yourself to be rather clever. But deep down inside, you know that you aren't....

You try and convince other people of your intellectual prowess by putting together arguments that look (at first glance) to be well thought out. You try and shore up your argument by using clever words like "verbose" and "mean". What's even better, is that you try and attack the other person's position by pointing out their "flawed logic". Little realizing that your argument has absolutely no internal cohesiveness or substance.

Now, I'm sure you're thinking "what does this guy know about logic and reasoning?" Well Tim, I know a lot... Enough that I actually make a really good living by arguing. So I hate to be the one to break it to you, but aren't very good at it

Half of your arguments are baseless. If you had actually read what I stated at the outset you would have known how I gathered my data. As I will demonstrate below, I made it very clear that I took steps to make sure my data was equivalent and valid.

The other half of your arguments have either a) absolutely nothing do do with the issue at hand or b) are based on 'facts' that you back up with absolutely no explanation, reasoning or external sources.

Then, after your hamfisted attempt at persuading me by shitting on my thread, you have the gall to try and pat me on the head and convince me that you're really a good guy by offering to leave this thread on a positive note. Well, not before saying that "anything would be more reasonable than....".

Do you try that tactic often? If so, let me offer you a little 'friendly advice'. Don't.... It just makes you look like a complete douche.

So, get this through your head now: You aren't as smart as you think you are. While your tactics might work with people who don't know how to argue a point or are too polite to fight back, they WILL backfire when you try them on someone who does know how to argue and isn't shy about calling people like you out.

Now, on to the points you raise.

1) You need more than two readings for any sort of legit comparison. How do we know that small variation before 6700rpm wouldn't exist with the oem configuration? Mean values. Do five runs of each and plot the averages.

The fact that the oem plot actually decreases above 6800rpm makes me think you let off the throttle on that run. You should include throttle position data to compare. Also, why do your maf plots look so much smoother than all the others online?

1) All data was taken at 100% throttle. 2) the plots are smooth because I did a 6th order polynomial trendline on the data. I would have thought a statistical wizard like you might have figured that one out? Or are you too busy trying to find ways to use the word "mean" in your comments...

What part of "aggregate results from 500+ data points taken over 3 days with ME7Logger" do you not understand? You do know what aggregate means don't you? You do know what ME7Logger is don't you?

2) Maf readings are highly subject to air temperature. Saying that all these runs were done "from 10-13 degrees C" is tantamount to saying "the air temperature fluctuated by 10-30%". That's a big deal when you're claiming a 10% gain.

Combined with

Does "the pre-ducting values I used were an aggregate of about 500-1000 data points taken with ME7Logger at 10-13c IAT in the same geographical region as the ones I used for the post ducting values" mean that you used some googled data to generate that red line? Or are you just muddying the waters by being really verbose about the logging resolution? You've definitely implied that the graph was generated using data that you acquired with your car. Is that not the case?

Wow, thanks Capitain Obvious, you mean that cold air makes more power? I suppose next you'll tell me not to drink lead paint and stare into the sun. You also completely missed the fact that the data for both plots was taken WITHIN THE EXACT SAME TEMPERATURE RANGE

Now, since literacy isn't your strong point, I'll hold your hand and run you through this again...

"ducting" Noun 1. An often enclosed passage or channel for conveying a substance, especially a liquid or gas.

Now, when I say "pre-ducting" what do you think that means... hmm? You think it may have to do with, oh, I don't know... the MAF readings I was seeing BEFORE I ran that piece of ducting from my fog light to my airbox!!!???

Or does it mean that I

used some googled data to generate that red line? Or are you just muddying the waters by being really verbose about the logging resolution?

?

Honestly, I don't know what color the is sky in your world for you to reach those two conclusions.

So, let me lay it out for you again:

1) I went back into previous logs I had of the stock airbox MAF readings

2) I took these logs with ME7Logger

3) I used Excel to filter though those readings to find as many WOT readings as I could with the stock airbox which were taken in EXACTLY the same temperatures as the MAF readings I took AFTER I added the ducting to my airbox.

4) Although I didn't specifically state this in my intro, I will also add that the values I used for the new airbox layout were gathered over the course of a number of pulls (around 10 of them) taken during the course the same driving session. These values were then added on a scatter plot and the average was taken between them all

5) "Taken in the same geographical region" means that both data sets were logged around the same location on planet Earth.

The reason people use dynos and flow benches is to eliminate external variables. A really slight headwind could skew these numbers a lot. Again, mean values.

And unless you have some means of generating 100KM+ winds, a dyno wouldn't register any gains with this mod. Also, if you know anything about tuning you'd also know that dyno readings vary wildly too.

Again, you use the 'mean values' in the wrong context. Statistical mean is the average value of a set of data, it has nothing to do with confounding variables like headwinds.

Claiming this "mod" makes 10hp is the result of heavily flawed logic. You cant measure a 10% increase in a random area and apply that increase to another measurement at a different area. A 10% reduction in weight doesn't make you 10% faster around a track just like a 10% increase in air at one rpm doesn't equate to a 10% increase in power at another rpm.

What the shit does this statement even mean?

Dont take this as an insult but that thing really looks like shit. Its fine if its a prototype but you really should clean it up before giving people a list of things to buy. This isnt junkyard wars. You can spend more than 5min in home depot looking for appropriate parts.

Go fuck yourself, it's not your car and I'm not selling this thing. If you want to build a better one, knock yourself out.

The peak output of your engine is not at the redline, so an increase of air intake there does not equate to a 10% increase in peak power for your engine. Peak power is closer to 6300 for the 3.0 (peak torque is around 4700rpm.), and in that location your amazing gains are closer to 2%, which is hardly compelling and completely believably within the normal variation between two runs. Again, mean values will address this issue. Finally, take special note of the fact that with the oem configuration the peak HP figures for the 3.0 do NOT reside in the same rpm as the peak maf readings. There are more pieces to the puzzle than the one you like best.

Support this claim, with reliable outside references.

Finally, to leave this thread on a positive note

That's some seriously weak shit. You think that offering some backhanded compliment at the end of a thread will keep me from ripping you a new asshole? That's like walking into someone's living room, taking a steaming dump on the rug and thinking that it's fine just because you opened the window afterwards.

So no, you haven't left anything on a positive note. Nor do I have no patience for this kind of stuff.

Congratulations, you've managed to show the forum world at large what a complete asshat you are....

EDIT I had my suspicions that you don't know a damn thing about cars, so I checked your thread history. 5 posted threads in 4 years, you're a superstar.... (clap....clap...clap...)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Mods, if this continues feel free to lock this one up. I simply don't have the patience to deal with asshats anymore.

[tchuck]

Mods, feel free to lock this one up and delete the last two posts. I simply don't have the patience to deal with asshats anymore.

Locked or not, I would prefer the last two posts remain. Might limit the number of impressionable modders who actually take this thread's ridiculous advice.

In fact I'll quote your thoughtful response below so you can't delete it later.
.

Seriously??? Your 'arguments' are nothing but a mix of speculation, selective reasoning and unsupported 'facts' compounded by monumental ignorance and a complete inability to comprehend the English language.

Now, before I tear your 'arguments' apart, I want to get this out of the way first.

Chuck, I don't like you. In fact, I have a special sort of disdain for you. I can tell by the way you lay out your arguments. I'm going to guess that you fancy yourself to be rather clever. But deep down inside, you know that you aren't....

You try and convince other people of your intellectual prowess by putting together arguments that look (at first glance) to be well thought out. You try and shore up your argument by using clever words like "verbose" and "mean". What's even better, is that you try and attack the other person's position by pointing out their "flawed logic". Little realizing that your argument has absolutely no internal cohesiveness or substance.

Now, I'm sure you're thinking "what does this guy know about logic and reasoning?" Well Chuck, I know a lot... Enough that I actually make a really good living by arguing. So I hate to be the one to break it to you, but aren't very good at it

Half of your arguments are baseless. If you had actually read what I stated at the outset you would have known how I gathered my data. As I will demonstrate below, I made it very clear that I took steps to make sure my data was equivalent and valid.

The other half of your arguments have either a) absolutely nothing do do with the issue at hand or b) are based on 'facts' that you back up with absolutely no explanation, reasoning or external sources.

Then, after your hamfisted attempt at persuading me by shitting on my thread, you have the gall to try and pat me on the head and convince me that you're really a good guy by offering to leave this thread on a positive note. Well, not before saying that "anything would be more reasonable than....".

Do you try that tactic often? If so, let me offer you a little 'friendly advice'. Don't.... It just makes you look like a complete douche.

So, get this through your head now: You aren't as smart as you think you are. While your tactics might work with people who don't know how to argue a point or are too polite to fight back, they WILL backfire when you try them on someone who does know how to argue and isn't shy about calling people like you out.

Now, on to the points you raise.





1) All data was taken at 100% throttle. 2) the plots are smooth because I did a 6th order polynomial trendline on the data. I would have thought a statistical wizard like you might have figured that one out? Or are you too busy trying to find ways to use the word "mean" in your comments...

What part of "aggregate results from 500+ data points taken over 3 days with ME7Logger" do you not understand? You do know what aggregate means don't you? You do know what ME7Logger is don't you?



Combined with



Wow, thanks Capitain Obvious, you mean that cold air makes more power? I suppose next you'll tell me not to drink lead paint and stare into the sun. You also completely missed the fact that the data for both plots was taken WITHIN THE EXACT SAME TEMPERATURE RANGE

Now, since literacy isn't your strong point, I'll hold your hand and run you through this again...

"ducting" Noun 1. An often enclosed passage or channel for conveying a substance, especially a liquid or gas.

Now, when I say "pre-ducting" what do you think that means... hmm? You think it may have to do with, oh, I don't know... the MAF readings I was seeing BEFORE I ran that piece of ducting from my fog light to my airbox!!!???

Or does it mean that I ?

Honestly, I don't know what color the is sky in your world for you to reach those two conclusions.

So, let me lay it out for you again:

1) I went back into previous logs I had of the stock airbox MAF readings

2) I took these logs with ME7Logger

3) I used Excel to filter though those readings to find as many WOT readings as I could with the stock airbox which were taken in EXACTLY the same temperatures as the MAF readings I took AFTER I added the ducting to my airbox.

4) "Taken in the same geographical region" means that both data sets were logged around the same location on planet Earth, at the same elevation.



And unless you have some means of generating 100KM+ winds, a dyno wouldn't register any gains with this mod. Also, if you know anything about tuning you'd also know that dyno readings vary wildly too.

Again, you use the 'mean values' in the wrong context. Statistical mean is the average value of a set of data, it has nothing to do with confounding variables like headwinds.



What the shit does this statement even mean?



Go fuck yourself, it's not your car. If you want to build a better one, knock yourself out.



Support this claim, with reputable outside references.



That's some seriously weak shit. You think that offering some backhanded compliment at the end of a thread will keep me from ripping you a new asshole? No, you haven't left anything on a positive note. I have no patience for this kind of stuff.

You've made my list asswipe....

EDIT I had my suspicions that you don't know a damn thing about cars, so I checked your thread history. 5 posted threads in 4 years, you're a superstar.... (clap....clap...clap...)

If you're really interested in discussing your findings, I'll distill my point down to this: Get on a dyno before you claim HP numbers in your thread title, because what you're measuring isn't that.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

In fact I'll quote your thoughtful response below so you can't delete it later.

Thanks for your concern but I already screen saved myself it so I can read it later.

[viceprp]

Zimbu, take what he says with a grain of salt. Post history shows he's a squatter with no real world knowledge. When you spend 97% of your time in the "Winter Mode" thread, you forget reality.

Do what you want with your car, Zimbu. I know your 60 trim data was always good to read. Also, I kind of left the forum world bc of numb nuts like him. I read for for pure knowledge and seeing who's pushing the envolope, only to see shit like this.

I had to laugh about his dyno comment.. lol. I'm sorry but I have to agree with Zimbu and say you are an asshat. Hope you all have a good day.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Zimbu, take what he says with a grain of salt. Post history shows he's a squatter with no real world knowledge. When you spend 97% of your time in the "Winter Mode" thread, you forget reality.

Do what you want with your car, Zimbu. I know your 60 trim data was always good to read. Also, I kind of left the forum world bc of numb nuts like him. I read for for pure knowledge and seeing who's pushing the envolope, only to see shit like this.

I had to laugh about his dyno comment.. lol. I'm sorry but I have to agree with Zimbu and say you are an asshat. Hope you all have a good day.

Lol, thanks for putting things back in perspective

[imnuts]

3) The fact that the oem plot actually decreases above 6800rpm makes me think you let off the throttle on that run. You should include throttle position data to compare. Also, why do your maf plots look so much smoother than all the others online?

4) The peak output of your engine is not at the redline, so an increase of air intake there does not equate to a 10% increase in peak power for your engine. Peak power is closer to 6300 for the 3.0 (peak torque is around 4700rpm.), and in that location your amazing gains are closer to 2%, which is hardly compelling and completely believably within the normal variation between two runs. Again, mean values will address this issue. Finally, take special note of the fact that with the oem configuration the peak HP figures for the 3.0 do NOT reside in the same rpm as the peak maf readings. There are more pieces to the puzzle than the one you like best.

#3: The car likely couldn't pull anymore air in. There are limits on the amount of air you can force through a pipe of a set size and at a set pressure. Adding a second location to pull (or force) air into the intake from would benefit you primarily in the top end, but it would still aid throughout the RPM range.

#4: The numbers you listed are for a stock tuned 3.0, and the torque RPM is incorrect from everything I've seen. The peak torque range is between 3-4.5k RPMs, it dies off after that because of the intake actuators switching. Peak HP is listed right at readline, or just past it, but again, that is on stock tuning. Modified tunes will move where the peak torque/HP come from. I know with JHM's tune, I feel the torque a little sooner, and I'd guess that the HP is shifted up. I haven't gotten a plot to confirm that, but there was a noticeable change in feel after the tune.

[diagnosticator]

Yeah, 10 HP may be reasonable, but the MAF doesn't directly correlate to the HP. Plus there are several assumed values used to estimate HP that are really unknowns, resulting in the conclusion that the estimate is not adequately justified.

I am not trying to invalidate your estimate, only want to make sure you understand the limitations effecting it's accuracy.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Yeah, 10 HP may be reasonable, but the MAF doesn't directly correlate to the HP. Plus there are several assumed values used to estimate HP that are really unknowns, resulting in the conclusion that the estimate is not adequately justified.

I am not trying to invalidate your estimate, only want to make sure you understand the limitations effecting it's accuracy.

Lol, in that case I'm claiming 10 MP (monkeypower)

What I will concede is that since it's a ram air intake the absolute gains will be affected somewhat by vehicle speed. From what I've been seeing there's a 1-2 g/sec difference between 2 and 3rd gear.

Interestingly enough though, I did manage to get a 4th gear pull to redline in and I didn't find much of a difference between 3rd and 4th. Given that air pressure on the bumper increases exponentially with speed, I would have expected to see a significant gain that way, but the numbers were very similar to the ones I saw in 3rd.

What does impress me though is the fact that this mod doesn't seem to sacrifice any power at lower speeds. I was worried that by opening up a second pathway I would decrease the air velocity and loose power at low RPM/MPH. However, both the MAF and butt dyno numbers don't seem to indicate any losses in that regard.

But even if we go with a conservative estimate of 5-7 HP (as the gains with the ram air do increase with RPM) It's still a decent gain for a N/A engine. I'm just happy to have found something that uncorked the engine on the intake side .

[Furly]

EDIT I had my suspicions that you don't know a damn thing about cars, so I checked your thread history. 5 posted threads in 4 years, you're a superstar.... (clap....clap...clap...)

maybe he doesn't post many threads, because he knows his shit and doesn't need to ask silly questions every day?

Zimbu, take what he says with a grain of salt. Post history shows he's a squatter with no real world knowledge. When you spend 97% of your time in the "Winter Mode" thread, you forget reality.
.

He's actually pretty cool, and he's like the rest of us that have a passion for the platform and hate to see people mod the cars we love, with home depot ducting and sprinkler system pipes and tape.
the people in the "winter mode" thread are all very fucking cool people. the older and more "affordable to purchase" an audi gets, the more "ex civic owners" and teenagers get their hands on these things and start doing some epic mods with shit they find in the toilet plumbing isle at home depot.

[evo_ski]

butt dyno numbers

The what now?

Come on man, this can't be serious.


Also, I will say this. Just because someone doesn't make many threads doesn't mean they know nothing. Some people make 2 threads a day, that doesn't mean they know more. Lastly, going all crazy and throwing out obscenities and derogatory language is not helping to further your cause to make people believe you in your thread. Try debating things like an adult and leaving coarse language out of it and people will both respect you more and have a better chance of believing you.

[Charles.waite]

As I've maintained all along, there had to be a way to improve on the stock induction system.

You should look up confirmation bias in the dictionary.

Wow the butthurt is strong in this thread. And WTF is this garbage about Winter Mode posters being idiots? You either get teh jaded OGs who don't care anymore because they "did all this back in 05 when the b6 was new and anything that came after just wasnt original." But just because a few of us fuck around in the chatterbox and post pics of cars and generally give each other a hard time, doesn't have any bearing on our knowledge or lack thereof about cars.

Or you get the idiots who are so hell bent on "innovating" and "proving everyone wrong" that they misunderstand basic scientific process (segue!). You don't start with a conclusion and aim to prove it however you can. You start with a hypothesis and experiment to see if that hypothesis is correct. See you started with the conclusion (the stock airbox is hella restrictive yo, opening it up more will make moar powers) and "proved" that conclusion through shoddy testing.

What you should have done is start with a hypothesis (I wonder if the stock intake is the bottleneck for making a tad more power with the 3.0), then experiment from there. You should have started by measuring pressure/conditions in the airbox (didn't do) and measuring airflow after the airbox (did do, though not in a controlled manner). And then once you had a baseline you can modify away to your hearts content. But that control should be the foundation for everything coming after. Not to mention that conditions need to be identical or close to it. They weren't. IMO 10% is well within the margin of error considering the manner of gathering data.

I could go on, but I suspect I'll get yelled at for being a hater/doubter. Not to mention I frankly don't care at all.

[viceprp]

I didn't call anyone in the winter mode thread an idiot but .. you said it brother.

I'm in it for the real world knowledge. Not any, "oh it looks like shit, I wouldn't do that".. come on, it's a 10 year old car and if you want to pretty it up and keep the fogs, go ahead. You were just spoon fed what improvements it has over stock.

"He's a pretty cool dude in person.." Yeah, I bet he is. The kind of guy that hides behind the keyboard and acts totally different in person. No spine.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Furley: So what you're saying is that if I used pretty and expensive components then this mod would be A-OK?

Evo_Ski: The quality of my response is directly related to the quality of the question. If someone wants to add something constructive, then I'll respond in kind. However I don't have any patience for people who don't have the decency to actually read what I've stated and then proceed to clutter my thread on that basis. By way of comparison, have you noticed that all my other responses to criticisms in this thread have been done so in a civil manner? (i.e. my responses to Diagnosticator?)

Charles.Waite: I'm well aware what confirmation bias is. I'm also very well aware of how the scientific method works. In fact, I spent 4 years as an undergrad getting it drilled into my head. That said, I feel that the method you're proposing is needlessly complicated. MAF readings are a perfect metric for determining the effectiveness of this mod. Measuring pressure readings in the airbox tell you little to nothing about the actual gains.

Also, it's not a question of being butthurt. The reason I've gone on the offenseive is because I'm annoyed at the fact that for some reason, people on German car forums have such a hard time accepting that someone may have actually done something original that works.

However, even if it does work, then of course it has to look a certain way in order to for it to be accepted (to wit: Furley's comments)

I find it ironic that you cite confirmation bias as being my issue when it's quite clear that the resistance I'm seeing from other members stems from the long established dogma that you can't improve on the stock airbox design.

The fact is, I've been gathering logging information for months now. I am acutely aware of what my MAF numbers are in various operating/environmental conditions.

I also find it interesting that none of the detractors here have posted any hypothesis as to why this mod wouldn't work.

So I'll ask point blank: How would adding an air scoop in the highest pressure region of the car NOT result in increased airflow numbers If anyone wants to submit a well reasoned theory as to why is wouln't work, I'm all ears.

Honestly Charles, I agree with Viceperp's comments about why knowledgable people stop posting on forums. Why? because it's just not worth the hassle, time and effort. I've really got nothing to prove. However, when I started tinkering with my 3.0, I felt that due to the lack of information on how these cars respond to modifications that I could add something to this community by posting my findings.

However, I'm seriously starting to reconsider that stance...

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I didn't call anyone in the winter mode thread an idiot but .. you said it brother.

I'm in it for the real world knowledge. Not any, "oh it looks like shit, I wouldn't do that".. come on, it's a 10 year old car and if you want to pretty it up and keep the fogs, go ahead. You were just spoon fed what improvements it has over stock.

"He's a pretty cool dude in person.." Yeah, I bet he is. The kind of guy that hides behind the keyboard and acts totally different in person. No spine.

What he said...

[Charles.waite]

I didn't call anyone in the winter mode thread an idiot but .. you said it brother.

I'm in it for the real world knowledge. Not any, "oh it looks like shit, I wouldn't do that".. come on, it's a 10 year old car and if you want to pretty it up and keep the fogs, go ahead. You were just spoon fed what improvements it has over stock.

"He's a pretty cool dude in person.." Yeah, I bet he is. The kind of guy that hides behind the keyboard and acts totally different in person. No spine.

Maybe I misunderstood this comment?

When you spend 97% of your time in the "Winter Mode" thread, you forget reality.

I'm in it for the real world knowledge. Not any, "oh it looks like shit, I wouldn't do that".. come on, it's a 10 year old car and if you want to pretty it up and keep the fogs, go ahead. You were just spoon fed what improvements it has over stock.

"He's a pretty cool dude in person.." Yeah, I bet he is. The kind of guy that hides behind the keyboard and acts totally different in person. No spine.

We're all in it for the real world knowledge. I'm just not in it for the "seat of the pants" knowledge. When someone is LOOKING for a particular result and has an axe to grind, they're generally going to find said result, even if the basis for the conclusion is garbage.

And Tchuck actually acts exactly the same as he does in the forums in real life. He's hardly a keyboard warrior.

And look I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, or anyone really. I just don't understand the "me vs the world" mentality certain 3.bro guys tend to adopt when consistently being confronted by the fact that the 3.0 isn't a tunable engine. Its a smooth engine that produces plenty of grunt and torque and has nice driving characteristics. But its not the type of engine anyone is ever going to tune into something "fast". I'm all about playing to somethings strengths, not trying to make something into something its not and never will be.

Not to mention Zimbu is constantly VERY confrontational and takes shit personally. Its a recipe for forum fights really.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

You know, I've noticed that in German car forums I constantly see people referring to Honda owners whenever they don't like the way a modification looks. All the while, completely ignoring the fact that these same Honda owners have advanced their platforms far more than we ever will.

Makes you wonder what's holding us back.... Hmmm.....?

[tchuck]

...

I'm in it for the real world knowledge. Not any, "oh it looks like shit, I wouldn't do that".. come on, it's a 10 year old car and if you want to pretty it up and keep the fogs, go ahead. You were just spoon fed what improvements it has over stock.

...

Real world knowledge is what I want too. Taking a percentage increase from a maf reading and assuming it is proportional to peak hp is not that. It's a false assumption based on flawed logic. Usually the first step toward claiming horsepower numbers is knowing how to estimate it.

As for my comment about the aesthetic appeal - think of it as an opinion about something that means Jack shit from a guy you'll probably never meet. It's like, not a very big deal.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I just don't understand the "me vs the world" mentality certain 3.bro guys tend to adopt when consistently being confronted by the fact that the 3.0 isn't a tunable engine.

Funny you mention confirmation bias....

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Real world knowledge is what I want too. Taking a percentage increase from a maf reading and assuming it is proportional to peak hp is not that. It's a false assumption based on flawed logic. Usually the first step toward claiming horsepower numbers is knowing how to estimate it.

So, if I had retitled my thread "5-7% airflow increase Zimbu Airbox mod" then no one would have any issues?

I vehemently maintain that as long as you're taking measurements of the same engine, changes in airflow are the best indicator of changes in output, period.

Yes, I know that ignition timing and fueling have a bearing on power production as well. However, in this case, they are constants insofar as the fueling and ignition timing requests from the ECU haven't changed in response to my airbox mod.

So with all those variables being equal, it's pretty clear that airflow increases are going to correlate very strongly with HP increases.

Now, again, if anyone wants to offer an explanation of why I'm mistaken, I'm all ears. However I insist that any argument to that effect actually contain some theory behind it.

[cwill401]

What a mess this thread is lol , it's a pretty common mod dude , most non street legal race cars use similar ducting work to feed air boxes and other such things , keep being creative man and do you , you don't need anyone's approval , but I totally get how you were trying to share your ideas , tbh I bet you could build a duct system better than that one , I do recommend adding a bypass valve in the duct just incase of water


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tchuck]

So, if I had retitled my thread "5-7% airflow increase Zimbu Airbox mod" then no one would have any issues?

I mean come on, let's be real here. As long as you're taking measurements of the same engine, changes in airflow are the best indicator of output, period.

Yes, I know that ignition timing and fueling have a bearing on power production as well. However, unless you're at the limit of your injectors/pump, then fueling is a constant. As for ignition timing, it's also a constant insofar as the ignition timing on my engine hasn't changed in response to my airbox mod.

If the title wasn't so outrageous I probably wouldn't have even read it. But if I did then I still would have asked about the maf data because I like science and I have a lot of experience with intake tuning. And I would have commented on the appearance because you posted pics and I have eyes.

[viceprp]

How many of you actually own a 3.0?

It's funny about the Honda scene bash. I do see a lot of shitty kit cars at the Carlisle Import Show (this weekend) but all the guys I know are 600+whp cars. All with quality parts, paint and bumpers to fit 800hp cores.

Audi's have the class above the Honda's but I'm willing to bet a larger percentage of honda owners wrench on their own cars.

I'm sticking with the spineless comment. Called it.

[TomyG]

Makes you wonder what's holding us back.... Hmmm.....?

An engine swap

[Charles.waite]

How many of you actually own a 3.0?

How is 3.0 ownership a requirement in order for your opinion to be valid?

I'm sticking with the spineless comment. Called it.

Wat? How is Tchuck's snarkiness equate to spinelessness?


I've owned a car with a (much better) NA V6 engine before (it was RWD though). This one made 330hp, not 220 that the 3.0 makes. It was a blast, but it would be much less of a blast with only 2/3rds the HP in a similar weight package and worse weight distribution. I don't need to own said car to do the math there. Even on that engine (VQ37VHR) there was very little tunability to be had without moving to forced induction. Or completely reworking the engine internals (cams, porting, etc) and even then the gains are fairly small.

For the record I'm a fan of NA engines.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

If the title wasn't so outrageous I probably wouldn't have even read it. But if I did then I still would have asked about the maf data because I like science and I have a lot of experience with intake tuning. And I would have commented on the appearance because you posted pics and I have eyes.

Well, in that case, if you want to contribute your knowledge of intake tuning I'm more than happy to hear it.

(I actually do mean what I said, I'm always open to input so long as it's constructive and has some well founded basis)

[19jdog]

[Rus_ninja]

I just want to say, 3.0 people have it hard. Respect.