Joker4096

iTrader: (2)

I don't think it is right to bash before he runs the 1/4 again and redynos the car. I am very curious on how things will be once he does both. Et and mph don't lie. Isfscott, just get the time slips and dyno and prove everyone wrong.

F_Throttle

So you didn't pay for the kit? Also, posting 1 run of each before/after isn't enough data to draw a high enough correlation.

ISFSCOTT

Thanks I agree. Lol. Trust me if the car slows down or looses power it is coming off. I have no loyalty or reason to keep a part on my car that's not benefiting.

mindcrime

iTrader: (2)

i went from the K&N to stock(plus exhaust) to X-force then RR Racking aluminum intake plus tom's filter. i feel more in the in the lower-upper RPM band with the RR racing.

Helo58

There are at least 2 companies offering tunes for the ISF, so I am not sure what the "LOL" is for. It can be tuned and RR Racing has tuned the ISF to work with their intake parts and likely yours if you paid them to tune it. There are several people here that have had your experience and come to the same initial conclusion you did. The car, without intervention, WILL de-tune itself for a number of reasons. Search this forum for the phrase "pull timing" or "KCLV" and you will see a wide variety of reasons why it does this.
Hey man, I hope you gained 20hp. I really do. And if it turns out conclusively that you did, I don't mind you telling me, "I told you so." That being said, when you discuss intakes on this forum, it is like discussing magic or the effects of the drug LSD because it is a gray area and different for everyone no matter who tells you they have it figured out. Different people have had different experiences and there are simply too many variables to arrive at a definitive conclusion. I have been a part of this discussion with my car having a K&N system when I bought it. After doing my own testing and use at the track and around town, I put the stock airbox back on it with an afe dry filter and called it a day. I'm rooting for you though, if you prove the doubters wrong, I'll be posting my K&N for sale in the forums. Good luck! Go fast!

ISFSCOTT

I appreciate the response and the extra info., I am new to this community so I have not dedicated a ton of time into this ongoing debate but I had read about this before which quite honestly was the driving force for me doing this test. I will report back as soon as I have something. If the car has a mode on it to back itself off for increased airflow that is the dumbest **** I have ever heard of. lol I was not aware there was anyone successfully tuning the F's, just a smattering of info here and there. I will not tell you I told you so, not my style.

Justin727

First off welcome to the community! Secondly the odds are overwhelmingly against you but like it's been stated everything is different for everyone. Maybe it will work for you maybe it won't. Anyhow good luck with it.

It's not that the car has a mode on it to back itself off. This is has been a Toyota/Lexus thing for many many many years when Toyota went obd2.
I remember this same debate years ago in the 1st gen Tundra sections of Tundrasolutions. Many had purchased k&n and the initial dyno showed great promise but after roughly 1k miles of mixed driving the second dyno showed a loss of hp/tq. Of course no one went to the depths of trying to monitor anything to figure out why but chalked it up to not being a true cold air intake. The only intake that would keep it's gains was the Volant air intake which was a tube and complete air box that was just a fancier version of OEM with a better tube and costed a $100 more than the k&n.

Almost the same thing went on with the 1st gen IS. The only thing that seemed to of increased hp consistently and for the long term was the JoeZ intake tube replacement. Also a main reason why it was difficult to boost the 1st gen IS. If you used anything other than a stand alone setup the factory ECU would eventually relearn itself and no matter which adjustments you made to the fuel trim via piggy back in time the ECU would notice the change on start making adjustments each drive cycle.

Toy/Lex programmed their ECU's to a strict set of parameters. So it's not as forgiving as say a GM ECM. All in the name of long term longevity, reliability, and for the vehicle to run at it's optimum performance. But the ISF has more knock sensors than the 2 vehicles I listed and has a lot more going on with it as well.. So being able to crack the Toy/Lex ECU is quite and feat and now has made it possible to get slightly more out of it.

Anyhow I wouldn't be surprised if you dyno'd again around 1k miles and ended losing some of the HP you picked up. If you don't that's great!! Looking forward to your next dyno!!

I8ABMR

This lines up more with what MototIQ got

JDMV8

iTrader: (6)

To test the efficacy of an intake, or any power delta for mods, you need to cycle the ECU.
The only PROVEN intake is the RR-racing intake (I proved this firsthand). Dyno'd w/o the intake: 410whp; Dyno'd w/it: 425whp.
Method: I did many high-load pulls (floor it in high gear) for the OEM intake. I then switched the intake to RR's, reset the ECU (it was tuned), and drove around for 2 hours attempting to heat-soak the hell out of it. I did many high-load pulls in high gears and low gears.
Datalogging showed KCLVs within the same range.
We even dyno'd with as much heat soak as we could get and still made significant torque and hp gains.

Your test has variability and inconsistency, and your test avoids heat-soak while the test I did with RR literally welcomed it! If anything, we could've even made 450whp with your testing procedure...

JDMV8

iTrader: (6)

Also, 1/4 mile pulls have epic variation. You must pick two days which have similar DAs.
You can easily do this with DA tables or even calculators that are present all over the internet.
You would be monitoring trap speed, since that is directly a function of power...your time could vary given your traction/launch.

ISFSCOTT

First off who says "floors it " ? And flooring it in high gear would be the wrong gear to test with by the way. Sixth gear is the 1:1 gear on this car so your test is already incorrect. Secondly resetting the ECU is not going to give accurate results as it has already been beat to death here that the F has to re-learn everything after mods which is the case for any injected car btw but seems to take a little longer with the F because of additional sensors.

My test did not avoid heat soak. I drove it right on the rollers, ran it. Put the kit on, heated it up fully with a few loaded dyno pulls and then made the recorded pull. Driving around for hours is not going to heat soak it anymore than a few pulls on the dyno back to back I assure you. I had a thermo gauge on the intake pipe and various spots of the motor and temps were almost identical before and after. Beating the **** out of the car for two hours wasn't necessary. This is not my first rodeo with dyno's. You could have made 450 lol riiight. You ISF guys are a testy bunch that's for sure. I can run my 876 rwhp Mustang on the dyno and talk about it online and not get this much blow back.

I will have follow up data to this by the end of the week from the dyno and track if my schedule allows.

ISFSCOTT

I have made probably 500 runs over the last twenty years at Bradenton between a few of my cars, I get the variable part and I have the equipment from my Mustang drag racing days still to monitor. It's why if you look at the photo of my timeslips you see notes so I can get a good 1:1 comparison.

Joker4096

iTrader: (2)

Any news? Have you ran at the track yet?

ISFSCOTT

Supposed to dyno again today and then drive down to test and tune at Bradenton but my daughter has one of her last high school concerts tonight so not this week.

Joker4096

iTrader: (2)

Cool, let me know when you go, maybe I can join, that's the closest 1/4 to me also.