My ISF and K&N Intake Test Are On Super Street Website
11-23-16, 02:14 PM
#76
Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not possible because you have personal experience ? Because I have personal experience watching it happen. Or it's not possible because people selling their own product here say it isn't possible ? Dynos can have variables, I get it, tineslips at the track don't lie. Anyone here have just cold air intake install from anyone else running 12.56 @ 113 or faster ? I haven't been on here long enough to know. I am guessing by all the push back the answer is no. Believe me I am not here to be advisarial I am just now having to defend myself after going to the track and making some good runs and basically being called a liar or it isn't possible. Lol
Last edited by ISFSCOTT; 11-23-16 at 02:19 PM.
11-23-16, 02:17 PM
#77
You still skirted my question of why after the K&N mod and after making numerous runs before and after the mod to squeeze the best time out of it before and after I am .25 quicker after with no other variables at play and even adjusting the runs on the density altitude program I have. A 10 rwhp that you claim I should be getting at the most would not account for .25 at the track maybe a tenth at the most. I even went through the laborious task of having the same 93 octane gas, gas level, tire pressure, engine temp, and shift mode to recreate the same scenario. All runs on my worn out factory Bridgestones too. I am not talking bench racing on a dyno or datalogging, I am talking real world et's adjusted for altitude, temp, humidity, and barometric pressure. I care less what any dyno shows, as you say dynos have variables just as yours could, timeslips don't lie. When I go back next time I will be on new street that res which will allow me to footbrake the car to a higher rpm on launch which will get me a lower 60 ft and any time saved in the first 60ft doubles what you drop on the big end. So anothwe .05 saved is going to net me another .10 off my overall time. I'll also mix in some E85 and go down there without a full tank for a max effort run without any other mods.. I won't spend the money and minimal gains on headers or full exhaust. I am also going to wrap the air inlet pipe with heat deflecting material to keep IAT's down more. Maybe I'll play with closing in the cone filter more since we both agree the K&N design isn't great. My goal was to get the car to 12.6 with simple stuff and the already beat that with one mod so I am happy with it.
11-23-16, 02:50 PM
#79
Lead Lap
But I'm a firm believer in 1/4 mile runs > dyno testing. Using DA correction is a proven science. Even military/airline pilots use DA calculation. I've seen many instances of a dyno showing gains but the cars actually ran the same times, or worse. The 1/4 mile runs have to be done by someone who can run consistent times though. Someone who is good at drag racing can dial in their times within .1 secs. That's a car length of timed accuracy over a distance of 1/4 mile.
I'm not saying a dyno is worthless, but in my experience a 1/4 mile time is more reliable.
11-23-16, 03:17 PM
#80
Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's because you got more experience the 2nd back at track. Plus minimal gains on headers and exhaust? That's crazy talk...those 2 items give u the most available gains for isf (bolt on). Headers will give U at least 30whp and exhaust another 20whp. The intake is the one that actually gives u nothing but cool sound. It's been 8 plus years KN has been available. If it really does give u 18-20whp, everyone that has an ISF would be rocking it right now...but it's the total opposite in reality. Maybe because everyone is dumb?....
with that but I have proof of my results I'm not looking for a dyno queen.
And yes I probably have more experience at the track as I have been going there 25 years so do you guys want data logs and dyno sheet bragging rights or something I have shown works ? It's why I took this on when my brother asked me to do a test for him, so many were down on this kit when I read the same test I did by Motoq that got almost the same results a few years ago. That and the kit was free so if it didn't work off to eBay it would go.
11-23-16, 03:19 PM
#81
Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-23-16, 03:21 PM
#82
Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not getting involved in the intake debate. I don't care about it.
But I'm a firm believer in 1/4 mile runs > dyno testing. Using DA correction is a proven science. Even military/airline pilots use DA calculation. I've seen many instances of a dyno showing gains but the cars actually ran the same times, or worse. The 1/4 mile runs have to be done by someone who can run consistent times though. Someone who is good at drag racing can dial in their times within .1 secs. That's a car length of timed accuracy over a distance of 1/4 mile.
I'm not saying a dyno is worthless, but in my experience a 1/4 mile time is more reliable.
But I'm a firm believer in 1/4 mile runs > dyno testing. Using DA correction is a proven science. Even military/airline pilots use DA calculation. I've seen many instances of a dyno showing gains but the cars actually ran the same times, or worse. The 1/4 mile runs have to be done by someone who can run consistent times though. Someone who is good at drag racing can dial in their times within .1 secs. That's a car length of timed accuracy over a distance of 1/4 mile.
I'm not saying a dyno is worthless, but in my experience a 1/4 mile time is more reliable.
Holy crap the voice of reason ! Don't confuse some of them man ! I am the guy with nothing to sell here and I am the crazy one. What ever
Last edited by ISFSCOTT; 11-23-16 at 03:38 PM.
11-23-16, 03:57 PM
#85
Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-23-16, 04:25 PM
#86
I have read all 6 pages. Honestly, ISFSCOTT has tried and proved his point with valid proof. We shouldn't flame or redicule the op or each other for this. For a member who did tried and dyno plus proving his 1/4 mile time, I give much respect for his time and data. I am a firm believer in the stock intake design but for what the intake did, that is good news. It's OK to think around the box. Not everyone will agree but at least this has shown some positive results. Congrats to OP and keep the results coming.
11-23-16, 04:36 PM
#87
Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read all 6 pages. Honestly, ISFSCOTT has tried and proved his point with valid proof. We shouldn't flame or redicule the op or each other for this. For a member who did tried and dyno plus proving his 1/4 mile time, I give much respect for his time and data. I am a firm believer in the stock intake design but for what the intake did, that is good news. It's OK to think around the box. Not everyone will agree but at least this has shown some positive results. Congrats to OP and keep the results coming.
11-23-16, 04:42 PM
#88
Pole Position
IDOKE - I would agree with you if the Density Altitude corrections made sense. However they don't. DA on his baseline was around 1700 feet. DA with K&N was somewhere between 100 and 400 depending on actual time of the run. That difference in air Is 2.5 to 3 tenths. Corrected times and speed are almost identical meaning the intake made zero gain. Ignoring that fact is a serious oversight. I know OP said he used corrections but the math doesn't work based on the actual conditions during those runs.
11-23-16, 05:31 PM
#89
