i was not referring to you, sorry I should of quoted

 

No, I don't care what the poll says nor what most people are running. It makes no difference to this testing. We could run a 2.66 pulley with custom crank pulley and the results would still be perfect. You're misunderstanding what we're trying to do.

Let me explain how this testing works:

Any time you want to test a system, you need to tax it as hard as can be. It's reasonable to assume that whatever setup for induction is the best with a 3.35 pulley or 3.1 pulley is also the best for a 2.8. The 2.8 will show the differences much better in intake systems though. This is why we tested the way we did.

Similarly if you wanted to test a radiator, you could test on a bone stock car in 60 deg weather but the test would be meaningless. It would also be meaningless to take a poll and find out what temperature most people live in and what % of throttle they use. Instead you want to setup the vehicle for worst case scenario, then try your different radiators and whichever is best is best for all environments (assuming same material, just design testing)
Did I claim to have one? You put in bold a statement I made saying that we generally run faster than anyone else. Did I say we are currently running faster than you? No. I said that we generally do something. I'm not sure how that can be disproved when it's not making much of a claim.

This summer we'll have slips and videos and yeah, we'll be running much faster than others.
We had one laying around and it's the most common intake.

We do not plan on retesting because there isn't a reason to. If one was here, we'd test it but there isn't much point. The limiting factor seems related to the filter. If you read my post you'd see that a "perfect" intake didn't make significant gains.

A big part of being good means getting through an enormous amount of data. To do this, you need to know what to test and what you don't have to. If you have a product that is working within 1/2 a HP of perfect, you're testing is done. You then move to the next limitation and test more. you never need to return to the intake tube until that becomes the limit again.

 

I did read Matt and I am taking objection to some of the things he said. There is nothing wrong with that and I am not swearing unlike someone in here....

 

fanboi go away alreay and let the guys ask there legitamate questions.

 

Will the 3inch intake hit the wheel well,i cant believe the injen lost 1 hp over the stock,but i do like the 3 inch if it doesent rub the fender lining i might get one.

 

You dont claim to have a slip, but you do claim to generally be faster than anyone else. If you dont have any times, then you cant claim this. Its pretty simple. That is a false claim.

 

The Cobalt market is new. No point in arguing with you so you can hate me later when we rip off times. When I said generally I was refering to anything we race. Obviously we haven't been racing Cobalts. If I said "Our Cobalts are faster than anyone else's" then you'd have a point. But this thread isn't about paper racing with you. it's about some dyno numbers. It seems that people around here just can't take it when I post no matter what gets said. You just can't stand to see me know something...

Our intake doesn't rub. It's well designed.
We will test the injen again. We tested it before the info on the filter came to light. We tested multiple filters. The ZZP intake uses a 3.5" intlet, the injen 3" IIRC so we have to find a good size 3" inlet filter. I suspect the power will come up. If so, it would make for a quick injen mod for more HP.
My posts are highly technical. This seems to bother many people, especially people who want to believe ZZP doesn't know what we're doing. They resort to any tactic they can to change the subject from a technical discussion to senseless bickering and bashes.

 

Keep it up! This is a great way to test. I'm sure some of the comments your getting are making you want to rip your hair out, but, keep the good info coming.

I'd love to see a 2.5 in exhaust vs a 3 in exhaust. I am running a 2.5 with my turbo setup right now. I'd love to see what would happen if I installed a 3in exhaust.

Or maybe the airbox mod with a good filter vs intakes.

 

I understand testing it at the extreme but wouldn't the extreme boost the numbers to be unrealistic for most the cars out here? Wouldn't you want to test at many different intervals? Instead of calling it a stock test it would probably work better to list the mods the car had (which you did) and call it a baseline test. I would like for you to test other more common cai too. I feel the results and claims can be misleading if you don't.

 

I got an infraction for "insulting" you but knowing how this will get un-noticed makes me feel soo good.....

 

So what is the intake made out of? My concern is also with design/durability. The intakes for these cars have many different places to rub and get holes in them. Was this addressed in the design?

 

Sounds like you got a good intake.I will get back with you all on the intake,i might just go for it .Thanks for the testing.

 

put 155/70/15 hard summer tires on it you will pick up another 5 hp. its all about the rolls , friction and stuff like that and means not a whole lot...a long time ago Ford produced a Pinto "mpg" with hard narrow tires, cheated the epa rollers and got better certified goverment mpg numbers. meh.
\
Mr. Zoomer: Questions: Is your test matrix designed to show that the results are repeatable or are they stand alone?
Does the distance of the MAF from the TB influence the results in any way?

thank you.

 

well props to zzp for dynoing their stuff and researching rather than relying on fanboys swinging from thier nuts like some other vendors on here

Lets just hope it holds up better than the flex pipes....

 

flex pipes

 

You do realize that we are in Michigan, right? There are no dragstrips open anywhere near us until April. If we go to the track in April and beat your best time, will you please stop questioning everything we say?

As far as testing multiple intakes, if someone wants to send one for dyno testing, we will gladly test it. As Zoom said, we already had an Injen sitting in the corner.

Any other suggestions for dyno tests or comparisons will be considered as well.

 

THANK YOU

this seems to be gone over like 15 times an effin week here.

 

Thank you ZZP , Zoomer, Matt and crew, I myself do alot of work with a chassis dyno, tuning and plain old messing around I really appreciate what you are doing and fully understand how you are doing it. Please continue the good work!! These are the best and most informational posts around.

I found when testing the stock air box vs. the air box mod and the injen, the Injen made the most power by a significant margin!! However, the injen put the maf out of range and set a lean code ses light. So after re-calibrating the maf in all fairness is when I saw the hp jump the most. I am now curious as to trying a larger filter on it and seeing what happens. I also want to upgrade to a 3" though.

Keep up the good work and keep us posted!!!

 

touche. the flex pipe issue was resolve and the problem was posted about here. We then raised the warranty to 2 years and offered replacements to all those affected. it sucks to deal with issues but we did correct it.
There are ways to cheat the dynos for the sake of bragging rights. I knew a guy who warmed the oil and cooled the motor. Matt told me a story 1/4 mile racing where they purposely ran out of oil at the 1/8 cause it would free up power for the back 1/2 and the motor wouldn't blow in that short of a time.

The alignment gains on the dyno are reflected in 1/4 mile times though, so it's worthwhile. to those that already knew about this...cool stuff huh? you should have posted to those that this is new info to, hope it helps you out. We've got dozens more. We hope to show this with our upcoming track runs.

The data was very repeatable, not just in raw form but in cross reference as well. To verify results we crossed gm/s with HP and extrapolated numbers compensating for MAF change with AF graph correction (if it wasn't the same we calculated) Then when we used the data to make an interpolation if needed for some things we didn't want to test. We would redo the runs if it wasn't spot on. This did allow us to catch some errors. It was nice having the intakes so close in MAF reading, the room consistent and the car quite consistent as well.

The length of the MAF tube doesn't affect much unless you're making size trasitions. Of course you need some length but when you have a filter on, it doesn't need to be long. A bend in the tube before or after the MAF will change the numbers a lot though. This was an issue with the so called 'perfect intake' we rigged up. The car run .8 richer which lowered power quite a bit. We saw that the MAF was the highest of the bunch. This led us to believe the intake had huge gains until we ran the math (as described above). Then we found we were actually flowing less despite the high MAF readings. This is how we first got put onto filter restrictions. A PCM flash and another dyno confirmed our math was right on. We then changed the filter and tried some other things.

You do bring up a good topic though. One I've tried to touch on before. You cannot use one parameter to make a judgement. If you did have a bend in the MAF tube and didn't know any better, you might interpret the results of a scan as having gained airflow. This of course would be totally inaccurate but you'd need a wideband to know what to divide the gm/s by in order to get a true number for comparison.

While were on the subject, bends typically hurt airflow more than anything you can do in an intake system. Back in 2003 I wrote a tech blub on this after some flowbench work on intakes when trying to sqeeze some extra power out of my car. It's a little dated but here's the link: http://www.zzperformance.com/grand_p...les1.php?id=22
Having that information I was suprised to see the filter make more of a difference than the intake tube in our testing.

 

Keep it technical and mature or keep out...

 

good to see a vendor doing extensive research on something like this. id love to see a 2.5 vs 3.0" exhaust, aswell as a shorty vs midlength header.

 

"extensive" research is not typically defined as testing the worst intake on the market vs. your own. "extensive" should include and "extensive" list of products. if zzp could show they out perform all the intakes, or even half of them, on the market, i would be interested.

 

most companies make a peice of pipe with a filter and if it fits on the car it goes into mass production. its good to see a company dyno testing not only their product, but at least one other on the market, and throw in the theoretical best in for good measure.

 

Yea this should have been done a while ago. At least someone has stepped their game up. Zoomer thanks for the pm replies

 

yea its awesome for trying to say "look how badass our stuff is" ....


and not testing other competitors. i understand they had the injen laying around already though. i would LOVE to see a ***** out comparison between many different intakes, and would actually gain alot of respect for zzp conducting such a comparison