[TSloper]

I'm not asking for the data here. I'm asking for the methodology by which they approached the design of their product. It's a fair question. If they choose not to answer it then that is their choice. The stock system sees a 4-5 kPa drop at the top end. That is limiting power by approximately 4-5%. Now that is one single data point taken from inside the intake manifold. Where are the restrictions actually at? Is it the open air side of the filter? Is it the filter? Is it the filter box outlet? Is it the MAF tube? Is it the major bend? Is it the TB? Is it the intake manifold opening? Is it the filter element? How can you possibly "engineer" a solution if you don't fully understand the problem? If these things are being design by dyno results only it is a flawed approach.

I'm prepared to drop $1K on the MSD intake manifold but until I get the before/after MAP data from the dyno runs posted I'm not parting with the money because once it is installed I can't just return it. I suspect there is a bump on the MAP but a little data would go a long way at making the choice easy.

[Denis]

Originally Posted by TSloper

Is this design the output of actually measuring pressure differentials along the factory intake path and finding actual restrictions? Everyone is quick to get to their dyno results but so far not one company has offered anything that constitutes a measured restriction on the car under actual engine operation. Flow benches aren't needed. A simple differential pressure meter will locate areas of significant restrictions.

Hopefully someone will eventually separate unintended spark/fuel changes from actual legitimate mass air flow improvements when they put up their dyno numbers. Right now I would say no one has shown the stock intake on a stock engine to be a problem that needs a solution.

Originally Posted by Kracka

That data has already been posted by one of the vendors or a tuner, it showed the stock intake to be a restriction. I don't recall who posted it, but I know it's on this board somewhere.

Originally Posted by TSloper

You mean the one post showing the MAP sensor reading drop on a WOT run?

I think this is what you guys were looking for.

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=431586

Originally Posted by Josh@Lashway

If you want to hear some of the more technical aspects when it comes to intake design ill try my best to explain what i mean by this...

One of the first things we, as performance shops, look for when deciding on aftermarket intakes and designing them is looking at how well the factory intake is performing. And based on my logging its performing pretty bad.....

when logging the intake manifold pressure we look for pressure in the manifold, specifically vacuum under WOT, meaning the car is trying to suck in air through the intake but the intake or something is holding it back.

we log the INTAKE MANIFOLD ABSOLUTE PRESSURE measured in KPA...
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE is equal to 99-103kpa depending on elevation, anything below 101kpa is vacuum and anything higher then 101kpa is pressure (like with a supercharger or turbo).

while logging a stock 2016 Camaro SS i measured this parameter and found to to be 96kpa at 6200rpm, which is legitimate vacuum in the manifold (a little more then an inch of vacuum)... bring this number to 101kpa with a aftermarket intake would definitely improve hp at higher rpms.....

I included a screenshot of the log...

[Tr6]

Originally Posted by Denis

I think this is what you guys were looking for.

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=431586

THANK YOU DENIS!!! Been trying to find this damn thread!

[jimmypop13]

Originally Posted by TSloper

The stock system sees a 4-5 kPa drop at the top end. That is limiting power by approximately 4-5%. Now that is one single data point taken from inside the intake manifold. Where are the restrictions actually at? Is it the open air side of the filter? Is it the filter? Is it the filter box outlet? Is it the MAF tube? Is it the major bend? Is it the TB? Is it the intake manifold opening? Is it the filter element?

This would be fantastic to find out. I hope a shop decides to tackle this and get some answers! Does anyone know if the C7 has the same issue? That info alone should be able to let us possibly rule out the intake manifold

[TSloper]

That's the one I've seen. My launch control screenshot shows the same thing. It is not unexpected. The issue is that you can't infer from that exactly what needs a change to decrease the pressure drop. You have to measure the drops along the entire tract. That means grabbing a differential pressure meter and drilling holes as you go. Without doing this you are only guessing. There may be one major area or there may be a lot of smaller drops that add up. The MSD intake manifold appears to have improved through legitimate air flow improvements. If this is true then the intake manifold is the primary offender not the stock intake tract. How could more air be flowing through the intake manifold if the intake tract is so restrictive? The intake manifold is post MAF so no unintended consequences.

[Nataphen]

Well, you can at least narrow it down to CAI, TB, or IM. We already know that an IM and ported TB help, so why not just go ahead and do those things first. Then, you can remeasure your vacuum after that. If the TB and IM show no restriction with the stock CAI, you don't need to spend the money on an aftermarket one.

The other way to see if it helps is by tuning a completely stock car to optimal power. Then, install a CAI and retune it for the MAF changes so that the AFR is correct. Tune it for optimal power with the new part, and see if there are gains before and after. There will be several vendors that will do that kind of testing for the community. Just be patient and don't buy one until you see what you want to see. A CAI isn't going to drastically help an NA car, so what are you really missing by waiting a bit longer?

You can use common sense and see that these aftermarket parts have better flow potential than the stock part. The question isn't,"will it flow more?", it's,"will it be of any benefit on a given setup?". That depends on what you have done to the car, or what your plans are down the line. On an otherwise stock car, why worry so much? On a full bolt-on, H/C/I car, I'm sure it would be needed.

Vendors can't post all their information because if they're first to market, the competitors are just going to make changes until they figure out how to make a better performing part.

[TSloper]

A quality vendor would make sure they are putting out the best product they can regardless of what anyone else is doing. This isn't rocket science. There is no special sauce. If you are going to spend money on tooling at least put a little data behind your design.

[Nataphen]

And, as I said, there will be vendors that will do just this for you. Obviously, none of the manufacturers want to give out the exact data that you're wanting for whatever reason. Wait for someone else to test it before you buy. I don't know why none of the manufacturers don't want to share this data, but it's apparent that they don't. That's why I don't get into a rush to buy stuff.

[Nataphen]

I'll also add one more thing. I'm not running a part that throws the AFR off without a tune. I don't care who says it's safe, I want my MAF dialed in.

[TSloper]

So JDP got back to me with their MSD intake MAP data. If you want the specific data request it from them but the stock intake saw approximately a 5% drop in manifold pressure from at 6600 RPMs relative to the pressure at 2000 RPMs. The MSD intake saw only a 3.5% drop in manifold pressure at 6600 RPMs relative to the pressure at 2000 RPMs. They didn't give the baro but the MAP at 2000 RPMs should be pretty close to it so it. Timing and AFR were consistent between the runs.

That bump in manifold pressure may seem small but it is 30% of the total loss recovered and the MAF is not skewed. That is a true airflow increase. The manifold design itself will obviously have an impact on how well the cylinders get filled beyond just MAP gains. So there is about a 3.5 kPa (0.5 PSI) loss still unaccounted for between the entrance to the filter box to the outlet of the throttle body. What is the next largest weak link? I'm betting it is the actual throttle body diameter. A port job isn't going to mitigate a loss there unless it also increases the smallest bore diameter. GM had to pay attention to velocity as well not just max flow for low RPM performance.

I'll speculate that a Katech 103mm TB might be a worthy companion to the MSD intake (especially on a larger displacement setup). The issue here though is that on a stock engine it may be too big and you will lose dynamic range on the throttle control.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by TSloper

So JDP got back to me with their MSD intake MAP data. If you want the specific data request it from them but the stock intake saw approximately a 5% drop in manifold pressure from at 6600 RPMs relative to the pressure at 2000 RPMs. The MSD intake saw only a 3.5% drop in manifold pressure at 6600 RPMs relative to the pressure at 2000 RPMs. They didn't give the baro but the MAP at 2000 RPMs should be pretty close to it so it. Timing and AFR were consistent between the runs.

That bump in manifold pressure may seem small but it is 30% of the total loss recovered and the MAF is not skewed. That is a true airflow increase. The manifold design itself will obviously have an impact on how well the cylinders get filled beyond just MAP gains. So there is about a 3.5 kPa (0.5 PSI) loss still unaccounted for between the entrance to the filter box to the outlet of the throttle body. What is the next largest weak link? I'm betting it is the actual throttle body diameter. A port job isn't going to mitigate a loss there unless it also increases the smallest bore diameter. GM had to pay attention to velocity as well not just max flow for low RPM performance.

I'll speculate that a Katech 103mm TB might be a worthy companion to the MSD intake (especially on a larger displacement setup).

thanks for the analysis.

[ADM PERFORMANCE]

Originally Posted by oldman

thanks for the analysis.

Yeah

[Sledgehammer70]

Originally Posted by TSloper

So JDP got back to me with their MSD intake MAP data. If you want the specific data request it from them but the stock intake saw approximately a 5% drop in manifold pressure from at 6600 RPMs relative to the pressure at 2000 RPMs. The MSD intake saw only a 3.5% drop in manifold pressure at 6600 RPMs relative to the pressure at 2000 RPMs. They didn't give the baro but the MAP at 2000 RPMs should be pretty close to it so it. Timing and AFR were consistent between the runs.

That bump in manifold pressure may seem small but it is 30% of the total loss recovered and the MAF is not skewed. That is a true airflow increase. The manifold design itself will obviously have an impact on how well the cylinders get filled beyond just MAP gains. So there is about a 3.5 kPa (0.5 PSI) loss still unaccounted for between the entrance to the filter box to the outlet of the throttle body. What is the next largest weak link? I'm betting it is the actual throttle body diameter. A port job isn't going to mitigate a loss there unless it also increases the smallest bore diameter. GM had to pay attention to velocity as well not just max flow for low RPM performance.

I'll speculate that a Katech 103mm TB might be a worthy companion to the MSD intake (especially on a larger displacement setup). The issue here though is that on a stock engine it may be too big and you will lose dynamic range on the throttle control.

103mm is to large and a spacer would be required which will change the airflow from the intake and could negate results all over.

Working with BBK even trying a 90mm TB will hit and a spacer would be required. But one thing to note, the stock GM TB dosen't perfectly align at WoT and is blocking or creating a non smooth flow of air into the intake manifold.

Even MSD suffers from this and a wide mouth IM needs to be made to see how this motor/car would respond. I am not sure of any companies looking at this.

[TSloper]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer70

103mm is to large and a spacer would be required which will change the airflow from the intake and could negate results all over.

Working with BBK even trying a 90mm TB will hit and a spacer would be required. But one thing to note, the stock GM TB dosen't perfectly align at WoT and is blocking or creating a non smooth flow of air into the intake manifold.

Even MSD suffers from this and a wide mouth IM needs to be made to see how this motor/car would respond. I am not sure of any companies looking at this.

Are you talking about the blade touching the mouth of the IM?