You're still failing to consider pressure and energy. Energy is required to draw air through any intake. Which one requires less work for any equal amount of airflow?
The JLT vs. Stock Airbox with AED tune results and discussion thread
- Thread starter MikeLTDLX
- Start date
- Status
You're still failing to consider pressure and energy. Energy is required to draw air through any intake. Which one requires less work for any equal amount of airflow?
Without changing any other variables(throttle body) for example.... All the air HAS to go through the TB. Im merely arguing the JLT let's the engine ingest air easier than a stock unit.
I myself have seen a new car with a tune only lined up side by side at the track and on the street vs. another 5.0 with JLT and tune..... Guess which one has a higher trap speed at the track, and pulls a car-length on the other one in a 1/2 mile drag race?
Real world argument and real world answer.
:burn:
Last edited:
Sounds like a deflection to me, if you truly weren't just trying to blow smoke you could easily make your point.
If this is the "pressure" I wasn't taking into consideration it is an erroneous point. The CFM measurement accounts for how restrictive both intakes are thus the point is moot. The engine will create the same vacuum too pull in the air and both units have the ability to flow MORE air per minute than the engine can displace.
A better analogy would have been try breathing normally while running sprints and then try breathing through a straw as you run sprints. The problem with this and your analogy is that the "straw" isn't the bottleneck.
:shrug:
Haven't seen any real world data to prove gains.
I don't think I need to point out how inconclusive and pointless that comparison is, considering potentially more than a dozen other variables.
Until the engine's downward piston motion (which creates the vacuum that moves the air) is "asking" for more air than the stock box can flow there is no extra restriction than with the JLT.
:shrug:
So let me get this straight. You are concluding that taking a performance part and installing it on a car, taking it to the track or street(1/2 mile acceleration drag race) not a dyno.... running them side by side an exact car with the "stock" part to compare....is the wrong way to show a performance gain or loss?
I did. Reread it, do some research in the direction I pointed you, or ask a question if you don't understand.
Have you ever operated a flow bench? You're missing a component of the measurements it provides, vacuum. The CFM measurement is always given in relation to a reading for vacuum.
No, my example is correct and thoroughly adequate.
As far as I'm aware Arrington's SuperFlow dyno is in this plane of existence. I believe the results from a half-million dollar dyno cell that's used by NASCAR teams and OEMS to calibrate their setups are a bit more accurate than someone hoping they can make a consistent runs at the local track.
Thanks for agreeing with my dyno analogy above.
Incorrect.
Yes, while it is fun and in general a way of determining the "faster" car there are way to many variables to be able to draw any scientific conclusions about gains from the specific part.
For one you have two different drivers.
Then you have two separate vehicles that stock vs stock could have quite a variation in power output.
Then there is the impossibility of ensuring both drivers take off at the same time or get equal launches if it is a dig race.
What all of this and more adds up to is the saying "anything can happen on the street" and hence why you can in no way make any scientific claims from said test.
I feel like youre picking a loosing battle when you want to talk about physics/science considering SID is an actual scientist, if i remember reading correctly.
Last edited:
lol
"what are you some sort of rocket scientist??!?"
"why yes.... I AM"
"Oh... Sorry"
Also an attorney, which means I like to teach using the Socratic method.:burnout:
:lol: were all just dust in the win, duuuude
I'm afraid I could say the same too you.
:??:
Of course, the vacuum has to be controlled by the testing apparatus because otherwise the CFM measurement is meaningless if a different vacuum is applied to either of the units being tested.
Ok, well to me "real world gains" is different than dyno gains. I could be in the minority here (kinda doubt it) but that is the terminology I use. I'll try to be more clear.
Incorrect!
See what I did there! I said incorrect to your incorrect which makes my first statement correct again!
But seriously, you can't just say "incorrect" and that become the case, you can try to make a point as to why something is incorrect though. But the word itself isn't proof.
Yeah I know, he brought it up before, he has a chemistry degree.
I've got a masters in engineering, so I have taken more than my share of science courses.
Not that resume comparisons offer much to the debate...
Now you're starting to make progress. The vacuum is created with an electric motor. It takes a certain amount of energy for that motor to create X flow rate at Y vacuum with the stock intake. Now, suppose at X flow rate our test CAI only exhibits Z vacuum and Z is less than Y. What does that tell you?
I had to google this..................now i can LOL :banana:
:lol:...........................:dancenana:
I'm afraid I can't say the same of you.
That statement is incorrect. The statement should read that the electric motor will require some X amount of energy to create some Y amount of vacuum. The flow rate does not dictate the energy required and is determined by the design of the unit being tested and the entire point of the test and hence why it is being measured.
This again is incorrect. The test is performed by keeping the VACUUM constant, not the other way around. You aren't trying to find some flow rate X and then checking what the pressure is at that time.
What field of engineering? Solely out of curiosity
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
