Quote:
|
Originally Posted by porsche986spyder
I agree. I look at the dyno results. I think it speaks for itself. By the way the link the other guy posted by PCA says he thinks by doing this we are removing the cooler air from the outside!?! Makes no sence, all we are doing is removing something that is restricting the air flow, not REMOVING the air flow all together, nor are we re-directing it from some place else, like from the inside of the engine. It will still pull the air from the outside! Look how close the opening is the the vents.  |
Hi,
Dyno results can be funny and not always verifiable or repeatable. The Lister must admit this if he's the kind of engineer, he seems to be.
So many variables must be
exactly the same on each run for any results to be meaningful, especially since you're claiming a very small % gain of overall power (1.9%). Some, but not all include: Ambient Temp, Barometric pressure, Fuel flow, Octane, Alternator Output, each line of code in the DME operating w/o fault on each run, Engine Temp, Tranny Temp, Bearing Temp, and on and on.
For example, an Alternator (whose power draw is variable and not constant) alone can draw as much as 4-30 crank HP because of the inefficiencies in a Belt & Pulley system, so if it was filling demand on the 1st run, but not the 2nd, this alone could account for the variance seen.
The best method is to do multiple runs exactly duplicating the conditions of all previous runs and then averaging the results. Then, you reverse it, put the snorkel back on and see if you consistently achieve the previous Baseline numbers over an average of multiple runs. If these results aren't duplicated to within a pretty narrow degree, there is some variable not being accounted for.
Just because you get a graph from a single run which supports your theory, isn't in, and of, itself proof of anything...
Happy Motoring!... Jim'99