anyone intalled NHP full exhaust???

[stephen wilson]

I'm sure Jake is very good, and I'm glad he's helped develop an IMS bearing retrofit.

Having said that, many of his posts ,on this as well as other forums, come across as very self-serving, designed to generate some buzz about his company.

I know which brand oil is best, but I can't tell you. I know exactly what's killing IMS bearings, within a certain RPM range, but I can't tell you that either. I could tell you the best header, but I'd have to kill you, etc. Why throw out teasers if you're not even going to hint at the answer.

I'm not trying to be a troll, it's just frustrating for people who want answers, not more questions.

Steve

[JFP in PA]

Rather than look at this as “viral marketing”, try running a business (or even a website) that develops a following, and then use Porsche’s logo; and then watch how fast their army of lawyers slaps a “cease and desist” order on you. And they are hardly the only ones that respond to every perceived transgression with litigation; we live in a litigious environment were small businesses have learned, often the hard way, to be less than forthcoming with opinions, even well supported and documented ones, less they spend a lot of time and money defending their statements. And even when you “win”, you are still out a lot of money………………….

Walk into my shop and ask me my thoughts on this cold air intake or that brand of oil, and I’ll pretty much tell you my thinking. Ask me to post the same thing online and you’ll get a more watered down (read “evasive”) reply………

[stephen wilson]

That sounds reasonable, but don't make a comment on a public forum that you can't answer there.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

That sounds reasonable, but don't make a comment on a public forum that you can't answer there.

If you stop and think about it, Jake did answer the question, but just not in absolute terms you seem to need:

"You'd have to be in my position to understand the flack that gets started when a discovery is made and shared.. Gathering the data scientifically without variables being imposed is hard enough, dealing with the people after it happens is unbearable.

Lets just say if you like to sound like you are going faster than you really are, then you'll love most of the after market systems."

I know how I read that, but your interpretation is up to you.............

[tnoice]

yea, this is fun, little bit of forum banter.

[Jake Raby]

No, I am not a salesman and don't even have one on my payroll.

When the time is right I'll release some information, but it must be done in the right manner with all the right support and back up in place to handle the stir it will cause.

I have emailed or sent letters to 4 of the primary exhaust manufacturers about their products and I am gioving them every opportunity to contact me prior to any information being released.

I am also working during this time to gather data from the engine that isn't just related to power, but is more specific to efficiency like BSFC and MPG along with exhaust gas temps and AFR.

In today's environment it is very important that any claim related to what we evaluate be specific and without doubt. I have learned my lesson about divulging information and even helping people that are in certain situations in the past. I have a folder full of letters from Porsche and I am sure that the exhaust manufacturers that spend thousands of dollars on the big shiny ads would hate for the word to get out about what they are offering and how it can effect the engine in ways that are immeasurable on a dyno..

I hate to piss you guys off by not sharing everything, but this information is expensive to gather and there is absolutely nothing in the world more disgusting than busting your ass for days to get data only to have the results challenged by someone that doesn't even own a tool box.... Been there, done that and thats why our development is now done to support our engine program and product line.

What we have learned ends up as part of our total package.. If at some point I feel that I have the required support and data to share this publicly then I will do so on my site.

As far as oils go: Some of the oils I have found to work best are not included in the Porsche directives. Therefore I only apply these when I build an updated engine with my name on it. If a car comes to me for a service it still gets a Porsche recommended oil as I refuse to have a finger pointed at me.

I am working very hard to learn, understand and apply technology to these engines and because of this our results vary greatly and honestly can change weekly or monthly. I will say that our more powerful engines do respond to aftermarket exhausts in some cases much better than stock engines. It'll take another year+ at minimum to get the data I need for an article.

In short people don't like to be told that something is bad, especially after they spent thousands of dollars on it and instead of getting pissed at the person who took their money, they want to shoot the messenger..

As my Dad always says "Even a Fish would stay out of trouble if he kept his mouth shut".

Sorry for getting you guys revved up.

[stephen wilson]

JFP, you are correct that it's not enough information if you are trying to decide which exhaust system to purchase.

Jake, I'm not in the market for an exhaust, and can sort of read between the lines on oil selection, they were just used as examples. The thread that aggrevated me was when you suspected the cause of many (most?) IMS failures, within a certain RPM range , but failed to elaborate. That information wouldn't give Porsche or any parts suppliers reason for litigation, but could help people like me greatly. As with many, that failure is my single deterrent to Boxster ownership.

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to minimize my risk in owning one of these (mostly!) wonderful cars.
Steve

[Jake Raby]

Stephen,
I understand.

The IMS issue is most certainly the biggest issue that we must quantify before any public statements or made. I have already been asked to be an expert witness on more than one occasion in ragrd to the IMS failure.

I believe in solving the problem with a wrench, not a Gavel.

[2K3_Boxster_S]

I will put an end to this. This is going to completely set back my plans. I will do a Pre and Post Dyno on this install. and if I have a negative gain in Hp and Torque then I will shut my mouth and offer a personal apology to Mr. Raby.

end of story.

this will take some time I am currently on travel for govt.

exhaust has been delivered.

shooting mid july pre dyno.

[Jake Raby]

The NHP is one of the better choices, heck one of our test cars (Charles' 2.9) runs the system and it was compared to several other systems.

That said, if you want a real comparo of the stock Vs the aftermarket system you'll dyno the car before with the stock system then drive it 150 miles and allow the adaptive to compensate for the changes, then re-test. when doing this test work I do 12 runs before and 12 runs after, I start the test with a coolant temp of 160F then test to just about 210F, generally run 5 is the best run all around. Make sure the tire pressures are the same, the straps are tightened the same (measure between the top of the tire and the bottom of the fender) and try your best to use the same regimen for all the tests. I prefer to test from 2,000 RPM clear to redline on all 12 tests back to back for the best data collection.

Also, post the results all across the board, the power through the midrange is where I see the most changes with systems.. Looking only at the peak number is virtually worthless for true comparison.

And measure AFR and include that on your graphs, please.

Remember, the dyno is just one tool I have been using for evaluation. Performance on the dyno is just one element of the "big picture" that I do my best to look at when comparing these systems as well as other components scientifically.

Do a 0-60 and 40-80 MPH evaluation and you'll see much more than the dyno has to offer. Look at the ECU files and see which tables the engine is operating under with different exhausts as well, then it all starts to make sense.

And remember that your stock system and the catalytic converters you'll be comparing against are XXX years old and have XXX miles on them. Over time fuel and lubricant deposits start to clog the cats.. To complete an absolute comparison with only one variable for an OFAT analysis you'd need brand new stock cats... Otherwise you are testing old Vs new and thats a rather large variable.

I look forward to your data, please post it once you receive it and take as manynotes as you can from the before and after.

[2K3_Boxster_S]

Originally Posted by Jake Raby

And remember that your stock system and the catalytic converters you'll be comparing against are XXX years old and have XXX miles on them. Over time fuel and lubricant deposits start to clog the cats.. To complete an absolute comparison with only one variable for an OFAT analysis you'd need brand new stock cats... Otherwise you are testing old Vs new and thats a rather large variable.

Lets go back to Post #1, I clearly stated what the setup would be (see below).
Now you are talking about putting brand new stock CATS back on for a fair test.
Why would I want to purposely restrict the exhaust flow? The facts were presented Bolt on aftermarket exhaust (headers w/high flow cats, bypass pipes, and performance exhaust) and you stated it would not yield any gains or possibly have a negative outcome. essentially a waste of money. Thats all I care to find out does it or does it not improve HP and Torque. as far as the AFR the stock ECU will not be touched or chipped in anyway. I will try and keep the variables as close as possible. Same dyno, straps, engine temps, IAT's, etc. No i'm not going to monitor the AFR. This is a simple bolt on test.

Originally Posted by 2K3_Boxster_S

Will be installing the following NHP full exhaust. slightly different from pics. I will be running: Headers with Sport Cats, ByPass Mid pipes, and the Muffler.

[Jake Raby]

Thats all I care to find out does it or does it not improve HP and Torque.

OK, so what if the improvements that it does make really do not translate into any added performance for the car? What we see on the dyno doesn't always show up on a stop watch in the real world, especially when a change only helps the peak numbers.

as far as the AFR the stock ECU will not be touched or chipped in anyway.

It doesn't have to be.. The engine has been running with the stock system for a long period of time and it has adapted to the stock system's characteristics. Initially, when the new system is installed the ECU will not have adapted to the exhaust system change and that usually means the engine runs a tad bit lean. Believe it or not we have learned that "Lean is mean" and the dyno numbers will actually be a bit better with the new system because of the AFR the engine sees on initial start up and evaluation than it will be in just a day of so after the ECU has adapted to the changes. This is what complicates the gathering of scientific data with these vehicles, but it is a reality.

I will try and keep the variables as close as possible. Same dyno, straps, engine temps, IAT's, etc.

Thats good, but unless the adaptive is allowed to do it's job you are not actually doing a before and after "one factor at a time" test.

No i'm not going to monitor the AFR.

Then you'll never be able to know if the system actualy made power or if the changes that it made to the ECU made the changes that you see on the plots.

This is a simple bolt on test.

That doesn't exist.. If you are going to spend the time and money to do an evaluation I'd think you'd want the most information possible.

All I do all day, every day is develop and test engines, sometimes operating 3 different engines in my different labs one after another doing various things. The reason why some of the false claims I have seen have been made is because the developers of the systems are not removing the variables and are not testing only one factor at a time.

You need to realize there is more to this than just bolting on parts and rolling the car on the dyno.. When we change systems with aftermarket programmable EFI we have to alter the fuel map to satidfy the needs of the system enhancement, your ECU has to do the same thing.

Heck even working with a Carbureted engine requires the same changes, many times I have tested exhausts and had to alter jetting and timing advance to compensate for the sub-system changes.

See if the dyno operator will allow you to come back in a week or so after the initial test and run another after the adaptive has done it's job. Also see if they will allow you to log AFR as it should be easy enough for them to do. I log AFR on any car that I evaluate.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by 2K3_Boxster_S

Lets go back to Post #1, I clearly stated what the setup would be (see below).
Now you are talking about putting brand new stock CATS back on for a fair test.
Why would I want to purposely restrict the exhaust flow? The facts were presented Bolt on aftermarket exhaust (headers w/high flow cats, bypass pipes, and performance exhaust) and you stated it would not yield any gains or possibly have a negative outcome. essentially a waste of money. Thats all I care to find out does it or does it not improve HP and Torque. as far as the AFR the stock ECU will not be touched or chipped in anyway. I will try and keep the variables as close as possible. Same dyno, straps, engine temps, IAT's, etc. No i'm not going to monitor the AFR. This is a simple bolt on test.

OK, let's see if we can make this simple. I can't speak for Jake, as I am sure he has tried combinations that we have not even seen; but I can say that adding headers and an aftermarket exhaust show little, if any, gains on the dyno unless remapping of the DME is involved. Even after remapping, on the examples we have been involved with showed what I would describe as "modest" improvements, but not spectacular jumps. At the end of the day, the owners spent a lot of money, obtained slight improvement, and often ended up with incredibly loud cars...................... Again, Jake may have additional data points that we do not; but my intuition tells me he has probably seen the same thing.

[Jake Raby]

OK, here is just a taste of some data..
All of this was gathered from the same 2001 Boxster S with 51,000 miles. The car was driven 125 miles after each swap to allow for the ECU to adapt to the changes and below is the results.

I have removed the names from the run files and will not give any information in public or private abnout which systems these were. I will only call them stock, Test system 2 and test system 3.

The stock system was exactly that, it was the system that came from the factory on the test vehicle and it had never been removed.

I will say that test system 2 was bought at a price of over 2,000.00 and the purchaser is one of my turn key engine Clients. He has sent a letter to the company about this poor performance, but they have not responded. This system had the least drone of all other systems tested on this car and helped drive ability the most, but as you will see my customer spent over 2K bucks to lose 20 HP.

Test system 3 is also another expensive system, costing even more than test system number 2. Test system 3 actually ended up giving us some performance over stock, but only after the intake air was freed up and an ECU flash was applied. It did have a nice sound but that wasn't part of my evaluation (although Db levels were data logged in the cabin from each system). It did have a nasty drone and when I put it on my test car my Wife wouldn't even drive it.. She said it was louder than her '79 Beetle that makes more power per cylinder than most any Boxster on this board and she drives it everyday.

Here is the legend for the plots:
(for the torque and HP plots attached.)

Red= Bone Stock 3.2 Boxster S exhaust system
Blue= Test system #2
Green= Test System #3

The first set of plots is just stock Vs the worst, the second set compares all 3 systems on the same engine.

This is just a taste.. None of these were the NHP system, I did not include it in these comparatives purposely.

[edevlin]

"but I can say that adding headers and an aftermarket exhaust show little, if any, gains on the dyno unless remapping of the DME is involved. Even after remapping, on the examples we have been involved with showed what I would describe as "modest" improvements, but not spectacular jumps. At the end of the day, the owners spent a lot of money, obtained slight improvement,"

Yes, and yes, that is exactly what I have found and I did a lot of mucking around with intakes, custom chips, exhausts and three different mufflers. These are not easy cars to get hp out of, if I recall it cost

Intake 1.2K+
Chip 1.2k+
Full exhaust 4.0K+

This is with a 2000 base boxster and when all the dust settled I picked up between 20-25 hp and lost about 2 mpg highway mileage. I did most of this work a couple of years ago when I had some funds left over by getting a good price on the car.

With short shift kit, lighter overrall car weigh and light flywheel (Yikes!), the car is certainally more responsive and fun to drive, and my exhaust sounds great to me and does not have the resonance issues. But would I do it again knowing what I know now, no way. I would just put on a nice set of Bilstein coilovers, nice sticky 18"wheels and enjoy the ride....

Ed

[2K3_Boxster_S]

Originally Posted by edevlin

"but I can say that adding headers and an aftermarket exhaust show little, if any, gains on the dyno unless remapping of the DME is involved. Even after remapping, on the examples we have been involved with showed what I would describe as "modest" improvements, but not spectacular jumps. At the end of the day, the owners spent a lot of money, obtained slight improvement,"

Yes, and yes, that is exactly what I have found and I did a lot of mucking around with intakes, custom chips, exhausts and three different mufflers. These are not easy cars to get hp out of, if I recall it cost

Intake 1.2K+
Chip 1.2k+
Full exhaust 4.0K+

This is with a 2000 base boxster and when all the dust settled I picked up between 20-25 hp and lost about 2 mpg highway mileage. I did most of this work a couple of years ago when I had some funds left over by getting a good price on the car.

With short shift kit, lighter overrall car weigh and light flywheel (Yikes!), the car is certainally more responsive and fun to drive, and my exhaust sounds great to me and does not have the resonance issues. But would I do it again knowing what I know now, no way. I would just put on a nice set of Bilstein coilovers, nice sticky 18"wheels and enjoy the ride....

Ed

your talking about a 2.7L 217 hp versus a 2003 3.2L 258 hp which the same exact 3.2L in 2005 puts out 280 hp.

not the same platform.. Apples and Oranges..

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by 2K3_Boxster_S

your talking about a 2.7L 217 hp versus a 2003 3.2L 258 hp which the same exact 3.2L in 2005 puts out 280 hp.

not the same platform.. Apples and Oranges..

Unfortunately, in this case the “apples and oranges” behave the same way…………

[edevlin]

"your talking about a 2.7L 217 hp versus a 2003 3.2L 258 hp which the same exact 3.2L in 2005 puts out 280 hp."


My point is that it is very expensive to get extra hp out of our cars with bolt-ons. I am quite aware of the hp of all of the base as well as the S-series boxsters. I picked up 12-14% increase in hp in my 2.7L, many have found similar increases in their S-series engines with bolt-ons.

On a good day, I can put out almost 250 hp to the crank (210 hp to the wheels 15% drivetrail loss is 247 hp to the crank). I have also lightened my car so that it weighs several hundred lbs less than the S-series Boxsters. My car was 2775 lbs stock and I have lightened it to around 2650 lbs, so my little 2.7L is lots of fun to drive, even though it may be an apple, or is it an orange.....

Ed

[2K3_Boxster_S]

Originally Posted by edevlin

"your talking about a 2.7L 217 hp versus a 2003 3.2L 258 hp which the same exact 3.2L in 2005 puts out 280 hp."


My point is that it is very expensive to get extra hp out of our cars with bolt-ons. I am quite aware of the hp of all of the base as well as the S-series boxsters. I picked up 12-14% increase in hp in my 2.7L, many have found similar increases in their S-series engines with bolt-ons.

On a good day, I can put out almost 250 hp to the crank (210 hp to the wheels 15% drivetrail loss is 247 hp to the crank). I have also lightened my car so that it weighs several hundred lbs less than the S-series Boxsters. My car was 2775 lbs stock and I have lightened it to around 2650 lbs, so my little 2.7L is lots of fun to drive, even though it may be an apple, or is it an orange.....

Ed

Excellent, I wasn't knocking on you or your car. 30 hp is what should be expected with IHE. I wouldn't have put $4,000 out for any exhaust though.
that actually puts you 7 hp over the same 2.7L found in the 2005 boxster. good job. sounds fun to drive. hopefully mine will be as well when I am done.

[23109VC]

everytime I go on ebay i see that exhaust system, and the video they have - and I want to buy it. it sounds sooooooooooooooo cool.

does this thing drone like nuts?

on a base 2000, would their FULL system...the one that is $2200 and has everything.... including cats so here in CA, I ccan still pass smog - would it REALLY make ANY power I would feel or is it just going to sound cool and do nothing for speed?

lighter than stock?