Whoa!!! Just desnorkled!!!

[2000SoCalBoxsterS]

As far as I know desnorkling or a Cold Ram Air mod will not show any performance gain on a Dyno. The gains will only be noticed at highway speeds. Not much air will be forced through the air-intake side vent when the car is sitting on the Dyno.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by JackG

Actually, later bismoto posted that he repeated the dyno pulls, alternately putting the snorkel in and out, and said that he got the same results.

Hi,

If he didn't alter his methodology, that's not surprising. His original description left enough error on the table (and I mentioned just some of the ways error was/could be introduced) to make such a small reported increase inconclusive.

Again, the type of Dyno (DynoPak) he has is only really useful as a dynamic tuning tool, just like a Rolling Road, despite his claims to the contrary.

People flock to a Tuner or Aftermarket Supplier who claims Dyno results like Sailors on Liberty flock to Bordellos.

There are so many ways errors can be introduced, sometimes even unbeknownst to the operator. What is the Brake setting? How does the Software make it's corrections, Weather, Fuel Quality, and on and on.

Now, if the reported increases were beyond the probability of error, say 50 HP, I wouldn't be so adament.

But, he reported increases which were well below the possible error. He may have gotten a 5 HP increase, but that would be better expressed as 5 HP ± 15 or so HP (possibility of error) . That's a totally different thing...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Perfectlap]

unless noted, nearly all aftermarket makers dyno cars using higher than widely available gas-o-lean. The kind you and I never run on a daily basis.

[2000SoCalBoxsterS]

Guys, how do I insert a picture of my car in my posts or use an Avatar? I clicked the edit Avatar link and it's stuck on "don't use Avatar"?????????

Thanks,
Steve

Red 2000 Boxster S
only 37,800 miles and absolutely mint condition. I have babied it since new. Obviously not my daily driver.

[Travis]

I sent you a PM.

btw:
Your username is 2000SoCalBoxsterS, but you live in NY . . . wazupwitdat?

Originally Posted by 2000SoCalBoxsterS

Guys, how do I insert a picture of my car in my posts or use an Avatar? I clicked the edit Avatar link and it's stuck on "don't use Avatar"?????????

Thanks,
Steve

Red 2000 Boxster S
only 37,800 miles and absolutely mint condition. I have babied it since new. Obviously not my daily driver.

[JackG]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

If he didn't alter his methodology, that's not surprising. His original description left enough error on the table (and I mentioned just some of the ways error was/could be introduced) to make such a small reported increase inconclusive.

Again, the type of Dyno (DynoPak) he has is only really useful as a dynamic tuning tool, just like a Rolling Road, despite his claims to the contrary.

People flock to a Tuner or Aftermarket Supplier who claims Dyno results like Sailors on Liberty flock to Bordellos.

Since you weren't there, you are making a lot of assuptions in your comments. But this is true:

Bismoto has a dyno, and did some pulls with his 986. He saw, and reported, an increase in HP with the snorkle removed. He even posted that he repeatedly re-created the results. You continually smear his results.

Meanwhile, you don't own a dyno, and have made no pulls on one with your Boxster, at least that you've told us about. But you present yourself as the know-it-all about this mod, and how dyno results are to be interpreted. But that's not your field of expertise as you have described it. I believe you are an ex-pilot?

Bismoto had nothing to sell us. No kit to install. No special, magical parts to sell us. Just his dyno results to report. He repeated his results, and posted that he did, in conditions that would render your concerns moot. It appears that he has nothing to gain in mis-representing his results.

Unless you are calling him a liar, he's posted his burden of proof. You have not. What dog do you have in this hunt?

[blinkwatt]

Bisimoto also did a dyno of a desnorkeled 2.7L,NO CHANGE ANYWHERE IN THE POWERBAND! Why would the test on the 2.7L show no changes at all,then the 3.2L showing gains? It makes no sense.

[chaudanova]

Originally Posted by blinkwatt

Bisimoto also did a dyno of a desnorkeled 2.7L,NO CHANGE ANYWHERE IN THE POWERBAND! Why would the test on the 2.7L show no changes at all,then the 3.2L showing gains? It makes no sense.

Perhaps you misread the posting for this. That was my 2.7 baseline dyno of my car, and the only mod being the desnorkle. The dyno wasn't to show a baseline of before desnorkeling, versus after desnorkling. The "baseline" was of my stock 2.7 with the single mod of a desnorkle. The dyno test had nothing to do with the desnorkle debate, rather for the purpose of having a baseline number to compare with after adding Bisi's header in the future. Hope this clarifies for you....

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by chaudanova

Perhaps you misread the posting for this. That was my 2.7 baseline dyno of my car, and the only mod being the desnorkle. The dyno wasn't to show a baseline of before desnorkeling, versus after desnorkling. The "baseline" was of my stock 2.7 with the single mod of a desnorkle. The dyno test had nothing to do with the desnorkle debate, rather for the purpose of having a baseline number to compare with after adding Bisi's header in the future. Hope this clarifies for you....

O.K.,now that makes sense.

[Bisimoto]

The experiment was repeated several times, and the results were conclusive: there are power gains with the "desnork".

For those who feel that it does not provide gains, be my guest to dyno it yourselves, or visit my facility, and we can do it together...R&D is my forte, and the primary reason that I own a dyno to to perform testing in order to yield results: good and bad.

FYI, TRD, Factory Scion, and Factory Acura (all based in So. Cal), periodically use my facility for testing as well, and the same methodology has been used to test their intakes as well. Their presence and needs are the key reasons why I am moving to a larger place next week.

Stay tuned!

[Bisimoto]

My results:

http://986forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9671&highlight=bisimoto

More to come. I have so many projects at hand, but things should calm down by mid June. Then it is time to unleash some more power/technology from the 986. I just had a meeting this past Tuesday at AEM about developing an Engine Management System for the Boxster, as I noticed that our AFRs are far from optimum for power production. I will keep everyone posted, as we Beta test.

[Bisimoto]

My goodness, I just saw this post:

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

Haha, close. And, it was anything but conclusive!

Bisimoto got a bigger graph and went with it, but I strongly suspect (READ Know) that his methodology was flawed and his results well within the error of probability.

He didn't account for Alternator Load. He ran his Baseline COLD and his Test Run HOT. Didn't have a proper Cooling Fan. I suspect he used Correction Software, which is usually an average of averages - inaccurate. And I suspect his Weather Correction was Software-based and not from an actual Weather Station in his Garage. He took his numbers from a Run through all the Gears, not just the conclusive 4th Gear only where the Gearing makes the ratio of Rear Axle/Crank Rotation almost 1:1, and on and on.

All these things have their effect. Adding 1% error here and a couple % error there and pretty soon, you accumulate error equal to, or in excess of, any reported gain.

People will believe what they want to hear (Placebo Effect). Bisimoto is the only person to report a gain by de-snorkelling (in both HP and Torque), in the Known Universe. So for those who want it to be so, it is so.

But, this falls far short of a properly conducted test and I for one remain unconvinced. The only thing which is conclusive here is the old addage: Garbage IN ... Garbage OUT...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Jim, I am sorry to say, but you have no idea what you are talking about. LOL. I am tired of biting my tongue!

A weather station (which I have 3 in the shop)? Alternator load? Proper fans (3 again)? Garbage in~Garbage out? This is insulting. How dare you attempt to discredit my years of research, academia, hard work and equipment? Based on your nonsense, we should never dyno test, or event venture to explore powergains less than 50hp!

Bottom line is this, you do not own a dyno with the proper equipment...you were not at my facility to see how my tests were conducted...you even cannot see the simple fact that our 2.7~3.2+ litre engines are fed by a restrictive orifice, with a primary goal of noise reduction.

I performed a test that no one else cared to do...not to have results yield HP gains, but to explore the outcomes, and educate. I experiment quite a bit, and things that look good on paper, rarely work: 19% of my experiments on our race cars do, but when they work, they work well.

I have world records in the competitive performance arena using my "flawed" dyno as a testing tool.

I use 4th gear in all of my pulls, Jim, and Chaudanova can attest to this as well...you really need to stop attacking me!

By the way, if you performed dyno tests, you would know that a cold engine produces more power than a warm/hot one (denser air mixture) not the other way around. Get off of your high horse, and contribute positively to this board with facts/results not fairy dust.

:: off soap box::

[Boxtaboy]

IMHO, regardless of whether or not the gains are real or not, I think a lot of people here are very appreciative of the fact that someone actually took the time to do so many dyno runs to find out what happens when this hack is done, as many folks on this and other forums, are no doubt intrigued with the mod.

What is the point of taking the argument to such extremes? Yes, everyone has a right to believe what they want regarding Bisi's claims, but why take it to the point of being offensive to others for the sake of winning your argument? At the end of the day, even if you think you win, you really lose in the minds of others watching. Better just to just say that you respectfully aren't convinced even after all the experimenting, but that it was an interesting read, regardless, no? JMHO. YMMV, and all that good stuff.

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by Bisimoto

as I noticed that our AFRs are far from optimum for power production.

What does AFR stand for?

[denverpete]

Well said BoxstaBoy! Now, could you do the same thing for the Pet Peeve's thread?

Originally Posted by blinkwatt

...Why would the test on the 2.7L show no changes at all,then the 3.2L showing gains? It makes no sense.

Hypothetically speaking, the restriction is under the 2.7 threshold, but over the 3.2's... i.e. the 3.2 sucks more air, and is more sensitive to intake restrictions. Just a possibility



@ Bisimoto, sorry I butchered your handle I hope the AEM venture is fruitful. What the world really needs is a user programmable 986 ECU that's pnp, and keeps all the DME functionality.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Boxtaboy

... I think a lot of people here are very appreciative of the fact that someone actually took the time to do so many dyno runs to find out what happens when this hack is done, as many folks on this and other forums, are no doubt intrigued with the mod.

Agreed - when did I say otherwise?

What is the point of taking the argument to such extremes? Yes, everyone has a right to believe what they want regarding Bisi's claims, but why take it to the point of being offensive to others for the sake of winning your argument?

Where was I offensive? You mean Garbage IN... Garbage OUT? This is an old addage in testing and is a metaphor for improper testing, intentional or not. But, is reliable data important or not? You are free to think that this Mod adds 1000 HP or anything for that matter if you want, no one ever said otherwise.

At the end of the day, even if you think you win, you really lose in the minds of others watching. Better just to just say that you respectfully aren't convinced even after all the experimenting, but that it was an interesting read, regardless, no?

I'm not trying to win anything, there's nothing to win, just posing another point of view. For this I'm having my character assualted. So far as losing the minds of others, if you cannot disagree without risking such then what's the value of this Forum?

JMHO.

To which you are fully entitled, as am I.

YMMV, and all that good stuff.

Ditto...

See above...

[yellowboxster01]

So, the only real danger of performing this mod is getting a lit cigarette sucked through it? If so, those mesh grills that are sold on ebay would eliminate that. I think I'm going to do this mod on my 2.7 when I get it back. And make my own mesh grills.

If it's easily reversible as I've read, I see no harm.

[wvicary]

Originally Posted by blinkwatt

What does AFR stand for?

AFR= Air Fuel Ratio

[super66]

Originally Posted by z12358

Do 987 models also have a snorkel, or is only there for early 986 models? I think someone mentioned that 2003+ models didn't have one.
Z.

ummm, I'm going to say yes we have a snorkel....at least the instructions for removing the 987 side vents show the guy removing his snorkel....I am in the process of removing my vents right now, I think the snorkel is in the driver side vent.....I didn't attempt to get at it.....I don't think I nor my hands, shoulders, or neck wanted to endure further abuse......those vents are a pain in the &^&&%$& (*($*$*&^$^$* )()(*(&^&^%^!!!! to get off