Mustang Bullitt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've seen a lot of posts regarding the "Densecharger" and SOTP impressions of the gains from the Densecharger...but; aren't there at least a few indivuals out there that have done some type of before and after dyno testing to back up their SOTP analysis??

I'm interested in numbers, that should be evident by the fact that I have posted my results regarding my "Base Line Stock" vs. C&L 80mm MAF(BLACK sample tube) for my BULLITT. My gain with the C&L was LESS THAN IMPRESSIVE but the dyno's were not done on the same day and therefore are not the best for comparison purposes.

What is important to note regarding my testing results is the following:
a) SOTP power increase in both the As Shipped (BLACK sample tube) and even more in the Experimental (ORANGE sample tube) configurations.
b) Absolutely NO Idle Problems (same as stock)
c) Absolutely NO Driveabilty Problems (same as stock)
d) The system continues to work well with the further modifications that have been made to BULLITT #00680.

I regret not doing a baseline of 3 dyno runs and immediately following up with 3 dyno runs of the C&L 80mm MAF after swapping over to it on the same day and as close as reasonably achievable; the same atmospheric conditions such that a really good analysis of the results the C&L 80mm MAF is capable of providing to the end user relevent to the BULLITT configuration.

Ever and always looking for more data.
Happy Motoring
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
I ran mine on 12/8 for a baseline, and will run it again Saturday at our club meet, so I will post before and after numbers. The only other change that I made is the new mufflers, but I don't think they affected my hp number, they just sound awesome!! :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
MOLJAY, I'm not sure about the Bullitt catback, but I have seen some extraordinary gains from catback/muffler changes on 99-01 GTs. This is surprising to me, because the 96-98 GTs and Cobra rarely benefited from catback changes in NA apps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
That's interesting, JB, maybe I will get a bigger gain than I thought I would. I left the exhaust stock except for replacing the Arvins with Spin Tech Pro-Streets, but I didn't really think they would add hp, guess I will see on Saturday. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
I haven't paid that much attention torecent catback gains , but I would believe that the later models benefit more because the heads breathe better. On the older models the heads were more of a restriction than the exhaust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
I'll be doing a write-up for Stangnet dyno testing the Densecharger 100mm kit in about a week. My testing will be with the stock MAF and K&N versus the Densecharger kit.
Hopefully soon, I'll be testing a MAF meter as well, but haven't worked out the details yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Okay...I guess that's all I can hope for until you do your before and after testing Lee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Would someone please explain to me what a desencharger is and what benefits it brings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
I've received dyno feedback from Cobra customers of 4-6 + hp dyno gains. There is some dyno feedback on the Bullitt club dyno room with the most interesting being the MUS 408 leafblower tests. I think he picked up +5 hp.

My racing background is SCCA road racing and I designed and built the systems to be a TRUE cold air intake with tunability and constructed from a material that would absorb and shed the least amount of heat possible and insulate the intake charge.
I could care less if I can see myself in it as with the metal ones!!!

What do you think happens with the underhood setups in the dead heat of summer sitting next to the motor with fan wash present?

The racing K&N filterchargers breathe much, much better isolated from the engine heat with 360 degree "surround breathing" in a colder, higher velocity airflow location, with more CFM flow than the emissions filters! And you can test 2 locations for dialing in even closer to your engines' characteristics.

SOTP improvements are only important if you value better throttle response, an improved audable intake growl due to the K&N breathing as it was designed to with a higher CFM flow than the emissions filters, and knowing that the intake charge is being insulated with the best possible non-heat-conductive material available. The tunability and how the system sheds heat after you leave heavy traffic in the dead heat of summer and take it for a high speed workout are just two of the aspects of SOTP improvements which are far more important to me than when it's sitting in a room!!

Take it for a workout then reach up and feel the K&N and compare this to how a metal intake tube under the hood feels!

*DO YOU WANT SHOW OR GO?*


The greatest thing about the original Bullitt was the "sleeper look" until you heard it run.
Would Steve Mc Queen have picked a mod that "shined" or one that would close the distance quicker on the charger with added "GROWL".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JP DEMOLET on 2002-01-12 05:52 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JP DEMOLET on 2002-01-12 06:16 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Okay John...
Here's the way I see it IMHO:
I'm trying to cut through the smoke screen of BS that seems to get posted regarding the results of this mod or that mod. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about:
1) "leafblower tests. I think he picked up +5 hp." I don't run my car with a leafblower mounted to blow air into the fenderwell; and surely you're not suggesting that a leafblower is in any way equivalent to the wind/pressure that may build up in the fenderwell of a racecar at speed. The leafblower cannot equate to actual track conditions. If you want to be scientific about this then take the car and put it in a wind tunnel for the dyno test. That costs money...lots of money. If we all did that, in the same wind tunnel, under the same atmospheric conditions; then we could compare apples to apples. Otherwise, the results we achieve under our differing conditions and different dyno machines is at the very least...INCOMPARABLE.

Your racing background in SCCA may be relevant to some but to most drag racers it is not. SCCA Races last longer and have a tendency to build up much more heat in the engine compartment, wherein I would agree that the insulating properties of PVC factor more heavily into keeping the inlet air temperature lower. IMHO; this would be insignificant compared to the effect of an intercooler on the inlet charge temperature or the cooling effect of massive amounts of Nitrous Oxide being injected.

You stated "I could care less if I can see myself in it as with the metal ones!!!" This is fine, but there are copious quantities of world class drag cars out there that look just as good as they go. I don't believe that it is wise of you to dismiss a good looking engine setup as one that is not a threat.

You stated "What do you think happens with the underhood setups in the dead heat of summer sitting next to the motor with fan wash present?" The shield on my C&L system effectively isolates it from fan wash and to some extent also helps to channel the cooler air from my fenderwell to the air filter. Now, may I remind you again that not all of us are SCCA road racers and since road racing is not my interest but rather a quick trip through the quarter mile is, and my car does not have a chance to build up excessive heat in the engine compartment due to it only being fired just before it's ready to stage; let it suffice to say that heat transfer from my engine compartment to the aluminum parts of my intake tract are the least of my concerns. If that were the case I guess we'd all be changing out our BULLITT intake manifolds for some PVC (Stock GT?) piece to limit the amount of heat that is transferred to our intake air charge.

Now, you also stated "DO YOU WANT SHOW OR GO?" My answer is: I will accept nothing other than a high quality system which provides me with the performance, fit, and finish that meet MY standards. Obviously MY standards and your standards are not complimentary, but this is not really the issue.

The issue is: You produce a system that can be beneficial to those performance minded individuals who have a desire to have a slightly cooler air intake charge over a longer span of time vs. those of us who judge our results by a quick trip through the quarter mile at a track where the build up of heat is not a significant issue.

There are instances where the higher heat transfer coefficients of aluminum or steel components in the intake tract are a benefit. For instance on those 100+ degree summer days here in Kansas between runs through the quarter when it helps to be able to apply some ice to the intake tract and cool it down and since aluminum and steel do transfer the heat more readily than PVC they can actually help with cooling the air flow into the engine.

Regarding your final statement "Would Steve Mc Queen have picked a mod that "shined" or one that would close the distance quicker on the charger with added "GROWL". This is again one of those statements that pits the SCCA philosophy against the Drag Race philosophy. You go race all day and I'll go do a few runs through the quarter. I'll meet ya at the local Brew & Stew for a cold one and racing stories afterward.

Good to hear from you John,
Myron Steinert
(I have one of your systems (back in its box), it just did not qute fit my personal goals.

_________________
DHG BULLITT #680
Mods:
C&L 80mm MAF
Magnaflow X-Pipe w/CATS
Magnaflow Performance CatBack(Magnaflows)
Steeda Under-drive Pulleys
FRPP Aluminum Drive Shaft
Steeda Tri-Ax with FatKnob
242.5 RWHP & 293.7 RWT

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BULLITT680 on 2002-01-12 10:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BULLITT680 on 2002-01-12 10:52 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BULLITT680 on 2002-01-12 10:56 ]</font>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
To chime in here if I may.. The Densecharger system is one of the best that is available for our cars. To keep quoting the SCCA vs Drag race scenarios is a smidgen disingenuous. The Best "All around" intake would HAVE to be one that isolated the heat from the intake. In the pure Drag race scenario you are correct to state that the difference between a metal and plastic intake (As far as heat is concerned) is negligable at best as there is no chance to develop any real amount of engine heat. However.. that is the only way that the playing field would be level.
In everyday driving where you do build up engine heat the densecharger is by far the superior design.
Also.. "the leafblower test" was one of the more creative ways to try to simulate "At speed" HP gains. You are correct that a dynojet in a wind tunnel would be the only "pure" way to test it's efficiency however it's not right to poo-poo the leafblower becasue of it's simplicity. Take Ram-air for example. There's no doubt in anyones mind that a true ram air system does indeed provide benefits and fairly signifigant HP gains at speed, but how do you see those results on a dynojet? You don't, but no one will dispute that they are there.
Bottom line is this.. If trailering your car to the strip and to the car show is your cup of tea then the performance difference between a chrome CAI and the densecharger are pretty much negligable and the nod at show time would go to the Chrome unit. However.. if everyday driveabilty and real-world performance as well as the occasional stoplight challenge and any long driving trips are on your menu then the Densecharger would be the superior choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Thank You!

Myron you have to admit that with the "extremely reasonable" price of my system it sure doesn't hurt to be able to purchase it and another mod for the same price as my competitors intake mod which should improve the "edge" at whichever track is your cup of tea!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,235 Posts
Yeah! Don't POO-POO my leafblower tests. It was the only thing I could get in the trunk,to simulate front end airflow,other than the guy's little fan. And a hot aluminum intake manifold DOES make a difference! Thats why they used to block off the heat riser passage on the carbed engines years ago......Royal Pontiac Bobcat kit to name one! Let the Bullitt sit in the pits after arriving at the track,and notice how much heat that it absorbs. Would be nice if the coolant cross over passage would have been seperate from the intake,like the Cobra 32V engine.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mus408 on 2002-01-12 16:31 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Blakwing/JP/and 408
Again; you've helped me to make one of my points, that being that some of the things we do at the dyno shop turn our dyno results into worthless banter. How valid are our results when we all can't dyno on the exact same dyno at the exact same time and under the same atmospheric conditions? Now, throw in Type X, Type Y and Type Z leafblowers with different cfm ratings. Now, we throw in our SOTP meters and who knows what a mod really does. That is why, in my original post in this thread, I stated that I was looking for numbers (some real hard before and after numbers...and I'd like them specific to the 4.6 liter 2V engine since that seems to be where the deficiency in data exists) to back up the claims.

John...I know you have before and after results for the Densecharger tested on a 5.0 liter. Do you plan to have some for the 4.6 liter 2V soon?

408 & Blakwing...do you guys have the data?

Like I originally stated,
Ever and always looking for data.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
JP,

I would be glad to test your product at the drag strip. I have the perfect test mule being the car is bone stock. I also run DRs yielding very consistent runs back to back. I always cool the car approximately the same amount of time between runs.

Dynos are really inconsistent and can yield 3-5rwhp differences between runs with absolutely no changes at all. On the other hand, a time slip will not lie if the comparison runs are clean and crisp and the weather is essentially unchanged.

Is it possible to install/uninstall at the drag strip in the pits in a reasonable amount of time? This would be the only real hurdle for comparative runs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-01-12 23:39, JB VOBRA wrote:
Dynos are really inconsistent and can yield 3-5rwhp differences between runs with absolutely no changes at all. On the other hand, a time slip will not lie if the comparison runs are clean and crisp and the weather is essentially unchanged.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Just to clarify what I think you are saying...if you remove the human factor consistency goes UP?

If this is the case, I definitely do not agree. 3-5 rwhp would show at the track as less than .5mph, this amount can be attributed to just about anything; tire spin, head wind, slow shift. I would see these variables as having more of an effect than the difference in weather conditions between dyno runs.

I am curious as to your thoughts on this JB.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
Actually once you do the install for the first time on the DenseCharger you see how simple it really is and you could change it out at the track in a relatively short period of time.. To remove it simply loosen the clamps on the Intake and MAF, take out 2 set screws holding the 2 pieces of the DenseCharger together and remove the whole thing. The original air silencer would then just slide back into it's original place and re-attach the clamps. The longest part would be the removal of the MAF and re-attachment of it to the stock airbox.. but that's only 4 screws. Realistically.. you should be able to do the whole shebang in less than 30 mins.
Bullitt680.. I think you're going to have a very hard time getting real, solid numbers on any mod that relies on moving air to function properly. Any CAI, Ram air, air filter mod doesn't perform at it's best until you have air moving through it. That's something you just won't get sitting on a dyno. You could actually get 6-7hp out of a mod that only shows a 1-2hp increase sitting still, if any gain at all.
JBVobra's suggestion is the best so far. He does run very consistent numbers and if he could do a swap out and back and do same day runs both stock and with the Charger installed that would give you, I think, a more telling picture of the worth of this mod.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Tim, this is what I'm saying:

I do not trust dynos and back-to-back runs. They've been too inconsistent in my experience and it's hard to pinpoint why one run is different than another, even after no changes to the car at all.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I've never personally operated a dyno. This is simply my observations from attending numerous "dyno days" in the area and seeing people try minor "changes" between two runs (ie..remove snorkel, change from paper to k&n, etc..). I've seen these experiments yield results going the opposite direction depending on the vehicle. One might gain 3rwhp from removing the snorkel and proclaim that is the way to go. Of course, that is, until a car 5 spots down the line tries the exact same thing and looses 3rwhp. It's unexplainable.

I personally feel much more comfortable trying a mod at the drag strip and grabbing a time slip. I totally agree two runs could be subject to varying weather conditions, varying shift effectiveness, etc... This is where the driver has the ultimate call on whether the mod was effective or not. It would be up to the driver to decide if two different ETs/Traps were the results of the equipment on the car or a change in weather or simply the cleaness of the run. (to tell you the truth, I'd probably be more interested in changes in trap speeds. that should be the dead give away of more power being made)

Is this subjective? Of course it is. But it's still a little more scientific than SOTP claims out on the street or being a prisoner of dyno runs and the resulting "paralysis of analysis" syndrome. It's hard to quantify real world results on a set of drums with the hood wide open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
JB,
I hear what you are saying, but I think your method may be less telling for most folks than a dyno run. That said, some mods are not intended to function properly while the car isn't moving, so the dyno would offer no real indication whether it's working or not. In that case a track run would offer more info, but consistency is still an issue(in my eyes).

I also don't feel that hp numbers represent whether you'll will win or lose at the track. Example:700hp Supra vs. 600hp Mustang, even though the Toyota has the hp advantage I would put my money on the Ford in this case.

So, in closing, dyno numbers IMO should be used mostly for tuning and car set-up. I think that car-to-car comparisons need to be taken with a grain of salt. Although back-to-back runs with the same car should be close, 2-3 hp is pretty close to me. Something I don't think I could feel at the track.

Thanks for your comments.
Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Wow! Now we're making some progress and getting some fresh thought. "Analysis of paralysis"; TRUE! That was probably one of the things that originally caused me to post this topic, that there are so many differing claims regarding mods working or not working to various degrees.

I like JB's idea of track testing. That would put things into real-world perspective IF an average of a sufficient number of runs is utilized to minimize the "human factor". Now, how many runs would be enough? Then the other mods have to be given the same fair amount of runs to average each of them. It would seem that this method would soon become unworkable. That, I believe is why the manufacturers and retailers went to the dyno to substantiate their claims. Many claims are made based upon results of testing but a good share of those results end up being non-reproducable when an end-user installs the component on his/her vehicle. This is most likely due to the extreme number of variables involved when not in a strict testing environment. Since I do indeed like to analyze the numbers and use them to help me decide an issue, I'll look forward to publication of all testing results whether the testing is done on the track, on the dyno or at the local pub.

Yo Bartender! Give me another tall draught of data down this way, please.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top