The Oldsmobile Connection

[88delta88]

raskull wrote: who knew cold air intakes could spark such a hostile thread :shock:

Arent you learning... And having fun too? :lol:

[raskull]

haha actually yeah! even though i have to stop and figure out what half the crap your talking about is. anyway, i looked today and there could be a spot to slide that intake through.

im assuming the object occupying this hole is the evac thingy? im interested in doing what 91parkave did, that seems like a such a good idea. im just speculating though, the summer is drawing to a close and i head back to school soon so spending money on my car might not be an option till next summer. Anyway, im gonna start installing my sound system tomorrow and i want to finish that before i start any more projects.

[andrewk]

Quote: stop an think, Now how effiecent and performance oriented was GM during the ealry 90's? yea 160 hp v6's in 3800lb cars the list goes on... How much dumb stuff did they design on their cars? ALOT. unless you think factory is better, then there no point in carrying on this conversation. Nobody said turbulence has an effect on intake temps-please re-read that. as for the other stuff hey your opinion is your opinion im simply stating mine.

This is hardly about opinion, it's about fact. It should be realized that performance, in the racing sense, was not in consideration when cars like yours and mine were built. Things the factory did to make these cars perform to expectation were not dumb, and this is proved by the fact that they work, and are still on the road today. This is really a moot point, considering that the topic of conversation is more performance oriented.

You misunderstood my first statement.

andrewk wrote: The quantity and temperature of the air are what matters, and its what the MAF senses. Turbulence would not make the volume of air that the MAF sees oscillate, nor would it change the temp, so how can it affect the MAF.

The point is that turbulence can only affect the volume reading, and not the temp, which is why I said it wouldn't do so. (while it could be argued from an academic standpoint that the increased friction of the pipe could cause an increase in temperature, but it would be purely academic and not applicable or noticeable in a real-world situation)

In addition, turbulence can not change the amount of air that moves through that piece of pipe. It can affect the velocity, but a MAF sensor can not be that sensitive, as they are used in a flex pipe orientation in an OEM application. If these sensors were that sensitive, you would see smooth wall pipe in a factory car. The amount of turbulence required to change the MAF reading would have to be dramatic, like going from idle to full throttle, or mid to full throttle. Not going to happen simply because the pipe has "ribs".

Quote: but maybe some people want to get to a higher level.

Nothing wrong with trying to better your ride, its why we are all here. However, in order to get to the performance level in which this even remotely matters would mean not driving that 3800 pound luxury liner of a car. You need to be much lighter, have much more power, better suspension, etc, etc. Norm is probably the closest of any of us to this point, and if I read correctly, he uses drier duct..

Quote: no a MAf wire hot/cold is how it reads airflow, Most GM's are equiped with intake air temp sensors that determine intake temps

Then what's to prevent underhood temps from skewing these readings? I highly doubt the sensors are that sensitive, or the engine would be finicky as heck.

Quote: i have a temp probe in the intake tract. i also have a scanner from time to time.

Could you demonstrate for us how this works, preferably with pics?

Quote: i have. i had my intake probe in both setups which is why i love the cheap PVC.

You have what? Data?

Quote: think of a plane flying through the air the plane represents the MAF sensor smooth air smooth flying- turbulence comes plane shakes maf's dont "shake" but the readings can. straighter air flow passes through the screen faster than turbulent air can

But again, this device would have to be designed so as to not be affected by small changes in volume and velocity, or else the system would not be reliable.

Quote: this topic has the most replies ive ever seen on this forum

There are quite a few others with more, but you would have to dig back a ways to find them.

[91parkave]

raskull wrote: haha actually yeah! even though i have to stop and figure out what half the crap your talking about is. anyway, i looked today and there could be a spot to slide that intake through.

im assuming the object occupying this hole is the evac thingy? im interested in doing what 91parkave did, that seems like a such a good idea. im just speculating though, the summer is drawing to a close and i head back to school soon so spending money on my car might not be an option till next summer. Anyway, im gonna start installing my sound system tomorrow and i want to finish that before i start any more projects.
ha , cost of the whole setup i did under 20 bucks including beer but not including air filter

[91parkave]

andrewk wrote: Quote: stop an think, Now how effiecent and performance oriented was GM during the ealry 90's? yea 160 hp v6's in 3800lb cars the list goes on... How much dumb stuff did they design on their cars? ALOT. unless you think factory is better, then there no point in carrying on this conversation. Nobody said turbulence has an effect on intake temps-please re-read that. as for the other stuff hey your opinion is your opinion im simply stating mine.

This is hardly about opinion, it's about fact. It should be realized that performance, in the racing sense, was not in consideration when cars like yours and mine were built. Things the factory did to make these cars perform to expectation were not dumb, and this is proved by the fact that they work, and are still on the road today. This is really a moot point, considering that the topic of conversation is more performance oriented.

-------------
performance----cold air intake
-------------

andrewk wrote: The quantity and temperature of the air are what matters, and its what the MAF senses. Turbulence would not make the volume of air that the MAF sees oscillate, nor would it change the temp, so how can it affect the MAF.

The point is that turbulence can only affect the volume reading, and not the temp, which is why I said it wouldn't do so. (while it could be argued from an academic standpoint that the increased friction of the pipe could cause an increase in temperature, but it would be purely academic and not applicable or noticeable in a real-world situation)

In addition, turbulence can not change the amount of air that moves through that piece of pipe. It can affect the velocity, but a MAF sensor can not be that sensitive, as they are used in a flex pipe orientation in an OEM application. If these sensors were that sensitive, you would see smooth wall pipe in a factory car. The amount of turbulence required to change the MAF reading would have to be dramatic, like going from idle to full throttle, or mid to full throttle. Not going to happen simply because the pipe has "ribs".

your statment contradicts it self in the first 2 sentences. "tubulence cant change the amount of air" " it can affect velocity" a amount of air moving through anything is referred to as velocity so.....what are you saying?

Quote: but maybe some people want to get to a higher level.

Nothing wrong with trying to better your ride, its why we are all here. However, in order to get to the performance level in which this even remotely matters would mean not driving that 3800 pound luxury liner of a car. You need to be much lighter, have much more power, better suspension, etc, etc. Norm is probably the closest of any of us to this point, and if I read correctly, he uses drier duct..

-----------------------------
Norm is running a big block olds drag car, Im running a 231 cu in v6 daily driver. apples to oranges. my whole arguement this whole time is reliability and performance which is why i bring MAF readings and intake temps into the conversation were not talking a 1/4 mile at a time were talking 10-100 miles driven per day in stop and go traffic. I think my idea prevails over thin walled drier duct any day in that kinda application.
------------------------------

Quote: no a MAf wire hot/cold is how it reads airflow, Most GM's are equiped with intake air temp sensors that determine intake temps

Then what's to prevent underhood temps from skewing these readings? I highly doubt the sensors are that sensitive, or the engine would be finicky as heck.

-----------------
http://www.wellsmfgcorp.com/pdf/Counterpoint3_2.pdf
READ and yes MAF sensors are very finiky
--------------------


Quote: i have a temp probe in the intake tract. i also have a scanner from time to time.

Could you demonstrate for us how this works, preferably with pics?

------------------
i dont have any pics of when i had my intake probe in but if you want me to take a pic of my laptop then ill be happy to.
-----------------
Quote: i have. i had my intake probe in both setups which is why i love the cheap PVC.

You have what? Data?

-------------------
i dont pull stuff out my ass to bring on this forum and share. Yes i had actual intake temps, did i write them down uh hell no that was almost a year and half ago i know what did what so the advice i give is my data.
--------------

Quote: think of a plane flying through the air the plane represents the MAF sensor smooth air smooth flying- turbulence comes plane shakes maf's dont "shake" but the readings can. straighter air flow passes through the screen faster than turbulent air can

But again, this device would have to be designed so as to not be affected by small changes in volume and velocity, or else the system would not be reliable.

--------------------
its reliable becauce of the screen in front of it. think of it as a gate it straightens out airflow for the maf to read. My whole point is getting air through the "gate" faster.
--------------------

Quote: this topic has the most replies ive ever seen on this forum

There are quite a few others with more, but you would have to dig back a ways to find them.

[raskull]

first of all...i am getting so confused with all these quotes haha. quote of a quote of a quote.....



91parkave. did you bolt the evac thing to something else? or is there a good place to put it?

what the hell does it even do?


i was lookin around under the hood and the horn is right above it....this tempts me to start a search for a more powerful horn. hmm. might start a new thread :lol:

[91parkave]

raskull wrote: first of all...i am getting so confused with all these quotes haha. quote of a quote of a quote.....



91parkave. did you bolt the evac thing to something else? or is there a good place to put it?

what the hell does it even do?


i was lookin around under the hood and the horn is right above it....this tempts me to start a search for a more powerful horn. hmm. might start a new thread :lol:

yea i dont like the quote thing myself anyways i used to have it ziptied to the headlight brakcet but then i just got it out the way completley and moved it under the passenger side fender. I only did that to have alot of room for my t3/t4 turbo so....where you mount is up to you. its function is to take excess fuel vapors and return them to the fuel tank to increase fuel mileage and emissions.

[88 Coupe]

raskull wrote: who knew cold air intakes could spark such a hostile thread :shock:
No Hostility that I can see. Only a search for facts.

Isn't that what a discussion board is all about?

Norm

[91parkave]

88 Coupe wrote: raskull wrote: who knew cold air intakes could spark such a hostile thread :shock:
No Hostility that I can see. Only a search for facts.

Isn't that what a discussion board is all about?

Norm yea no hard feelings here either challenges makes the mind grow and i welcome them all. I do win sometimes i lose sometimes. but anyway Norm so what have you concluded from anyof the things weve discussed?

[88 Coupe]

91parkave wrote: 91parkave wrote: ........ one of the best results i had was ........

88 Coupe wrote: How much HP/ET/MPH did you gain?
........ with just a flow master back then and that was a 11.2 which works out to being a 16 second quarter mile so yes i ripped off a full second
wow it clearly states simple intake AND EXAUST mods ........
And you clearly claimed a one second gain with those two simple mods.

Norm

[88 Coupe]

88 Coupe wrote: 91parkave wrote: ........ actually theres been many studies on how turbulent flexible tubing is. smooth bends and couplers get the best results ........
Again, cite a couple.
If you cannot find any, just say so.

Norm

[88 Coupe]

91parkave wrote: andrewk wrote: ........ most factory setups use a "flex duct" of sorts in which the MAF is inserted. If it was such a horrible idea, it would not be done .........
........ how efficient and performance oriented was GM during the early 90's? ........
Flex duct has been used, in performance applications, since the mid '60s. Olds W30 is an example.

I believe it is still in use, currently.

Efficiency, fuel mileage, and performance have been top priority from '73 till the present and will continue to be, into the foreseeable future. It would be a good topic for a new thread.

Norm

[88 Coupe]

andrewk wrote: ........ Norm is probably the closest of any of us to this point, and if I read correctly, he uses dryer duct ........
One 4" aluminum HVAC flex duct on each side. Used them from the high fifteens into the low 12s. Took them off after my first 11.99 pass. Lost 2 tenths and 3 MPH. Kept the "Rollbar Police" happy.

But, I'm not here to talk about about my own junk.

Norm

[88 Coupe]

91parkave wrote: ........ Norm is running a big block olds drag car ........
Drag car?

You really ought to deal with that reading comprehension thing.

91parkave wrote: ........ Im running a 231 cu in v6 daily driver. apples to oranges ........
Apples to apples. Changing the size of the air pump does not alter the laws of Physics.

Quote: ........ we're not talking a 1/4 mile at a time ........
We never have been.

Norm

[88 Coupe]

91parkave wrote: ........ I think my idea prevails over thin walled drier duct any day in that kinda application ........
And from my real world experience (in that kinda application) I say you think wrong.

91parkave wrote: ........ http://www.wellsmfgcorp.com/pdf/Counterpoint3_2.pdf ........
Where does it say anything about turbulence?

Norm