205hp NA Sky Package: RPi Stage 2 for the 2.4L

[RickyD]

20RWHP? that would be about 22-25 at the crank.
Think about this. Formula one cars only get max of 20 at 180MPH!
Wheres's the blower hidden
I'd like to see a picture of your intake.

[cerberus]

Originally Posted by RickyD

20RWHP? that would be about 22-25 at the crank.
Think about this. Formula one cars only get max of 20 at 180MPH!
Wheres's the blower hidden
I'd like to see a picture of your intake.

Still dont know, lol. Eloy posted pics here.

[RickyD]

That's basically the same thing I had on mine but I had built a aluminum box (like Brutus's) around mine and sealed it up with the CAI tube and filter inside. On the road I didn't notice anything and the intake temps where the same even at 80 MPH weather I had the box on or off. So I took it off because it didn't make any difference.

[RPIpower]

Originally Posted by RickyD

I have read a lot on dynos and most say manuals normally have about a 12-17% difference and autos run as high as 22% between RWHP and GrankHP. Like you figured Ag94, between stock and what you had after the 205-210 is probably pretty close.
I wonder what load Eloy is running on the drum on his dyno? Most run about 20FTLB's. The guy that does my dyno work has a Dynojet 224xLC and he does a great job for me and people all over the country. On his dyno he figures about 17%. Also I would like to know, if the RAI does make that big of difference on HP how much air pressure they are applying to it?? On a dyno unless you force a lot of air into the inlet of the ram air it will not make any HP difference at all!!??:
Did you know that people have actually taken leaf blowers and forced air into there intake have dynoed a 20HP gain!!

We have a Dyno Dynamics dyno. It doesnt measure hp/tq like the Dynojets do. It doesnt use a big roller like the Dynojet or Mustang, etc. which enables us to dyno bicycles and scooters.

Originally Posted by RickyD

I had a RAI similar to Eloy's design and it did absolutely nothing.
I was talking about it to James, my dyno guy, so he checked the air moving across the MAS and he said it was showing way more then the engine will ever need. adding anything to the system wouldn't make much difference.
In one of my previous posts I mentioned that cutting two 3 or 4 inch holes in the radiator plastic shroud did the same thing as far as cooling and airflow goes and posted pictures of my temp gage as well. (Truth--- about air temps)
One thing I want to say.
I am not trying to knock anybody or scare business away from one of our vender's. I am a facts guy. I just don't want to see people spend a lot of there hard earned money on something either they don't need or doesn't work. Thats all

Remember guys that you are trying to do stuff at home without the same tools/materials as us. You can't always expect to have the same results. If everything we did was something anyone can do at home, we wouldnt be in business. The purpose of our set up for the 2.4 is a ram air affect where on the 2.0, its to give access to cooler air. Both have been tested to work.

Originally Posted by RickyD

That's basically the same thing I had on mine but I had built a aluminum box (like Brutus's) around mine and sealed it up with the CAI tube and filter inside. On the road I didn't notice anything and the intake temps where the same even at 80 MPH weather I had the box on or off. So I took it off because it didn't make any difference.

Your intake is completely different than mine except for maybe the look of the box. I have two hoses coming up from the next to the fog lamps up to the box. My box is sealed and I am running an RPi filter 6.5"x5.5" base. My turbo is also sucking in air at a different rate than yours is. There are too many things that are different for you to expect to see the same results. It really has nothing at all do with the ram intake put together in this package though so I don't even know why its being discussed.

[RickyD]

My box as aluminum as well and is sealed also with two 3 inch hoses running to the front of the car. The only difference might be the size of the filter which I am running a K&N on the end of my CAI.
Dynoing bicycles? I think you need to bring it over to a real dyno. just kidding
Is your dyno one of those that has the two smaller rollers that the cars tires sit between when you run it?
And weather you have a box or just running tubes into your factory airbox. ram air is ram air.

[RPIpower]

Originally Posted by RickyD

My box as aluminum as well and is sealed also with two 3 inch hoses running to the front of the car. The only difference might be the size of the filter which I am running a K&N on the end of my CAI.
Dynoing bicycles? I think you need to bring it over to a real dyno. just kidding
Is your dyno one of those that has the two smaller rollers that the cars tires sit between when you run it?
And weather you have a box or just running tubes into your factory airbox. ram air is ram air.

Lol, man you gotta do some research on dynos. I had a Dynojet for many years so you are not going to tell me what a Dynojet can do vs. our eddy current dyno. I spent $26k on my Dynojet. It worked great but after going to EFI University, I saw the limitations of the Dynojet dyno. I opted to get the Dyno Dynamics which we have now that is 3x more the cost.

I think you are getting the whole thing confused. You DONT want a ram air affect when you have a turbocharged car. This thread is talking about the 2.4 NA.

As for your intake set up. Its nothing like mine. All the details of what I did is where the difference between yours and mine lie. I sized my filter to the amount of power and size of my turbo. It was custom made to my specs. My hoses are coming in from a different area than yours. You cant simply say, its going to the front of the car also.

[RickyD]

The guy that does my dyno work has eddy current on his Dynojet 224xlc also. http://www.dynojet.com/downloads/cat..._auto_dyno.pdf
What I am and some others is questioning is on one post you said you have been getting 125 rwhp on stock 2.4's but the dyno sheet on this thread says around 147? Why the difference? And I'm not confused. I am talking about the 2.4's. You mention the the biggest gain was from the intake and according to people have said on here you are telling them on the dyno it is making right at 20HP? Or is the 20HP once everything is set and tuned. These are our questions. Or was that just a typo.If possible, and I know you are busy but is there any way we can see the dyno sheets each time you make a change? Intake then exhaust and then final tune?

[RickyD]

Oh ye, and what do you think about the super charger kit that is out there?
Only about $700.00 difference from the turbo get.

[RPIpower]

Originally Posted by RickyD

The guy that does my dyno work has eddy current on his Dynojet 224xlc also. http://www.dynojet.com/downloads/cat..._auto_dyno.pdf
What I am and some others is questioning is on one post you said you have been getting 125 rwhp on stock 2.4's but the dyno sheet on this thread says around 147? Why the difference? And I'm not confused. I am talking about the 2.4's. You mention the the biggest gain was from the intake and according to people have said on here you are telling them on the dyno it is making right at 20HP? Or is the 20HP once everything is set and tuned. These are our questions. Or was that just a typo.If possible, and I know you are busy but is there any way we can see the dyno sheets each time you make a change? Intake then exhaust and then final tune?

Originally Posted by RickyD

Oh ye, and what do you think about the super charger kit that is out there?
Only about $700.00 difference from the turbo get.

All stock cars have been getting 127whp to 135whp. The most I have ever seen on a stock car is around 135whp. I have done many many dynos but Mark was here along with everyone else that was here at Battle of the Kappas when we dynoed the car. The intake and tune was easily a 15whp gain.

I'm not a fan of supercharging. I don't like the fact that I am on boost all the time. I like the fuel economy and efficiency of a turbocharger better. I also like the simplicity of maintaining a turbocharged car instead of a sc car. Thats just my opinion but others may prefer the sc over the tc. Anyone who is in So Cal, that are able to get this tune/package, just drive Mark's car. Thats better than seeing any graph or hearing any type of argument over the net. Thats why we wanted those wanting gobs of power to come out and drive the GTS in FL in a couple of weeks. All it takes is a test drive to convince you.

[RickyD]

Where and when?

[RPIpower]

Originally Posted by RickyD

Where and when?

We had several people test drive Cerberus' car and they were all very impressed. Let me know if you are ever around this area. We'll schedule a test drive.

BTW, this package is now called "2.4R1"

[SolGTP]

Originally Posted by RPIpower

I'm not a fan of supercharging. I don't like the fact that I am on boost all the time. I like the fuel economy and efficiency of a turbocharger better. I also like the simplicity of maintaining a turbocharged car instead of a sc car.

FYI

the current S/C kit out there for the Kappas does not keep the engine in boost all the time. It has a boost bypass valve built into the S/C the keeps the engine in vacuum until you go WOT, then it closes and you have instant boost. There is also no addtional maintenance to it as it has it's own oil system that is good for 100k miles

[RickyD]

Eloy are you going to make it up for the Tail of the Dragon in June?

[compdoc777]

Originally Posted by SolGTP

FYI

the current S/C kit out there for the Kappas does not keep the engine in boost all the time. It has a boost bypass valve built into the S/C the keeps the engine in vacuum until you go WOT, then it closes and you have instant boost. There is also no addtional maintenance to it as it has it's own oil system that is good for 100k miles

That is what I was going to say the SC's are superior to turbos for gas mileage and maintence they have a bypass which runs most of the time unless you are on boost. The bypass it always active and modulates through partial throttle and then WOT. It is instant boost not laggy like some of the turbo even the sky RL turbo.

Now I have 2.0 liter Acura RSX Type S is makes a little more stock 180 Whp compared to 135 whp, but with the SC at 11PSI. I make 200 whp at 2500 rpm (Which is more than stock at just off idle) then a whopping 320 whp at 8800 rpms. With torque dropping past 8K. I hardly have to drive hard or even get on the car to accelerate quickly and making so much power down low means that I can remain in the lower rpm not engaging Vtec. Still using the variable valve timing though thus saving gas.

Yet, I get 35 mpg on a bad day. Now if I get into the pedal I can suck gas at an incredible rate and get down to 15 mpg or less. Yet trips where I am just cruising 70-80 mph 35 mpg or just town crusing it sipps fuel.


Now with my car stock (no more SC) I find that I have to beat on it to get it to move meaning my gas mileage goes down. 22-28 zone.

I also find this with the Redline it needs a great tune to wake it up. The BSR is good, but it still needs some more gusto off idle and up top.

I know when I have a good tune when the car is silky smooth on acceleration and just seems to want to go effortlessly instead of having to force it. Turbo act different on different days good some days and bad others. Unless you can tune it daily.

[RPIpower]

Originally Posted by RickyD

Eloy are you going to make it up for the Tail of the Dragon in June?

Im not sure. Got more info on it? I'm running the GT2871R turbo right now and Im not too happy about the power. Anyhow, the car is going to have a roll bar fitted, along with some other goodies so I'll see how that goes.

supercharger more efficient than a turbocharger? I'm not even going to get into this argument.

[compdoc777]

Originally Posted by RPIpower

Im not sure. Got more info on it? I'm running the GT2871R turbo right now and Im not too happy about the power. Anyhow, the car is going to have a roll bar fitted, along with some other goodies so I'll see how that goes.

supercharger more efficient than a turbocharger? I'm not even going to get into this argument.

More efficient on gas not power or torque, but since I own and tune both turbo and SC I guess I would know.

[RPIpower]

Originally Posted by compdoc777

More efficient on gas not power or torque, but since I own and tune both turbo and SC I guess I would know.

Cool. Could you explain to me how a belt driven accessory will help with gas mileage over something that is being spun by exhaust gasses? Im just curious to see your theory on this because over the several years of doing this I have never seen this happen.

[compdoc777]

Originally Posted by RPIpower

Cool. Could you explain to me how a belt driven accessory will help with