-
Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features
Welcome to the #1 Fiesta ST Forum and Fiesta ST community dedicated to Fiesta ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Fiesta ST Forum today!
The merits of stopping at a stage 2+ setup
- Thread starter jeff
- Start date
For those that feel u need to do a turbo upgrade to feel a difference in power/performance. I invite u to unmarry your accessport to stock. Drive it for a day then switch to your etune and tell me it isn't like day and night. If you don't notice much of a difference, I'd be inclined to think you don't have a very good tune. I'm going with a turbo upgrade in 2 weeks, but I definitely noticed he difference between my tune+ etune and the Cobb OTS maps. Is it 100hp more? No, but definitely noticeable. Going from stock should be very very noticeable.
Agreed. It was your review that whetted my interest in a Stratified tune. I too wanted the smooth drive ability of the car with a smooth transition of power in a linear fashion towards redline, like an N/A engine. Stratified Stage 1 tune did that for me. It's definitely more powerful than stock and the rev hang is almost all gone. Makes the FiST more enjoyable to drive on the streets. If I want the donkey kick power, I will just drive the 911Tuning TTS 😄.
I brag about it all the time. 
...but I'm looking for something different than most people. Lots of people just want more power and that's totally fine. I went with Stratified because of all of the little drivability things they do. It makes about the same power as everyone else depending on climate, but it drives in a noticeably different way to me. Throttle modulation is different. "Surge" is minimized. Rev Hang is basically gone. The little quality of life improvements on Strat make it the tune for me.
...but I'm looking for something different than most people. Lots of people just want more power and that's totally fine. I went with Stratified because of all of the little drivability things they do. It makes about the same power as everyone else depending on climate, but it drives in a noticeably different way to me. Throttle modulation is different. "Surge" is minimized. Rev Hang is basically gone. The little quality of life improvements on Strat make it the tune for me.
I ran the OTS Stg0 tune when I had my snow tires mounted, and it sucked. Once I put summer tires back on, it was nice to go back to the normal tune.
Here's the difference between my car w/ a K&N and the base MAP tune that I got w/ the AP back when Adam was doing their tuning vs what it is now w/ intercooler, CBE and K&N and Adam's tune. I'll have to run that Stg0 tune one day and log to see the real difference from stock-ish.
But you get used to the power eventually, which usually has you wanting more power.
Here's the difference between my car w/ a K&N and the base MAP tune that I got w/ the AP back when Adam was doing their tuning vs what it is now w/ intercooler, CBE and K&N and Adam's tune. I'll have to run that Stg0 tune one day and log to see the real difference from stock-ish.
But you get used to the power eventually, which usually has you wanting more power.
Thread Starter
#146
Good to hear. After being unhappy with the stratified update I've connected with Adam and will be starting my tune revisions next week. I look forward to that for sure!!!
Regarding intakes, I spoke with Mitch and brought all these claims to his attention, that his numbers are false and that he supposedly admitted that to some degree, as was previously stated in this thread, which of course did not happen. He said that he'd done multiple dyno runs on multiple cars and that his data stands. Hopefully he will chime in here at some point.
Regarding intakes, I spoke with Mitch and brought all these claims to his attention, that his numbers are false and that he supposedly admitted that to some degree, as was previously stated in this thread, which of course did not happen. He said that he'd done multiple dyno runs on multiple cars and that his data stands. Hopefully he will chime in here at some point.
Read through some of your arguments on the CP-E intake.
A few comments. When I installed the intake on the CP-E car, I dynoed it one day and installed the intake, and then dynoed it again the next morning. On my personal car, I went from stock to turboback, intake and RMM the same day, so there are too many variables there.
Later I had a customer who was willing to do the intake, do logs and get everything the same day. The car never even left the dyno, as the intake was installed on the dyno.
Highest to lowest dynos did show a 21ft-lb increase and a 10hp increase. After we did see that the coolant temps weren't up to spec, we used a different comparison that showed a 17ft-lb increase and 6 hp.
One thing I will mention for complete transparency is that with a car that develops torque so early, it is hard to get accurate peak torque numbers as when the turbo starts spooling becomes a big factor. However, if you take out the first few hundred RPM of the dyno run, you still clearly see an increase in torque (and therefore power all around). So lets look at average torque developed across the run (especially because we saw some throttle closure in some of the after dyno runs). The average torque across the run was 190 before the intake. The 2 after runs where the car was at temperature were 196 and 197. Its a statistically significant difference.
I dont have the dyno charts with me right now, I am actually on a plane.
There's a video of the runs on youtube too. I don't fib runs. I use the same dyno calibration every single time with every fiesta ST. All the numbers are weather corrected through our weather correction station to SAE standards. We have an AWD mustang load bearing dyno. We have a custom fan setup that we built that is capable of 80mph wind speeds. It pulls 100 amps out of the wall.
In the end, its your choice weather you want to believe me or not. If you want to use a drop in filter and stock piping, do it. But if you spend the money on our intake you aren't paying for bling. You are getting a well engineered product that is manufactured to a high quality standard right here in the USA. I see the boxes being made every day, I see the pipes bended, I see the velocity stack bellmouth go from a block of aluminum to its final form. We take pride in making high quality parts and making them available to you guys. In the end, its your car, and you can put whatever you want on it. The intake sounds awesome too. Not too loud, but you still get the woosh and you can actually hear the stock BPV a little bit.
One last note. Without a tune, you won't see gains with our intake. Ill openly admit that. When I tested our intake I did runs without with both COBB OTS stage 1 and stock and after with both. 2 runs for all different options. If I do not see consistancy in the runs, I do not use that data (or at least find the discrepancy). I think there was a gain that was just about negligible with the stock tune. Honestly, it think it was 1 or 2 whp.
A few comments. When I installed the intake on the CP-E car, I dynoed it one day and installed the intake, and then dynoed it again the next morning. On my personal car, I went from stock to turboback, intake and RMM the same day, so there are too many variables there.
Later I had a customer who was willing to do the intake, do logs and get everything the same day. The car never even left the dyno, as the intake was installed on the dyno.
Highest to lowest dynos did show a 21ft-lb increase and a 10hp increase. After we did see that the coolant temps weren't up to spec, we used a different comparison that showed a 17ft-lb increase and 6 hp.
One thing I will mention for complete transparency is that with a car that develops torque so early, it is hard to get accurate peak torque numbers as when the turbo starts spooling becomes a big factor. However, if you take out the first few hundred RPM of the dyno run, you still clearly see an increase in torque (and therefore power all around). So lets look at average torque developed across the run (especially because we saw some throttle closure in some of the after dyno runs). The average torque across the run was 190 before the intake. The 2 after runs where the car was at temperature were 196 and 197. Its a statistically significant difference.
I dont have the dyno charts with me right now, I am actually on a plane.
There's a video of the runs on youtube too. I don't fib runs. I use the same dyno calibration every single time with every fiesta ST. All the numbers are weather corrected through our weather correction station to SAE standards. We have an AWD mustang load bearing dyno. We have a custom fan setup that we built that is capable of 80mph wind speeds. It pulls 100 amps out of the wall.
In the end, its your choice weather you want to believe me or not. If you want to use a drop in filter and stock piping, do it. But if you spend the money on our intake you aren't paying for bling. You are getting a well engineered product that is manufactured to a high quality standard right here in the USA. I see the boxes being made every day, I see the pipes bended, I see the velocity stack bellmouth go from a block of aluminum to its final form. We take pride in making high quality parts and making them available to you guys. In the end, its your car, and you can put whatever you want on it. The intake sounds awesome too. Not too loud, but you still get the woosh and you can actually hear the stock BPV a little bit.
One last note. Without a tune, you won't see gains with our intake. Ill openly admit that. When I tested our intake I did runs without with both COBB OTS stage 1 and stock and after with both. 2 runs for all different options. If I do not see consistancy in the runs, I do not use that data (or at least find the discrepancy). I think there was a gain that was just about negligible with the stock tune. Honestly, it think it was 1 or 2 whp.
Possibly referencing iso100's run, Mitch?
If so, his dyno is here:
http://www.fiestastforum.com/forum/...ot-Intake-System?p=83888&viewfull=1#post83888
If so, his dyno is here:
http://www.fiestastforum.com/forum/...ot-Intake-System?p=83888&viewfull=1#post83888
The dyno chart I am referencing are the ones taken AFTER the car warmed up fully with a peak torque of 247.
Why would you not use a weather correction factor with a turbocharged engine? 100% humidity is going to change your HP numbers, turbocharged or not. SAE standards measure HP at a specific ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity.
V-Dyno is a useful tool. It can approximate torque. However, there are too many variables that create error. I agree if you go do a log on the same road, at the same DA, starting and ending from the same point on a totally flat road, you may be able to see gains from tuning and other factors. However, there is nothing like the a real load bearing dyno.
I am all for consistancy as well. If you can't do it more than once, you might as well not have done it. That is also why I am mentioning averages. We did 3 runs after the intake installation. The average torque (measured accross the same rpm band) before was 190. After was 196,197, and 204. There IS a statistical gain.
Why would you not use a weather correction factor with a turbocharged engine? 100% humidity is going to change your HP numbers, turbocharged or not. SAE standards measure HP at a specific ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity.
V-Dyno is a useful tool. It can approximate torque. However, there are too many variables that create error. I agree if you go do a log on the same road, at the same DA, starting and ending from the same point on a totally flat road, you may be able to see gains from tuning and other factors. However, there is nothing like the a real load bearing dyno.
I am all for consistancy as well. If you can't do it more than once, you might as well not have done it. That is also why I am mentioning averages. We did 3 runs after the intake installation. The average torque (measured accross the same rpm band) before was 190. After was 196,197, and 204. There IS a statistical gain.
Because correction factors are designed for naturally-aspirated cars and cause an exponential growth of power in forced-induction cars as horsepower increases. Seems how we have the ability to spin turbochargers faster to maintain boost levels, which is definitely more applicable on a load-based tune than a boost-based tune, we have the ability to force a larger error in the numbers based on smaller pressure changes and so-on. Being FI, we have a significantly larger susceptibility to swings in temperature than in pressure, but that isn't compensated accurately for us either because it is measured as intake temps (for naturally-aspirated cars) and we have increases/decreases in that temp due to the turbo/FMIC by the time it hits the manifold.
Thread Starter
#154
Thanks for chiming in Mitch! Your explanation and data continue to bolster my support of and belief in your products as performing exactly as I have been saying that they do.
![[popcorn]](/images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
Proud to be a CP-E customer.
Proud to be a CP-E customer.
Thread Starter
#159
Possibly true but the opposite could also be true. Who's to say that the difference in power was because the intake allowed the tune to make more power than it would have without the intake?
In either case, this is true:
(A) Mitch did see a HP gain, though negligible, without the tune, just a few HP but a gain nonetheless - his honesty about this gives credibility to everything he is saying....
(B) All of us agree from reviewing the various dyno charts presented in this thread that there are obvious TQ gains...
So if you believe that the intake worked in tandem with the tune, the intake gave considerable gains in HP and TQ. If you don't believe that it did, it still gave a small HP gain and a considerable TQ gain.
Bottom line, there are gains.
In either case, this is true:
(A) Mitch did see a HP gain, though negligible, without the tune, just a few HP but a gain nonetheless - his honesty about this gives credibility to everything he is saying....
(B) All of us agree from reviewing the various dyno charts presented in this thread that there are obvious TQ gains...
So if you believe that the intake worked in tandem with the tune, the intake gave considerable gains in HP and TQ. If you don't believe that it did, it still gave a small HP gain and a considerable TQ gain.
Bottom line, there are gains.
I currently have a Mountune silicone intake hose and K&N panel filter with a Bigmouth ready to install soon.
To me, once ram air comes in to the equation, v-dyno is the way to compare because a stationary dyno will have near zero ram effect. The hose might not do anything except look better but I like it. The K&N with Cobb tune seems to do just as well as the Mountune airbox system.
One thing that has been shown with tubular metalic intakes is heat soak. Stock seems better for that.
The 2J clearly works. I think the reason is because it is so short and uses the high pressure cowl air. I'm too worried about noise to go with that intake right now, maybe later.
Stock with my tweaks does not carry any huge disadvantage. It might even be better than CPE when the ram effect is factored in.
Dyno racing is always contentious unless you are personally doing the testing. There are dozens of ways to fluff up dyno numbers so I am suspicious of small changes just as much as large changes. Spending money on small changes is a crap shoot because you never know if the changes are found by cherry picking, dyno fudging, noise or real improvement.
The intercooler and a panel filter are the two changes with real confirmed improvements so you can stop at "stage 2" and get the most bang for the buck or try adding more parts knowing that you are not going to get much measurable return on investment.
The worst case that I can imagine is skimping on the intercooler so that you can buy a CAI and cat back exhaust that do almost nothing. Then the cheapo intercooler will be holding you back more than the other parts are helping you.
To me, once ram air comes in to the equation, v-dyno is the way to compare because a stationary dyno will have near zero ram effect. The hose might not do anything except look better but I like it. The K&N with Cobb tune seems to do just as well as the Mountune airbox system.
One thing that has been shown with tubular metalic intakes is heat soak. Stock seems better for that.
The 2J clearly works. I think the reason is because it is so short and uses the high pressure cowl air. I'm too worried about noise to go with that intake right now, maybe later.
Stock with my tweaks does not carry any huge disadvantage. It might even be better than CPE when the ram effect is factored in.
Dyno racing is always contentious unless you are personally doing the testing. There are dozens of ways to fluff up dyno numbers so I am suspicious of small changes just as much as large changes. Spending money on small changes is a crap shoot because you never know if the changes are found by cherry picking, dyno fudging, noise or real improvement.
The intercooler and a panel filter are the two changes with real confirmed improvements so you can stop at "stage 2" and get the most bang for the buck or try adding more parts knowing that you are not going to get much measurable return on investment.
The worst case that I can imagine is skimping on the intercooler so that you can buy a CAI and cat back exhaust that do almost nothing. Then the cheapo intercooler will be holding you back more than the other parts are helping you.
Similar threads
-
RPM Stumbling When Stopping- Started by Yelbom15
- Replies: 13
-
What's stopping this engine from having a 8000 rpm - 8500 rpm powerband?
- Started by IDailyDriveABean
- Replies: 9
-
Tim Rogers upgraded his hot hatch’s stopping power in the pursuit of ultimate on-track thrills- Started by EBC Brakes UK
- Replies: 15
-
