Miatapower List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Will Brown" <(email redacted)>

> Has anyone done just intake port matching and noticed / Gtech /
> timed-run-tested a difference before and after?

The big problem with the GTech as I saw it is that the results can be
highly skewed by launch repeatibility... or lack thereof as in my
case. 5% to 10% gains in HP can be "down in the grass" so to speak
when compared to launch variation. Meaning, same car, same roads,
same conditions, see how repeatable you can get the measurement to
be. I couldn't... not close enough to tell a new muffler, intake,
etc. I figured a stage 1 forced induction setup would be about the
only thing I could measure... and there's already a lot of data on
what to expect with those, so I sold my GTech. Not the direct answer
to the question, but to suggest unless porting will make substantial
differences (like 20HP or more) it might be hard to measure... unless
of course you approach the problem from a statistical analysis
standpoint, and do like 30 or more GTech runs before and after the
mod, going with the mean while throwing out 3 sigma outliers. I
coulda done that, but 30+ standing start runs on public roads
would be too much of a hassle for me. The 3 sample method they
suggest is too open for error, IMO

\/\/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jason Cuadra" <(email redacted)>

Hi,

Has anyone done just intake port matching and noticed / Gtech /
timed-run-tested a difference before and after?

Seems to be an easy DIY thing to do.

Regards,
Jason

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at hotmail.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

I did back in 1994 with my 1.6 (used a friends VC2000 at the time which is far
better and much more expensive than a G-tech). I noticed no difference but
the motor was otherwise unmodified. More mods will likely increase the need
for CFM airflow and the port matching might them surface as useful. However,
if all your doing is just a gasket match and removing a little flashing then
it can't hurt either since you'll be removing so little (I did it on all 3 of
my motors). The ports are actually pretty decent and the 1/32-1/16 that
you'll take out of the gasket mating surfaces won't affect velocity to any
measurable amount. -Randy

On a barely modified motor the head shaved showed tremendous gains and that is
why it is listed as a recommended mod on my Recipe for HP page.

FWIW, Randy

<< Has anyone done just intake port matching and noticed / Gtech /
timed-run-tested a difference before and after? >>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Wiseman, Curtis J" <(email redacted)>

Will,

I agree with the repeatability / margin for error of the G-Tech. I can tell
you that I shaved "about" 2 seconds off my 0-60 with the addition of a
System I to my 92 1.6l. However, the tolerance on that measurement is about
+/- .7 seconds. I got readings of somewhere between 8.7 and 9.4 before and
7.0 and 7.8 after. Operator error, yes, but that's one reason I'm going to
Houston on May 5. (The big reason is just to hang out. The dyno run is
just icing on the cake.)

Curtis

----------
From: Will Brown
Reply To: Will Brown
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 1999 1:06 AM
To: (email redacted); (email redacted)
Subject: Re: port matching?


> Has anyone done just intake port matching and noticed / Gtech /
> timed-run-tested a difference before and after?

The big problem with the GTech as I saw it is that the results can
be
highly skewed by launch repeatibility... or lack thereof as in my
case. 5% to 10% gains in HP can be "down in the grass" so to speak
when compared to launch variation. Meaning, same car, same roads,
same conditions, see how repeatable you can get the measurement to
be. I couldn't... not close enough to tell a new muffler, intake,
etc. I figured a stage 1 forced induction setup would be about the
only thing I could measure... and there's already a lot of data on
what to expect with those, so I sold my GTech. Not the direct
answer
to the question, but to suggest unless porting will make substantial

differences (like 20HP or more) it might be hard to measure...
unless
of course you approach the problem from a statistical analysis
standpoint, and do like 30 or more GTech runs before and after the
mod, going with the mean while throwing out 3 sigma outliers. I
coulda done that, but 30+ standing start runs on public roads
would be too much of a hassle for me. The 3 sample method they
suggest is too open for error, IMO

\/\/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Steve McGrane" <(email redacted)>

Would the same apply to the Dyno and your capabilities in shifting the car?
or do you only dyno in one gear? (Novice on dynos)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: (email redacted)
> [mailto:(email redacted)]On Behalf Of Wiseman, Curtis J
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:45 PM
> To: (email redacted); (email redacted); 'Will Brown'
> Subject: RE: port matching?
>
>
>
> Will,
>
> I agree with the repeatability / margin for error of the G-Tech.
> I can tell
> you that I shaved "about" 2 seconds off my 0-60 with the addition of a
> System I to my 92 1.6l. However, the tolerance on that
> measurement is about
> +/- .7 seconds. I got readings of somewhere between 8.7 and 9.4
> before and
> 7.0 and 7.8 after. Operator error, yes, but that's one reason
> I'm going to
> Houston on May 5. (The big reason is just to hang out. The dyno run is
> just icing on the cake.)
>
> Curtis
>
> ----------
> From: Will Brown
> Reply To: Will Brown
> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 1999 1:06 AM
> To: (email redacted); (email redacted)
> Subject: Re: port matching?
>
>
> > Has anyone done just intake port matching and noticed / Gtech /
> > timed-run-tested a difference before and after?
>
> The big problem with the GTech as I saw it is that the results can
> be
> highly skewed by launch repeatibility... or lack thereof as in my
> case. 5% to 10% gains in HP can be "down in the grass" so to speak
> when compared to launch variation. Meaning, same car, same roads,
> same conditions, see how repeatable you can get the measurement to
> be. I couldn't... not close enough to tell a new muffler, intake,
> etc. I figured a stage 1 forced induction setup would be about the
> only thing I could measure... and there's already a lot of data on
> what to expect with those, so I sold my GTech. Not the direct
> answer
> to the question, but to suggest unless porting will make substantial
>
> differences (like 20HP or more) it might be hard to measure...
> unless
> of course you approach the problem from a statistical analysis
> standpoint, and do like 30 or more GTech runs before and after the
> mod, going with the mean while throwing out 3 sigma outliers. I
> coulda done that, but 30+ standing start runs on public roads
> would be too much of a hassle for me. The 3 sample method they
> suggest is too open for error, IMO
>
> \/\/
>
>
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: bill cardell <(email redacted)>

Nope. Generally, dyno runs are done in fourth gear, as a full throttle roll on
from low rpm. Very repeatable.

Steve McGrane wrote:

> Would the same apply to the Dyno and your capabilities in shifting the car?
> or do you only dyno in one gear? (Novice on dynos)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: (email redacted)
> > [mailto:(email redacted)]On Behalf Of Wiseman, Curtis J
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:45 PM
> > To: (email redacted); (email redacted); 'Will Brown'
> > Subject: RE: port matching?
> >
> >
> >
> > Will,
> >
> > I agree with the repeatability / margin for error of the G-Tech.
> > I can tell
> > you that I shaved "about" 2 seconds off my 0-60 with the addition of a
> > System I to my 92 1.6l. However, the tolerance on that
> > measurement is about
> > +/- .7 seconds. I got readings of somewhere between 8.7 and 9.4
> > before and
> > 7.0 and 7.8 after. Operator error, yes, but that's one reason
> > I'm going to
> > Houston on May 5. (The big reason is just to hang out. The dyno run is
> > just icing on the cake.)
> >
> > Curtis
> >
> > ----------
> > From: Will Brown
> > Reply To: Will Brown
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 1999 1:06 AM
> > To: (email redacted); (email redacted)
> > Subject: Re: port matching?
> >
> >
> > > Has anyone done just intake port matching and noticed / Gtech /
> > > timed-run-tested a difference before and after?
> >
> > The big problem with the GTech as I saw it is that the results can
> > be
> > highly skewed by launch repeatibility... or lack thereof as in my
> > case. 5% to 10% gains in HP can be "down in the grass" so to speak
> > when compared to launch variation. Meaning, same car, same roads,
> > same conditions, see how repeatable you can get the measurement to
> > be. I couldn't... not close enough to tell a new muffler, intake,
> > etc. I figured a stage 1 forced induction setup would be about the
> > only thing I could measure... and there's already a lot of data on
> > what to expect with those, so I sold my GTech. Not the direct
> > answer
> > to the question, but to suggest unless porting will make substantial
> >
> > differences (like 20HP or more) it might be hard to measure...
> > unless
> > of course you approach the problem from a statistical analysis
> > standpoint, and do like 30 or more GTech runs before and after the
> > mod, going with the mean while throwing out 3 sigma outliers. I
> > coulda done that, but 30+ standing start runs on public roads
> > would be too much of a hassle for me. The 3 sample method they
> > suggest is too open for error, IMO
> >
> > \/\/
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
Bill Cardell
The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
Grand Junction, CO
dlralt.com
970-242-3800 tech inquiries
1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only