what didnt change:
-93 jdm h22
-crower 2 cams
-dc header
-vafc tuned

blue line:
-3" shortram intake w/TH vstack and filter
-smsp 300cell highflow cat
-2.5" catback/obx twinloop

red line:
-3" cold air
-no cat
-apexi ws exhaust




not only is the red line lacking midrange, but its from a dyno over 2 years ago. so even with me beating on the motor, its still making good power. so i am officially a believer of the velocity stack


Modified by stRodda at 10:51 AM 3/14/2006


here is the graph from 2 years ago.



Modified by stRodda at 11:00 AM 3/14/2006

 

nice gains...i just got a prototype racing stack...hope to get results like yours.
pics of your set up?

were you running much leaner with the new set up previous to tuning?

 

picture of this Velocity stack, ive never seen one or maybe i have but cant think of what it is, nice number!!

 

turbohoses velocity stack

 

nice!!!!! where can i get 1 n how much? does it need to be modified 2 fit on a 3" inch short ram intake?

 

hey i want 1 too

 

nice numbers i guess ill be getting the twin loop for sure now for my tc and that V stack looks nice is it the same one being sold here


https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1550632


if not let me know where you got yours from

 

Do you guys run these velocity stacks without a filter?

 

http://turbohoses.com/velocity_stack.htm

 

That is a nice gain.

 

i was kinda hoping for peak gains as well, but i guess as far as topend goes, thats what a cai is built for.

i had no idea i made any gains until i got home. i found my old graph and then i saw what a huge difference it made.







vstack vs. regular 3" filter



and the tune was done with the filter ON, i never run without a filter... and supposedly there is very little to no loss with a filter attached.

 

wat kinda of short ram intake (size n brand)did u use? n how was it done did u just cut off the end of your intake n attach the velocity stack with the rubber hoses? how much did it cost you total?

 

This would have been a much more effective demonstration of the velocity stack's performance if it had been tested back-to-back on a completely identical setup, with the only variable being the velocity stack. While the unit may indeed have its merits, too many things changed between the dyno runs for any gains to be purely attributable to the velocity stack in this case.

 

I agree with Padawan. You can't deny some of that tq/hp increase was from the larger exhaust.

 

thats true, i just waned to post the difference. i was going to do the back to back runs, but i forgot the coldair extension at home.


one of these days im sure someone will have a local dyno meet and ill do a couple base runs then with different intakes. a friend of mine just got a copy of the j's... i would like to put that up against the vstack as well.

 

wait, the graph doesn't make sense, there is one point at 4200 rpm where the red line is higher on the torque curve, but on the HP curve, the blue line is much higher through out the power band.

Plus, compare the torque/power curves in the higher rpm's, they say the opposite things...

Something doesn't add up.

 

nice gains. a friend of mine got a cheap velocity stack this weekend and we put it on his car (2000 focus). it made more difference than i would have expected. i plan on buying one as soon as they are back in stock locally.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Propulsion &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">wait, the graph doesn't make sense, there is one point at 4200 rpm where the red line is higher on the torque curve, but on the HP curve, the blue line is much higher through out the power band.

Plus, compare the torque/power curves in the higher rpm's, they say the opposite things...

Something doesn't add up.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

2nd that - go back on the same day dyno just the intakes.... way too many variables in your dyno test....especially the 2 years inbetween & changing the exhaust

edit: your thread title should say "2 years Before and After Turbohoses Velocity Stack. Hella Midrange!!!!!!! & I changed the exh...too(Propulsion) "


BTW - sorry to be harsh does look like you got some nice gains from your mods

 

What Im saying is that even if they are dynoed on 2 different days, the HP curve and Torque curves still don't match.

 

To me, it looks like the old dtno (red line) was shifted 200 rpm higher than it should have been. I base this on the start, stop, cross-over, and vtec-dip points.

If you shift the red curve 200 rpm lower, the differences almost disappear; using my eyeball shift scheme.

 

The HP and Tq curves do match... You can almost seen an exact copy of the hp in relation to the torque. If you ever look at a dyno the hp is always a response of a tq, displayed a few hundred rpms later.

I honestly don't how you say they dont match. Maybe im teh one missing something but i have seen plenty of them in my day. could you try to explain to me why you dont think they match?? Are you referring to the fact that the hp contiues to be higher even the the tq curve is lower on the blue line in high rpms?

 

yes, there are points on the graph where the torque curve is higher but the HP curve is lower. Since both are plotted on the same rpm curve, this doesn't make simple mathamatical sense because HP is a directly proportional to torque.

 

sick

 

cant wait to test mine

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Used2beAb16 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I honestly don't how you say they don't match.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
There is something peculiar about the graphs. At 3,400, 4,200, and 5,300 the red torque curve crosses the blue. The HP lines should also intersect at those points, but they don't. There may be a glitch in the data or in his version of Winpep viewer that is causing the discrepancy. It does not appear to be a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone.