APS Cold Air Kit - Tuners views?
24 March 2005, 01:54 PM
#61
tell me Harvey. Do you not have anything better to do?
Now you are very naive in thinking you can call someone stupid and be welcomed with open arms....or you have a very 'different' sense of humour, one that I dont quite understand and my patience is fast growing thin. I invited you in good faith.
I'm signing off now to do some work on the car. There will undoubtedly be a Harvey™ comment on my return
Regards,
Bob
Now you are very naive in thinking you can call someone stupid and be welcomed with open arms....or you have a very 'different' sense of humour, one that I dont quite understand and my patience is fast growing thin. I invited you in good faith.
I'm signing off now to do some work on the car. There will undoubtedly be a Harvey™ comment on my return
Regards,
Bob
24 March 2005, 03:38 PM
#62
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm the words 'off topic' immediately spring to mind. I have an APS kit also recommended to me by a reputable tuner and I am more than happy with it. I'm not trying to break the 400bhp barrier personally so I guess some of the 'useful information' provided by this thread doesn't apply to me.
Oh and before you ask yes both the mapper and the company supplying me with the kit both informed me that a remap would be required after fitting
Dan
Oh and before you ask yes both the mapper and the company supplying me with the kit both informed me that a remap would be required after fitting
Dan
26 March 2005, 10:18 AM
#63
Dan : The APS CAK can serve a purpose where only modest power output is required.
It can also be the cause of disasterous engine failures. As you will see, some vendors of this product still insist it is a fit and go item which it clearly is not.
I think it is important that anyone considering fitting such a kit is aware of the deficiencies and potential to ruin an engine.
The manufacturer should state this prominently on his packaging. Particularly as they have known of the problem from customer feed back for at least three years.
Some respected and reputable tuners may be happy to fit the kit for lower power applications. One of the most respected mappers/tuners in the UK, Bob Rawle, was involved with me when power was taken from 417 to 434 to 450 bhp
a) for a filter change.
b)for a remap
All in a matter of a ten day period on G-Force rollers.
With the care we took we know accurately what we did and the results achieved.
Bob had an APS CAK on his STi 5 at the time. Some time after it was removed and Bob stated earlier in this thread that he would not fit one now.
Please do not overlook the fact that it was Chris Davies, then of G-Force and now of WRC that led me to change the filter in the first place.
Now I have no problem if others did not find power gains as I did. In stages I was able to develop a 2 litre engine from 300 bhp, through 417 bhp to 585 bhp, all on the same rollers, something others were unable to do.
I have no problem sharing my information to benefit those that are new to tuning Subarus as I was some years ago and if somebody doesn't want to accept my findings I have no problem with that either. However if they challenge them I will obviously stand up for what I reported openly and honestly.
What I do not need is *** heads and key board warriors insulting me needlessly and this substantially detracts from the worth of Scoobynet. Why should I post honest and carefully gathered information, (often with the involvement of other very capable tuning experts) which is intended to benefit the majority of "new starters" and then have the hassle of a rude, ignorant imature pleb, who from past posts clearly lacks a technical understanding of tuning.
Bob5. I am not sure where the humour bit comes from. Had your insults been accompanied by some wit or comedy, I may have taken it accordingly.
You claim the invite was in good faith. Hardly, no address immediately it was extended, when I was happy to accept it to assist you and all you have done since is to prevaricated. Seems to me that you have no problem dishing insults from behind your keyboard but your contribution to Scoobynet is dubious.
www.geocities.com/harveysmith3000
It can also be the cause of disasterous engine failures. As you will see, some vendors of this product still insist it is a fit and go item which it clearly is not.
I think it is important that anyone considering fitting such a kit is aware of the deficiencies and potential to ruin an engine.
The manufacturer should state this prominently on his packaging. Particularly as they have known of the problem from customer feed back for at least three years.
Some respected and reputable tuners may be happy to fit the kit for lower power applications. One of the most respected mappers/tuners in the UK, Bob Rawle, was involved with me when power was taken from 417 to 434 to 450 bhp
a) for a filter change.
b)for a remap
All in a matter of a ten day period on G-Force rollers.
With the care we took we know accurately what we did and the results achieved.
Bob had an APS CAK on his STi 5 at the time. Some time after it was removed and Bob stated earlier in this thread that he would not fit one now.
Please do not overlook the fact that it was Chris Davies, then of G-Force and now of WRC that led me to change the filter in the first place.
Now I have no problem if others did not find power gains as I did. In stages I was able to develop a 2 litre engine from 300 bhp, through 417 bhp to 585 bhp, all on the same rollers, something others were unable to do.
I have no problem sharing my information to benefit those that are new to tuning Subarus as I was some years ago and if somebody doesn't want to accept my findings I have no problem with that either. However if they challenge them I will obviously stand up for what I reported openly and honestly.
What I do not need is *** heads and key board warriors insulting me needlessly and this substantially detracts from the worth of Scoobynet. Why should I post honest and carefully gathered information, (often with the involvement of other very capable tuning experts) which is intended to benefit the majority of "new starters" and then have the hassle of a rude, ignorant imature pleb, who from past posts clearly lacks a technical understanding of tuning.
Bob5. I am not sure where the humour bit comes from. Had your insults been accompanied by some wit or comedy, I may have taken it accordingly.
You claim the invite was in good faith. Hardly, no address immediately it was extended, when I was happy to accept it to assist you and all you have done since is to prevaricated. Seems to me that you have no problem dishing insults from behind your keyboard but your contribution to Scoobynet is dubious.
www.geocities.com/harveysmith3000
26 May 2005, 06:04 PM
#66
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,706
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
After reading this thread I am more confused than ever, I had mucho respect for Harvey, John Banks etc but seeing them argue amongst themselves over an air filter leaves me unsure who to believe and which direction to go in.
I have an MY00 GT with tek2, I am about to fit a mahoosive Hybrid FMIC and need an induction kit so which one should I go for.
I want it in the wing as I don't want it sucking in hot air from the engine bay.
I am one of the naieve ones that do not know what is what but I can assure you I can not afford to blow up my engine due to a dodgy MAF reading thanks to an ill fitting air filter.
I have an MY00 GT with tek2, I am about to fit a mahoosive Hybrid FMIC and need an induction kit so which one should I go for.
I want it in the wing as I don't want it sucking in hot air from the engine bay.
I am one of the naieve ones that do not know what is what but I can assure you I can not afford to blow up my engine due to a dodgy MAF reading thanks to an ill fitting air filter.
30 May 2005, 05:27 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mass air flow sensors converts the amount of air drawn into the engine into a voltage signal. The ecu needs to know intake air volume to calculate engine load and to determine how much fuel to inject and when to ignite the cylinder. So far i think it´s ok.
The components of the MAF sensor are a thermistor, a platinum hot wire and an electronic control circuit. The thermistor measures the temperature of the incoming air. The hot wire is maintained at a constant temperature in relation to the thermistor by the electronic control circuit. An increase in air flow will cause the hot wire to lose heat and the elect circuit will compensate by sending more current through the wire. The elect control circuit simultaneously measures the current flow and puts out a voltage signal in proportion to current flow to inform ECU of current air volume. Again...it´s ok.
So one can accept that the measure is done, on basic terms, by the density of air passing trough the maf sensor.
Now the question: what does that have to do with shorter/longer pipes?? Or with bended pipes?
Another question: i have a 30 diameter for 30cm long pipe that allows passage of xyz cm3 of air trough the intake. Increasing the size of the cone filter would do nothing cause the air volume will be the same in the pipe. However, what will happen if the pipe is longer than 30cm...lets say 60cm...would that change the density of the air flow?
So...why would i need an remap on this basis? The ecu has not a will of it´s own...it functions on the info it receives from sensors. Could it be that the MAF sucks big time?
I think what i need is an ECU that can bypass the MAF sensor.
The components of the MAF sensor are a thermistor, a platinum hot wire and an electronic control circuit. The thermistor measures the temperature of the incoming air. The hot wire is maintained at a constant temperature in relation to the thermistor by the electronic control circuit. An increase in air flow will cause the hot wire to lose heat and the elect circuit will compensate by sending more current through the wire. The elect control circuit simultaneously measures the current flow and puts out a voltage signal in proportion to current flow to inform ECU of current air volume. Again...it´s ok.
So one can accept that the measure is done, on basic terms, by the density of air passing trough the maf sensor.
Now the question: what does that have to do with shorter/longer pipes?? Or with bended pipes?
Another question: i have a 30 diameter for 30cm long pipe that allows passage of xyz cm3 of air trough the intake. Increasing the size of the cone filter would do nothing cause the air volume will be the same in the pipe. However, what will happen if the pipe is longer than 30cm...lets say 60cm...would that change the density of the air flow?
So...why would i need an remap on this basis? The ecu has not a will of it´s own...it functions on the info it receives from sensors. Could it be that the MAF sucks big time?
I think what i need is an ECU that can bypass the MAF sensor.
06 June 2005, 12:58 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this issue is very important and we have no reason to fail on give it a conclusion.
So i have a doubt.
If those problems with aps are real, why the typhoon series system and AEM intake, that have almost identical pipe construction don´t report any kind of problems and don´t mention ECU remap requirements?
Thanks
So i have a doubt.
If those problems with aps are real, why the typhoon series system and AEM intake, that have almost identical pipe construction don´t report any kind of problems and don´t mention ECU remap requirements?
Thanks
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
