Mazda 6 Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi Guys and Girls,

I have a little additional information for you.

My M6 engine has now travelled 1,600 kms, has used Mobil 1 5w-50w from day one and only runs on BP Ultimate.

Having access to a dyno for a morning, I have found only certain modification provide additional power when airbox modifications are done, most create an illusion of power by creating more noise.

I was quite lucky to have an ISA day for the testing:
(International Standard Atmosphere)
Elevation: 77ft
QNH: 1013 hPa
Temp: 15'c

Change of airfilter (eg K&N) only + 1.1 kW - the factory filter when "new" flows well !!!

Remove front Intake Trumpet only + 0.2 kW - just more noise !!!

Remove Airbox Internal Baffle Plate = + 1.8 kW - this one works !!!

Remove Lower Airbox only + 1.2 kW - just more noise !!!

Place large cutouts on forward face of Lower Airbox (leave airbox in place) = + 2.1 kW

Cutout large circular hole on plastic plate directly over Intake Trumpet = + 1.2 kW


So here is my tip:

Change the standard airfilter to K&N
Leave Intake Trumpet in, cutout plastic plate above the trumpet (Let more air in)
Remove Internal Baffle
Place cutouts in front face of Lower Airbox

In total 6.2 kW (8.31hp) gain (All modification done together) slightly lower than individual gains mentioned above.

Any questions contact Warren Whittaker at [email protected]

And no - I'm not going to post the dyno sheet results - you'll have to do your own testing.

Warren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Reading Topic: Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications

Hi Warren,

If you wont show us the dyno sheet at least tell us what the final result was in kw's at the wheels.

Thanks for the info BTW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

Hi Slaag,

The final results are stated above - 6.2kW (at the front wheels).

It was done on a rolling dynometer.

Warren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

Hi Warren

Just curious, how much power does an M6 produce at the wheels?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

QUOTE
Originally posted by sixman


            how much power does an M6 produce at the wheels?[/b]
That's what I meant by the final result too! Not the gain but the actual power at the wheels.

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

Hi Guys and Girls,

The magic question - what is the power output at the front wheels ????

I can give you a dyno conversion figure (remember dyno's can only measure torque, you then have to apply a mathematical formula to convert to Brake Horse Power).

To convert from kW to BHP multiply kW by 1.341 = BHP

But before I do, the number I give you is a theoretical number - why ??

1. It was done on a ISA Standard Day (pretty rare in the real world)

2. The tyre pressures were let down to 22psi for grip on the rollers (not functional on
the road).

3. The engine bonnet was open, with a cold air fan, blowing most of the engine bay
heat away from the air filter intake trumpet. (not functional on the road)

4. The engine runs on low viscosity Mobil 1 5w-50w synthetic oil and BP Ultimate 98
octane fuel was used. (not everybody uses this combination)

5. Dyno's vary between different makes and models by up to 5-7%.

6. The torque figures were obtained in 3rd gear at 4,200 rpm. We were expecting the
torque figure to be achieved at 3,900 rpm.

7. Alloy 17inch wheels were used - wheel/tyres combo weight has an effect on output.

8. The engine had travelled 1,600 kms.

Under these conditions "my Mazda 6" produced (converted) approx 99.62kW at the front wheels standard.

After the airbox modifications "my Mazda 6" produced (converted) approx 105.82 kw at the front wheels.

The initial standard output was quite pleasing, as we expected up to a 25% power loss through the engine, transmission, differential and tyre combination. Instead we only lost 19% through the drivetrain.

Anyone who thinks they can now quote this number - has a slight ego problem. The variable's don't relate to real life conditions - thus my hesitation in giving them out.

My advice is to go and conduct your own evaluation, you'll come away a lot smarter and a little bit humbler. Don't worry so much about the numbers ... I only did it on the dyno, because the power gains would be so small, that only a dyno would probably detect them.

Warren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
Reading Topic: Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications

Warren,

Thanks for sharing this interesting information.

But I am curious about something...

If my calculations are correct your 8.4kW power improvement translates to 12 U.S. horsepower.

Is this horsepower increase truly from just airbox mods? I have to say that I am quite surprised. I would have never expected more than 5 HP from such modfications.

What I find interesting is that you listed so many details and specifications in your posting, but overlooked specifying which engine you tested. Since you're in Australia, and you specified "premium" gasoline, I would have to assume that it's the 4cyl gas engine. I'm guessing, since I'm not sure what engines are available in Australia (but I believe there is no V6 in your country).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
Reading Topic: Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications

If anyone from this forum has an opportunity to run their 6 on a dyno, I'd like to make a request...

We really need a baseline for the power potential of the engine without any air restrictions.

So this is what I propose... Take the top half of the airbox and suspend it away from the bottom half of the airbox. You would need to do something to keep the air filter inside the top half of the airbox, of course. You could use duct tape around the edges, for example, or some big elastics/rubber bands.

It would be great to see how that would compare to the stock configuration, and/or some of the "homemade" CAI systems that the creative folks around here have come up with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

Hi crishart1,

In Australia we only have 1 current engine option - L3 engine.

This 4 cylinder engine is a Japanese based engine, compared to the 1.8 and 2.0 litre engines in Europe and the 2.3 litre engine of Canada, Europe and USA.

The L3 engine has a 10.6:1 compression ratio and a longer inlet camshaft timing duration. There is a requirement to run a minimum of 95 RON unleaded fuel.

Hope this helps - there are a few more minor differences in the L3 engine as well.

Warren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

QUOTE
Originally posted by WRW-Australia


4.  The engine runs on low viscosity Mobil 1 5w-50w synthetic oil and BP Ultimate 98 octane fuel was used. (not everybody uses this combination)[/b]
50 weight oil is a relatively high viscosity. Mazda calls for 20 weight oil for all ambient temps here in the US. The second number refers to the true weight of the oil at normal operating temps. The first number is the cold (w refers to winter, I believe) viscosity. I'd be hesitant to use such a heavy oil in any modern auto engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

Hi pgmr,

Thanks for your comments.

To the average person's knowledge of the engine oil viscosity index, they seem reasonable comments, but I think I had better explain how the viscosity index works - "not how people preceive it works".

Viscosity, n. [ME viscosite, fr. MF viscosité, fr. ML viscositat-, viscositas, fr. LL viscosus, viscous] (15c) 1: the quality or state of being viscous 2: the property of resistance to flow in a fluid or semi-fluid 3: the ratio of the tangential frictional force per unit area to the velocity gradient perpendicular to the direction of flow of a liquid -- called also coefficient of viscosity

So, what have we learned? We learned that viscosity is a noun, and that its etymology can trace it back to Middle English (ME) as well as Middle French (MF); etc. and that it appeared around the 15th Century (15c). We also learned that it has to do with a fluid’s ability to flow (or "flowability").

If we scanned our dictionary to the next word we would find out that viscosity index, which is of greater interest to us, was established in 1929 and is an arbitrary number assigned as a measure of the constancy of the viscosity of a lubricating oil with changes of temperature. Higher numbers indicate viscosities that change little with temperature.

Since it seems like, at least to me, our dictionary approach raised more questions than answers, I thought that an example would give us a better understanding. Water has a very low viscosity; it flows very easily. A light oil is more viscous than water, but it still has a rather low viscosity, since it flows quite easily. Heavy oil flows slowly; and has high viscosity.

Now, how does this bring us to the numbering system in place today? Interestingly enough our dictionary caper shines a great deal of light regarding the issue. It has indicated to us that the viscosity index is an arbitrary number.

As a matter of fact, this empirical system, for expressing the rate of change of viscosity of an oil with change in temperature, is based upon comparison of viscosity measurements of fractions from crude oil L and H, which were chosen because they seem to possess the maximum and minimum limits of viscosity-temperature sensitivity.

Hence, they were accordingly assigned viscosity indexes of 0 and 100 as the presumed end points of a 100-point viscosity-index scale. While all other oils were expected to fall between these limits, subsequent experience has identified lubricants that are far outside the viscosity-index scale in both directions.

The procedure for calculating the viscosity index of an oil is to determine its viscosity at 40 and 100°C (104 and 212°F). The Standard Method (ASTM D2270) and ASTM viscosity tables (ASTM Data Series, DS39b) are used for viscosity-index calculations. Lubricants with good temperature-viscosity curves (high viscosity index) are desirable where service temperatures vary greatly.

At this point, it may be important to remind ourselves that viscosity may be influenced, not only by temperature but, also by pressure, and shear (fluid motion). When lubricating oils are subjected to high pressures, several thousand lb/in2, their viscosity increases. This is why multigrade engine oils were developed.

In other words, when viscosity improver additives are present, increasing shear rate causes temporary viscosity loss as the large polymer molecules momentarily align in the direction of flow.

However, there will still be some permanent viscosity loss in service as the large polymer molecules are split by shear stresses into smaller ones with less thickening power.

This phenomenon can be easily observed when comparing standard viscosity measurements on used versus new oil. So, you may ask: "what difference does it make if the oil shears?" Well, basically this would mean that this oil could lose film strength at high temperatures.

The table shows the viscosity grades for engine oils:

http://www.aera.org/Members/EngineTech/takea.htm

As we can see, the numbers that are commonly known to us (e.g. SAE 10W30) come directly from this table. In other words, the oil manufacturer assigns the grade by checking the oil viscosity oil at certain temperatures.

The example shown in parentheses brings two common questions to mind: -What does "W" mean? and -How can an oil have two different viscosity grades?

"W" indicates that the oil meets specifications for viscosity at -18°C (0.4°F); and is therefore suitable for Winter use. We can observe that all grades with the "W" suffix have their viscosity measured at very low temperatures (-30 to -5°C or -22 to 23°F); meanwhile they don’t have their maximum viscosity measured at 100°C (212°F).

Our second question can be easily answered by indicating that an oil with two different grades is a multiviscosity graded oil. Mutiviscosity oils are those whose -18°C viscosity is within the prescribed range of one of the W grade classifications and whose 100°C viscosity is within the prescribed range of one of the non-W grade classifications.

The way that multiviscosity oils work is by adding those previously discussed polymers to a light base (10W in this case); which prevents the oil from thinning as much when it warms up. At cold temperatures the polymers are coiled up and allow the oil to flow as a 10W oil. As the oil warms up the polymers begin to unwind into long chains that prevent the oil from thinning as much as it normally would. The result is that at 100°C the oil has thinned only as much as a 30 weight oil.

Only synthetic oils can offer an even greater spectum of protection. In Australia, for the average sports driver a 10w-40w oil would be ideal. The manufactures can't predict the driving habits of all their customers so they generalise - as informed drivers we take their recommendations and then make an informed judgement on an oil to suit our needs and driving styles.

There you have a brief summary. Because I drive my M6 "hard" close to redline for periods of up to 15 minutes at a time (a few times a month); a lesser multigrade would NOT offer sufficient engine protection. I have the best of both words - protection at low and high temperatures and shear protection when the oil gets HOT. I also go to the snow for 2 weeks a year and find I'm protected at these low temperatures as well.

To answer your question - yes, Mobil 1 5w-50w is probably an overkill in engine protection 98% of the time but - no, it won't do the engine any damage, so its a matter of choice.

Regards Warren

PS: Have a look at the following link

http://www.mobil1.com/index.jsp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

Hi Brenny,

If my description of what oil viscosity actually is .... is mind blowing, then you mustn't truely understand the topic. Everything may appear simple when you understand only the basic's of a topic.

I never "put down" anyone who asks a questions, I prefer to help people by sharing knowledge, but anyone who like yourself critises but offers no help, should - I believe reframe from commenting unless it is constructive in nature.

Most people here, I hope agree, that I provide a professional and technical explanation on topics that can become quite technical if the surface is scratched.

Warren

PS: I read your post in the Western Australia topic - pretty immature driving 235kph on public roads, a danger to yourself and the general public. The racetrack is the only safe place to exercise that sort of speed and besides, your mixing up the words "cool" when it should be "fool". My grandmother can drive fast in a straight line. That is why I take my M6 to Oran Park Raceway regularly ... respect for other road users.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,757 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

QUOTE
Originally posted by WRW-Australia

Most people here, I hope agree, that I provide a professional and technical explanation on topics that can become quite technical if the surface is scratched.[/b]
I thought I'd chime in here and say thanks. You really do provide some good information.

...which is why I wish you'd post more information outside the Australia regional section. Since I'm not from Australia, I don't check here often at all. There are lots of technical threads going on in the engines section currently, many without good answers yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
Reading Topic: Replying to Topic 'Dyno Results - Airbox Modifications'

Hehe, we Aussies wanna keep Warren to ourselves, right guys (and gals...)? ;)
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top