BOE Evora CAI

[Cantdecide]

Originally Posted by Julian73

The BOE CAI is an intake air system; header - cat combos used by a few members are Komo-Tec, 2ubular and Supersprint, hp curves and info on each system are on various posts in LT including delta power curves by me and Bobby Racer.

Thanks! Also, incase it wasn't clear what I was asking, I meant to say 'intake vs exhaust headers', I edited my post to clarify.

I gather the header mods are different than the exhaust swaps people are doing? Can you combine (for example) Komo-Tec or 2ubular headers with a Larini or Lotus Sport exhaust?

Here are the threads I found incase anyone else is interested:

Komo-Tec / Kold-Fire Evora S: Stage 1 means PLUS 45hp and PLUS 20ft-lbs

2bular NA Evora Exhaust System

[Julian73]

Originally Posted by Cantdecide

I gather the header mods are different than the exhaust swaps people are doing? Can you combine (for example) Komo-Tec or 2ubular headers with a Larini or Lotus Sport exhaust?

The Komo-Tec and 2bular headers, downpipes, Cat sections are modular with OEM positioned flanges, thus you can mix and match and use any OEM or aftermarket silencer; a known exception is the new 2bular dual muffler/cat system, but this does bolt to back of downpipe.

Other things to watch on parts mixing is that Lotus changed flange orientation between downpipe and cat section on S cars and now has carried this on the ISP and all 2012 and beyond, so confirm with supplier, application to your year and model.

Originally Posted by Cantdecide

Here are the threads I found incase anyone else is interested:

A third link:

Supersprint Exhaust System

[Julian73]

Latest mod, Tapeworks ColdGold warp; no specific temperature readings but surface is cooler to the touch that surrounding bare and black aluminum and plastic ducting.

[Julian73]

Let's not let this CAI solution go to waste!

[turbophil]

I won't

We just got slammed, but the end is in sight!

Thank you for being persistant, it actually does help to keep the coals on the fire!!!

Cheers,

Phil

[Julian73]

Any NA volunteers; offer up your car to Phil to confirm application of the BOE CAI to it.

[lynnpreston]

I'm in. I already have the EV290.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App

[invictusmaneo]

I'm in if need be! Though I guess I'm not local watching closely

[Plackslayer]

I'm in as well - and also have the EV290.

[Allan Gibbs]

Originally Posted by Julian73

Any NA volunteers; offer up your car to Phil to confirm application of the BOE CAI to it.

So, how's this working? We buy the CAI do a before an after dyno and report back? Is there any other data beside hp & tq we need to report back? Or, do we need to be in the vicinity of BOE?

[sajonf]

Originally Posted by Julian73

Any NA volunteers; offer up your car to Phil to confirm application of the BOE CAI to it.

I have a 2011 NA and live in KC. I would be happy to offer my car for testing if there was an incentive to do so

[Julian73]

Originally Posted by Allan Gibbs

So, how's this working? We buy the CAI do a before an after dyno and report back? Is there any other data beside hp & tq we need to report back? Or, do we need to be in the vicinity of BOE?

Think is more a case of confirming fuel trims are stable on an NA w/ stock tune; to be certain that this can be a safe plug&play.

[brgelise]

Now to be fair, we need to get a comparison between the Radium CAI and the BOE product. My Radium is the most impressive CAI I have installed on any vehicle!

[turbophil]

Originally Posted by sajonf

I have a 2011 NA and live in KC. I would be happy to offer my car for testing if there was an incentive to do so

Cool deal. I forgot that you just posted the other day with an NA Evora. First in KC that I know of!

I do need a car in the shop so that I can dial it in correctly... monitor, etc...

Originally Posted by brgelise

No to be fair, we need to get a comparison between the Radium CAI and the BOE product. My Radium is the most impressive CAI I have installed on any vehicle!

No, that's not fair and wouldn't be a good comparison if all you did is strap the cars to the dyno. The strategy behind the intake we built for Julian's car is totally different than yours. Your intake MASSIVELY manipulates the data the ECU sees. There consequences to this that have proven to be terminal for some SC'd cars, some NA cars, and some IPS cars. This is the problem. We're not trying to "trick" the ECU into providing more timing and less fuel to the motor to create power. You should alter the tune on the car if that's your intention. We're simply attempting to ensure we're removing any potential for intake restrictions, while retaining the "fresh air" inlet that's molded into the body work. Your intake does not retain this factory feature and draws air in from the engine bay. This fresh air (cold-air, etc...) benefit that we incorporated probably won't show up on the dyno, but it certainly does when monitoring IATs Cooler IATs mean better power when the car is in motion.

Refer to this post: http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/1843011-post12.html to better understand the data...

That's real data from your intake kit, stock, and the one we built for Julian...

-Phil

[brgelise]

By all means by being fair, I mean
1. dyno
2. fuel trim data and ancillary numbers related to tune
3. Effects of idealized tunes on both CAI's.
I have read the other post which is great stuff so it seems like #3 is what we need to gather data on.
Have you put an annemometer (wind gauge) on that intake to see how much air is being driven into the engine bay? Temp difference would be interesting. I always thought that the stock MAF #'s on our motors tended to be quite rich, thus typically Toyota conservation.
Finally, forget SC cars here as I don't have one and that isn't the build that the original Radium was for though some people bought one and modded it. I have yet to see anyone post here about an engine detonation as a result of a Radium CAI or any other reason, for that matter. Think of it as a double blind study.

I have every intent of looking into a tune with you this year, but I'm a bit more pragmatic. As a comparison, I've DEFINITELY heard of some issues with the TVS SC'd cars (Eliges) v the MP62 cars. Among them is pushing more than ~265HP thru a 2ZZ tends to overload the stock trannies. That was an aside, but I learned long ago to compare and listen to both sides in the mods department. Everyone wants you to think their product is automatically better.

Am I correct to hear that the Radium CAI/ exhaust combo is producing a "LEAN" condition that has detonated motors? With or without headers? With or without a tune?
I applaud your work but feel there are a lot of unanswered questions here. I went thru a whole bunch of the CAI stuff years ago with my Cobra. In the fender, in the box, etc and I dealt with Jannetty Racing in Wtby CT who showed me all the dynos of all the combinations. GUy has a whole bunch of trophies and taught me about "HAPPY NUMBERS" on dynos. It was always a +/- a few HP, fuel trim etc. Headers were far more important on that motor than just about anything else. GUess I'm one of those "show me the money" types. Maybe the Radium guys would like to chime in as they did a lot of work also.

[turbophil]

This is, in large part common sense.

The intake system from the factory, on ANY car, is not going to be that bad from a performance standpoint. The OEM is under fantastic pressure to generate the most power it can while creating the least amount of emissions possible that it can from an engine. Part of that recipe does NOT include a restrictive intake path. If you're seeing unreasonable power gains from an intake system on a modern car, then that system is doing something wrong--- even if "wrong" produces power on the dyno.

The lotus airbox is NOT that restrictive. It is however, big, heavy, hard to service, and complicated. A large reason for some of these factors is consistant with other OEMs in that they're trying to regulate intake sound, ie reduce it *substantially*.

Aftermarket intake designers tend to not care about sound, and that helps to reduce size, complexity, weight, and in many cases make service easier. Aftermarket designers do care about airflow, but so does the OEM! It's common to see a slight increase in power in the upper RPM registers with an aftermarket intake, but you should NOT see a huge gain. If you do, you know the designer of the inlet intentionally or UNintentionally manipulated the fuel and spark management with the intake.

In the case of your intake, I have shown the MAF values vs stock. Clear as day, measured air is more than 10% reduced. This means the ECU will provide LESS FUEL and MORE SPARK at a given RPM and throttle position than it did prior to the installation. It does this because it uses airflow and RPM as the primary drivers to determine load. Lower MAF values, like your intake provides at given RPM, equate to lower load in the ECU. Lower calculated load requires less fuel and more spark for a proper burn. Manipulating calculated load is NOT the correct way to make power.

I'm not making assumptions. It's right in the data. Your intake will data log more spark and atleast 2 points leaner AFR at WOT than the stock airbox on a stock tune in addition to 10+% less metered airflow... It makes sense what's happening, it just doesn't make sense to do it this way

As for motor failures, I don't have any numbers in front on me. Don't care to. I'm not trying to use a scare tactic to move parts. I just like things to be correct. Contact Lotus USA and inquire. I know they have a list. There have been several drivetrain claims denied once they learned of the installation of that inlet, because they understand exactly what I'm saying here. They've seen it first hand.

It is perfectly evident that the intake makes a mess out of the tune. It's been further discovered that simply rotating the offset KN filter impact trims and measured MAF values at various RPMs.

I posted about the problem with that intake quite a good while before Julian asked us to design a replacement. We actually hadn't planned on it, but he asked, the car was here, and we like fixing problems. Fortunately, we have a dyno and several years of experience with tuning these cars on MAF, undestand Lotus ECU tuning pretty well, etc and came up with a decent part that retains an external air source, is easier to service, light weight, and most importantly does not make a mess of load calculations in the ECU...

Sorry for the long post. It's important to explain "the why" in all this. We've also worked very closely with our friends at VSA in california on identifying the issues here. Between the several Evora S and NAs that they have to work with and what we've done in our shop, I have an enormous database compiled of logs and many - many pulls on the dyno. The homework has largely been done...

-Phil

[brgelise]

Ok! Can we do a tune for the Radium CAI with all the flow it allows, esp with a Larini exhaust or are you saying it is "Not tunable" due to a flawed design?
Another way of putting it is your CAI able to work stand alone or does it mandate a tune?

At this point I'd rather tune my Radium CAI rhan have to buy a new CAI and a tune as well.

[lynnpreston]

At the risk of putting words in Phil's mouth and drawing too close a comparison to software engineering, I believe he is saying that an improperly designed intake renders the MAF nondeterministic, i.e. the same inputs (actual air flow) will give different outputs (measured air flow and therefore fuel/spark) over multiple runs. While nondeterminism can certainly be desirable in certain situations, this does not appear to be one.

[Julian73]

Originally Posted by turbophil

... We're simply attempting to ensure we're removing any potential for intake restrictions, while retaining the "fresh air" inlet that's molded into the body work. Your intake does not retain this factory feature and draws air in from the engine bay.... -Phill

Not jumping into the technical discussion fray, but wanting to point out the air sourcing. Stock and BOE CAI take air DIRECTLY from the factory ducting. I have delved more into this ducting area, as the parts manual is poorly descriptive. Behind/under the side quarter intake grille is a molded duct that directs most air to a 5 inch dia. discharge port; other discharge ports are a built in water baffle and drain and a minor discharge port to the aft wheel well area, the factory flex hose tightly fits up to this “ port. This provides outside ram air from the grill direct to the intake air box. The BOE airbox intake tube fits into this same 5” port; only mod I have done since getting the car back was to warp the BOE flex hose with foam warp for a firmer fit like OEM, rather than extending the hose into duct so far.

Radium also draws air from this intake source but by indirect means that both looses the ram air effect and introduces hot engine bay air leakage into the intake. As they do not have a sealed air filter box like OEM or BOE, they needed to "build" one into the cars structure and thus only had space for the open filter over the wheel arch. They built this box with the bolt on plate which unfortunately does not fully seal away engine air/heat sourcing but is feed by air from both the factory duct and engine bay leakage.

This stuff does not measure on the dyno as its not possible to replicate air flow pressure at speed.

[turbophil]

Originally Posted by lynnpreston

At the risk of putting words in Phil's mouth and drawing too close a comparison to software engineering, I believe he is saying that an improperly designed intake renders the MAF nondeterministic, i.e. the same inputs (actual air flow) will give different outputs (measured air flow and therefore fuel/spark) over multiple runs. While nondeterminism can certainly be desirable in certain situations, this does not appear to be one.

This is exactly right. We've tried to tune the radium intake. One pass looks good, the next doesn't... Then we rotate the KN filter and a whole new set of data comes up. MAF sensors are very sensitive to airflow....

So BRGelise, as far as I can tell, we cannot tune it. It's not that it flows too much air, it just doesn't allow the MAF sensor to meter correctly. Its ability to flow air is no greater or less than another...


-Phil