Smooth out your SRI for 40¢

[sx sonic]

I threw a screen in today. I'm going to do some back to back testing before claiming It's benefits or lack thereof.

Tip in throttle response does feel a little better but barely discernable.

I'm still not all that convinced about this mod, but for the time and cost involved It's worth exploring.

I've got some material that is very relevant to this discussion that will be added in the future when I have computer time.

 

[Preloader]

I like it. I'm glad some energy will be spent on looking further. My energy is obviously tied up elsewhere for a while.

Which SRI do you have again?

 

[sx sonic]

ZZP, with the insert removed.

 

[Scot]

It does make me think that a more test of time honeycomb would be a smart idea.

I have heard that these SRIs have created a tune by MAF headache for Trifecta, and may have a big role in why he switched to ECP. So if there is a more mature way to stabilize the MAF readings...... I want to be all about that.

As Larrymer had stated - ECP sounds like they're ignoring the MAF input and running directly off of the MAP sensor - and your conclusion sounds spot-on.

I have a bit of experience with GM's airflow algorithms; I wonder if I could find enough parameters in HPTuner to improve the MAF performance and bypass this crap altogether...?

Anyone care to send me some logs of these bad / dirty throttle tip-ins?

 

[Preloader]

I do believe that MAF tuning is better/safer for tune by email than ECP. But I've been told that once mods are sort of finished, that a good dyno sessioned ECP tune is perfectly acceptable.

I was also told that the ECP enabled tune still uses MAF info, just with less dependancy.

It will be a while before I can put a decent data-log together. I have a serious "only as absolutely necessary" block about doing logs. They get me so frustrated, when it doesn't actually log, and/or the damn thing won't stop, when I hit "stop".

 

[firstorbit84]

You guys ever seen a VW MAF?

Their engineers definitely thought it needed a honeycomb/mesh for some reason.

 

[Larrymer]

I do believe that MAF tuning is better/safer for tune by email than ECP. But I've been told that once mods are sort of finished, that a good dyno sessioned ECP tune is perfectly acceptable.

I was also told that the ECP enabled tune still uses MAF info, just with less dependancy.

It will be a while before I can put a decent data-log together. I have a serious "only as absolutely necessary" block about doing logs. They get me so frustrated, when it doesn't actually log, and/or the damn thing won't stop, when I hit "stop".

ECP is somewhat of a band aid fix IMO. Once you change the intake it's going to be pretty much impossible to calibrate it like the OEM tune since as Scot said, they don't have the algorithms and know exactly how it works. This is their way of having the car run with any intake since it will no longer use the MAF readings (at least to some degree as you said, I'm not 100% certain what all they're doing) at the expense of having only ball park fuel trims and airflow error. I'm not saying what they're doing it wrong by any means, but for the aftermarket it's going to be very difficult to have it run "like stock" for these reasons. I'd be interested to see some data with wideband o2 and fuel trim data to see how far off things are with ECP.

(unintended derail)
I really question whether intakes gain that much power and are really a restriction on this car in the first place. It's a tiny engine and probably gets colder air than most SRI style intakes. On WRXs the stock air box is good to 350+hp so I really wonder if they're just creating a tuning headache that could be avoided. I think I'll leave mine stock.

 

[sx sonic]

You guys ever seen a VW MAF?

Their engineers definitely thought it needed a honeycomb/mesh for some reason.

My 07 GMC had the honeycomb air straightener, the entire MAF unit looked like a better design than what the Sonic uses. Less restrictive and more capable of creating laminar flow.

One point to not get too hooked on is turbulence. While it is to be avoided and O.E.M.s spend a good deal of "controlling" it, it is far from the complete picture.

 

[laborsmith]

Although I do recall Trifecta's frustration was aimed specifically at home made SRIs. He may be frustrated with some of the newer ones but I do not recall his expressing having any problem tuning DDM or ZZP intakes and both are SRI flavors.


Laborsmith

 

[Scot]

I never claimed a flat screen would provide laminar flow; that was your own conclusion. In fact, I haven't yet used the word "laminar." For the record, the OP notified me of this thread's existence based on a modification I presented, so I can hardly believe I'm "stirring up muck." I welcome a positive and constructive reply, but don't patronize me.

I am the furthest from patronizing as one can get - you're the one that forgot to wear his big-boy undies before quoting my last reply. I'm glad your results were good - but your first post sure seemed like you thought you had to defend yourself. :shrugs:

From your post on cruzetalk:

The stock air box has a restrictive filter and a "hair dryer" vent attached to the end of the tube. That vent is actually an air straightener that reduces turbulence and ensures that there is an even flow of air across the entire area of the tube when it crosses the MAF.

None of the aftermarket intakes have this. I was talking to Trifecta Vince and he notes that K&N now includes an air straightener in the Sonic intake, which means that they also acknowledged the problem. However, that air straightener has to be super glued in. Vince has also expressed frustration over the aftermarket intakes available and how "un-tunable" they are. This is why.

The whole idea here is to reduce or eliminate turbulence, which the aftermarket intakes have no way to do. The window screen filters that air and creates a more smooth and even airflow through the intake.

You're describing a laminar flow element, which a window screen is not. You're creating a pressure drop across a surface that seems to benefit your car - and others - but it is not acting as an "air straightener".

As I mentioned before, MPFab has a pretty good intake that exhibits this behavior - perhaps he could design one for a Cruze if he had one to take some measurements on.

 

[Larrymer]

Just in case you didn't get it before, Terry has been averaging 6mpg better the first tank following this modification than he did all year.

So basically he installed a turbonator?

Have Terry log his fuel trims before and after this mod or show some real data instead of making wild claims about restrictions and turbulence. Is he running a tune? With ECP?

 

[Larrymer]

I'm just skeptical, that's all. I read that thread and saw he was noticing the MPG gain according to the DIC which I wouldn't trust. Hand calculate what you get and then I'll believe it, but he's not even gone through a full tank yet it seems. Second, he's looking at the Ultragauge data, which looks to be sampled at around 1Hz...which is all but useless for analyzing a quick transient maneuver like a tip in. What does "more consistent AFR" on a tip in even mean? If he's in closed loop at 14.7ish and tips in, it's not going to be consistent if he goes into fuel enrichment anyway. Granted you can't even really see if the AFR spikes lean or rich anyway since he's just looking at the ECU commanded values it sounds like and not wideband data.

I can't help but knock on people's claims about this stuff especially when it's based on anecdotal evidence from one person with a lot of holes in it. It's better to at least have a discussion instead of people accepting it as gospel and have them throw door screens on their intakes.

 

[gasonright]

I have the K&N Typhoon system and there is an air straightener already in the design. Appears they have already thought about the turbulence issue.

 

[sx sonic]

I can say that so far in the 200 or so miles since adding the screen that my gas mileage "appears" consistent to what I was running before.

I've been fighting to get 43 mpg (DIC) this tank and have been bouncing from 43.2 to 43.9 mpg depending on drive time and route. Usually I'll drop to 43.2 or 43.5 in the 1st few minutes of driving and finish out my 25 min commute at 43.7. That's what has happened the last 5 days.

After installing the screen the DIC has been acting in a near identical manner (the last 2 days). With 300 miles since resetting the DIC I'd say the fuel economy change is insignificant. Albeit I reserve that statement until running a few tanks and hand calc-ing the results and comparing with prior results before claiming one way or the other.

I am skeptical of a 6 mpg change with just 1 mod, even after all my many mods (exh, intake, tune, ported turbo/intake mani/and throttle body) my fuel economy has not made a quantifiable change. My best, worst, and typical tanks are all within a couple MPG, well within what I'd call standard deviance.


I must point out that while I am skeptical of the gains, I AM NOT dismissing them. That is after all why I'm trying this.

We are having a discussion and several are in the process of testing. Plain and simple I don't see a reason in getting defensive about one view or the other. Let the logic/perceived logic fly and discuss your view point, we're all trying to get a realworld grasp on this mods effects. Until some repeatable results come in we're going to have skeptics and believers. So far the people on both sides have all been a big part of this forum (or another) and displayed a good bit of knowledge and understanding so lets not take anything personal .

 

[sx sonic]

The Cruze intake doesn't have that air straightener, which reinforces my point that something is needed. I wonder if we can get those separately. I'd personally never use a K&N filter, but that's another discussion for another day.

It is strange that the two designs would differ by such a significant amount considering we have the same engines.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

They've got a P/N for it so hopefully it could be ordered, it would likely need to be clocked in the right position thou. It is curious how several of the intakes between the Cruze and Sonic have been substantially different in design. Is the stock plumbing much different?

 

[sx sonic]

I just found some pics of the Cruze and Sonic SABs. There is actually quite a variation between them, pretty much the cold air intake portion, airbox, MAF location on the airbox tube, and ~1ft of plumbing after the MAF is different. I wonder of they have different factory MAF calibrations?

Sonic Pic at the end of the article.
http://www.truedelta.com/Chevrolet-Sonic/car-reviews-1065
Cruze pic in the Photo section
http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/chevrolet_cruze_2013

 

[severous01]

look what i found today on a mercedes benz E350

ok, well, since i can't upload an image....i pulled the airbox off the merc and guess what i saw....a bowl shaped screen in there...just like what preloader installed...wonder how many thousands or millions it took to develop this one...and preloader found it for .40. if someone can post the pic i'll text it to ya

 

[lattyd]

So I completed this mod/fix/whatever you call it tonight... tip in and partial throttle do "seem" smoother and from what I could tell driving similar roads my MPG listed on the ultra gauge seemed about 4-5mpg higher when cruising at steady speeds (also up to full operating temp)

I'll have to see if I notice anything different on my morning drive to work and maybe take a log this week and have Trifecta see if the readings are more "stabilized"

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Preloader]

Today I finally got a good commute sample. I do work and then teach at my hall on Mondays. It's a big triangle commute with every mix of traffic, grade and road type.

I still am pretty confident the screen smoothed out some behavior. I don't seem to have to concentrate nearly as hard to take-off gently with the Stage 4 clutch to avoid stalling.

That there is more attractive to my situation than any MPG, power gain/loss combined. Just my 2¢ plus or minus 38¢.

Not every mod has to be about dyno results.

 

[Scot]

I don't want to sound rude, but if you want to try it, go for it, but I don't want to have to prove if it works or not. I just don't have the time.

He is too chicken to get rid of his stock airbox.