M5POST
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   M5POST - BMW M5 Forum > F10 M5 Forum > Engine, Exhaust, Drivetrain Modifications

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-01-2016, 03:12 PM   #45
apexlocator
Captain
United_States
243
Rep
881
Posts

Drives: 2014 M5
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: socal

iTrader: (1)

Finished....took about 3 hrs...2.5 hrs for passenger side and 20 minutes for driver side, lol.
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2016, 04:12 PM   #46
MSIXCARBON
Private First Class
55
Rep
160
Posts

Drives: 2014 M6 Competition
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Philadelphia

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apexlocator View Post
Finished....took about 3 hrs...2.5 hrs for passenger side and 20 minutes for driver side, lol.
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2016, 05:47 PM   #47
Bostons_Finest_
Second Lieutenant
Bostons_Finest_'s Avatar
United_States
147
Rep
203
Posts

Drives: 2013 BMW M5 2008 M5
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Shrewsbury MA

iTrader: (0)

Not on here to argue which is better just to give my opinion. I looked at a lot of intakes before I purchased my msr intakes from George. If you care about customer service an someone you can ask questions to 24/7 I suggest you go with msr. I got a check engine light after installing the intakes an txted George the next day he told me the car is just adapting an will take some time just read the code an tell me what you get. Read the codes an just like George had said it was the car adapting to the new amount of air half a day later after the light came on of driving the car it went away. I'm perfectly satisfied with my purchase an the customer service George provides! Listen guys we drive m cars for a reason they aren't cheap so why put cheap parts into them? I'm not taking any shots at anyone or arguing on here with anyone just voicing my opinion. If you want quality products with numbers to back em up go with msr. You can notice a diff right away. My car felt like you feel when u have a cold an your nose gets stuffy...when you can finally breathe a few days after the cold you feel great an that's exactly how the car feels. That's my 2cents for what it's worth
Shashin
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2016, 06:58 PM   #48
Sales@RKautowerks
Lieutenant
Sales@RKautowerks's Avatar
357
Rep
435
Posts

Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apexlocator View Post
Thank you thank you for this post! I was just about to sign up and post a question on m5board about this intake. For whatever behind-the-scene reasons, RK is off this forum. I just picked up this intake and you've answered all of my questions
Pleasure talking to you today, my account was locked waiting on the vendorship to begin, as you can see my username changed from my personal name to the vendor name. I’d be glad to answer all your questions, you have my personal number now incase you run into any issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunden View Post
Nice!
What is the price of those bad boys?
Please view our website, we’re not allowed to discuss pricing in this section. We post the same price on every forum as we have on the website, it keeps things fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkai0 View Post
As of now they are going for $1850. The quality looks to be very good. I'm gonna re-visit the idea of picking up a set once my warranty expires.
That price is currently correct, please keep us posted if you’re interested in a set! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjrdriven View Post
Interesting. Like the carbon fiber but looks %100 like a MSR copy but with filters with no velocity stacks. How does that filter react to water by the way?
I understand they look like MSR intakes, but they are far from MSR intakes in terms of design, testing, and manufacturing. The stock intakes were 3d scanned and then tested via flow bench testing to validate the design. During my tenure at Honda I also conducted CFD testing to ensure the flow was laminar as possible and decrease the restriction as much as possible on the induction system.
The filters are washable, water will not ruin them. Water ingestion is also not an issue unless you drench the filters in water completely. If you’re still concerned, we offer dry socks from K&N for the filters to further repel the water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjrdriven View Post
Those inlets have snapped at seam on stock OEM cars. Also the MSR intakes are not bolted directly to car beyond hose clamp so some flex still happens.
As for filter, water never damages filters on the MSR intake, stainless steel mesh. There is never water issues.
My understanding is that stainless mesh does not filter as well as paper, as a developer for an OEM, I can tell you that is why every OEM uses paper filter, as well as your house, facemasks, etc. The engine cylinder walls are very sensitive to particles and they begin to damage the liner overtime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apexlocator View Post
Yes, I read that entire development thread. It was impressive and I researched the company and owner himself. Just wondering why mods felt the need to delete the entire thread because it was informative; should have just deleted the posts discussing intro pricing, etc.
I’ll post that thread back up again, it was deleted because there was a price in it and the mods were not happy with a non vendor posting an item for sale. I had contacted trying to become a vendor and it had not happened yet. Still not an excuse and I should have waited to post any threads, my fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m6beast View Post
The MSR intakes are not 3.0" they are 3.25" used specifically to match oem pipe/MAF diameter not to have cel's ect. Also the MSR intake is a totally different design and doesn't just rely on pipe diameter size to run more efficiently but are setup of a compressed air design where it makes its huge power gains proven by track, vbox and car racing. Everything has been done for a reason not just because it looked great or thought it was cool, for example the filters and velocity stacks in their specific location, they are not relying on cold air or larger pipe diameter to make their gains.
Just because a product looks good on paper, calculated numbers ect, doesn't always mean the end results will be as promising.
The MSR intake on a stock M5 on a Dyno before and after only showed 20-30whp midrange and 10-12 peak but vbox showed .5 seconds faster 60-130 mph. On a fully Moded M6 the MSR intake showed 30-40 whp midrange on the the Dyno proving the more mods the more gains because of its overall efficiency On a fully Moded M5 at the track that was running 12.1-12.2 @ 120 mph with 2.0 60ft and a best 12.0@120mph, after installing MSR intake and two weeks of adaptation it dropped its time by 11.5-11.6@124-125 mph same 60ft of 2.0. All this data is documented and anyone that wants to see it they are welcome. Just adding big filters in the front of the kidneys dosent mean you'll get the same gains on the street as the MSR intake that has been setup for a reason and proven over and over again around the globe.
But I can say the carbon fiber does look good!
Thank you for sharing that information, if the portion where the MAF is located is the same, there should be absolutely no reason for a check engine light. I’d like more information on this compressed air design. Being an aerospace engineer, worked for NASA, Lockheed, Honda, and GM. I can say first hand after having seen images of MSR intakes it is impossible for any form of compression in the system. You could argue the effects of fanno flow but the air is not adiabatic and the fluid is compressible in this situation so that’s impossible. An argument could be made for Rayleigh flow since we have a constant area duct with the effect of heat addition in the system. But a 2-3ft section pipe being effected by Rayleigh flow would be extremely questionable.

Stepping back for a second and looking at the velocity stack design also negates any compression, velocity stacks accelerate the flow, at no point does a velocity stack compress the flow. That 100% defies physics and everything in terms of viscous flow(assuming your flow is laminar in the entire system, odds are it is, it’s a few pipes welded together).

As the developer of my intakes, that’s why we elected not to utilize any velocity stacks, the benefit you see on a forced induction car is negligible, but even then velocity stacks sacrifice pressure in exchange for an increase in velocity, you never get both. At 20PSI 2000rpm the car consumes 77 LPS of air, redline it consumes 289LPS, this is the complete engine. You’d need to split that value for each cylinder, this yields 38.5LPS at 2000RPM and 144.5LPS at 7500RPM. Taking the density of air to be 1.2754 kg/m^3 and the surface area of 0.00535483 m^2, you can back out the velocity of the flow.

This results in 15mph at 2000RPM and 57mph at redline. That is what velocity, in a simple 1D model of the engine, the flow is being consumed at with a 3.25” diameter pipe. The scavenging effect from the vehicle being at high speed could be argued here, but even then, if I spent a little time backing that out, you’d see we’re talking MAYBE .05-.15psi. That is negligible in this situation and not even something worth arguing over. The reason that velocity stacks are significant in N/A cars is because your mass flow is now much less. That .05-.15psi of compression you get with the flow slamming into the valves, throttle body, and utilizing resonance frequency can add up very quickly. In a forced induction setup, all of that goes out the window, density is the governing equation in the mass flow equation.

This is why your delta pressure is the only thing that truly matters on turbo cars. That’s why we on an OEM level design intakes based on how much they flow at a certain delta pressure. This is the amount of power you need to sacrifice to be able to flow that amount. Think of intakes like a straw, you can flow X amount through straw A, but I give you straw B which flows that same X amount. Only difference between straw A and B is the diameter, bends, and filter on the end. You’d want the one with less bends, bigger diameter, and least restrictive filter (without compromising filtration).

Which brings me to my point, a well designed intake doesn’t need time to “recalibrate” or “adapt” this is an aftermarket fallacy. Let me explain to you why, the mass air flow tables are calculated based on density, area, and velocity of the air, this creates a “mass flow” or as we engineers call it “mDot”. We calibrate the MAF table based on the mass air flow of the system. The mass has a small filament that heats up and records a resistance, you know the density of the air from a sensor inside the maf, the area of the system is not changing, the other sensor in the maf calculates the velocity by heating a filament and cooling it as air goes across it. Ask yourself, if the section of the MAF truly did not change, why would the ECU need to “adjust.” I just established above that compression isn’t happening, nomatter how much others argue it, in the situation where it was, the MAF would account for that because that’s what it does. The vehicle adjusts for air density as it goes up in altitude so that fact alone tells you there’s a sensor adjusting for it.

So I ask again, why would you need to wait for the car to adapt? That’s because you don’t if the section your MAF is in is 100% identical to the OEM section. The calculations in the MAF table should never change. This is why back in the day, people “tuned” for bigger mafs, you changed that entire table. If intakes are developed correctly, you don’t need any tuning or adapting. All you change going between intakes is your delta pressure(how hard the engine needs to suck the air to get it into the system.

Here is all that explained from the thread that got deleted.

I'm sure you've heard that intakes make power, that's a fallacy, intakes don't make power at all. They FREE up power, the engine is already producing what it can produce at its RON(gasoline) knock limit provided a chain of other criteria are not holding it back. As an OEM(i work for an OEM) we design intakes very differently than the aftermarket, we have noise, vibration, power constraints, costs, and durability in mind. A combination of these constraints are why we leave "power" on the table. In the aftermarket the consumers are usually power and aesthetics drive, not so much concerned about the other constraints.

So with that said, the intake system is purposely constrained from factory. The ECU is calibrated with the intake system and it's shipped off.

So how do you "free" up this power?

The common assumption is that your intakes make power, false. The governing equation/theory/facts behind this is BMEP = IMEP + PMEP + FMEP. Where BMEP is the brake power, the power the engine will produce at the crank rather. Now you have IMEP, the indicated mean effective pressure, the power loop of the PV diagram. This is where the magic happens, IMEP is the boom inside the engine, the working portion of the PV diagram. This is the absolute amount of power the engine can make before it starts sending the power in all sorts of direction. PMEP is where the intakes come in, PMEP is the pumping mean effective pressure. The engine has to utilize some of its IMEP to suck in the air and push the air out, this isn't free after-all. Then you have FMEP, the friction portion of the game, this is your rotating assembly, lubrication, seals, and etc.

Here's a PV diagram to visualize what's going on.




BMEP = crank power = measured using a dyno
IMEP = power loop = measured using in cylinder pressure transducers
PMEP = pumping loop = measured using in cylinder pressure transducers
FMEP = friction = calculated using math by knowing BMEP/IMEP/PMEP

So now that we've established power is only made in the power loop, everyone should be onboard with why intakes don't make power.

Intakes are like straws, us as a humans can suck in x amount of water using a straw that is half an inch wide, we can also suck x amount of water with a straw that is 4x as small. It's easier to drink through the bigger straw right? Same concept with an intake! Which brings me to my next point, an efficient intake is like a big straw, really easy to suck the water through. We call this value "delta pressure" the amount of suction needed to move a certain amount of fluid through a vessel.

With that said, we want to make it easy for the engine to "breath" on a forced induction application, easier for the engine to breath means less power it has to use to suck that air. See where this is going?

Lets put some numbers with our equations.

BMEP = IMEP + PMEP + FMEP
(+) = (+) + (-) + (-)
(end power) = (total power) + (pumping loss) + (friction loss)


BMEP = IMEP + PMEP + FMEP
10 = 14 + (-2) + (-2)

That is configuration A

now we have our new intake, configuration B, the big straw

BMEP = IMEP + PMEP + FMEP
11 = 14 + (-1) + (-2)


You just increased the crank power of the engine, by freeing up power that was always there! This is why when you see flow in LPS, it doesn't hold much value, so you increased the flow? Does it mean anything, because the flow has to have some type of delta pressure associated with it, how much suction did you need to produce that flow. I can take a 2" pipe and flow 500LPS through it, but i had to have a ton of suction on it. But my 3" pipe only flowed 300LPS, but it was barely sucking. Marketing will make you think the 500LPS is better because well...you didn't know, now you do!


With that said, i ran the flow numbers and will demonstrate why our intakes will produce an increase in power.

This graph shows the amount of air an engine is consuming based on your boost pressure (turbo application only). This gives you an idea of how much air your engine is consuming at wide open throttle at a certain RPM.


Now you have what most are used to seeing, the "flow increase" diagram. I have my X axis as a function of delta pressure, which is what you should ask for. But like we discussed earlier, this doesn't help quantify why engine is making power. You see that you increased flow at each delta pressure, but you don't know what the delta pressure drop is, just what you increased flow by.


This is why you should ask the vendor for this graph. A chart of delta pressure as a function of flow. Now you can quantify, based off how an engine works as explained above, what benefits to expect to see. You can see for yourself what benefits to expect based off the chart below. You can reference to my cylinder head flow chart and compare what delta pressure benefit you have based off the RPM at WOT condition. You can see below how our intakes compare to a competitor and how they compare to stock. We've reduced your pumping loss from 40-60%, power you were allocating to move the air into the engine before, is now being used to move your car!


Reason why i bring that up is because it's really easy to quantify the difference between intakes when you conduct testing using a flow bench. It's not easy to compare intakes or really quantify power , on a chassis dyno because you have so much going on that needs to be accounted for. You need a bench dyno running some state of the art equipment to truly quantify it, stuff i do at work. The flow bench is something anyone who's charging someone several hundreds for an intake should use to validate their product. You can make this entire system go full circle and derive a correlation between delta_P reduction and the pumping loss benefit if you had a system sophisticated enough to accurately capture the PMEP inside the engine. Then you could back out the increase in power as a function of Delta_P. You'll be hard pressed to find shops outside the OEM that have this capability, I only know of a handful.
That should answer anyones concerned here about compressibility, why adaptation is not a real thing when it comes to properly designed intakes, how you quantify power benefits from intakes, and what questions to ask when purchasing product.

Taking a car and quantifying it on the street is not valid either, way too many variables, some cars from factory are freaks, others are duds. Putting mods on 1 car and running 2 weeks later holds zero value. Why would you want to do that anyway when you now know of a way to validate things by removing the entire engine all together and all the variables. There’s no magic here, it’s really that simple. If you want to still go on the street you should run 5 configurations, the first with both cars being stock, then both run the respective mods, then you swap mods, then 1 stock 1 no mods, and repeat the last. This can be done, but there’s a reason why the OEMs don’t do this, if you were to see how many variables are involved just on chassis dyno testing, the street (especially public streets) don’t mean much at all. Most of the benefit people see from intakes on M5/M6 is from the charcoal delete. I will tell you myself, as a vendor on here, removing the charcoal filters makes a huge difference.

Another thing to keep in mind, there is more than 1 configuration the intakes from factory come in. Here is the flow data if anyone is interested.


One thing to note, as to why the numbers here are lower for the RK intakes, these were pre-production versions. They were 3d printed with the correct outer diameter for fitment purpose. So the inner diameter was less than what the final version was intended to be. The graphs above are accurate with respect to final version testing.




The 2013 M5 came with the velocity stack port closed, 2015/Comp came with the port open. Our testing concluded the MSR flowed less because the inlet is a 3” inlet, the MAF section was 3.25 but the restriction upfront is why we say a reduction in flow. A properly designed intake which holds 3.25 all the way through from start to end should shift the curve up, as you see with the OEM configurations and the RK configurations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by apexlocator View Post
How do you deal with the water then? during the rainy months?
Dry sleeves that repel the water, you lose a little airflow(Increase in Delta_P)


Quote:
Originally Posted by 13M5F10 View Post
If you had such a great experience and you're intentions were purely to share that, why are you still here trying to start another RK Vs MSR thread. RK did that and failed at it. Not sure why we are doing this again. Just looks odd that your first thread is about RK intakes and you're also the shop owner. Sounds like another desperate attempt by RK n

If RK runs as good as it looks, let the data speak for itself, and it will sell. Trust me. We all know it's beautiful, let's see how it performs on the street.

MSR has been around and has already proven it's product over and over. Not sure sitting here and arguing and trying to disprove things is going to change their success or help RKs.
We’re not in the business to sell intakes, that’s a benefit, we’re in the business to educate our customers and friends. I will talk engineering and pass on all my knowledge and data onto anyone that asks. That is what makes the forums powerful. Too often nowadays there is too much misinformation. Proving your product on the street is one thing, proving it with physics, engineering, and quantifying your results in controlled testing is the really powerful stuff. That is how we design things on the OEM level, in aerospace, and how it should be done in the aftermarket.


Quote:
Originally Posted by m6beast View Post
Its very simple, as you increase mph so does volume and velocity of air. Just because it's a turbo engine doesn't mean you can't compress the air. The MSR design gives the turbos a helping hand especially in the upper rpm. The RK rely on being more effiecient compared to the stock intake, where as the MSR velocity stack and setup compresses the air giving overall efficiency and more volume of air by mph increase. The rk just are less restrictive then oem and doesn't matter if you're going 30 mph or 100 mph the design is just free flowing no different then a Gruppe M except that filters are in front instead of the engine bay..

The MSR intake will give a cel in the upper gears if not adapted slowly "too much air codes and even missfire codes" this happens if you just go out and start beating on it without adapting it properly especially if running higher boost targets or piggy back setups.

I've had customers that adapted 3rd and 4th gears for months and never ever have a cel of "too much air codes" and hardly run into 5th gear. But next thing you know they'll run a 1/2 mile event and all Of a sudden they get a cel too much air codes or missfire codes. Then after a couple of runs no more codes. Just ask the guys who have the MSR intake they will give you the reality of adaptation and the compressed air for they have experienced for themselves. It's not to hard to understand.
I agree that volumetric mass flow increases because of velocity slightly, but compression is not happening, at no point. Please educate me how that’s happening because all my years in aerospace, we have not found a way to compress subsonic flow with aluminum pipes and a velocity stack. This is nothing personal, but I’m telling you, if you go ask someone who’s a flow physicist, they will agree. To compress flow for “free” you need to have a shockwave, to have a shockwave you go past mach 1. If you’re going past mach 1 you have other issues at hand. I can quantify for you if you’d like to see examples of any situation, but a velocity stack is a nozzle. That is the most basic engineering thing you learn on day 1 when you attend a flow theory class. A nozzle is a device that increase the velocity of a fluid at the expense of pressure. So if anything…the velocity stack is taking away pressure. That is why we don’t have one in our intakes, along with every single OEM out there. A diffuser though is a device that increases the pressure of a fluid by slowing it down. Nothing is free in the world of flow theory when it comes to compressible fluids.

http://www.slideshare.net/LarryHowar...ngelchapter-52

Citation: chapter 5 slide 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by allmotor_2000 View Post
Please do some verified 60-130 or 1/4 mile times - dyno and forum talk is all BS
I plan on dyno testing this weekend with many configurtions to get everyone the numbers they desire. I used to bench dyno calibrate for an OEM so I know a thing or two about dyno testing. The original poster in this thread posted the dyno numbers. I contacted him saying they are not right. The curve is not accurate. I was able to figure out why, it was the way his strapping is on the dyno. The front straps have a truss system which allows deflection, on a chassis dyno, any deflection or movement changes the ratio of the gearing to the dyno, skewing your numbers. This is even more significant with turbo vehicles like the M5 which build power really fast then calm down as they go up. I would say the gains 6000rpm+ are accurate, I would take the ones below that with a grain of salt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edysinger View Post
Exactly. This is all just marketing BS going on until someone produces a quantified comparison.
I hope I was able to provide a quantified comparison. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apexlocator View Post
Finished....took about 3 hrs...2.5 hrs for passenger side and 20 minutes for driver side, lol.
Awesome! Glad you got it taken care of!



Hope that clears up a few questions and misconceptions we have in the community. I understand that was a long post, if i overlooked something or if something doesn't make sense, feel free to ask! I'm human too and make mistakes, no problem owning up to them!

-R
Appreciate 2
      09-01-2016, 07:14 PM   #49
allmotor_2000
F10 1/4 WR: 9.9s / 142.5mph 1/2 WR: 175.5mph
1083
Rep
1,968
Posts

Drives: 2018 RS3, 991 Turbo
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Westlake Village, CA

iTrader: (0)

The intake wars... :-)

I ran 9's with the stock airbox...
Appreciate 1
patb2392.00
      09-01-2016, 07:29 PM   #50
Sales@RKautowerks
Lieutenant
Sales@RKautowerks's Avatar
357
Rep
435
Posts

Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by allmotor_2000 View Post
The intake wars... :-)

I ran 9's with the stock airbox...
Nah no war, just an education session haha

You could run faster without filters

-R
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2016, 07:30 PM   #51
allmotor_2000
F10 1/4 WR: 9.9s / 142.5mph 1/2 WR: 175.5mph
1083
Rep
1,968
Posts

Drives: 2018 RS3, 991 Turbo
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Westlake Village, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raza@RKautowerks View Post
Nah no war, just an education session haha

You could run faster without filters

-R
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2016, 08:13 PM   #52
MSIXCARBON
Private First Class
55
Rep
160
Posts

Drives: 2014 M6 Competition
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Philadelphia

iTrader: (1)

:crickets:
Appreciate 0
      09-01-2016, 09:08 PM   #53
edysinger
I Calibrate Engines
United_States
15
Rep
40
Posts

Drives: BMW M5 IB/CL
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Augusta, GA

iTrader: (0)

So I ask again, why would you need to wait for the car to adapt?


Simple. The ECU uses a closed loop feedback system to control to the demanded air/fuel ratio and also to compensate for engine to engine variances in airflow, fuel delivery, etc. If you increase the airflow into the engine via reducing your delta_P, the O2 sensors are going to see the increased flow in the exhaust stream (more oxygen content) and start adapting the amount of fuel to meet the air/fuel ratio. As the ECU needs to adapt the fuel at different speed/loads this can take some time to fully adapt. Kind of odd this is deemed a fallacy after indicating working at GM since this has been part of their control strategy since 1983. It's what us engineers in the automotive industry call Fuel Trim.
Appreciate 1
Lerxst M4141.00
      09-01-2016, 09:28 PM   #54
TheHouseWon
Colonel
TheHouseWon's Avatar
643
Rep
2,039
Posts

Drives: 2013 M5
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (10)

The whole 2 week adaptation was probably the driver adapting to the car and learning how launch and shift at the right time.

Rk's post was very informative, but left out the most important detail: does it make a loud whoosh sound?!
Appreciate 1
JK-M561.00
      09-01-2016, 10:38 PM   #55
Redrckt135
Major
Redrckt135's Avatar
United_States
430
Rep
1,108
Posts

Drives: 16 M5 & 17 X5M
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nj

iTrader: (10)

All bs aside, the only reason I bought the MSR intakes was because it sounds absolutely incredible. If you're looking for more power, get a tune, downpipes, and pure turbos, not an intake.
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2016, 03:28 AM   #56
m6beast
Captain
m6beast's Avatar
185
Rep
792
Posts

Drives: stock m6
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: nc

iTrader: (0)

It's great to see you have the knowledge and giving the forum members all these details. As for adaptation I can tell you it does take a long time and I can assure you it's not the driver adapting. I own my own cars and test them from before and after in every way. I don't build products on a customers car to sell a product. I have the Dyno, vbox and track to prove it, not hearsay. As for your intake it doesn't need long to adapt because it's more about efficiency then actually getting more air volume and velocity by mph increase like the MSR intake. So you can argue all day what you think and what you know but at the end of the day the MSR intake has been proven by myself with all the before and after testing and also by several customers across the globe.

Find two stock M5's Dyno and race them Stock, then Dyno race them after install and race them again, after two weeks of adaptation race them agian, I guarantee the MSR car will pull away.

Like I said you can throw all the data you want and it will look great on paper but when it comes to real life results on the street I can say it's been Proven over and over agian.

Carbon fiber does look great though, most of my customers want custom color choices. But if you guys want the best of both worlds, carbon and performance I'll make you a set in carbon fiber.

Once again great post!
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2016, 06:38 AM   #57
NightM
Lieutenant Colonel
NightM's Avatar
450
Rep
1,519
Posts

Drives: Bmw
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: NY

iTrader: (0)

Itll be good to see real street race with
RK vs Msr
Same mods same everything. Lol. All about races
Appreciate 1
m5james429.00
      09-02-2016, 06:38 AM   #58
Sales@RKautowerks
Lieutenant
Sales@RKautowerks's Avatar
357
Rep
435
Posts

Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by edysinger View Post
So I ask again, why would you need to wait for the car to adapt?


Simple. The ECU uses a closed loop feedback system to control to the demanded air/fuel ratio and also to compensate for engine to engine variances in airflow, fuel delivery, etc. If you increase the airflow into the engine via reducing your delta_P, the O2 sensors are going to see the increased flow in the exhaust stream (more oxygen content) and start adapting the amount of fuel to meet the air/fuel ratio. As the ECU needs to adapt the fuel at different speed/loads this can take some time to fully adapt. Kind of odd this is deemed a fallacy after indicating working at GM since this has been part of their control strategy since 1983. It's what us engineers in the automotive industry call Fuel Trim.
At no point did you increase the amount of air into the system. The mass flow equation for the maf is density x velocity x area. Area should stay constant, density will stay constant(if testing on same day) and velocity is a function of rpm which is controlled by your throttle body. Your in cylinder pressures(IMEP) never change at any point when swapping intakes. Why would you all of a sudden be putting "more" air into the engine if your throttle body angle hasn't changed? The maf table hasn't changed at all for the respective throttle body.

You have no reason to have ignition changes, fueling, or anything. Literally everything should stay the same. Saying your fuel trims need to adapt is like saying if I put lightweight Pistons, my car needs a retune. No your IMEP stayed the same, your FMEP went down, PMEP stayed same so your BMEP goes up. The only time you change ignition is if your in cylinder pressure(IMEP) changes because of combustion chamber factors. The pumping loop does not have any combustion so nothing is effected. No "more" air was introduced.

Last edited by Sales@RKautowerks; 09-02-2016 at 09:56 AM..
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2016, 06:39 AM   #59
Sales@RKautowerks
Lieutenant
Sales@RKautowerks's Avatar
357
Rep
435
Posts

Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by m6beast View Post
It's great to see you have the knowledge and giving the forum members all these details. As for adaptation I can tell you it does take a long time and I can assure you it's not the driver adapting. I own my own cars and test them from before and after in every way. I don't build products on a customers car to sell a product. I have the Dyno, vbox and track to prove it, not hearsay. As for your intake it doesn't need long to adapt because it's more about efficiency then actually getting more air volume and velocity by mph increase like the MSR intake. So you can argue all day what you think and what you know but at the end of the day the MSR intake has been proven by myself with all the before and after testing and also by several customers across the globe.

Find two stock M5's Dyno and race them Stock, then Dyno race them after install and race them again, after two weeks of adaptation race them agian, I guarantee the MSR car will pull away.

Like I said you can throw all the data you want and it will look great on paper but when it comes to real life results on the street I can say it's been Proven over and over agian.

Carbon fiber does look great though, most of my customers want custom color choices. But if you guys want the best of both worlds, carbon and performance I'll make you a set in carbon fiber.

Once again great post!

Send me a set and I'll test them again, don't have any problem doing so.
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2016, 06:48 AM   #60
Sales@RKautowerks
Lieutenant
Sales@RKautowerks's Avatar
357
Rep
435
Posts

Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHouseWon View Post
The whole 2 week adaptation was probably the driver adapting to the car and learning how launch and shift at the right time.

Rk's post was very informative, but left out the most important detail: does it make a loud whoosh sound?!
They make the same whooshing noise lol

The OEM boxes are designed to dampen that, that's why we're able to decrease the delta pressure. The average guy wants them to be silent. Any setup that doesn't have the OEM box and is a long pipe setup will make it.

-R
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2016, 10:31 AM   #61
kevn23
Private First Class
30
Rep
105
Posts

Drives: -
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

The $:gain?... Just get a proper tune. To each their own.
Appreciate 1
m5james429.00
      09-02-2016, 12:32 PM   #62
momos750
Captain
momos750's Avatar
143
Rep
715
Posts

Drives: 2015 M5, 2011 750Li
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

If there is adaptation occurring with the MSR intake would that be from a different diameter (larger than stock) tube where the MAF is sampling?
I can certainly see changes occurring if the volume of air entering, based on say a larger diameter tube is being used.
__________________
2015 M5 - Singapore Grey Metallic - Silverstone Full Merino Interior - Executive Pack - Drivers Assist Pack -Comp Pack -
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2016, 08:55 PM   #63
ur20v
Captain
184
Rep
788
Posts

Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: WA Australia

iTrader: (0)

Good debate and inforamtive thread now.

Are the STFT and LTFT's visable on a non OEM diagnotic device as you can with OEM diaganosic tools? That is one way to see if there is any adaption taking place. View live, look at starting point and plot any changes.

Also look at you MAF and TMAP readings- changes in flow, density etc will show here.

Razz... have you looked at changing out the inlet plastic 'box' that mounts to the turbo inlet and contains the PCV? See 7?
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 1
momos750142.50
      09-02-2016, 08:56 PM   #64
ur20v
Captain
184
Rep
788
Posts

Drives: F10 M5
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: WA Australia

iTrader: (0)

P>S if it hasn't been spelled out one of the main functions of the OEM air box is bieng a silencer...

Last edited by ur20v; 09-02-2016 at 09:07 PM..
Appreciate 1
      09-03-2016, 06:18 AM   #65
MSIXCARBON
Private First Class
55
Rep
160
Posts

Drives: 2014 M6 Competition
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Philadelphia

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ur20v View Post
Good debate and inforamtive thread now.

Are the STFT and LTFT's visable on a non OEM diagnotic device as you can with OEM diaganosic tools? That is one way to see if there is any adaption taking place. View live, look at starting point and plot any changes.

Also look at you MAF and TMAP readings- changes in flow, density etc will show here.

Razz... have you looked at changing out the inlet plastic 'box' that mounts to the turbo inlet and contains the PCV? See 7?
You mean something like this?

Appreciate 0
      09-03-2016, 11:29 AM   #66
Sales@RKautowerks
Lieutenant
Sales@RKautowerks's Avatar
357
Rep
435
Posts

Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevn23 View Post
The $:gain?... Just get a proper tune. To each their own.
The problem with a tune is that cars within warranty run the risk of voiding it when you tune the car. BMW is cracking down on tuned vehicles and logging it. Intakes offer you a setup that yields power, doesn't void warranty, can be easily R&R if needed as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by momos750 View Post
If there is adaptation occurring with the MSR intake would that be from a different diameter (larger than stock) tube where the MAF is sampling?
I can certainly see changes occurring if the volume of air entering, based on say a larger diameter tube is being used.
My guess would be that the maf location is not correct, If you look closely at the M5, the maf is not inline with the pipe, it's angled and clocked in an abnormal manner. That's why when you look at other intake designs, you'll notice that the maf section of the intake is completely identical to the OEM. If i was a gambling man, i'd bet money that none of those intakes throw a CEL or require "adaptation."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ur20v View Post
Good debate and inforamtive thread now.

Are the STFT and LTFT's visable on a non OEM diagnotic device as you can with OEM diaganosic tools? That is one way to see if there is any adaption taking place. View live, look at starting point and plot any changes.

Also look at you MAF and TMAP readings- changes in flow, density etc will show here.

Razz... have you looked at changing out the inlet plastic 'box' that mounts to the turbo inlet and contains the PCV? See 7?
I'll log some data regarding that as well, just hadn't had the chance yet. I've had a few people contact me about that, but personally i don't see much benefit. The way the flow is traveling the setup is rather optimized. I will try and locate one and run flow bench numbers. I've recently started acquiring data with individual pieces so we can log what each piece is worth in gains.

If the concern is the piece breaking, that warrants issues with the intake design. The accordion has an ample amount of flex in it and should not be removed. For the piece to crack insinuates the intake system is rigid and not moving at all.

Thanks
-R
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 AM.




m5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST