2.4 g4cs cyclone intake dyno test

[mschlanglv]

I was very surprised at the dyno today. We tested the activation rpm of my cyclone intake and found that there was almost no difference between using only the primary runners at low rpm or using both set of runners.

<img src="http://www.dsmtuners.com/gallery/files/8/9/8/1/4/image.jpg" alt="Cyclone Activation Test" />

The red run is with the secondaries never opening, and the blue run is with the secondaries always open. Looks like I will be pulling this intake off and putting the stock 1g intake back on sometime.

 

[007jimmy]

What are you using to actuate the butterflies?

 

[mschlanglv]

Vacuum canister from a dodge minivan, a random emissions solenoid and an rpm switch from Jegs.

JEGS Performance Products 40822 JEGS RPM-Activated Switches

 

[High PSI]

Very interesting. I did a lot of research and decided to just run a 1G IM on my current 2.3L build, but only because I couldn't be hassled with messing with the butterfly actuation now. I definitely planned on going with the cyclone later based on some other dyno plots I saw (albeit on 2.0L engines).

In my research people running the cyclone properly said that drivability and gas mileage increased substantially when they had the butterflies opening at 3-4K as opposed to having them permanently open. Do you notice a difference on the 2.4?

 

[gixrman]

How was your tune? Timing? How was your AFR during the pull?

 

[CrackedDSM]

Are you kidding me? No difference? Look at the ####ing curve before and after you keep them "always closed" and "always open".


AGAIN, this test is flawed. How hard is it to get a before an after dyno test PROPERLY actuating the butterflies. Not keeping them fully closed and then fully open and comparing the results.


It's like watching you and your buddy killercolt trying to hump a door knob. It's not even irritating, it's just plain funny at this point. It's not rocket science, but nah, keep doing what you do man. It totally doesn't help a single bit.

 

[1qkfwd]

I dont see why the secondary runners cant be ported out and a slightly bigger butterfly installed in there.

 

[High PSI]

Are you kidding me? No difference? Look at the ####ing curve before and after you keep them "always closed" and "always open".


AGAIN, this test is flawed. How hard is it to get a before an after dyno test PROPERLY actuating the butterflies. Not keeping them fully closed and then fully open and comparing the results.


It's like watching you and your buddy killercolt trying to hump a door knob. It's not even irritating, it's just plain funny at this point. It's not rocket science, but nah, keep doing what you do man. It totally doesn't help a single bit.

He said "there was almost no difference between using only the primary runners at low rpm or using both set of runners".

What difference do you see in the curve at low RPM? And what do you suspect you would prove/learn from properly actuating the butterflies at at given RPM as opposed to just comparing the two different states of the IM and determining when the correct crossover point would be?

 

[DanielMandon]

Where is the torque curve? What boost lvl on what turbo being run? Where is the boost plot?

Thanks for trying but there is not enough information here to form any useful conclusions.

 

[High PSI]

Where is the torque curve? What boost lvl on what turbo being run? Where is the boost plot?

Thanks for trying but there is not enough information here to form any useful conclusions.

Since HP is a direct function of torque and RPM, a torque curve wouldn't reveal anything not shown here.

Boost information might help you make some assumptions based on how it would work on other setups, but I would say from what's provided here it is pretty conclusive that the Cyclone IM isn't doing much for his.

 

[DanielMandon]

Since HP is a direct function of torque and RPM, a torque curve wouldn't reveal anything not shown here.

Boost information might help you make some assumptions based on how it would work on other setups, but I would say from what's provided here it is pretty conclusive that the Cyclone IM isn't doing much for his.

If he is running 12 psi on a 16g on a stroker then I doubt the cyclone would have much impact. If he is running 38 psi on a 60-1 it could make a sizable dent in spool time......but we have no way of knowing what this graph means because he gave no useful information.

 

[High PSI]

If he is running 12 psi on a 16g on a stroker then I doubt the cyclone would have much impact. If he is running 38 psi on a 60-1 it could make a sizable dent in spool time......but we have no way of knowing what this graph means because he gave no useful information.

You stated, "there is not enough information here to form any useful conclusions".

Not true. Like I said, it might not be useful to you, but it clearly shows that the Cyclone is doing little to nothing for him.

 

[Tiki2777]

this is just pathetic

 

[MY1GDSM]

Posting up Comparison the day after when you're confused about why the car is making only a tad over 200hp on a 2.4?

See Here Others...

Also, wasn't your physical timing off when you did this "testing" ??? As well you were running like -5 degrees timing under boost?

Sounds like a car/Setup that has issues... . Not much of true benchmark to do comparisons with. IMO

Besides there is very little info here on what ALL is going on with the car like already asked what boost what AFR's What kind of timing?. Seems like the op isn't sure here either if the car has some problem(or at least in some of their other threads)

Hard to see in the picture you posted... . But it looks like leaned out a bit in one pull vs the other

Could have Picked up knock when you did one of the pulls.

Nothing Personal at all OP Seriously. I just don't see this as a real comparison of anything besides that For YOUR car you didn't gain anything.(which could be caused from a variety of reasons without more info though it's hard to say or compare things)

 

[mschlanglv]

Sorry folks, I didn't post this up as the end-all answer to everything cyclone. Nor did I expect to pinpoint how everyone should activate and/or tune their own setup. Considering all I did was provide information about what I experienced, I'm surprised at some of the negative comments.

I was expecting a larger response to running the primary runners as opposed to running both set of runners at sub 3.5k rpms, that's all. As Stacy said, I did find an error in the cam timing, unfortunately fixing that didn't do much to improve things. I'm working on a few more things for the car, if I get it back on the dyno I'll be sure to update.

 

[killercolt]

Are you kidding me? No difference? Look at the ####ing curve before and after you keep them "always closed" and "always open".


AGAIN, this test is flawed. How hard is it to get a before an after dyno test PROPERLY actuating the butterflies. Not keeping them fully closed and then fully open and comparing the results.


It's like watching you and your buddy killercolt trying to hump a door knob. It's not even irritating, it's just plain funny at this point. It's not rocket science, but nah, keep doing what you do man. It totally doesn't help a single bit.

I am switching to a Honda intake. I got 4 cyclone intakes ready to be shipped. I will give you a bundle deal if you are interested. Just let me know. You can make a lot of money resaling them.

Btw. My friend street tune his car last week with the cyclone intake. His left butt cheek said it was 30hp gain over stock but his right butt cheek said it was at least 50hp more. I think there is some sort of discrepancy across the gluteal cleft. I believe he needs to activate both cheeks exactly at 4200rpm to accurately read the hp gain. wow! In any case, that was a significant gain over stock. This should definitely increase the sale of the cyclone intake now that I know that.

 

[ceedawg]

He said "there was almost no difference between using only the primary runners at low rpm or using both set of runners".

What difference do you see in the curve at low RPM? And what do you suspect you would prove/learn from properly actuating the butterflies at at given RPM as opposed to just comparing the two different states of the IM and determining when the correct crossover point would be?

Well hopefully by now you read the link My1gDSM Posted in thread 14. This guy has some serious issue with his car and as a result folks here have an issue about the validation of his posted dyno testing of his car with the cyclone.

Sorry folks, I didn't post this up as the end-all answer to everything cyclone. Nor did I expect to pinpoint how everyone should activate and/or tune their own setup. Considering all I did was provide information about what I experienced, I'm surprised at some of the negative comments.

I was expecting a larger response to running the primary runners as opposed to running both set of runners at sub 3.5k rpms, that's all. As Stacy said, I did find an error in the cam timing, unfortunately fixing that didn't do much to improve things. I'm working on a few more things for the car, if I get it back on the dyno I'll be sure to update.

The negative comments were posted because in your opening post you stated how you were going to take the cyclone mani off and put on a 1g mani which sort of implies that the mani is either a waste of time(Not really functioning as one would expect) or maybe contributing somewhat to your low hp numbers with your 2.4 build. There maybe other issues as to how you may also have the actuation of your butterflies setup. Get the car running right before you just go and take off the mani as you stated.