E-Ram - Results are in!

[widebody911]

I just spent over 2 1/2 hours playing with this thing on the dyno. I still have to scan, upload and html-ize the dyno sheets, so bear with me.

I'd also like to extend a big THANKS! to Stu Krum (http://www.schatzandkrum.com) for his patience, ideas and after-hours work he did on this; nothing like working a full day and then spending almost 3 hours working the dyno for someone...

Anyway...

The E-Ram does work. I'm still crunching the numbers, etc, but it looks like a 2-3 HP gain and a 10-12lb/ft gain in torque. While these tests were not conducted under NASA-grad lab conditions, they were somewhat consistent. If you wanna get super-anal about the way the dyno tests are conducted, I invite you to rent one and go wild. This dyno run was bordering on a 'favor' - I paid for it, but I got a lot more roller time than normal.

One fly in the ointment was the oil cooler fan which kicked in at inopportune times - inhindsight I should have disconnected it before we got started. I'd also left the stereo on for the whole test - d'oh! A small draw, but a draw nonetheless.

One interesting observation was the difference in HP and torque, and how HP went down when the oil cooler fan kicked on, but torque stayed up.

My "baseline" run was 234.7/399 - almost where it was (234.3) when I dyno'd it on 12/18/2001. This was with my homemade setup - not the e-ram or e-ram turned off.

The best torque figure was 233/412.1 (cooler fan on), the best HP figure was 236.4/410.7 (cooler fan off)

Lemme finish scanning and get back to y'all - talk amongst yourselves...

[JDaniel]

Even so, 2-3hp for $300? Not a bargain if you ask me.

[island911]

"2-3hp for $300? "

but you don't understand. . . you get that for a whole 10 seconds!
Better than a bronco ride I tell you.

[widebody911]

I can't speak to what's a 'bargain' or not - my job was to see if it actually *did* anything. I've heard of people dropping *much* more on MAF's and/or chips and coming away from the table with less.

[Jim T]

Are those some kind of corrected numbers?

If not, your car has 400 ft/lbs of torque at the wheels???

That's quite a bit from 3.6 liters.

Anyways, even assuming your testing procedure and numbers are dead accurate, that is a 1% gain in hp, and 2.5% torque gain. And even those very minor gains only come at WOT? For $300 and having to have that on your intake?

The charts and more info on the runs will be interesting to see, though!

[Clark Griswald]

I'll let the sour and bitter skeptics skowl about 2hp being less than 1% and beyond the accuracy of the process. My concern is the following statement:

Originally posted by widebody911

One interesting observation was the difference in HP and torque, and how HP went down when the oil cooler fan kicked on, but torque stayed up.

HP and torque are not independant measures. HP is calculated from the torque as follows:

horsepower = rpm x torque / 5252

Dynos measure torque, not HP. HP is calculated as above.

So, the comment about torque remaining the same while HP changed is not possible - unless RPM changed as well. It is entirely possible that RPM changed due to the added load on the alternator and it happened to be on a flat part of the torque curve.

I am anxiously awaiting detailed data.

[Jim T]

Originally posted by Clark Griswald
I'll let the sour and bitter skeptics skowl about 2hp being less than 1% and beyond the accuracy of the process.

Who is sour, bitter or "skowl"ling (whatever that is)?

[Clark Griswald]

Jimt

Actually that wasn't directed at you. We were typing at the same time and both happened to mention the 1% figure, I hadn't seen your post. I was anticipating future comments. No offense intended.

And I agree with your comments.

[widebody911]

http://vintagebus.com/howto/e-ram/
(still need to fill in text, but I'm tired and hungry)

[Jim T]

CG, sorry for the hasty comment.
And, I agree with you, I was thinking the same thing, but it wasn't clear to me if he was talking about different readings at different RPMs.
I am interested in looking at the charts, too, and some more info on how the runs were done (2 with it, 2 without, 2 with, etc. or what).
I do think it is kind of useless from a practical perspective (because as someone pointed out, a 5 hp nitrous setup would be easier, give undisputed hp, and such a small amount wouldn't hurt the engine), but it is interesting from a theoretical perspective.

[bell]

this is something i would try on a honda before i would try it on my porsche.

my .02
bell
85'911 targa

[II6]

Hehehe, and to think I have TEN of those E-rams plugged into my engine! 20% more power! I'm THE KING OF THE HILL!!!

[emcon5]

OK, I am confused. Those printouts say Thom's car has ~400 ft/lbs of torque at the wheels, which better than a 2002 996 GT2. The 911 FAQ says 964's had 229 ft lbs.

Please splain.

Tom

[Clark Griswald]

Okay, having seen the data I guess I have to become the bitter, skowling skeptic.

The runs with the e-ram installed but turned off was 236.2 hp and 235 (only 2 runs). With the e-ram on it was 234.4 to 236.4 hp (5 runs). And there was only one run without the e-ram attached at 234.7 hp.

Now I know even the manufacturer isn't claiming hp gains with the device turned off. But from these results I would more readily conclude the device works better when turned off, but installed. The avarage gain with the device installed but turned off was greater than the average gain with the device on.

So I am forced to conclude the results are statistically not significant. Not enough samples to remove the variation inherent in the test equipment and process. And not enough affect by the e-ram to overcome those limitations.

I'll keep my $300 securely in my pocket.

[orbmedia]

The test is inconclusive.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Clark Griswald

The runs with the e-ram installed but turned off was 236.2 hp and 235 (only 2 runs). With the e-ram on it was 234.4 to 236.4 hp (5 runs). And there was only one run without the e-ram attached at 234.7 hp.

Well, since it takes three points to determine a line (with any statistical significance), the numbers in fact don't tell you anything. Any differences are insignificant and lost in the noise.

I'm with Clark/Chuck on this one (be afraid Mr. Griswald...very afraid)

[island911]

Originally posted by Clark Griswald
. . . But from these results I would more readily conclude the device works better when turned off, but installed. . . .

Ah Yes, due to the highly regarded Turbullator Effect

[Jim T]

Originally posted by island911


Ah Yes, due to the highly regarded Turbullator Effect

Actually, CG may be onto something.

Check widebody's pic of the silent e-ram attached to the end of the intake.

Compare it to the Tornado!

http://www.tornadoair.com/tech.htm

Looks like the same principle! If the Tornado gives 20 hp (they have the dyno numbers and testimonials to prove it, check it out!), certainly an unplugged e-ram can give 2-3 hp!

[Clark Griswald]

If there was any real increase, I would suspect it was due to Tom's custom ABS snorkel. This would account for the change when the device was turned off as well as on. Too bad we don't have more samples with the original intake and no snorkel.

Thom you might be onto something with that.

I've got some 3 inch ABS laying around from a bathroom installation that I am working on now. Maybe I can stick 4 ft section up through the decklid grill and into the airstream. If Thom's 6 inch ABS gives 2 hp, I should get 8 easy.

[cegerer]

Anybody in the market for a gallon of Glasurit Mary Kay Pink paint? I guess I won't be needing it ..... -- Curt