E-Ram - Results are in!

[carnut169]

Gentlemen.... I think we all know how effective the eram will be on our cars.

I for one would like to thank Thom for all of his work on this project. He did not have to do the dyno runs, post the info on his site, etc, etc... he did that for us. Fact is none of us really had any idea if this device would work or not- we all had our opinions, but Thom has worked on putting real numbers on the board. Wouldn't it be great if we had the same type of info for K&N filters, different brands of exhaust, cat test pipes, chips, etc? I suspect that most of these items are as effective as the eram- but most of us have them anyway. For those of you who criticize Thom testing methods- go test the unit yourself! Do it better and post the results!

In the meantime- thanks Thom.

[island911]

Originally posted by carnut169
. . . .Fact is none of us really had any idea if this device would work or not- we all had our opinions, but Thom has worked on putting real numbers on the board.

I beg to differ. Guys don't just start throw'n strong word around such as "Glasurit Mary Kay Pink paint" unless they KNOW.

Perhap YOU didn't really have any idea if this device would work or not.
What; if You don't know, then everyone else is cluueless too?

[widebody911]

Ok, I'll try to address the various questions & concerns. Like I said, I'd been hearing about this thing for years, and it sounded interesting in principle. I did a search on the 'net, and found dozens of armchair scientists debunking it, but not one of them actually saw one in person, much less bolted one to their car, much less dyno'd it.

A few months ago I'd posted a challenge to Mark, to wit; if he'd lend me one to test, I'd cover the cost of the dyno session. He said he didn't have a demo available, so the challenge was un-met. When the topic came up on the PPBBS, Wayne offered to lend me the demo unit Mark had sent him, and I took him up on it.

I'm not trying to market this thing, so I won't defend it to the ends of the earth. That's really Mark's job.

To do an exhaustive set of tests, leaving no stone unturned, would cost several hundred, if not thousand, dollars. I'm not prepared to spend that. Again, that's Mark's job.

My original goal was to see if the unit did anything. In short, I was able to see positive gains by using the unit. That fact is no longer in question - using the e-ram does produce measurable results on the dyno. It also did this depsite any HP losses it may cause due to the electrical drain of the unit, which was my #1 concern: do you plunk down $20 and get $25 back? $21? $18? Remember, a belt-driven supercharger also sucks power from the engine, but it's able to give back a lot more than it takes.

Whether those results are worth the $300 cost of the unit were totally and completely out of the scope of my test plan. We can argue that the $300 would be better spent on other equipment, such as exhaust, a tune up, MAF, or even a DE weekend. Yes, they could. OTOH, what do you do when you've done all of those things and still want a bit more, and you've got a tax refund check burnin' a hole in your pocket?

Griswold: yes, we noticed the difference between the two homemade setups. The e-ram wouldn't fit on the one I already had, so I fabbed abother ($15 or so worth of bits at the hardware store) the big differences between the two are a 1" 'gap' in my 'baseline' setup because I didn't run the pipe all the way into the coupler, because I was more concerned about getting the length right so the air cleaner would be in the proper place. I also cut the elbow, where it goes onto the AFM, slightly tighter on the new one. It appears that this does make a difference. OTOH, we still see an improvement between the e-ram switched on and off with the new plenum, so we can effectively discard this "distraction" in the testing. On a stock intake, this issue would be completely irrelevant, although I'll be making a trip to ACE Hardware this weekend to buy another 90 degree ABS elbow and a short piece of 3" ABS pipe...

Another test I was planning on doing but forgot, was to run the e-ram with an external power source - ie not off of the cars alternator. This would give me an idea of the HP draw of the unit.

In reality, you could spend an entire 10-hour day on the dyno trying all of the different configurations and double-checking the results. Even after doing that, you'll still be playing whack-a-mole with the critics on various minutae of your testing.

Secretly, I thought I was going to debunk it myself, and emerge as a hero amongst the skeptics. That didn't happen. At this point, I'm a little surprised, a little embarassed (that I wasn't more rigorous with my testing), and about $150 poorer.

[island911]

Thom, No need to be embarrassed. I think most here are rather impressed by your resourcefulness. . . .and you website rocks!
$150 for the experience; that’s not bad. That’s about what my “Aerothermodynamics and Jet Propulsion” book cost.¹
BTW it's a great read for the armchair

1 edit . . .plus the time investment to read it.

[orbmedia]

Thom,

Don't take any of this personnally. It goes without saying that you performed admirably - it was the E-ram that didn't.

[Clark Griswald]

Thom,

I think your test procedures were reasonable, and your objectives great. This thing has been armchair engineered several times on this board. If nothing else you have provided for some interesting and lively discussion. Thanks for putting forth the effort (and the cash).

However I don't agree with your conclusion. By your data the unit made more power turned off than it did when turned on (average of all pulls). That tells me that any difference the unit made was less than could be accurately measured by the dyno and process used.

[Wayne 962]

Hmm, I'll have to print out these dyno runs and take them to some friends to see what they can glean from them.

What did I expect? (I don't think that I ever let anyone know what my opinions were on this device).

I expected it to work - somewhat at least. I had a strong feeling that it would not drain on the car while running, enough to counter the effects of it's added boost. The fan is a very compact, high-powered fan that is not like the CPU cooler fans. Mark was telling me that it was the only motor that could support their application, and that only one manufacturer made it (somewhere in Europe, I believe). This was one of the reasons why he had supply problems.

It is an interesting question, as to how much extra boost can you give without draining any extra power from the alternator. In theory, you would want to carry around an extra battery to power the device so that it doesn't load the alternator, but that, of course would add extra weight.

There's a reason that we haven't sold these on the website - I really didn't know if they worked. Even with the low HP increases that Thom found, I'm not sure if the $300 cost is worth it.

-Wayne

[Jim T]

As I said in the original thread, you are not the first enthusiast to run some unscientific tests of it on the dyno.

You are at least the third whose results I have seen.

But the results that I have seen have always been the same: Putting a hair drier on your intake does not increase horsepower.

(Although "dyno tests" can be funny things, half the junk in the JC Whitney catalog is supported by "dyno testing", see the Tornado link posted above for a good example).

I have a new invention. I have a stash of very high quality Pet Rocks left over from the '70s. I have found that if you strap one to your air filter, it helps smooth flow and create a vortex that gives around 4 hp. Sure, its not a lot, but its four free hp for only $79.99.

And, unless you have tested it on a dyno, you have no way of knowing it doesn't work, so don't tell me it doesn't work!

[supertedusa]

I have heard good things about the Pet Rock.

What is the ordering address?

[beepbeep]

"hate to say i told you so...."

It's a pity to use those engines in such application...they are really handy in small RC battery-powered cars. Impressive power from such a small motor, we used one of those cobolt-magneted thingies that gave more than 1HP !!

[emcon5]

Still wondering about that ~400 ft/lbs of torque at the wheels number. Are the feet on that particular dyno only 7 inches?

Tom

[island911]

is that 400 Nm? . . .=295ft*lbf

[emcon5]

I was thinking it must be some other unit as well, but the printouts clearly say ft/lb.

Tom

[beepbeep]

Well it might be raw geared torque...torque X RPM = power

[widebody911]

While I am not a dyno expert (and I don't play one on TV), I look at it this way: the RWHP numbers are lower than the flywheel numbers because of losses thru the transmission; by the same token, the RW torque numbers are *higher* than the flywheel numbers, because of the mechanical advantage of the transmission.

If I use a 5' cheater bar to break the axle nuts loose on my VW, I'm exerting (let's say) 350 ft/lbs of force (ie RWft/lb), but that isn't the same as eing able to bench 350 (FWft/lb).

So, if the common drivetrain loss factor is given as 15% (I've seen up to 20% quoted) to convert RWHP to FWHP, then likewise, you'd need to apply a similar *gain* factor to torque.

Example (for illustration only!) assuming 15% each way:

RWHP * 1.15 = FWHP
236 * 1.15 = 271.4

RWft/lb * .85 = FWft/lb
412 * .84 = 350

Those numbers are somewhat in line with the table for the RS at http://www.paulweir.com/rebuild/911engine.html

[island911]

Originally posted by beepbeep
Well it might be raw geared torque...torque X RPM = power

Yep . . .mph (not RPM) on the x-axis; and like the rice eat'n man says, "it's raw data" => not arranged in typical format.

[boyo]

This seems to have been done reasonably scientifically, so if 3 independent runs prove "nothing conclusive" them I'm satisified that would be my experience as well.

Typically I get this kind of performance boost from just washing my car!

-Boyo

[Wayne 962]

I once had a friend who swore that his car ran better when the gas tank was full...

Hmmm...

-Wayne

[wckrause]

swore that his car ran better when the gas tank was full...

It will run better full than when empty!

[Rot 911]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
I once had a friend who swore that his car ran better when the gas tank was full...

Hmmm...

-Wayne

My wife swears that the manual transmission on her car shifts better after I change the engine oil, no matter how many times I explain to her that both are sealed components and do not share oil!