Short induction-is there a noticeable difference?
Short induction-is there a noticeable difference?
Author
Discussion

sjc1969

Original Poster:

392 posts

161 months

Friday 1st March 2013
quotequote all
Been reading the short induction thread, and getting rather excited about the increases in power people are getting a the high end of the rev counter. The low end smoothness looks good too.

From those of you who have done the "before and after" can you tell me whether you could feel a noticeable difference in the cars performance and/or manners and if so, how was it different.

Cheers
Steve

esso

1,849 posts

240 months

Friday 1st March 2013
quotequote all
I have short induction on my 4.5,mine is the Whirlwind chip and short pipes which i purchased from Joo.Before i fitted it i had a little hesitation when accelerating hard from low in the rev range,after fitting it that all disappeared and acceleration was a lot smoother.I asked the question at the time(not of Joo) if the car should be re-mapped after fitting,i was told it depends on the individual car.The advice given was to fit the chip and the short pipes and see how the car performs,if its crap the car will need remapping,mine didn`t and i haven`t had it remapped.
It defiantly improved my cars performance but if you want the optimum from it the best advice is to have the car remapped as well.
thumbup

sjc1969

Original Poster:

392 posts

161 months

Saturday 2nd March 2013
quotequote all
esso,
Did you feel a large increase at the top end of the rev counter? i guess there must be quite an increase in pull.
Cheers
Steve

ukkid35

6,383 posts

196 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
Yes, massive difference. But depends on the condition of the purple hoses (mine were knackered) and whether you get the generic remap chip (or better still a custom remap) at the same time.

My seat of the pants dyno said before short induction 330bhp, then with short induction it was actually 380bhp and with remap it was finally 410bhp.

Gazzab

21,558 posts

305 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
410? Are you sure.....?
Most of the low readings aren't the mapping or short induction but a poorl set up car afaik.
Yes a mapping makes a difference (and induction to some extent).

v8chimmy

189 posts

186 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
Gazzab said:
410? Are you sure.....?
Most of the low readings aren't the mapping or short induction but a poorl set up car afaik.
Yes a mapping makes a difference (and induction to some extent).
Mine was as follows.

344bhp without anything being done
372bhp with short induction pipes fitted
386bhp with remap
404bhp with new 2.5" exhaust fitted

All done using 97 Ron fuel.

sjc1969

Original Poster:

392 posts

161 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
Looks like short induction, chip and remap is on the cards in the not too distant future, cos those increases in power are great.

esso

1,849 posts

240 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
Its worth the investment. yes

v8chimmy

189 posts

186 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
And don't forget the extra mpg that is gained due to the leaner burn.biggrin

spongy

2,236 posts

184 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
mine has short inductions,remap etc and sits at 418 bhp.Cant recall where the power run was done....but it is a very smooth graph.was all set up by joolz

ukkid35

6,383 posts

196 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
v8chimmy said:
Mine was as follows.

344bhp without anything being done
372bhp with short induction pipes fitted
386bhp with remap
404bhp with new 2.5" exhaust fitted

All done using 97 Ron fuel.
I reckon you could see nearer 420 when your valve shims are done.

v8chimmy

189 posts

186 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
ukkid35 said:
v8chimmy said:
Mine was as follows.

344bhp without anything being done
372bhp with short induction pipes fitted
386bhp with remap
404bhp with new 2.5" exhaust fitted

All done using 97 Ron fuel.
I reckon you could see nearer 420 when your valve shims are done.
Yep, might check them before my trip to Spa in May, and see if 98 Ron fuel makes any difference.

sjc1969

Original Poster:

392 posts

161 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
i also think that getting the smoother acceleration in lower revs would be nice. I took her out yesterday afternoon, after a morning at the spa being washed, hoovered and waxed wink and noticed the hesitation that people talk about. Even so, she still pulls like a train in standard form biggrin

gruffalo

8,093 posts

249 months

Sunday 3rd March 2013
quotequote all
True they do pull like a train as standard but with short induction, well, that becomes a turbo nutter train on steroidsbiggrin

Jimbolian

246 posts

163 months

Monday 4th March 2013
quotequote all
So chaps, is there any rule of thumb in increase for the 4, 4.2, 4.5? Appreciate every car will be a little different but roughly?

Mines a 4.2, personally she's quick enough but smoothing the delivery would be great. Mind you, with a throttle peddle that ends it's path by the front light... maybe that's all part of the fun. I can remember edging past an S63 thinking that was easy till i saw the speedo..... so perhaps quick enough. : )

jackwibble

664 posts

182 months

Monday 4th March 2013
quotequote all
Jimbolian said:
So chaps, is there any rule of thumb in increase for the 4, 4.2, 4.5? Appreciate every car will be a little different but roughly
As i understand it the factory map for the 4.2 and speed 6 4.0 is pretty good so all else being equal (rest of engine working to normal parameters) not massive gains but smooths it all out especially at lower revs.
The 4.5 factory map was pants way too rich and sapping power so a full re-map and short induction can give big gains, using my car as an example i have an historical dyno graph when the car was standard and it gave 347.7 bhp and 293.9 torques,she then had a RR Chip fitted which then gave 376.6 bhp (no torque graph) and after a full re-map and short induction by Jools 399.7bhp and 350 torques plus super smooth and steep power curve, she is also de-catted with big bore free flow system .
So from standard were talking 52bhp and 56 lbs ft give or take i know some make over 400 but thats dyno's for you, its mainly the low down good manners for town/traffic driving and the seamless gut busting power delivery as it howls to the limit !!
woohoo

assynt road

379 posts

210 months

Tuesday 5th March 2013
quotequote all
Jimbolian said:
So chaps, is there any rule of thumb in increase for the 4, 4.2, 4.5? Appreciate every car will be a little different but roughly?

)
My 4.2 went from 350 to 375bhp when jools remapped it, theres no need for short pipes on the 4.2, different set up.
The biggest gain by far was the low down power, making it much nicer to drive at lower revs.

TvrJohn

1,068 posts

278 months

Saturday 7th June 2014
quotequote all
Short induction results

Mine was as follows.

344bhp without anything being done
372bhp with short induction pipes fitted
386bhp with remap

impressive addition to the engine bay

ro_butler

795 posts

294 months

Sunday 8th June 2014
quotequote all
Usually makes a massive difference, although as has already been mentioned some of the standard cars are down on power in the first place due to poor set up.
However, the caveat is that this only applies to the 4.5. You cannot do a "short induction" to a 4.2 or a speed 6. The 4.2 has a good induction setup as standard and is
also pretty smooth so a remap has limited gains compared to the 4.5.

The 4.5 really is one of the very few NA cars that benefits hugely from a remap/induction kit.

ukkid35

6,383 posts

196 months

Sunday 8th June 2014
quotequote all
ro_butler said:
The 4.5 really is one of the very few NA cars that benefits hugely from a remap/induction kit.
Perhaps half of that is because the original purple hoses are shot. Don't get me wrong, the Joolz custom map is absolutely invaluable, especially if your car is not quite standard.