ECP Filter vs. No filter kit.

[BIG BLACK WARRIOR]

I had some time to kill today, so I decided to do my own experiment with my ECP filter kit. Got about 10" of good heavy snow last night, so I went to a back road by my house which is plowed, but usually has a good hard packed base on it after a good snowfall. Temperature was in the upper 20's with light snow falling. I did 3 runs with the filter kit on. I took my speed at about 500' as I passed a certain tree, Then took my speed at about 1000', and also had a friend take my time on a stop watch at this 1000' marker. I also noted my speed at about 3/4 of a mile. All these distances are aproximate, I did not measure them out. Here are the results. First 3 runs were with the filter kit and the new plugs, silver springs. Run 1, 500 ft.= 71 MPH, 1000 ft.=108 MPH. in 10.4 seconds, 3/4 mile= 115 MPH. Run #2, 500 ft,=72 MPH, 1000 ft. = 108 MPH, in 10.3 seconds, 3/4 mile= 115 MPH. Run # 3, 500 ft.=71 MPH, 1000 ft.= 107 MPH, in 10.4 seconds, 3/4 mile = 115 MPH.
Then I took off the ECP filters, silver springs and new plugs, and went back to stock. Here are the results for the stock 3 runs.
Run # 1 500ft,=66 MPH, 1000 ft, =103 MPH at 11.0 seconds, 3/4 mile at 118 MPH. Run # 2, 500 ft. = 65 MPH, 1000 ft. =103MPH at 10.9 seconds, 3/4 mile = 119 MPH. Run # 3, 500 ft. = 67 MPH, 1000 ft. + 104 MPH at 11.0 seconds, 3/4 mile =118 MPH.
All these speeds were off my speedometer. The times were all on a hand held stop watch, so there was room for some minor error. Based on my results, the ECP filters gives you very good results on low end and mid range. Faster and quicker through 500 ft. and 1000 ft. but lost a little at top end at about 3/4 mile. Everything else on my Warrior is stock except for about 150 studs. Hope this helps someone on whether the ECP filters are worth the money. I am happy with them and they sound great.

 

[RobX-1]

BBW, this is probably an obvious assumption but wanted to confirm it...when you went back to stock, did you also change your jets? I figured you did but you omitted it when stating what you removed when returning to stock.

 

[BIG BLACK WARRIOR]

Yes, I also went back to stock jets, for the stock run with the air box back on.

 

[Buster696]

I'll take 'quicker' over 'faster' any day of the week. Looks like the kit got you there quicker, but not getting the mph at the 3/4 mi. point. This I would say is due to clutching. I have been experimenting on getting more top end out of the filters and am rapidly getting there... I feel there is a lot of top-end to gain in this kit and it is all related to the clutching. The change in torque changes the way the clutches shift out and just by changing something that give you more "power", I can believe that you can loose some MPH. If you remember the dyno sheets that posted the HP is a 6hp to 8hp ‘total’ gain at the big-end. But, the torque is the big winner here. So, you must adjust the clutching to take advantage of Freddies kit.

I also believe that you can run the sled at 10,500~10,700 all day and that is where you are going to get your mph. (I've got some recent experience that tells me this is where it should be...) Remember... 'Torque gets you there, HP keeps you there...'

After this weekend I should be able to give more information. Going to run against a lot of well-tuned sleds so that will tell the story...

Also, again… is there any CPR/Speedshop clutched sleds in the Rochester, NY area to help my clutching theory out related to this subject. If there is please post here or email me at: srx696@rochester.rr.com

--Buster696--

 

[SUPERTUNER]

I'll take 'quicker' over 'faster' any day of the week. Looks like the kit got you there quicker, but not getting the mph at the 3/4 mi. point. This I would say is due to clutching. I have been experimenting on getting more top end out of the filters and am rapidly getting there... I feel there is a lot of top-end to gain in this kit and it is all related to the clutching. The change in torque changes the way the clutches shift out and just by changing something that give you more "power", I can believe that you can loose some MPH. If you remember the dyno sheets that posted the HP is a 6hp to 8hp ‘total’ gain at the big-end. But, the torque is the big winner here. So, you must adjust the clutching to take advantage of Freddies kit. --Buster696--

Et wins races. MPH is for bragging rights and winning beer at the bar later. Both of these are important...LOL!

I don't think anyone has yet to even scratch the surface with regard to getting these clutched properly at top end. I have some good folks working on some things however and Buster696 is one of them.

I also have some other theories but right now, I will not state them until I have sufficient physical and real world evidence and technical backup to my claims. Stay tuned.

Freddie

 

[welterracer]

I had some time to kill today, so I decided to do my own experiment with my ECP filter kit. Got about 10" of good heavy snow last night, so I went to a back road by my house which is plowed, but usually has a good hard packed base on it after a good snowfall. Temperature was in the upper 20's with light snow falling. I did 3 runs with the filter kit on. I took my speed at about 500' as I passed a certain tree, Then took my speed at about 1000', and also had a friend take my time on a stop watch at this 1000' marker. I also noted my speed at about 3/4 of a mile. All these distances are aproximate, I did not measure them out. Here are the results. First 3 runs were with the filter kit and the new plugs, silver springs. Run 1, 500 ft.= 71 MPH, 1000 ft.=108 MPH. in 10.4 seconds, 3/4 mile= 115 MPH. Run #2, 500 ft,=72 MPH, 1000 ft. = 108 MPH, in 10.3 seconds, 3/4 mile= 115 MPH. Run # 3, 500 ft.=71 MPH, 1000 ft.= 107 MPH, in 10.4 seconds, 3/4 mile = 115 MPH.
Then I took off the ECP filters, silver springs and new plugs, and went back to stock. Here are the results for the stock 3 runs.
Run # 1 500ft,=66 MPH, 1000 ft, =103 MPH at 11.0 seconds, 3/4 mile at 118 MPH. Run # 2, 500 ft. = 65 MPH, 1000 ft. =103MPH at 10.9 seconds, 3/4 mile = 119 MPH. Run # 3, 500 ft. = 67 MPH, 1000 ft. + 104 MPH at 11.0 seconds, 3/4 mile =118 MPH.
All these speeds were off my speedometer. The times were all on a hand held stop watch, so there was room for some minor error. Based on my results, the ECP filters gives you very good results on low end and mid range. Faster and quicker through 500 ft. and 1000 ft. but lost a little at top end at about 3/4 mile. Everything else on my Warrior is stock except for about 150 studs. Hope this helps someone on whether the ECP filters are worth the money. I am happy with them and they sound great.

I would have to say this is the same results i am getting!!!!

 

[1xr]

I have found that there is two different set ups for two different uses. First drag raceing on ice in 660 with solid hook up, rev low like 9600 out of the hole and finish at about 10000. second snowmobiling and raceing on snow with out great traction and a heavy track, clutch fairly heavy but turn it to 10500- 10600, and also jet it fatter than freddie sugests.

 

[Roadrunner]

:shock: WOW :shock: I did some playing with the numbers that Big Black Warrior posted ( we call it mathmatical masterbation) and this is what I came up with. Lets say your speedo reads 105 at 1000' which is probably 90 MPH actual. At 90MPH you are going 132' feet per second. The ECP equipped sled gets to the 1000' mark around a half a second quicker. 132 X .5 = 66 feet ahead of the stock sled. At the end of 3/4 mile the stock sled is going 3 MPH faster. 3 MPH faster means you would be gaining on the ECP sled at the rate of 1.5 feet per second. 66 feet ahead divided by 1.5 equals 44 seconds before he would catch him. Theoretically it will take over a mile to catch him. Just trying to put the numbers into something that you can relate to if you were racing someone.

Buster696 and Supertuner, keep up the good work trying to find the lost MPH. Then we'll have it all. Roadrunner

 

[LazyBastard]

Or you can clutch the one with stock air intake to get the engine out of the midrange right at the line, AND give it enough traction to actually USE it (rather than spin), then you'd never fall behind - in fact, you'd probably pull ahead because the ECP filter equipped engine will be held back into a range where the kit helps. If the engine is spinning 10k rpm, it doesn't matter about midrange benefits since its not midrange. With IVR type transmission, horsepower makes acceleration. With fixed ratio type transmission, torque makes acceleration.


By BET:
Two sleds, stock gearing, camoplast 9924 tracks (thats ripsaw 151"), as many studs as you can physically fit. Same amount of gas, same weight rider, one with stock intake, other with ECP kit. Clutch the ECP kit any way you want, clutch the other one to put the engine at 10300 rpm and hold. If the one with ECP is clutched optimally, they will run side by side forever, except for the 2-3 horsepower gain that the ECP intake sled has.

 

[Buster696]

LazyBastard, I would have to disagree with you on this... If any 2 sleds have the same HP but have different 'Torque' curves they would not stay side-by-side from a dead stop to WOT. The shift-points related to the motor vs. the clutching would be different. Therefore, having a sled that accelerates better (it takes torque to do this), would always beat the sled with approximately same HP. Sled-A would always be first vs. stock/Sled-B to the end of a lake because of the increase in torque not the HP. Giving the look of a 'faster' sled, but in all reality they are both the same. Sled-A is just 'quicker'…

I doubt that we will ever run in a perfect condition with no bumps, snowdrifts, hard pack/soft areas, etc. to make this work in a theoretical world. So having a sled that has an increase in torque in the way to go. The RX-Motor has such a long torque curve and the filter kit makes it better, and also gives you a little more HP.

Here is a real world example from last week in Quebec:
I ran against a ZR900 Cat with D&D Twin Pipes and all the toys (about 165hp he says). (This guy does know how to tune a sled...), and I out accelerated him to the end of the lake (about 1000ft). He is faster... he was catching me, but I am quicker... and I'll take quicker vs. faster any day of the week!!!

I just need to work on making my clutching take advantage of the additional torque... and the HP will keep me there.

--Buster696--

 

[LazyBastard]

Torque and Horspower are related DIRECTLY via GEAR RATIO.

If you know the Horsepower and RPM, you can CALCULATE the TORQUE.

Engine torque is IRRELEVANT, it is DRIVESHAFT torque that matters.

When you are comparing fixed gear vehicles for acceleration based on torque, YES, torque matters. A car is FIXED RATIO. Snowmobiles are NOT.


Read this: http://www.karljay.com/cars/forum.php?postid=1386

 

[LazyBastard]

horsepower * 5252 / rpm = torque

Neat, huh? By changing the RPM (via gear ratio), you change the torque.

Please take careful note that this equation is LINEAR, not geometric. Careful study of that equation will prove to you that at the point of maximum horsepower, you achieve the greatest DRIVESHAFT torque possible.

 

[LazyBastard]

BTW: The reason you got beat by a sled of HIGHER HORSEPOWER is this:

Off the line, he SPINS MORE than you.

Here's a real-world example:

My '87 EXCITER makes LESS HORSEPOWER and TORQUE than RX1, PROPORTIONALLY to the weight of the vehicle (which means that if it took x% weight increase for its weight to be equal to RX1, then even with x% torque/horsepower increase, it would STILL be less than RX1), and yet it can BEAT RX1 to 200 feet. At 200 feet RX1 passes it like its standing still, but thats the same that happened with YOU and that ZR. Funny to be beat by a weaker vehicle, isn't it, and BTW: my RX1 is WAY better tuned than my Exciter. Exciter is stock clutching, RX1 is Supertune2.

 

[Buster696]

I never got beat by the ZR!!!!!!
He was just catching me... I got there quicker with a LOWER HORSEPOWER SLED!!!

And when we got to the end of the lake he was a lot closer than at the mid part of the lake...

Also, if he has more HP, does that mean his variable-ratio-torque–sensitive-drive train was not working for him...??? I guess so...

--Buster696--

 

[SUPERTUNER]

If the engine is spinning 10k rpm, it doesn't matter about midrange benefits since its not midrange. With IVR type transmission, horsepower makes acceleration. With fixed ratio type transmission, torque makes acceleration.

LB...I am not trying to start a pissing match here but your very, very wrong with your thinking. Let explain it this way...In all reality, it is reasonable to think that you really do not make any torque whatsoever until you actually begin to try and move the sled. (aka clutch engagement)

Therefore it is inconceivable to think that your torque acts like an on off switch and the moment you see your desired peak RPM, you are at maximum peak torque. This couldn't be further from the truth. What this means in the way you are saying it is that you make zero torque and the very moment the clutch engages, you are at peak torque. Tell me...how does it get there? It MUST climb to peak torque through an RPM range. This is known as the "powercurve" of your sled.

Here is how it works...you engage the clutch and although your tach needle whips right up to peak RPM, your torque climbs in slowly and eventually reaches peak torque. I have worked a great deal with on board data retrieval computers with G-meters on them on race vehicles and the torque climbs in a lot slower than you think. The proof is obvious too. Think of one of my open Pro Stock or Open Modified dragrace engines...at clutch engagement let's say we have 57 footpounds of torque. If you way of thinking were accurate, this means that before the sled moved 5 feet forward, you would be experiencing peak torque sensations. A good Open Pro Stock or Open Modified engine makes 265-269 HP at 9300 RPM's. This equates to 152 foot pounds of torque. If your theory were correct, 152 foot pounds of torque hitting you pretty much from a dead stop or even 5 feet, 10, feet or 20 feet off the starting line would dislocate both of your arms, blow you off the back of the sled and cause the race to be interupted while we took you to the hospital to reattatch your now missing limbs. Think of the torque that jet fighter pilots and Top Fuel and Funnycar drivers experience. Do you honestly think they would even survive if all of a sudden they were hit with the kind of peak torque (G's) that these vehicles are capable of producing? Not even a chance.

Just because your tach climbs up quickly does not mean that torque climbs that fast too. It would be like getting rear ended at a standstill by a tractor trailer at 90 MPH. Impossible to hang on and survive...sorry.

Hope this makes some sense as this is not my opinion but scientific fact.

Good number crunching there Roadrunner.

Freddie