ATLP QUAD Muffler Sections, 07-09 MDX - Page 2 - Acura MDX Forum : Acura MDX SUV Forums
Register Home Forums Active Topics Auto Loans Photo Gallery Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Auto EscrowInsurance
MDXers.org is the premier Acura MDX Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 02-04-2013, 01:49 PM   #16 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 50
The pricing on this part is going to take some time, but I expect the pair to run about $799-$849 somewhere in there.

The j-pipe will likely be around $439.

Of course there will be a discount for those looking for both.

Baseline dyno appointment set for Wed at 9:30 AM!
__________________
www.heeltoeauto.com
MrHeeltoe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:14 PM   #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
MAC-n-bk-of-AC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 125
looking foward to seeing the dyno results and group discount for both
__________________
2007 Acura MDX
2008 Corvette C6 Z51


Won Best SUV at Smithtown Acura Tri-State Honda/Acura meet in NY 6/2013

Anyone interested in a Performance Cat-Back Exhaust?? Now's our chance!! Click below.....
http://www.mdxers.org/forums/74-2007...xers-help.html
MAC-n-bk-of-AC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 04:55 PM   #18 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 50


Working on video-splicing the runs for a clean display.
__________________
www.heeltoeauto.com
MrHeeltoe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 06:37 PM   #19 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHeeltoe View Post


Working on video-splicing the runs for a clean display.
This doesn't count without before and after J pipe dyno chart.

My guess is that you got the numbers?

Regards,

Nino
ninor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 07:41 PM   #20 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 50
Well, Nino, we have not actually installed the J-pipe on the car yet. This was a baseline run. We will install the J-pipe tomorrow and run the car for a week or two for the PCM to adjust, then take it back for another run to see what sort of gains are there.

Some interesting bits about the dyno:
- It was a dynojet AWD dyno, load bearing.
- The rear axle is a single roller, so we did not have any of the SH-AWD issues we did with the Dynapack setup before.
- The torque shown on your dash is right...only about 30% was going to the rear wheels, and the front was spinning much faster. As the front wheels went over 100 mph the rears were at 35 or so!
- We had two very consistent back to back runs showing to all four the car made about 207 whp and 188 ft-lbs. This is showing about 30% drivetrain loss, which I think is reasonable. It better than the number the Dynapack gave us!
__________________
www.heeltoeauto.com
MrHeeltoe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 07:42 PM   #21 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 50
Oh , and we barely fit on the dyno width wise! I want to get some spacers for the wheels but I think I should wait til I'm done dynoing
__________________
www.heeltoeauto.com
MrHeeltoe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 08:04 PM   #22 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Youngstown, OH.
Posts: 35
Re: ATLP QUAD Muffler Sections, 07-09 MDX

MrHeelToe,

I'm very excited to see the numbers in comparison once you get them. I have a question I've been meaning to ask, but have been neglecting.

In your opinion how will this modification to the exhaust system, and or the J-pipe replacement effect the car's Air Fuel ratio?

I only ask because once I installed my Full Length / Long Tube headers on my Eclipse the gains I dyno'ed from bolt-up were dwarfed in comparison to the gains after installing a SAFC-II with tuning.



-D.

Sent From My Galaxy Nexus
Drider is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 08:34 PM   #23 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHeeltoe View Post
Well, Nino, we have not actually installed the J-pipe on the car yet. This was a baseline run. We will install the J-pipe tomorrow and run the car for a week or two for the PCM to adjust, then take it back for another run to see what sort of gains are there.

Some interesting bits about the dyno:
- It was a dynojet AWD dyno, load bearing.
- The rear axle is a single roller, so we did not have any of the SH-AWD issues we did with the Dynapack setup before.
- The torque shown on your dash is right...only about 30% was going to the rear wheels, and the front was spinning much faster. As the front wheels went over 100 mph the rears were at 35 or so!
- We had two very consistent back to back runs showing to all four the car made about 207 whp and 188 ft-lbs. This is showing about 30% drivetrain loss, which I think is reasonable. It better than the number the Dynapack gave us!

I see, you are taking your time...

I still live in Integra days, 6 headers back to back, ear muffs, 1 day and only regret was not having couple of more headers to try out

Great stuff though, thanks for the numbers. I hope you post the chart once you do J pipe. ( SAE corrected of course)...

I do have to make a comment on 207 WHP, sort of funny to think that we were getting that ages ago from 1.8L B18c1/5 normally aspirated. 188 ft-lbs is nice, but again nothing that K24 with flashpro and couple of things can't do.
You probably got most of that TQ at 2K or so?

These numbers are low for 3.7L (probably hurt by restrictive intake, pre cats, pretzl j pipe and that pre cat friendly head casting), engine must be chocked up something fierce. I wouldn't be surprised you see 30WHP or something, unless that dinky panel air filter puts the hurt on it...

Anyway, thank you for sharing and looking forward to J pipe numbers.



Regards,

Nino
ninor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-09-2013, 12:14 AM   #24 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drider View Post
MrHeelToe,

I'm very excited to see the numbers in comparison once you get them. I have a question I've been meaning to ask, but have been neglecting.

In your opinion how will this modification to the exhaust system, and or the J-pipe replacement effect the car's Air Fuel ratio?

I only ask because once I installed my Full Length / Long Tube headers on my Eclipse the gains I dyno'ed from bolt-up were dwarfed in comparison to the gains after installing a SAFC-II with tuning.



-D.

Sent From My Galaxy Nexus
The AFR as near as I can tell is not going to change at all. These pigs run rich, no two ways about it. A reflash or tuning would help significantly, but we need a proof of concept before we can get Hondata to budge even a little I am sure.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ninor View Post
I see, you are taking your time...

I still live in Integra days, 6 headers back to back, ear muffs, 1 day and only regret was not having couple of more headers to try out

Great stuff though, thanks for the numbers. I hope you post the chart once you do J pipe. ( SAE corrected of course)...

I do have to make a comment on 207 WHP, sort of funny to think that we were getting that ages ago from 1.8L B18c1/5 normally aspirated. 188 ft-lbs is nice, but again nothing that K24 with flashpro and couple of things can't do.
You probably got most of that TQ at 2K or so?

These numbers are low for 3.7L (probably hurt by restrictive intake, pre cats, pretzl j pipe and that pre cat friendly head casting), engine must be chocked up something fierce. I wouldn't be surprised you see 30WHP or something, unless that dinky panel air filter puts the hurt on it...

Anyway, thank you for sharing and looking forward to J pipe numbers.



Regards,

Nino
Yea this this new age stuff we won't get a good after number until we run it 15-20 times and I don't have the cash for that to budget here The computer will be adjusting and adjusting and then we will go back once it is all settled in.

Remember, this is a chassis dyno with rollers. Our number at Church on the Dynapacks was quite a bit higher as well. From what I figure a 25-30% drivetrain loss in this test is pretty understandable and acceptable.

The number is LOW for sure. But remember this is also working to spin up four heavy wheels through a relatively complex AWD system. A K-series or B-series in a Civic pumping through two 12 lb wheels is a very different scenario. We have closer to 15% drivetrain loss on am FF setup.

Of course at the end of the day the RELATIVE number is what counts. We did a back to back dyno on an SH-AWD TL with a cat-back, and while the number was under 200 whp on the Mustang dyno at that shop, the 5-7 hp and torque gain was rock solid and consistent.

Peak tq at 2k rpm? Well, I guess a pic is worth a thousand words....




Here are some dyno since I can tell you two guys will really appriciate them And forgive me, right before submitting this post I see I have these numbers against SPEED not RPM, so...sorry, will get that right before I post the 'after.'

First, here is the dyno on the Dynapack:

The power is more because we've removed the wheels. But, this dyno we think had a lot more funkiness because the rear wheels were connected to separate dynos, and the VSA was freaking out. It couldn't get it straight which wheel to give more power to, we think. Anyway, consistency led us to believe this number is relatively true, but still low for a 300 hp engine we think. The newer J-series is a fiend for pulling timing, and we think this might have been going on as well.

Here is the Dynojet curve:

Power and torque are proportionately lower than the Dynapack run. Clouding the issue is the fact that the Dynapack numbers are with stock mufflers while the Dynojet is with the ATLPs. How much power the mufflers add is a mystery. I am not sure I could claim much more than 6-10 hp, and won't even try to advertise it, but overall the curves are not so different, again giving me faith that we have good tests running. I like the resolution on the Dynojet graph but the Dynapacks really are better for tuning because of the whole parasitic loss of the wheels.


Speed. I misspoke before on the speed differential between front and rear but you can clearly see the difference is rather significant! The higher line is the front wheels, the lower line is the rear wheels. One concern we had was that the computer would start freaking out and pull timing because of the speed differential. Maybe to a certain degree it was, but I think we got clean runs. We had two back to back that were essentially identical. This one is more for informative purposes than anything else. Interesting that the front speed increases faster with higher torque but the rear is a linear change.




Lastly here is the torque versus AFR. This you can compare with the Dynapack before and after the mufflers. She's rich for sure, but the mufflers made this no worse and the j-pipe won't either.







Just for grins, the MDX on the Dynapack:


And a shameless plug:
__________________
www.heeltoeauto.com
MrHeeltoe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-09-2013, 01:33 AM   #25 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 73
Thank you, much appreciated.

I am just floored how little power it makes on the dynojet.207whp 3.7L!!! There is no two ways about it, either this thing is plugged up, or those heads suck some major ass.
I REALLY want to see that J pipe dyno. If that doesn't give this thing wings nothing short of taking out those pre cats and putting different intake on it will do. AWD and all, this 3.7 should be putting 230WHP on dynojet, stock, 260WHP if it was in FWD, so I'll give it 30WHP on account of SH-AWD, but 57, I don't know.

Looking at the dyno you had smoothing at 5 and it still looks choppy, I'll admit that it looks very probable that ECU was having fun with timing, and that would explain a lot.
I also looked at that panel air filter, and TSX one almost looks the same size for 2.4L engine, this might be something worth looking into as well, even if only K&N OEM replacement...

High hopes for J pipe, even though I don't need the power in MDX or care for it anyway, having it corked up doesn't feel right either. Looking at AFR I bet there is a few MPGs hiding there as well...

Regards,

Nino
ninor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-09-2013, 02:04 AM   #26 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 50
Step 1 was baseline. Step 2 is j-pipe. Step three will add a K&N drop in, crank pully, and thermoblock spacer.
__________________
www.heeltoeauto.com
MrHeeltoe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-09-2013, 09:47 AM   #27 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHeeltoe View Post
Step 1 was baseline. Step 2 is j-pipe. Step three will add a K&N drop in, crank pully, and thermoblock spacer.
Great stuff, this is exactly as far as I would take something like MDX. Community here is finally going to have some great info

Regards,

Nino
ninor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-09-2013, 03:16 PM   #28 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Youngstown, Ohio
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHeeltoe View Post
Step 1 was baseline. Step 2 is j-pipe. Step three will add a K&N drop in, crank pully, and thermoblock spacer.
Glad to see the great progress Marcus and nice results thus far. Those numbers are much better than the previous we had from a WHILE ago, another member had a full custom exhaust (J-Pipe included) and his numbers complete with the K&N drop in, equalled yours with only the Cat-Back. However, I don't think he was using a dynopack. I do remember (and can vouch with the calibrated Butt Dyno lol) that the K&N literally does almost nothing except for make the intake sound much throatier.

Here's that old thread:
http://www.mdxers.org/forums/74-2007...st-intake.html

As for the spacer and thermobolic gaskets, I am curious myself to see some numbers. I installed them along with the 1gen spacer and noticed nothing, then installed the K&N and STILL noticed nothing. I wasn't too upset, b/c just doing the work and making those modifications (without dyno proof prior) is part of the fun for me. Not to mention being able to have everything apart and go through and refresh gaskets, polish runners/ inside manifold/ TB (although you will see they really don't need much at all), clean parts (and throughout the intake - I am at 105k mi now and was at 75k when I did it - it's that "peace of mind" associated with automotive OCD lol), and finally, verify/ re-tq all the hardware I can access to OEM specs. As for the Crank Pulley I am definitely curious as well, I did notice a little better improvement in acceleration which is expected since the rotating mass lost approx 7lbs, so the torque numbers had to increase a bit, the math can prove that out.

I'm glad you are taking the approach you are so that we can see the increments in power/ TQ variations, isolating all the variables. However on a greedy note, I do wish you did the J-Pipe first . That being said, put me on the list for first in line for that J-Pipe, my Paypal is armed and ready.

-Sean
__________________
2009 MDX Tech: 3000k HID fogs, Adv. RSB, K&N, ATLP J-Pipe, Dual Magnaflows, 20" Chrome SS/Z28 wheels, UDP, IM Spacer, TL UIM, P2R Thermals, Full Dynomat, WOOD St.Wheel & Shifter
2005 ZX6R: H.o.C. Tangelo w/Black wheels, Jardine RT-1, Jumper Mod, HIDs, Pazzo, Vortex rearsets, BMC Race, PCIII, GPR, V-Stacks, Nissins w/ SS Lines
alcatranz518 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-09-2013, 06:49 PM   #29 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 73
Ones ability to pick up on sub 10WHP change in 2 Ton suv using 5 spd AT with long gearing is probably non existent. (changing K&N alone or any single thing except maybe taking pre-cats out)
All these parts put together will easily amount to something one can actually feel, but my real hope is to see 2-3 MPGs. Given 10% power improvement it would crisp things up, but projected over gas tank range, with normal driving, we will see mileage improvement.
In my opinion THIS is one thing MDX needs more than anything.

Regards,

Nino
ninor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-11-2013, 12:53 PM   #30 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 50
I'm a pretty strong believer, unlike most casual enthusiasts, that you upgrade to an end goal, not for incremental gratification. In other words, most of the parts you get for a car will not do a whole lot on their own. If you go in saying "I want more power" then you really need to have a package designed to do that. Just a filter or an exhaust pipe really isn't enough to achieve that. Sounds like we pretty much agree here.
__________________
www.heeltoeauto.com
MrHeeltoe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Acura MDX Forum : Acura MDX SUV Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Random Question

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2
Copyright 2000-2010 MDXers.org. All Rights Reserved.