V2 intake system - their dyno numbers show impressive gains and coupled with a full-catback exhaust, even better.

 

Thanks.

Can you define impressive gains? I have a full cat back exhaust on my car now so that part is done.

 

I can't speak for other intakes but the V2 does help for sure. Revs builder faster and pulls harder in the mid range to redline. I didn't remove the cool air inlet and trimmed it instead. It draws the cold air directly to the filter and the air doesn't get lost and gets rid of turbulence.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

Go to the Eurocompulsion website for the dyno numbers so you can compare the engine output stock vs the V2 intakes. But per their dyno results, its about 20 hp gain with their full catback exhaust system and V2 intake vs stock.

 

There's no debate. Eurocompulsion's V2 is great. That was the first performance mod I did, and on an otherwise stock car it made a noticeable difference. Biggest improvement was overall smoothness of acceleration and trans shifts. It did free up more power, no question, but the way it smoothed everything out was the best feature for me. My second mod was Eurocompulsion's P1 tune which added even more smoothness and drivability. That's when the power really increased. Combined with the V2 intake, it feels like a different car. The performance now matches the way the car looks.

Combined with what you already have, you'll definitely notice an improvement with the V2. The improvements aren't subtle either; it's not where you have to really focus to try and feel if there's any difference. It's immediate, and it's noticeable.

 

i got my self a v1 cause paying extra 150$ for filter i already have and a silicone hose with a bracket i can make my self i dont find worth it, i like to wrench and fab stuff my self

 

If you want to start looking into Cold Air intake Systems then our new MAXFlow should be right up your alley.

It keeps the BMC filter sealed and hooks into the factory scoop from the bumper grill so that you don't suck in hot air from the engine bay. It is also made from 100% carbon fiber. So not only does it perform well it also looks great!

https://madnessautoworks.com/Alfa R...ntake-maxflow-carbon-fiber-intake-system-w-bmc-twin-air-connical-filter-pid7945

 

V2 all the way.

 

I will have to give it some thought. I have seen the video on EC for their V2. Not a big fan of the wooosh sound on this particular car. Might need to go with V1 instead.

 

V2, the whoosh sound is minimal but makes me smile when it happens>

 

AFE's Momentum cold air intake should be dropping soon, too:

http://www.alfa9supply.com/giulia-engine-tuning/afe-power-cold-air-intake-for-giulia

 

We've got our new MAXFlow Carbon Fiber Intake system dropping soon. Currently open for discounted pre-orders.

https://madnessautoworks.com/2017-A...ntake-maxflow-carbon-fiber-intake-system-w-bmc-twin-air-connical-filter-pid7945

 

We've got our new MAXFlow Carbon Fiber Intake system dropping soon. Currently open for discounted pre-orders.

Your intake is $700.... discounted... for an airbox and a filter. Do you have dynos? Or any idea what hp this box and filter produce?

 

Is there any dyno (or other) data to show the EuroCompulsion V2 intake increases horsepower and/or torque?

I cannot find anything on the EC website.

 

Bump.

I'm not able to find the alluded to dyno result(s) showing the V2 the all out, indisputable choice for impressive gains.

Links?

 

Intercooler or not - the heat under the hood makes me lean towards closed cold-air boxes. That is unless when the hood is closed it is designed to keep turbo heat away from the front passenger side of the car (under the hood)?

 

My first inclination is that this is a complete waste of time and money but i am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Not on vehicles that are wide-band and utilize volumetric efficiency.

 

Okay, I added this to our tech info:
https://shopeurocompulsion.net/blog...les/eurocompulsion-v1-v2-air-induction-systems-tech-info-alfa-romeo-giulia-2-0l

And product pages for the intake.

I looked for quite some time, and could not find anything for the V1 intake on the dyno computer (at least not that I labeled or noted).

EDIT: Also, this was back in February, so it was quite cool at the time.

 

So my car only makes 239HP / 290TQ with the V2 intake? no wonder I lost so badly last night to that my friends 345/320 manual car. :surprise:
I really need to get the P1 tune. >

I honestly thought our cars made a little more power from the factory.

 

So my car only makes 239HP / 290TQ with the V2 intake?

I honestly thought our cars made a little more power from the factory.

I know...that's what I've been saying about these cars; they drive really sweet, but they are not impressively powerful to me.

Before I got the MaxPower tune, I was seriously in doubt about pulling off what should have been totally do-able passes. Now I'm much more confident that when I nail it, it's gonna go good.

Now the Quad is a different story...! That thing is a beast, a total killer. It's a good thing I don't have one, because I'd just be drivin' around, ****tin' on fools all the time.

 

Does anyone know if the V2 would effect the Warranty on the vehicle? [emoji848]

Sounds like a simple and effective mod. Just unsure if head office would consider it something that would void a warranty if the car had a problem. Although I guess you could always put the stock back on before taking to the dealer....

 

You should ask your service advisor this question. Dealerships I've spoken to have no problem with bolt-ons like this or an exhaust. The tuning is another story, if you run into a problem.

 

I'm not sure there is actually a "great debate" relative to intake upgrades. More air MASS into the engine = more power as long as the air is not so hot after it passes through the intercooler that it causes pinging.

One thing to have a look at is the diminutive size of the intake plumbing between the turbo and the manifold (over the top of the engine). That seems unlikely to be a good thing.

 

The crank figures are based on controlled conditions in a room specifically built for measuring what an engine produces. Those you can count on. When it says wheel numbers, those are what is being measured at the wheels on a dyno. Rear wheel figures are subject to the dyno, the operator, and the conditions at the moment, which is why Toby mentioned it was taken in February when the air temp was cooler. They can vary but as you pointed out, the real value is being able to compare a before and after reading after you've made a mod of some kind. Unless you know the drivetrain loss and other factors with each car, the power numbers don't necessarily compare directly from car to car.

Drivetrain loss involves many things including the weight of the flywheel, clutch, the efficiency of the trans, the driveshaft type and whether it's 1 piece or 2 piece, the type and efficiency of the differential, the weight of the rear wheels and rear brakes, and finally the viscosity of the oils in the trans and diff. Unless you change the mechanical components which gets expensive fast, the easiest way to reduce some of that loss is better gear fluids. I put Torco gear oils in my Camaro and I could immediately feel the difference just in how much easier the car coasted when it began to roll. The difference at the dyno was anywhere from 3-5% depending on the run. I'd have to do some research into what Alfa is using in the trans and diff, but there are probably some better (and more expensive) fluids that can help reduce friction loss. They help in several ways though. In addition to allowing more power to make it to the rear wheels, the car rolls easier which helps fuel mileage. The reduction in gear noise also made the car quieter.

Efficiency builds are very interesting to do, and quite rewarding if done right.

 

After doing some research, it appears that Torco has gear fluids that would work with the trans and differentials. The Alfa owner's manual for the non-QV shows the following:

The auto trans is going to need 10 quarts regardless if you have RWD or AWD. The manual does not list a particular specification, other than Synthetic ATF.

The rear diff depending on which one you have, will take 1 quart for non-LSD diffs, and .9 or 1.1 quarts if you do have the LSD. I'm not sure which ones we have, as it does not say on my window sticker which one is included, it just says "mechanical limited slip". The fluid type for both non and LSD diffs does have a spec, which is FPW9.55550-DA9. All the rear diffs use the same spec.

For those who have the Q4 AWD system, I'm pretty sure we have the FAD transfer case which takes .5 quarts, but I'm not sure if the other system listed which just says TRANSFER CASE is a separate part of the system or not. If so, it takes .7 quarts. Each of those two types of transfer case have a separate spec oil. Since the AWD doesn't kick in unless circumstances require it, I don't know that there would be much (if any) benefit to upgrading those oils. The system doesn't really get used that much, unless you live in an area that has slippery road conditions a lot.

If MacGeek reads this, maybe he has more information on how to tell which type you have if you have an AWD model.

I'm thinking for fluid upgrades, the trans and main rear diff are the only ones that would be worthwhile. The ZF trans is used in a lot of cars, and I know Torco has a synthetic ATF fluid that works for ZF transmissions in many manufacturer cars so that shouldn't be a problem. I'll continue to do more research into the differential fluid spec.

 

After doing some research, it appears that Torco has gear fluids that would work with the trans and differentials. The Alfa owner's manual for the non-QV shows the following:

View attachment 76342
View attachment 76344

The auto trans is going to need 10 quarts regardless if you have RWD or AWD. The manual does not list a particular specification, other than Synthetic ATF.

The rear diff depending on which one you have, will take 1 quart for non-LSD diffs, and .9 or 1.1 quarts if you do have the LSD. I'm not sure which ones we have, as it does not say on my window sticker which one is included, it just says "mechanical limited slip". The fluid type for both non and LSD diffs does have a spec, which is FPW9.55550-DA9. All the rear diffs use the same spec.

For those who have the Q4 AWD system, I'm pretty sure we have the FAD transfer case which takes .5 quarts, but I'm not sure if the other system listed which just says TRANSFER CASE is a separate part of the system or not. If so, it takes .7 quarts. Each of those two types of transfer case have a separate spec oil. Since the AWD doesn't kick in unless circumstances require it, I don't know that there would be much (if any) benefit to upgrading those oils. The system doesn't really get used that much, unless you live in an area that has slippery road conditions a lot.

If MacGeek reads this, maybe he has more information on how to tell which type you have if you have an AWD model.

I'm thinking for fluid upgrades, the trans and main rear diff are the only ones that would be worthwhile. The ZF trans is used in a lot of cars, and I know Torco has a synthetic ATF fluid that works for ZF transmissions in many manufacturer cars so that shouldn't be a problem. I'll continue to do more research into the differential fluid spec.

Here is some more information on the Q4 gear boxes, since I have Q4. This might be useful for your research.

The transfer and front differential are made by Magna/Puch (aren't these the guys that made my Allstate "Twingle" 250cc motorcycle?).

Magna notes that they offer the transfer with electrically operated clutch, differential (they also make torque vectoring differentials) and axle disconnects (FAD). The FAD made by Magna is an electrically operated clutch (I think a "dog" type clutch rather than the friction clutch found in the transfer) that goes inline with the front half shaft(s). The differential can be equipped with one or two FAD. Magna does not sell anything directly and does not list any component specifications on their website. There is some chance that they might answer lubricant questions.

The service manual has drawing of the front differential with no FAD visible on either side of the differential, nor any text mentioning such devices. The purpose of an FAD is to reduce the drive line drag when the front wheels are not being driven, but this is done at the cost of weight, space, complexity and cost. Without an FAD the front differential and front drive shaft will be turning all of the time.

The front axle is an interesting concoction: the front differential is bolted to the right side of the engine. The left half shaft is 2 piece, with a section that runs through the engine oil pan with a bearing that bolts to the left side of the oil pan, then a second section from the oil pan to the left wheel. The right side half shaft is "normal". Note that it appears that in order to remove the engine from a Q4 you need to pull the half shafts and in order to pull the half shafts you need to dismantle the front suspension. Don't blow up the engine in your Q4.

If the rear axle has LSD, you need LSD compatible oil in it. Otherwise the clutches may slip and render the LSD functionality broken. Torco sells two different additives for this purpose; it is not obvious which additive might be appropriate. In my experience gear oil viscosity is not as critical as transmission or engine oil viscosity due to the lack of an oil pump and filter. I believe the formula is essentially lower viscosity = less drag but increased wear. Also, higher viscosity deals with high temperatures such as might be encountered on the track better; I notice that Torco sells extended viscosity gear oils, such as 80W-140. I also notice that Torco's 75W-90 gear oil has a pour point of about -20C, making me wonder if a gear oil change would be a good idea for winter driving in cold country.

The manual says if you have the 280HP engine you get a 3.15 ratio rear differential and if you have the 200HP engine you get a 3.27 ratio rear differential. Thus, upgrading your super engine to veloce specs does not get you a veloce spec car. The manual does not list the front differential ratio, nor the transfer ratio.

 

Great info!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

@Eagle7 , a major technical correction: the weight of driveline components has essentially no effect on the driveline efficiency. What the weight does is change the driveline moment of inertia. Moment of inertia alters how much power is required to change the speed of the driveline, but not the amount of power required to maintain a constant speed. Drag racers will obsess over these values as they can have a fairly major effect on acceleration, but reducing the moment of inertia won't make your driveline run cooler, or your car get better highway fuel economy, or increase your top speed.

Reducing the flywheel weight is not to be done lightly. I would not think about it except to build a race vehicle, there are just too many problems that it can cause.

Changing the driveline moment of inertia also alters the values that a dyno will measure during spin up and spin down. If the spin up is done too fast there will be the appearance of power loss. Spin down rate is used to guess at the driveline efficiency for estimating the crank power from the wheel power. Note that dragsters often use very fast spin up on a dyno because the engine can only run at full throttle for a few seconds.

Things that DO have an affect on driveline efficiency include:

Fit and finish of the components.
Bearing preload (mfg specs are probably ideal but not necessarily what your components have)
Bearing grade (good bearings are incredibly expensive, using better bearings may allow a reduction in preload)
Gear tooth finish (good luck changing this)
Gear clearances (good luck changing this, although replacing worn or out of spec gears can help)
This is where "blue printing" the components can help, but because the !@#$ gear boxes are delivered as
assembled modules to AR, the specifications can be very hard to come by.
Oil seal condition and fit. Durable seals tend to have more drag.
Oil qualities such as additives to reduce seal friction, viscosity, lubricity, and resistance to foaming.
Low viscosity, high lubricity is the impossible but most desirable combination.
Of course oil contamination can be a problem; my pickup truck had water in the transmission fluid.

Probably some other things that I did not know about.

High component weight can dictate larger bearings, larger gears and/or increased preload and thus indirectly alter the efficiency of the driveline. But to change the weight and then reduce these secondary loss issues means re-designing the system; something which few people have the resources to take on.

 

Holy cripes this thread has gone wildly off topic.

 

@ Lockem. Having actually done efficiency builds, my latest being my 2010 Camaro SS, I'm speaking from experience. Drivetrain loss is the result of all the factors I listed, as they are not independent of each other. They have a chain effect. Going from a 44 lb cast-iron flywheel to an 18 lb billet steel flywheel... I'm well aware of what that's like. The car spins up quicker and decelerates quicker. It makes a difference in throttle response which has a direct effect on cornering. It's more difficult to drive slowly and smoothly in a parking lot because you've reduced the flywheel effect. It's not something you'd do on the Giulia anyways; it's something you do with a manual trans and clutch. I did not and do not advocate that.

Dynos are not the be-all end-all. When you're on the track (I'm talking road course, not drag racing), you become very well aware of what your car is doing, and NOT doing, and how well it is or isn't performing. As you make changes to your car, you get a direct feel for what it's doing... or not. Not everything works as you thought it would. Reducing weight in the drivetrain; reducing unsprung rotating weight; has a significant effect on performance and efficiency. Nothing is free. It takes power to move anything and everything. Your internet knowledge sounds impressive and looks nice in print, but it's not quite the same as actual experience.

In my previous post(s) I clearly stated that replacing mechanical components gets expensive fast; I know because I've done it. Tens of thousands of dollars done it. Which is why I didn't recommend it for the Giulia. Drivetrain loss is the result of resistance to movement, and absorbing the engine power it takes to get it to move anyways. Mechanical efficiency is part of it; the better components tend to perform better, but they cost more because it costs more to make them better than factory stock components. How they're connected to each other has an effect. The greases and oils used have an effect. And lastly but not least, the weight has an effect. Hold a 5 lb hammer at arm's length and move it. Now hold a 15 lb hammer at arm's length and move it. Nothing has changed but the weight of the hammer, but it's harder to move the 15 lb hammer and it takes longer to get it moving and stop it. That same effect is happening in the drivetrain, which includes the brake rotors and the wheels.

Reducing unsprung rotating weight improves performance, because it absorbs less power which means more power makes it to the wheels, which is something you can actually feel when you're on the track; regardless of what a dyno may or may not show. With an over 17% drivetrain loss on the Giulia, that's a lot of power not making it to the rear wheels; almost 50 hp. Since I'm NOT advocating changing any mechanical components, other than the wheels which I did (6.4 lbs lighter each than the factory wheels), the only other area that can be improved in a way that you might feel, are gear oils. That's what I was focusing on.

I'm not going down the bunny hole with you again on this particular topic. Been there done that with you before on other topics. I appreciate your interest, but as someone has pointed out, this thread has gone way off topic, so I'm done.

 

Yes, this is way off topic. I did not say that reducing flywheel weight would not improve acceleration, in fact I said the opposite. However, that happens because the driveline inertia was reduced and NOT because the driveline efficiency was improved. Those are two completely different things.

Reducing unsprung weight is more complicated because it both reduces driveline inertia and improves wheel-road contact. The later does improve driveline efficiency. In the case of installing Ceika light weight brake rotors the driveline inertia is not reduced by much because most of the weight reduction is at a small radius, but the wheel-road contact is improved significantly.

The heavy flywheel is there for a reason. It is not as-if the OEM could not figure out how to make it lighter or that they do not understand the positive consequences of making it lighter. On the negative side with a light weight flywheel you end up with a harder to start engine that idles rougher and that has an increased risk of breaking the crankshaft and the transmission main shaft. Wear rates on transmission parts (especially the gears) are also increased with a light weight flywheel. All are possibly worthwhile tradeoffs for a race vehicle but maybe not so much for a daily driver.

 

Yes, we've strayed off topic a bit. I did find the off-topic oil very fascinating though. Before we take a breath of fresh air (intake pun), I'd like to reinforce a few things that have already been said, as they are important and easily overlooked/forgotten.

- If you use the wrong fluid in an LSD, you will no longer have an LSD and the fix will be expensive.
- Hmm, I seem to have forgotten the other now....

Dyno results can be misleading and misused. We could take three identical cars to the same dyno on the same day and get three sets of numbers that may or may not be anywhere near each other.

Manufactures have to publish a conservative torque/power number. Not ever car will be exactly the same, and they know this. The low number is a CYA thing, so that nobody can claim they did not get their entire torque/power as promised.

Dyno results should be used as a baseline, for before and after changes. Did my modification raise or lower my baseline reading?

Cold air intakes are not cold air intakes unless they are getting fresh air from outside the engine compartment and ahead of the radiator.

Even with a true cold air intake, the turbo is heating the fresh air considerably (turbo compression) and the inter-cooler cooling should be discussed.

The EC V1/V2 intake does not really effect the HP much. What it seems to actually effect is the low-end torque before the turbo spools. Coupled with a good exhaust, pre-turbo torque is what seems to be happening. Yes, the system does breath better at high RPM, but the most notable gain should be at off-turbo times. This should allow for smoother and quicker off the line acceleration. This is probably that grey area where a dyno won't read well as it's low RPM and off boost.

For track driving, or spirited canyon driving, the goal is to keep the engine RPM high enough that boost is never lost and we don't experience lag time waiting for boost.