[123Britt]

Installed following included directions. My only change was to install my
air box snow flap on the outside (trimmed it all down) and simply installed it on the outside of the box to block the opening.

I did this because I did not have a pop rivet tool needed to install the small metal plate. I guess I will install the real plate at a later date.

.

Once installed : Looks great and paired with BM3 Stage 1, FTP Turbo Inlet pipe and Wagner CAT DP, VRSF 5" HD I/C & Charge Pipe -- I think it should add to the engine capability.

I hear nothing in terms of whoosh sounds -- but I do think the carbon fiber tube acts as a sound tube in terms of unlocking the sound similar to the FTP Turbo inlet tube did on installation. (deeper grunt on acceleration).

However for performance gains -- I guess I will have to say that it is a very incremental change & one that I would not recommend without a tune that possibly can take advantage of the increased air flow.

On the aesthetic side: I think this is a home run and simply love the look.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Looks great!!

[AmuroRay]

You're likely losing power with that intake, but they do look nice. Open intakes are typically the best for power and sound.

[123Britt]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

You're likely losing power with that intake, but they do look nice. Open intakes are typically the best for power and sound.

Understand the negative push and feel thankful that you felt the need to respond to my post. I have seen many of your prior post (mainly I/C) . You like your MST V2 Turbo Inlet -- I choose the FTP Inlet V2 over MST ---- due to sound and fitment. Both have Pros/Cons.

What I do know that there is so much misinformation and pissing on each other that I find it amusing . There are so many prior post on this same subject.
.
Living in Alabama and having been to Auburn APR / Dinan -- I trust these guys and they told me straight up that the intake is more for show than a performance gain. Although they did design the intake to lower IAT's and increased airflow all of which help on a tuned car. Without hard data in a controlled environment I guess we can continue to point out opinions.

My opinion is : The Dinan intake is a cool showpiece -- not really any better than OEM with a drop-in hi-flow filter. The Dinan CAI design is just an improved OEM-like unit -- CF in place of the plastic. I put CF on my gear shift lever and LOVE IT. This mod is really no different. Plus I wanted to give a nod to Steve Dinan -- this is my only Dinan product on the car.

Merry Christmas

[jb-slow]

No codes? It threw codes for me and made the car jerk occasionally.

[123Britt]

Thankfully no CEL here.
.
I did not see a CEL when I changed to FTP Turbo Inlet V2. No CEL when I removed the Charcoal Mesh from the OEM filter. No cell when adding Wagner CAT DP. Then when reviewing available CAI Intakes -- the Dinan seemed to match the OEM design although the Oily Hi-Flow filter could damage the MAF .
.
I had cleaned the MAF in the past 1K miles prior to installation . Additionally, I ensured that I installed the new Dinan correctly (not to induce any leak paths).

Plus BM3 has to help.
.
Time will tell but -- so far no issues.

[123Britt]

Plus FMIC from Wagner
.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by 123Britt

Understand the negative push and feel thankful that you felt the need to respond to my post. I have seen many of your prior post (mainly I/C) . You like your MST V2 Turbo Inlet -- I choose the FTP Inlet V2 over MST ---- due to sound and fitment. Both have Pros/Cons.

What I do know that there is so much misinformation and pissing on each other that I find it amusing . There are so many prior post on this same subject.
.
Living in Alabama and having been to Auburn APR / Dinan -- I trust these guys and they told me straight up that the intake is more for show than a performance gain. Although they did design the intake to lower IAT's and increased airflow all of which help on a tuned car. Without hard data in a controlled environment I guess we can continue to point out opinions.

My opinion is : The Dinan intake is a cool showpiece -- not really any better than OEM with a drop-in hi-flow filter. The Dinan CAI design is just an improved OEM-like unit -- CF in place of the plastic. I put CF on my gear shift lever and LOVE IT. This mod is really no different. Plus I wanted to give a nod to Steve Dinan -- this is my only Dinan product on the car.

Merry Christmas

I'm speaking from a position of fact based observations.

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...o_threadrating

Here is a member's analysis of the datalogs taken from stock with a drop in, Dinan, and CTS (open intake). As I pointed at above, the Dinan was the worst performer, and had the worst drivability. It's not just an opinion, it's also based in fact.

The second data point is I owned a Dinan as well, and MUCH prefer the stock intake with a dryflow filter. And it's not just me, multiple users have had issues with Dinan, I don't think anyone is out of line by stating such in a thread about the intake.


For the rest of your post, whatever you want to do, it's your car.
I didn't change the inlet for sound, and I don't know why anyone would do it for JUST that reason. I changed mine for the performance benefit, including a lower WGDC and higher MAF readings.

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1724979&page=2

I doubt the same is observable on the FTP inlet because it's ID is exactly like stock.

Originally Posted by jb-slow

No codes? It threw codes for me and made the car jerk occasionally.

I'm didn't get codes in mine, but drivability could be wonky. For instance tip in throttle was always inconsistent, and cold start was rough. It didn't feel any more powerful to me, either.

[rtl32]

Originally Posted by jb-slow

No codes? It threw codes for me and made the car jerk occasionally.

What code?

[123Britt]

I doubt the same is observable on the FTP inlet because it's ID is exactly like stock.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by 123Britt

I doubt the same is observable on the FTP inlet because it's ID is exactly like stock.

99% I was the person you were quoting on that picture. Enjoy your intake and "inlet" that you bought for sound.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

I'm speaking from a position of fact based observations.

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...o_threadrating

Here is a member's analysis of the datalogs taken from stock with a drop in, Dinan, and CTS (open intake). As I pointed at above, the Dinan was the worst performer, and had the worst drivability. It's not just an opinion, it's also based in fact.

The differences in datalogs and the data in that intake comparison is so miniscule and the power advantages/disadvantages between one intake or another is inconclusive. I don't dispute potential issues with driveability.

I doubt the same is observable on the FTP inlet because it's ID is exactly like stock.

I find it hilarious that people think that adding a larger diameter inlet pipe is going to help anything given that the diameter of the turbo outlet is true bottle neck. Plus, so few don't understand velocity, laminar flow, etc. Bigger isn't always better. The data supporting power gains/improvements from aftermarket inlets is also quite inconclusive.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

The differences in datalogs and the data in that intake comparison is so miniscule and the power advantages/disadvantages between one intake or another is inconclusive. I don't dispute potential issues with driveability.


I find it hilarious that people think that adding a larger diameter inlet pipe is going to help anything given that the diameter of the turbo outlet is true bottle neck. Plus, so few don't understand velocity, laminar flow, etc. Bigger isn't always better. The data supporting power gains/improvements from aftermarket inlets is also quite inconclusive.

Good news - I have 2 dynographs and a set a logs to prove otherwise:


First, context:

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1724979&page=2
Measurable impact from the intake (MST inlet is already installed) Small changes in WGDC and MAF readings lead to a measurable increase in acceleration.


Next, what does the inlet actually does:

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...&postcount=173

A week or so ago I installed the MST inlet and then did the MPPK airbox mod (one at a time, pics below). I think the benefits of the inlet were already summed up previously, but to echo and confirm for anyone on the fence, going from stock inlet to MST v2 was a clear and tangible increase in throttle response in all driving modes. You could consider it a reduction in “turbo lag” if you want to call it that. Turbo definitely spools faster and the time from pedal input to boost is reduced. Helps in both acceleration from a dig and just leaning into throttle in higher gears. There was also a little more air ‘suction’ noise if that makes sense, even with 100% stock intake at this point.

I think there is clear evidence that the inlet and the MPPK both decrease WGDC for the same boost level. I did not see an increase in MAF, which I assume is because I am running MHD and I am literally right at load target in the upper RPM where MAF peaks. Other people have reported increased MAF on BM3, which makes sense given that it is a boost-based tune with a boost target high enough that you don’t reach it in the mid-upper RPM range, so you still have that room to gain with the inlet if that makes sense. If you have a custom tune, I imagine you can take advantage of the inlet even more.

thejeremyman9 does a fantastic job compiling his logs and charting them for easier consumption. Again, notice the change in WGDC over stock

I'll also, again reference the post with MY logs, where my MAF readings increased and WGDC decreased.
https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1724979&page=2



Next, the dyno graphs:


Pre vs Post inlet, Diverter, and intercooler 412hp to 421hp - 9hp



https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=20
395hp to 405hp - 10hp

You'll also note that Jeremey and myself both felt in increase in throttle response and stronger acceleration after changing the Inlet, and the data logs confirm this.


So I'll ask, what are you basing your response on?

[Pussiwillow]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

The differences in datalogs and the data in that intake comparison is so miniscule and the power advantages/disadvantages between one intake or another is inconclusive. I don't dispute potential issues with driveability.

I find it hilarious that people think that adding a larger diameter inlet pipe is going to help anything given that the diameter of the turbo outlet is true bottle neck. Plus, so few don't understand velocity, laminar flow, etc. Bigger isn't always better. The data supporting power gains/improvements from aftermarket inlets is also quite inconclusive.

My wife says bigger is always better, and she's always right

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by Pussiwillow

My wife says bigger is always better, and she's always right

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Good news - I have 2 dynographs and a set a logs to prove otherwise:

First, context:

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1724979&page=2
Measurable impact from the intake (MST inlet is already installed) Small changes in WGDC and MAF readings lead to a measurable increase in acceleration.

Those ARE NOT dynographs. It's "dyno" data gathered from a freaking phone app. I'll stick to real data provided via a chassis dyno.

Next, what does the inlet actually does:

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...&postcount=173


thejeremyman9 does a fantastic job compiling his logs and charting them for easier consumption. Again, notice the change in WGDC over stock

I'll also, again reference the post with MY logs, where my MAF readings increased and WGDC decreased.
https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1724979&page=2



Next, the dyno graphs:


Pre vs Post inlet, Diverter, and intercooler 412hp to 421hp - 9hp



https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=20
395hp to 405hp - 10hp

You'll also note that Jeremey and myself both felt in increase in throttle response and stronger acceleration after changing the Inlet, and the data logs confirm this.


So I'll ask, what are you basing your response on?

Dyno plot 1 - Please explain to me how an inlet somehow magically changes the power curve to make an N55 breath an extra 500rpms longer (i.e., 6900rpms power peak vs the ~6200-6400rpm peak power for a EWG N55)? It's just not possible with the stock turbo, intake manifold, and head. Secondly, even with a Pure Stage 2 turbo, an EWG N55 makes peak power at ~6500rpms, but does a better job carrying the power to 7000rpms (much like the B58). My guess what happened here is a scaling error with trying to overlay two different dynos.

You do realize that cars don't make the same power, run after run, right?

Also, the "post" run included the addition of an IC and diverter valve in addition to the inlet. How can you say the inlet was responsible for the gain, especially since we know aftermarket ICs can free up power.

Dyno plot 2 - Come on now. The "post" run included changes to the tuning map, changes in the intake, addition of an IC, the addition of an IC and charge pipes. Again, how can you say the inlet was responsible for the gain?

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Those ARE NOT dynographs. It's "dyno" data gathered from a freaking phone app. I'll stick to real data provided via a chassis dyno.

Who said it was a dyno? This is an acceleration graph, which was (I believe) compiled with Dragy - which is GPS verified. I used it to provide context (which I noted in the above reply) that minor changes to MAF/WGDC can add power - and thus shorten acceleration.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Dyno plot 1 - Please explain to me how an inlet somehow magically changes the power curve to make an N55 breath an extra 500rpms longer (i.e., 6900rpms power peak vs the ~6200-6400rpm peak power for a EWG N55)? It's just not possible with the stock turbo, intake manifold, and head. Secondly, even with a Pure Stage 2 turbo, an EWG N55 makes peak power at ~6500rpms, but does a better job carrying the power to 7000rpms (much like the B58). My guess what happened here is a scaling error with trying to overlay two different dynos.

Your guess would be wrong. If you look at the original thread, they have the actual wheel HP number (350whp to 358whp) listed at the bottom. These are in line with other.

But if your questioning WHEN power peaks, that a function of the tune AND the conversion factor (Est engine vs wheel)

here are examples of a M2 making peak HP over 6000 RPM completely stock

https://www.bmwblog.com/2016/04/08/b...he-dyno-video/

And here


And here:
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...php?p=22626217

You do realize that cars don't make the same power, run after run, right?

Sure, but I imagine the he took the best runs of each and overlayed them. Even in the event of something like "heatsoak" the car will maintain a simialr power curve, as seen here:

https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1862698

For the record, I can guarantee I've been on the dyno more times than anyone on this side of the forum. I've dynoed literally every single car I've owned with the exception of this car, I'm very familar with how dynos work.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Also, the "post" run included the addition of an IC and diverter valve in addition to the inlet. How can you say the inlet was responsible for the gain, especially since we know aftermarket ICs can free up power.

This is a valid question, but per Turbosmart, they don't advertise that their part makes power. Have you seen a dyno of an intercooler only N55 that added power? It's possible, but I haven't seen it.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Dyno plot 2 - Come on now. The "post" run included changes to the tuning map, changes in the intake, addition of an IC, the addition of an IC and charge pipes. Again, how can you say the inlet was responsible for the gain?

All he did was revise the tune for the modifications on there - there would be no gain if there wasn't additional flow.

[XutvJet]

^ You've proved my point with all those dynos. Volumetric efficiency and power curve is dictated by the intake manifold and cylinder head and to a smaller extent, the turbo. An EWG N55 makes peak power around 6200-6400rpms and then power slightly tails off to around 6700rpms and then plummets dramatically after that. The N55 PWG cars have peak power at around 5500-5700rpms and power dropping off real hard at ~6200-6400rpms, mostly because of the smaller and less efficient turbo. Why does power drop so hard at ~6200-6400rpms? Flow limitations of the intake manifold and head. The EWG sustain the power better solely because of the larger turbo, but volumetric efficiency is still maxed at ~6200-6400rpms and then it starts to wheeze, though far less than the PWG N55.

A tune won't increase a EWG N55's ability to extend it's peak power beyond 6200-6400rpms unless you change the turbo. If the tuner chooses to push the turbo real hard (including ethanol), it can shift peak power to the left by about 500rpms (i.e., peak power occurring at 5700-5900rpms and tailing off at ~6200rpms).

BMW intentionally neuters power in the mid range on it's turbo motors in order to deliver a more naturally aspirated powerband and to keep tires from spinning due to a heavy onslaught of heavy boost. This is largely why it's so easy to gain mid range power on these motors. It's also why BMW changed the tuning characteristics on the later S55 M3/M4.

Lastly, I find it hilarious that you put so much faith in that logged speed comparison intake test. You honestly believe that a N55 equipped with a CTS intake in going 5mph faster than the MPPK equipped car between the ~7.0 and 8.5 second mark? LOL Do you realize how much more power it would take to go 5mph faster over such a small amount of time?

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

^ You've proved my point with all those dynos. Volumetric efficiency and power curve is dictated by the intake manifold and cylinder head and to a smaller extent, the turbo. An EWG N55 makes peak power around 6200-6400rpms and then power slightly tails off to around 6700rpms and then plummets dramatically after that. The N55 PWG cars have peak power at around 5500-5700rpms and power dropping off real hard at ~6200-6400rpms, mostly because of the smaller and less efficient turbo. Why does power drop so hard at ~6200-6400rpms? Flow limitations of the intake manifold and head. The EWG sustain the power better solely because of the larger turbo, but volumetric efficiency is still maxed at ~6200-6400rpms and then it starts to wheeze, though far less than the PWG N55.

Are you sure?
Actually, I know you're not.

First, no a FBO PWG will typically peak Less than 5500RPM (closer to the torque crossover)


FBO MHD F30
[IMG]http://*************/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Image-e1523901211491-768x593.jpg[/IMG]
http://*************/dynopost/

The PWG's turbo allows for a maximum of about 11/12lbs of boost at 7000RPM - which is about 300whp. Check any pump gas FBO PWG and that's the limit.

For a FBO EWG N55, power peak BEFORE 6000RPM. While the turbo is bigger, the drop off at 6700RPM is due to the soft limiter, not the turbo inefficiency. A EWG is capable of making 350whp at 7000RPM, but it's near the limit of the fuel pump and fueling:



https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1455188
FBO BM2 M2


https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums///...1622618&page=3
FBO 435i Custom tune and fuel pump upgrade - Pump gas


Stage M235I Automatic

https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1349660

FBO M2


https://www.2addicts.com/forums/show....php?t=1140707
Stock M235i


MHD Stage 1 M2

Originally Posted by XutvJet

A tune won't increase a EWG N55's ability to extend it's peak power beyond 6200-6400rpms unless you change the turbo. If the tuner chooses to push the turbo real hard (including ethanol), it can shift peak power to the left by about 500rpms (i.e., peak power occurring at 5700-5900rpms and tailing off at ~6200rpms).

Exactly - so you understand that the gains seen at the top end of the graphs of the cars listed here are directly because:

The stock tune provides a more "linear" powerband versus aftermarket tunes that target maximum power and area under the curve. These gains seen from the the inlet are a result of a reduction in restriction, noted by the changes in WGDC (around 3%+/-) and increases in MAF voltage (IE airflow)

Originally Posted by XutvJet

BMW intentionally neuters power in the mid range on it's turbo motors in order to deliver a more naturally aspirated powerband and to keep tires from spinning due to a heavy onslaught of heavy boost. This is largely why it's so easy to gain mid range power on these motors. It's also why BMW changed the tuning characteristics on the later S55 M3/M4.

Great, but the majority of the gains on the inlet are actually from power peak onwards - no in the mid range. In BeePee's dyno, the gains are 20hp at 6100RPM.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Lastly, I find it hilarious that you put so much faith in that logged speed comparison intake test. You honestly believe that a N55 equipped with a CTS intake in going 5mph faster than the MPPK equipped car between the ~7.0 and 8.5 second mark? LOL Do you realize how much more power it would take to go 5mph faster over such a small amount of time?

What I find hilarious how I've come with actual data, and you have provided nothing.

But for the sake of discussion, I already compiled Dynos on intakes:
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=23

Gains from 5-15whp depending on current airbox configuration (M2 vs standard) and tune. To go a step further, you can test this yourself with datalogging.

An increase in MAF voltage is directly relates to an increase in airflow.
A Positive fuel trim means MORE fuel is being added, which again indicated MORE power.


And because MHD is load based, it actually can model and log the torque output - Guess what, not only does the CTS intake show positive fuel trims, and lower WGDC - it also measures more torque.



So I provided Dynographs, engine logs showing an increase in MAF values, Decrease in WGDC, and an increase in torque.I also
have personal experience with these parts, and directed your to check my logs (which I've posted the link to twice now)

I'll ask again, what are you basing your opinion on?

[Pussiwillow]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Are you sure?
Actually, I know you're not.

First, no a FBO PWG will typically peak Less than 5500RPM (closer to the torque crossover)


FBO MHD F30
[IMG]http://*************/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Image-e1523901211491-768x593.jpg[/IMG]
http://*************/dynopost/

The PWG's turbo allows for a maximum of about 11/12lbs of boost at 7000RPM - which is about 300whp. Check any pump gas FBO PWG and that's the limit.

For a FBO EWG N55, power peak BEFORE 6000RPM. While the turbo is bigger, the drop off at 6700RPM is due to the soft limiter, not the turbo inefficiency. A EWG is capable of making 350whp at 7000RPM, but it's near the limit of the fuel pump and fueling:



https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1455188
FBO BM2 M2


https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums///...618&page=3
FBO 435i Custom tune and fuel pump upgrade - Pump gas


Stage M235I Automatic

https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1349660

FBO M2


https://www.2addicts.com/forums/show....php?t=1140707
Stock M235i


MHD Stage 1 M2

Exactly - so you understand that the gains seen at the top end of the graphs of the cars listed here are directly because:

The stock tune provides a more "linear" powerband versus aftermarket tunes that target maximum power and area under the curve. These gains seen from the the inlet are a result of a reduction in restriction, noted by the changes in WGDC (around 3%+/-) and increases in MAF voltage (IE airflow)

Great, but the majority of the gains on the inlet are actually from power peak onwards - no in the mid range. In BeePee's dyno, the gains are 20hp at 6100RPM.

What I find hilarious how I've come with actual data, and you have provided nothing.

But for the sake of discussion, I already compiled Dynos on intakes:
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...8;postcount=23

Gains from 5-15whp depending on current airbox configuration (M2 vs standard) and tune. To go a step further, you can test this yourself with datalogging.

An increase in MAF voltage is directly relates to an increase in airflow.
A Positive fuel trim means MORE fuel is being added, which again indicated MORE power.


And because MHD is load based, it actually can model and log the torque output - Guess what, not only does the CTS intake show positive fuel trims, and lower WGDC - it also measures more torque.



So I provided Dynographs, engine logs showing an increase in MAF values, Decrease in WGDC, and an increase in torque.I also
have personal experience with these parts, and directed your to check my logs (which I've posted the link to twice now)

I'll ask again, what are you basing your opinion on?

Oooof