Thank you for your input.
Seriously, if someone had an advantage for the 1.6 why wouldn't that person take the sales pitch another level. Send me your dyno hp/tq graphs same motor with the SP straight/pair & with with the wafflemaker pair. Yes, I remember the Wakklemaker is costly.
A. Because my post isn't a "sales pitch", it was a naive attempt to wander back onto the thin ice of SpecMandrama.Com to stay somewhat connected to a community that I left behind because the $/fun ratio went to hell ... and the $ part wasn't the primary problem.
B. Because I have a job, and it ain't got nothing to do with selling 1-2 intakes per year at cost - I'm not trying to dupe my own friends into paying me money for things that don't actually work.
C. Because now that I'm not campaigning in SM, I enjoy seeing my past hard work pay dividends for my friends that were former competitors.
D. Because I can't keep up with my existing "customers'" needs - all of whom I truly consider friends or people whose respect I very much want, and for whom I commit to personally work on their racecars and parts as if they were my own.
The last quote, my cost, for the Wafflemaker was $310/each for 10 units. That is before hand-fabricated brackets, a filter, brass inserts, and radiant heat barrier. It is plastic. Several designs were tested without any tooling being purchased, although the downside is the piece price is quite high. It can be made in shapes that no stamping, machining, or casting operation can achieve. I could send you data on the heat transfer coefficient of plastic versus metal, but I don't think you are "seriously" interested in facts or honest opinions.
Asked and answered many times, but any given car at any given time may prefer one intake over the other - but if you tune the AFR (<-AFR, not AFM!) for each intake, if you normalize for intake air temps, if you monitor AFR on-track to calibrate your dyno and IAT data, only then are you arriving at a sound choice that will translate into lower lap times.
An adjustable FPR with a stock AFM will certainly achieve optimality - so long as your combination's "optimal" numbers are no more than 116-118 HP. Anything above that requires the AFM door be opened wider than "stock" for a given AFR curve, else the AFM becomes your "restrictor plate". This is why the "clockspring only" AFM tuning started being insufficient more than 7 years ago.
Make no mistake about it, if I had a 1.6 SM in the garage, it would have an AFPR, a tuned AFM, and an intake made of .... well .... glorified weedwhacker cord
P.S. As stated several times before, every truly frontrunning SM since, oh, 2002? (and every truly frontrunning SSC/SSB Miata since 1990?)... had the fuel pressure suitably optimized within FSM specs, one (legal) way or another. The AFPR didn't change the price of the best tea in China, it just made the best tea cheaper and easier to obtain for the masses. Unfortunately, a lot of people (largely the same 1.6 owners that stood to gain the most from the rule change) did whatever they could to posture the AFPR rule change as some sort of frontrunner/99+ conspiracy. Funny now to see some of those same people uphold the AFPR as the "gold standard" of tuning, thus simultaneously shitting on their own prior objections WHILE STILL IGNORING the SMAC and frontrunners' explicitly and publically explaining the "recipe" for achieving optimal tuning on any car (and especially the 1.6).
Sign In
Create Account
Yup, another question.
Back to top
Report
