6.2 with afe intake = 36hp!

GMC_SD_Ult_16 · January 24, 2017

My only issue with all the back and forth of true or not true is that Blackbear never claimed 36 hp.... This is a number being backed into based on a rwhp # from their stock dyno run and using the assumption that the stock crank horsepower is actually 420. All they provided was the dyno results of their personal stock 2016 Yukon Denali 6.2L. Their results showed 25 hp and 18.5 ft/lb torque at peaks on the dyno with the AFE as one of the higher examples. Is it possible that changing the different air intakes one after another set up the truck computer to affect results. (I am not even sure if this would or would not affect results or if Blackbear made sure adjustment time was built in) ... Sure it is possible but in looking at the overall results average it seems clear that a full CAI on their personal vehicle added better results than stock some more than others. After taking out my stock box and adding a CAI I can certainly see how the stock filter box seems more restrictive where it allows air to enter from the fender area. Oh well if you believe or not I just enjoy playing around and tinkering with my truck since it is so much more difficult to work on vehicles compared to the past. I appreciate them in posting the results and taking the questions in a very professional manner. Based upon the results of the previous test they performed on the 2008 5.3L truck I am sure they knew what was coming their way. Hope you all decide on the intake you enjoy stock or not.

Sent from my Note 5 using Tapatalk

truckguy82 · January 24, 2017

The only people who have a problem with it are people who don't understand dyno's and engines.

It's a dyno number, not an sae hp certification. There are a million variables that effect these. Any experienced person would understand that and take the actual number with a grain of salt.

The test to me, and likely everybody else who actually knows what they are talking about, just means the intakes performed extremely well. If they had the time to remove their engine from their brand new truck, mount it on an engine dyno in a lab environment, the results would be more accurate.

I guess I assumed everybody knew dyno's the measure power at the wheels are essentially a "pretty good guess"

TJay74 · January 24, 2017

Sad thing is every one in this thread hyping up the "36hp gain" when it was a type on the OP's part and was only a 25hp gain, which is in line with some of the other intakes that were tested.

That's ok though, I will just sit off to the side and eat some more popcorn and read the comments.

.justin. · January 24, 2017

It seems that the only people that believe these results are internet experts and armchair QBs. It seems that anybody that has some knowledge of performance vehicles thinks there is something not so right with the results.

Unfortunately for black bear they have apparently lost some credibility with these results. Like was said above, anyone with as much knowledge as Black bear claims to have, should have questioned the results themselves.

How so? Every dyno graph has the test conditions on it. We provided considerable information regarding temperatures seen throughout the tests as well as ignition timing values during the runs to be as open with the information as possible. If ignition timing had swung 5 degrees, that would have been a clear indication that there was something else at play, but it didn't. All intakes were within a couple of degrees of each other.

You don't have to believe that data, nobody is requiring that. You are also welcome to avoid our threads if you choose to do so. To claim that we have lost credibility because of it is a bit out there. Had we manipulated the data, we would be no better than NOAA with the temperature records, modifying outputs to meet a desired result. We did our best to ensure that all variables that could impact results were accounted for so that the results would NOT be manipulated.

Further, every intake was tested three times at full throttle to ensure that there was no anomalous data. The results remained the same.

Lastly, we never claimed a 36hp improvement. We provided the results, everything else is inferred by others regarding power gains at the engine.

Edited January 24, 2017 by .justin.

Ianborg · January 24, 2017

This is why we can't have nice things. Good job on the reporting Black Bear! Don't let the trolls stop you from continuing these types of tests! Very impressive results.

FreeAmerican · January 24, 2017

I think this has been an amazing discussion and test. I am old! And as such I have seen things over the years that at the time, I would have said impossible and made no sense. Back pressure making more HP, I saw a slightly modified OHC 6cyl Firebird (67 I think) eat a 390 Mustang alive in the 1/8th that wouldn't come close in a 1/4.

We didn't have access to dynos, we had to check 60ft times, speed, time to figure out what was working. We'd do a run and pull plugs and look for knock and borescope the top of the pistons.

But one thing that seems to still run true, you pull motors off the assembly line and you will get duds and ringers.

But, this test, the way it was performed and documented will give a good indicator as to which one will work with that motor, but the 6.2 only.

I would venture to say the 5.3 will be similar but no guarantee. I hope you guys do a 5.3 test as well.

truckguy82 · January 24, 2017

Sad thing is every one in this thread hyping up the "36hp gain" when it was a type on the OP's part and was only a 25hp gain, which is in line with some of the other intakes that were tested.

That's ok though, I will just sit off to the side and eat some more popcorn and read the comments.

It wasn't a typo

It was an 8.6% increase in power.

Same thing as someone that dyno'd a stock 6.2 at 330whp, strapped on a supercharged and dyno'd at 500whp, which is a 51.5% increase in hp, and then you said the stock 420hp motor now makes 636hp at the crank.

Not much different to me, but I guess some people think 36hp is outrageous because they are so used to seeing dyno's at the wheels. It was infact only 25whp increase.

I converted it to crank hp because his dyno read very low for stock. Had I known people cannot discern the difference and only look at "36 hp" I would have just said "25whp"

I think some people forget that 36hp is not all that much on a 420hp motor, it would be almost like a base honda civic gaining 6whp from an intake. Which is high, but definitely not so high I'm going to accuse the person who posted the results a liar.

There are people in this very own forum making 70whp over stock with just bolt ons and a tune. They might dyno at 330whp stock and then 400 after. Thats about 100hp at the crank which is fantastic.

People that find this so hard to believe that they are bad mouthing the person that provided it are just, well....idiots.

truckguy82 · January 24, 2017

What do you know, another dyno test of an air intake gaining 25whp on a previous gen camaro

http://www.lsxmag.com/tech-stories/engine/dyno-test-4-kn-vs-aem-5th-gen-camaro-intake-options/

Impossible I tell you! Impossible!

truckguy82 · January 24, 2017

More evidence

Here is what a dyno looks like when the intake does nothing but mess with the afr and run lean. As you can see, it made more torque/hp in the mid to low range. An engine sucks and blows a lot more volume of air at high rpm, so if you had an air restriction and you removed it, you would see gradually bigger gains the higher you go in rpm.

This is from K&N on a camaro lt1

Now go back and look at blackbear's dyno's, they are exactly what'd you'd expect from removing an air restriction.

Edited January 24, 2017 by truckguy82

TJay74 · January 25, 2017

It wasn't a typo

It was an 8.6% increase in power.

Same thing as someone that dyno'd a stock 6.2 at 330whp, strapped on a supercharged and dyno'd at 500whp, which is a 51.5% increase in hp, and then you said the stock 420hp motor now makes 636hp at the crank.

Not much different to me, but I guess some people think 36hp is outrageous because they are so used to seeing dyno's at the wheels. It was infact only 25whp increase.

I converted it to crank hp because his dyno read very low for stock. Had I known people cannot discern the difference and only look at "36 hp" I would have just said "25whp"

I think some people forget that 36hp is not all that much on a 420hp motor, it would be almost like a base honda civic gaining 6whp from an intake. Which is high, but definitely not so high I'm going to accuse the person who posted the results a liar.

There are people in this very own forum making 70whp over stock with just bolt ons and a tune. They might dyno at 330whp stock and then 400 after. Thats about 100hp at the crank which is fantastic.

People that find this so hard to believe that they are bad mouthing the person that provided it are just, well....idiots.

I don't claim to be a rocket scientist because I am not, I do have a engineering degree and work with numbers daily. My math still says the OP of this thread made a typo in the title of the thread where it says:

"6.2 with afe intake = 36hp!"

From the BB test, the stock truck put down 291.1 RWHP. The AFE put down 316.2 RWHP. Now while I could take my socks off and do the math, or I could write it down on paper and do the math I chose to use the calculator on my phone. That calculator says that 316.2 minus 291.1 leaves a difference of 25.1. That means the AFE only added 25.1 RWHP in gains. Even if you assumed that there was a 20% loss to see those 25.1 RWHP gains means that the AFE would of only added 30.3 HP to the engine, not 36 HP as the OP has titled this thread.

Hence why I said the OP has a typo in the thread title which has done nothing but to cause people to insult and insinuate that BB doctored the test results when they did no such thing. This is where reading comprehension and proof reading should be used before a person hits the submit post button.

The gains BB show are realistic and inline, the K2xx intake is pretty restrictive due to the bends, the small fender well opening, and the silencers. That is why the same type of test on my 2008 Corvette only saw gains of 14rwhp. The Corvette uses a straight path intake setup so the restriction is less, the increase in intake tube diameter and low restriction filter and larger filter size are what helped produce the gains in the Corvette.

I still don't get the hate to the results that have been posted. The 6th Gen Camaro SS with the LT1 engine gains that K&N posted are right in line as well, the Camaro uses a restrictive intake system as well that has a 90° bend in it, a small filter, several air silencers and a output tube that directs intake air and noise into the cabin to add to the sound effect of it being a muscle car.

Once again the numbers don't lie provided they are not manipulated. I doubt BB is going to do that, I have dealt with them before and had nothing but a professional experience with Justin and Jenna.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TJay74

SILVER SLED · January 25, 2017

If you purchase an intake set up, they usually come with a sticker of the brand you bought. Make sure you put that sticker on the side of your truck or on a window, that's worth another 10 hp.

truckguy82 · January 25, 2017

From the BB test, the stock truck put down 291.1 RWHP. The AFE put down 316.2 RWHP. Now while I could take my socks off and do the math, or I could write it down on paper and do the math I chose to use the calculator on my phone. That calculator says that 316.2 minus 291.1 leaves a difference of 25.1. That means the AFE only added 25.1 RWHP in gains. Even if you assumed that there was a 20% loss to see those 25.1 RWHP gains means that the AFE would of only added 30.3 HP to the engine, not 36 HP as the OP has titled this thread.

.

You have an engineering degree and work with math and that's what you worked out? wow lol

You made up an imaginary number, the 20% loss. Their dyno worked out to a 30% loss. We don't have to guess because we know the crank hp and their dyno whp.

And to top that off, you didn't even calculate the loss correctly in your own made up 20% loss. If it dyno'd at 25.1 and it was a 20% loss, you would divide by 0.8, not multiple by 1.2 lol. The answer would be 31.375 crank hp.

Here's a $5 bet, that I will actually mail to you, that you do not have an engineering degree. Post a picture and you win.

Rawyzf · January 25, 2017

Who the hell cares what the crank hp gain is. We see the dyno whp numbers, why not just use that?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

TJay74 · January 25, 2017

You have an engineering degree and work with math and that's what you worked out? wow lol

You made up an imaginary number, the 20% loss. Their dyno worked out to a 30% loss. We don't have to guess because we know the crank hp and their dyno whp.

And to top that off, you didn't even calculate the loss correctly in your own made up 20% loss. If it dyno'd at 25.1 and it was a 20% loss, you would divide by 0.8, not multiple by 1.2 lol. The answer would be 31.375 crank hp.

Here's a $5 bet, that I will actually mail to you, that you do not have an engineering degree. Post a picture and you win.

You are going off of a 30% "loss" that you state because the dyno actual RWHP is off from the 420hp GM advertises the L86 motor as??? Once again, you are assuming more than anything else. The RWHP gain/loss is all BB and any other horsepower junkie is after. I mean unless you are one of those guys who likes to go around bragging that their 5.3l truck made 400rwhp and is faster than the Corvette or Camaro with a smaller engine...lol. I don't and to be honest don't really care what the truck makes at the rear wheel. I want to know what the change in parts gets me as a power increase and the affect it has on the air/fuel ratio and timing.

The whole thing is there never was a 36hp gain result posted by BB at all, the OP made that post in the title of this thread. You are also splitting hairs just to try and save face still over a 1hp variance of what I posted up.

And just a FYI, you will lose the $5 bet as well. I have am engineering degree in Transmission and Distribution technology. I work for the electric company and deal with the distribution system from the substation to the end customer daily. It's ok though, I don't need the $5 from you as I am doing just fine.

truckguy82 · January 25, 2017

Who the hell cares what the crank hp gain is. We see the dyno whp numbers, why not just use that?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I only used crank hp in the first post because my first thought when I saw the results is that the intake is the missing link between lt1 and the l86. I've been trying to figure out where the lt1's get 40hp since I bought my truck.