Beach Bum

Put on my new MSD Intake recently and took it to the track.

Neither intake is ported and I do have a NW TB.... this is a WCCH + BTR stage 3 cam + ARH set-up. I have not tuned the MSD yet, hence this is just a Battle Royale.... run one and take it off and run the other.

I believe the MSD is approximately 5-7 hundredths quicker in the 1/8th with my set-up, which would make it about a tenth quicker in the 1/4 mile based upon my results. This may not sound like much to some, but picking up approximately a tenth with a 9 second car is a pretty nice improvement and never easy to do.

I say the above, because I ran the same et's I did on the same track 3 weeks ago..... but I ran these identical numbers in 2000+ ft DA..... whereas it was below 1000 feet with the FAST intake to run the same number.

You can read the below timeslips and quickly understand why I came to this conclusion.

In the coming week or two, I'll put the MSD on the dyno for a tune.... should be a few more hundredths in the tune if I'm lucky.

Take all of this for what's worth.

Vito.A

That's interesting. The 60 foot was .03 slower. But it picked up .01 at 330 and then broke even at the 1/8. And you attribute the gain to the MSD intake.

Man, that car is consistent!

double06

According to that Wallace formula site the difference between 750 feet and 2100 feet is 2 tenths and 2.5 mph in the 1/4 mile. So if you run the same numbers with the 2100 feet that is pretty good.

Beach Bum

Vito... that is good catch, most don't see that.

The MSD had a big head wind that came in at the front angle.... so it was picking up in the incrementals, but as it got to speed, that 15-18 mph headwind slowed down the trap a little. This could have easily been a few more hundredths quicker.

Beach Bum

Double, it actually doesn't quite work like that....especially on a 9 second car. There is a difference with my car, but its more like a tenth between those two DA's....

FSTFRC

I have seen this car run, he is very consistent..

Joe

double06

Yes that did seem a little too good to be true but I did put in a 9.9 time at 137 as a starting point. I am like you 2 tenths is like 35-40 hp or something like that so not sure if you picked up that much but the dyno will tell soon. I could see 15-20 which would be a tenth like you said.

double06

Did you even tune it or did you just bolt on and take to track? Would be good to know for people that want to put on and get a final tune at a later date.

Beach Bum

Thanks FSTFRC !

Double, air quality certainly does improve performance on cars, but I've seen some calculators that are a little too generous. As you know, 10 HP on a 14 second car will give it right around a tenth of et improvement, but on a 9 second car, its measured in hundredths..... which stinks. Hard to find ET.

No, the car is not tuned yet with the MSD.... will do so in the coming week or so on the dyno. It doesn't sound quite right going down the track.... and idle is a little droopy when cold. Here is an in-car pass with the MSD from yesterday. If you listen to the motor, its not sharp yet, especially after the shifts as it recovers.... definitely needs something.

double06

So you ran the same times/mph with another 1400 feet of elevation and it wasn't totally tuned should be interesting when you get on dyno. Keep us posted.

Beach Bum

I think something I should have mentioned in my initial post is that my results I have shared thus far are preliminary. I think it takes more time and then cross study to come to a definitive conclusion. Which I haven't yet..... but it looks good for the MSD thus far in the fact there is a small gain. Better than a kick in the head I guess.

Tuning might pick up a few hundredths. Finding a few hundredths on the dyno is usually easy.... finding a tenth or two is not. At least with me it never works out that way.

Da Z06

Thank you for sharing! Looking forward to the updates!

HOXXOH

Many thanks for doing this test and providing results.

By no means am I wanting to sound negative, since this is the kind of real world performance that always trumps dyno sheets. I personally tend to use the most precise data available when making comparisons. I know it doesn't make huge differences, however whenever it's feasible to approach a problem scientifically, that's what I choose.

I avoid using the Dragtimes calculator unless that's the only choice. The track elevations are rarely accurate and their weather data is taken from the closest airport, which could be miles away (7.6 miles in your case) and with entirely different conditions than the track. I just checked my two closest weather stations and got 2565' DA 1/4 mi North of my house, 2460' DA 1 mile SE, 2415' DA 13 mi SW to the closest airport (220' lower elevation), and 2570' with my handheld standing in my driveway. Consistency is why the handheld goes to the track and datalogging tells me what to tweak.

While it's great to see track results and obvious that the MSD manifold makes more power than the FAST, the Dragtimes data can only provide a rough estimate.

Based on your test alone, the data is convincing enough to put the MSD on my next mod list, but only after I see comparison data of the soon-to-be-released Vararam manifold vs a FAST.

Again, thanks for posting and I'll be waiting for more track data after the dyno pulls.

Beach Bum

I've owned a TAG weather station for many years, but its on the fritz right now. They are not without their imperfections too, but I do agree, they are more accurate.

But, for what I'm doing.... the local DA is fine, especially here in the DFW area.... its all flat and pretty consistent from one burb to the next. In addition, I am not being all that precise at this point. I went out again Friday and I'm running #'s that used to take pretty good air to run them, now it looks like I'll be holding 6.2's on into the summer... maybe drop to 6.3's in July/August, but that's about it.... I like that.

But goal is 5.99 on motor in good air. Easier said than done.