I was wondering how many of you have it and if you felt any real difference?

Mine should be coming in soon, but I was wondering what your thoughts were.

Thanks!

Chris

I have one... GC claimed a 5hp increase which is pretty hard to feel by the seat of the pants. I did a write up on it here...

http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151898&highlight=gizmo

doesn't do shit according to a dyno that was done by Beavis a board member here.

http://www.bmwtechforums.com/corrydyno/corrydyno2small.jpg

actually looks like it lost top end hp and tq ..... This was done the same day back to back.

Is 17 minutes and 34 seconds enough adaptation time for the computer to take full advantage of any increased airflow?

Subtract 4 or 5 minutes for an install and you have like 12 or 13 minutes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 332 TMS car
[B]doesn't do shit according to a dyno that was done by Beavis a board member here.

The car has CAMs and proably aftermarket software... This dyno does not prove or disprove how a stcok car will react to the Gizmo.

Chuck - haha, true but the cams make the motor want more air which should in theory help the gains seen with the "gizmo" as the whole point of it IIFC is to let more air in as the stock screen is restrictive. :dunno

With regard to the adaptation. The car is running rich so there should be enough fuel to support an increase in hp if more air is getting into the motor because of the "gizmo"

Hard to say what is going on..

The car is smarter than you and I both and requires certain variables to be within a range.

Your range has been narrowed now that you are on CAMS and A/M software. I bet the two mods are not working in harmony somehow and the A/F ratio is probably off. The change in volume of AIR post Gizmo is phenominal and I would bet if you sent the entire affair back to the tuner and said "make this work" you would be singing a different tune.

The gizmo itself, is as it will always be. But remeber it is part of a larger package to include.. air box.. and most likley code.

My point is that the dyno you posted has no relevence to how the Gizmo works on a stock car. We need scientific proof of what is going on in this dyno before saying the Gizmo is a POS.

It is not fair to discredit a product based on theory alone.

Hmm, why am I not surprised that a TMS fan doesn't like GC stuff...?

Anyway, on to serious info: Here is a dyno of a bone stock E46M3 with and without gizmo. This was an indepedent test, GC did nothing other than make the Gizmo.

The Gizmo was made because Jay saw an opportunity for improvement. We know that it flows better than the stock screens, we have seen power on several dynos. So are we gonna stop selling it if one example doesn't make power? Nope.

Originally posted by M Rob
Hmm, why am I not surprised that a TMS fan doesn't like GC stuff...?


What are you talking about? Why would I not like GC stuff because I am a fan of TMS?? I don't have any issue with GC nor am I affiliated with TMS other than as a customer and a fan of the race team. I just don't by this product sorry...... A friend of mine tested the product and found NO gains.....

Glad to see that you have put a dyno sheet up!! I can't wait to see some more tests/posts by INDEPENDANT people who have tested this. :)

My only problem has been the rough idle on a SMG equipped car. The ECU may need more time to adapt. Non-SMG and cars with aftermarket software seem to have no problems.:dunno

Hey Brad,
Is that an F40 wanna be following you at the track?

Originally posted by 332 TMS car
What are you talking about? Why would I not like GC stuff because I am a fan of TMS?? I don't have any issue with GC nor am I affiliated with TMS other than as a customer and a fan of the race team. I just don't by this product sorry...... A friend of mine tested the product and found NO gains.....

Glad to see that you have put a dyno sheet up!! I can't wait to see some more tests/posts by INDEPENDANT people who have tested this. :)

Why is that dyno on a stock car not considered independent? It wasn't produced by Ground Control...

I will put my old unit in and get a baseline and then get a dyno done on my gizmo - I am interested also... and I am sure I meet the definition of independent.

Originally posted by Greg
Hey Brad,
Is that an F40 wanna be following you at the track?

HaHA!! Yup ;)

Originally posted by M Rob
Hmm, why am I not surprised that a TMS fan doesn't like GC stuff...?

Anyway, on to serious info: Here is a dyno of a bone stock E46M3 with and without gizmo. This was an indepedent test, GC did nothing other than make the Gizmo.

The Gizmo was made because Jay saw an opportunity for improvement. We know that it flows better than the stock screens, we have seen power on several dynos. So are we gonna stop selling it if one example doesn't make power? Nope.

wasn't this dyno done with the prototype version? The production version differs greatly in comparison

It differs in implementation but not in concept. In fact the production version is a huge design leap over the prototype ;)

Herm... is it me... or did this thread get a lot shorter? All Dale's smackdown done gone missing. Bummer.

Steve

wrong thread. the flame war is over in the M3 E36 forum...

Originally posted by M Rob
It differs in implementation but not in concept. In fact the production version is a huge design leap over the prototype ;)


so you are saying it is a prototype and not the actual production unit being tested?

the design structure was altered from stock, which leads the prototype to offer a gain as reported by the graph... now this prototype unit is changed to a different design, the production unit. This reaction of this change may be similiar to the output or it may not be. The concept behind the Gizmo goes to prove a change in screen design has an effect in output.

Originally posted by EightKMeter
Why is that dyno on a stock car not considered independent? It wasn't produced by Ground Control...

I will put my old unit in and get a baseline and then get a dyno done on my gizmo - I am interested also... and I am sure I meet the definition of independent.
I'm curious too! looking forward to see more dyno proof/dis-proof.......

First off, that beavis guy, compare run #6 and run #10, not #9.

And even then, clearing the adaption is not as good as driving around (not on a dyno) and letting the computer learn the new f/a and advance.
The fastest RE-adaption I have seen is 9 minutes of driving around at varied throttle and varied load, and the slowest is 80 minutes.

Ground Control uses a dyno for some comparitive tests, but the true hard core numbers are right there under your nose, in the STOCK ECU. Airflow can be directly measured, in grams per second.

These are my numbers, but you can get them yourself by spending money at www.obd2.com:

stock airbox with stock screen, max airflow 224 g/s
stock airbox with Gizmo , max airflow 245 g/s

The engine is an air pump. It sucks air in through the airflow meter. If it sucks in 10% more air, and doesn't go lean, then it must be burning more air and fuel and therefore be making more power.

Any explanation why a motor can suck in more air, have the same a/f ratio and not make more hp is welcomed. Seriously, I cannot think of any other law of physics that could apply. Just my way of explaining real life vs. dynos.

I never directly dissed the Gizmo air screen, don't confuse me with others that assume this or that about the Gizmo based on veiwing my dyno results.
If you read all the dyno info posted you could boast that of the 25 measured RPM points 17 of the peak numbers were from runs with the Gizmo installed. That was mighty nice of me to provide all my pulls so all the info is out there for people to make their own opinions of the pros an cons.
Runs #6 before Gizmo and run #9 after gizmo represnt good values and were chosen for compairason, you could switch run #9 for #7 if you want to see different highs. Why do you care about run 10, it's only relevent to show the value of DME adaption, as no time was allowed for readaption. I don't think the Gizmo requires too much adaption, the dyno graph for the green Gizmo recently posted seems to support me here, 7 min between runs 1-2. But the other mods I have do require adaption.
;)

I meant to say "First that beavis guys' dyno runs, compare run #6 and run #10, not #9.

Sorry about that, sometimes I type like I talk. No offense intended at all, in fact thanks for posting dynos (and enduring criticism for spending money on cams.)

Regarding adaption: myself and others have found that the gizmo, OR ANY OTHER modification to the engine"system" on an e46M3, needs adaption.
And as far as I can tell, even a small thing like when I leave my house and drive down into the valley where it is still very cold, but the car is warm from being in a garage overnight, needs a period of time to change the LTFT. Very often you can see the STFT at 100%.
With the gizmo installed I see an immedite desire for the LTFT to change about 3%. The fastest I have seen this happen is about 9 minutes, the longest was 80 minutes, and that was when I could not get on the gas because it was raining and the traffic was horrible. I couldn't get on the gas.
Some brisk runs to redline ALWAYS makes the adaption process happen much sooner.

What I am trying to say is that it is very difficult (OH my God, I'm starting to sound like Jim C.) to dyno an e46M3. Any back-to-back repeatability advantage from leaving the car on the dyno, is negated by not allowing the computer free reign to decide its new advance limits and new LTFT. from what I have seen, I don't consider clearing the old adaption to be a blank slate to be the same as learning the new adaption
The biggest thing I have noticed, myself and others, is that the hp change from the Gizmo is much more noticeable when you remove it, then when you install it. Sort of like that girl you kicked to the curb, who actually wasn't that bad after all.......

The car tested was an OBD 1 car, so the seven minutes in between was the time it took to pull apart and put back together the intake.

OBD2 BMWs are not the only ones that utilize corrective adaption. DDizzy:awink:

I understand that both OBD1 and 2 adapt. Just letting you know the scenario.:D