Cold Air Intake?

JLTucker · Nov 10, 2006

langod said:
I dyno'd my GT stock and had 226rwhp. The next time I dyno'd it I had put on a K&N FIPK, Flowmaster 40s (welded in) and a Diablo Predator tune. Got a total of 12 more rwhp. For giggles, I put the OEM tune back in and lost 9 hp. My guess is that the Flowmasters added nothing because the stock pipes were in place. So the K&N was probably giving me the remaining 3 RWHP gain over stock. I'd consider 3rwhp to be pretty much an appearance mod, since you can fluctuate that much between dyno runs on any given day.

If you're getting 12 RWHP from a CAI, it's amazing.
Speaking of proof -- Do YOU have dyno sheets? I'm not trying to flame you, but if I can pick up 12 horsepower just from a CAI, the K&N is going in the trash.

We dyno test all our kits and post the results on the forums and our web site for all to see. I never see a true back to back comparo from the other companies.
Remember, ALL dyno testing needs to be done the same day and on the same dyno. This is the ONLY true way to test any product. You can not compair a dyno from Feb. to a dyno done today. We've seen 5-10 hp difference in the same car with no changes only days apart.

Ask K&N for dyno info like this:
2003 GT

A/F results:

the A/F did lean, but to a more ideal zone! Very safe.

Here's another:
2002 GT Test was done same day and at the same time. JLT vs. MAC CAI
Gains of 10 RWHP and 10-12 RWTQ were seen on this test. These gains were made over the MAC intake!!

A/F results:

Again, only a slightly leaner A/F, but well in the safe zone.
More power and better MPG!

Your reading from several JLT owners here with near the same results either in MPH or HP. If no HP was seen in a dyno test I can only assume the test was not done the same day.
The dyno doesn't lie. Dyno stock then swap a part (keep temps the same) and dyno again. The difference is the gain or lose.

So when we hear people make blanket statements like CAI's on a 2V are worthless without any documented proof we challange that statement.

Thank all,

Jay

jstreet0204 · Nov 10, 2006

JLTucker said:
We dyno test all our kits and post the results on the forums and our web site for all to see. I never see a true back to back comparo from the other companies.
Remember, ALL dyno testing needs to be done the same day and on the same dyno. This is the ONLY true way to test any product. You can not compair a dyno from Feb. to a dyno done today. We've seen 5-10 hp difference in the same car with no changes only days apart.

Ask K&N for dyno info like this:
2003 GT

A/F results:

the A/F did lean, but to a more ideal zone! Very safe.

Here's another:
2002 GT Test was done same day and at the same time. JLT vs. MAC CAI
Gains of 10 RWHP and 10-12 RWTQ were seen on this test. These gains were made over the MAC intake!!

A/F results:

Again, only a slightly leaner A/F, but well in the safe zone.
More power and better MPG!

Your reading from several JLT owners here with near the same results either in MPH or HP. If no HP was seen in a dyno test I can only assume the test was not done the same day.
The dyno doesn't lie. Dyno stock then swap a part (keep temps the same) and dyno again. The difference is the gain or lose.

So when we hear people make blanket statements like CAI's on a 2V are worthless without any documented proof we challange that statement.

Thank all,

Jay

Then you can't really validate that the entire gain was from the intake either. Had you corrected the a/f ratio's then any gains would have been from improved flow and not from lean it out. And even though it is in an ideal range in this case, unless it was tuned to correct it to the commanded a/f ratio, it may cause problems for someone else for someone who may already be tuned to an ideal a/f ratio.

I think you make one of the nicest products I've seen but lets be fair on the results you posted.

JLTucker · Nov 10, 2006

I think your grasping at straws here.

The .2-.4 in leaner A/F is not worth 10-15 HP gains. Any good tuner can tell you this.
What were getting at here is CAI's are getting power, bottom line.
Try to find a K&N, MAC, UPR or any other kit make this kind of power and show a A/F graph. These kits are why people say CAI's are worthless.

What were doing here is proving JLT CAI's do gain power, when people think they do not.

We post the graphs because there is nothing to hide. When you put the part on, the powers there.

Thanks,
Jay

jstreet0204 · Nov 10, 2006

JLTucker said:
I think your grasping at straws here.

The .2-.4 in leaner A/F is not worth 10-15 HP gains. Any good tuner can tell you this.
What were getting at here is CAI's are getting power, bottom line.
Try to find a K&N, MAC, UPR or any other kit make this kind of power and show a A/F graph. These kits are why people say CAI's are worthless.

What were doing here is proving JLT CAI's do gain power, when people think they do not.

We post the graphs because there is nothing to hide. When you put the part on, the powers there.

Thanks,
Jay

Not grasping at straws at all, and while half a point leaner is not going to make 15hp, it can make 7 to 8. I've seen you argue MANY times about "valid" dyno testing in other threads, and in fact argued the exact same point when Demolet in this thread http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=613678&highlight=tucker when thier dyno test had an uncorrected a/f ratio. Just pointing out that the example you gave is NOT valid without a corrected a/f ratio. Had you corrected it the gains would have been less.

JLTucker · Nov 12, 2006

jstreet0204 said:
Not grasping at straws at all, and while half a point leaner is not going to make 15hp, it can make 7 to 8. I've seen you argue MANY times about "valid" dyno testing in other threads, and in fact argued the exact same point when Demolet in this thread http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=613678&highlight=tucker when thier dyno test had an uncorrected a/f ratio. Just pointing out that the example you gave is NOT valid without a corrected a/f ratio. Had you corrected it the gains would have been less.

Your right, when you want to compair one intake to another you MUST keep the A/F the same for a fair test.

What were getting at here and you seem to be missing is that these intakes do make power on the 2V.

Again, if we were testing 2-3 intakes the A/F needs to be the same for a fiar test. As in the 5.0 article for the 05-07 GT in which JLT made the most power.

I know how to dyno test cars and parts.
Your trying to turn this around and it's not working.

Bottom line is in this thread were discussing "does a CAI make power?"

Well yes it does and here's the proof.

If you'd like to argue the fact you still have shown me to be right.
Correct the .2-.5 A/F and you still have a good power gain. Even though that's not the correct way to evaluate a single part, I'll go along with you to make you happy.

I'm arguing that they don't make power and you and I are showing that they do. JLT at least.
Thanks for the help in proving my case.

jstreet0204 · Nov 12, 2006

JLTucker said:
Your right, when you want to compair one intake to another you MUST keep the A/F the same for a fair test.

What were getting at here and you seem to be missing is that these intakes do make power on the 2V.

Again, if we were testing 2-3 intakes the A/F needs to be the same for a fiar test. As in the 5.0 article for the 05-07 GT in which JLT made the most power.

I know how to dyno test cars and parts.
Your trying to turn this around and it's not working.

Bottom line is in this thread were discussing "does a CAI make power?"

Well yes it does and here's the proof.

If you'd like to argue the fact you still have shown me to be right.
Correct the .2-.5 A/F and you still have a good power gain. Even though that's not the correct way to evaluate a single part, I'll go along with you to make you happy.

I'm arguing that they don't make power and you and I are showing that they do. JLT at least.
Thanks for the help in proving my case.

I'm no trying to turn anything around, and I never said that your product didn't make power, but when you claim a 12 to 15 hp gain then show this particular graph with an uncorrected a/f ratio it doesn't make your argument very valid, since until your corrected your a/f, you don't know how much was gained from leaning it out, and how much was gained from the intake. Since you have done so much testing I am sure you have one with a 15hp gain with a corrected a/f ratio, so maybe you should have shown that one. There are two ways to dyno test a product. The kind that sells the product and the kind that tests the product. I have no horse in this fight nor am I anti CIA. I just like to see people on this board make desicions based on facts, not hype on either side. And I'll also add the ANY mod that throws off the MAF curve should require a tune, regardless of whether you think it put it into a more optimal a/f range it has still thrown off the comanded to actual a/f ratio. The eec only has the ability to correct so much either way with the fuel trims. Without correcting the MAF curve for the intake this has now reduced that range.

Kilgore Trout · Nov 12, 2006

It is important to do highly accurate and scientific dyno testing for evaluating CAI because the gains are so minimal only scientific methods will even detect them.

Like I said CAI, especially by itself with no other mods, is just an appearance mod. Take them for what they are...

sgarlic · Nov 12, 2006

I'm curious, what other modifications were done to these 2 dyno sheets shown above? I'm seeing 259rwhp and 271rwhp, neither of which are even close to a stock 2V GT's dyno results, which is what the majority of owners here have.

I'd like to see a dyno sheet from a totally stock 2v GT with the JLT stuff on it.

Perhaps if some of us saw a decent gain on a completely stock 2v, we'd change our minds that without supporting mods that actually make USE of more air, not just allow the POTENTIAL to use more air, we'd be more interested.

I personally look at a dyno sheet and say "Ok great, that's on a car with cams and heads. I don't have those. Does the 2-3rwhp it gains on MY car justify the $200 cost?"

96LaserRedGTS · Nov 13, 2006

JLTucker said:
Still no dyno proof of a CAI worth nothing??

Glad to hear you JLT owners did at least "feel" something.
The avarage person can't feel anything under 10 RWHP. So there you go.
Thanks guys,

Jay

Hey can you get it chrome plated?? I have a mystic, but I don't really want it painted the same color as my car. I want the bling as well as the functionality.

JLTucker · Nov 13, 2006

1st car: This car was a 2003 GT in bone stock trim. Before and after tests were done back to back

2nd car: 2002 GT
Automatic Transmisson
Full Exhaust
Pulleys
MAC CAI and Chip

If we were getting 8-12 RWHP with a full point or better leaner A/F I'd feel the need to correct it, but we actually give the stock A/F a better slightly leaner A/F.

We do not offer chrome as it's very expencive to chrome plastic. The real Mystichrome looks great on the 04 Cobra.

RHstang02 · Nov 25, 2006

since when does a 2003 gt dyno at 260rwhp? not to bash the test or anything...

StangPro · Nov 25, 2006

I loved reading through this thread, much like the thousands of similar threads from people who can't search before posting.

It all starts with a few people offering sound recommendations and then there's those with their own two cents recommending what they bought so others buy it too. They might have had a PIUTA install and no power gains, but if they bought it you should too right?

Next are the parrots. All they can do is repeat the ignorance of others by saying "Don't waste your time. CAI's don't add power."
Stupidity at its' finest.

Tucker and DeMolet spend a lot of time and money testing their products to make sure what they sell works. Tucker says 8-12 at the wheels. DeMolet claims the same.

We independently tested DeMolet's kit on a 04 GT removing the drop-in k&n and saw over 10hp to the wheels on an auto car.

If you don't like the mod, don't buy it. It'll keep the smart people a tenth ahead of you.

Kilgore Trout · Nov 25, 2006

I love this thread too, its great how all the "smart guy" vendors swear up and down that us dumb consumers should just buy their product and trust in the advertised gains. I ain't buying shiot from a condescending vendor...

IMHO vendors here should watch their mouths and treat potential customers with courtesy and respect.

steveb24 · Nov 25, 2006

i agree that vendors shouldnt try to "talk up their product" too much and base it on solid facts, but from reading through this thread i think jlt tucker has been treating the arguers with respect and tryin to make his case fairly. when he says 8-12, i could buy 6-8, but i still wana know how that 03 stock gt had 260rwhp. btw, i like my jlt, good quality

Kilgore Trout · Nov 25, 2006

My comments were not directed at Mr Tucker. I agree that he has been polite and respectful in his arguments here.

steveb24 · Nov 25, 2006

yea.. i dont buy all the hype either. now go in my thread i just started about this ripped off piece and see if you know what it is!! please..

Cold Air Intake?

JLTucker

Member

Attachments

jstreet0204

Active Member

Attachments

JLTucker

Member

jstreet0204

Active Member

JLTucker

Member

jstreet0204

Active Member

Kilgore Trout

Fried or Broiled ?

sgarlic

96LaserRedGTS

New Member

JLTucker

Member

RHstang02

New Member

StangPro

New Member

Kilgore Trout

Fried or Broiled ?

steveb24

New Member

Kilgore Trout

Fried or Broiled ?

steveb24

New Member

Similar threads

Cold Air Intake?

Member

Attachments

Active Member

Attachments

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Fried or Broiled ?

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Fried or Broiled ?

New Member

Fried or Broiled ?

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency