Invalid test IMO. They did not tune the car for identical A/F curves and then observe the results. I can design a CAI that will make the A/F curve very lean solely based on the orientation of the MAF and the amount of bend in the CAI prior to the MAF. This disruption of the laminar airflow will make my SAE/STD numbers higher than the JLT or even the DC for that matter. Unless they make the playing field equal for ALL TESTS this eval was pretty much a waste of time.menasci said:
Good point. I think they were just doing a comparison on an engine when an owner simply slaps on a CAI. But an engine with Forced induction may be the wrong car to use since FI can be varied by a multitude of things.Uncle Meat said:Invalid test IMO. They did not tune the car for identical A/F curves and then observe the results. I can design a CAI that will make the A/F curve very lean solely based on the orientation of the MAF and the amount of bend in the CAI prior to the MAF. This disruption of the laminar airflow will make my SAE/STD numbers higher than the JLT or even the DC for that matter. Unless they make the playing field equal for ALL TESTS this eval was pretty much a waste of time.
My 2 cents...
U.M.
Exactly, until someone does an independent test with the a/f corrected before and after, I'll remain sceptical. With all the people using CAI I'd think that someone somewhere must have done this.Uncle Meat said:Invalid test IMO. They did not tune the car for identical A/F curves and then observe the results. I can design a CAI that will make the A/F curve very lean solely based on the orientation of the MAF and the amount of bend in the CAI prior to the MAF. This disruption of the laminar airflow will make my SAE/STD numbers higher than the JLT or even the DC for that matter. Unless they make the playing field equal for ALL TESTS this eval was pretty much a waste of time.
My 2 cents...
U.M.
spederman said:Whats also funny, in asking everybodies opinions on if its worth it to drop $200 on a CAI, most everybody says no, its a waste of money, but when you look at all the sigs, most everybody is running some sort of a CAI.
Im pretty sure Ken at Mod Depot has something coming out for the 05 stang and CAIs.CanadaStang said:Exactly, until someone does an independent test with the a/f corrected before and after, I'll remain sceptical. With all the people using CAI I'd think that someone somewhere must have done this.
mogs01gt said:Im pretty sure Ken at Mod Depot has something coming out for the 05 stang and CAIs.
rpburnette said:The problem with testing CAI's is that even if you correct for the a/f ratio, a dyno is not really a good test b/c most dyno's are in a controlled environment. CAI's are supposed to bring in cool air from the fender. I don't know how much of an effect it will have, but I imagine that a moving car going 60mph will have more cool air in the fender well than a stationary car on a dyno.
I think what would be a better test is for someone to rig a system where we can see the effects of different air temperatures going into the intake system. Basically, control the intake temperature before before the MAF. Get hp and tq curves at air intake temps of 30, 40, 50, 60, etc. This would be somewhat complicated but it would be interesting to see the results. Of course keeping the a/f ratio, engine temps, etc. as close as possible to each other. Than take a stock stang and do road tests all the CAI's. Take temp. readings all along the intake system. Now you will have better data. You have the intake to power curves and now you have the temp vs. CAI curves. The best CAI will be the one that pulls in the coldest air. Now, if someone would do this, than we could end the debate over CAI's.
spederman said:Whats also funny, in asking everybodies opinions on if its worth it to drop $200 on a CAI, most everybody says no, its a waste of money, but when you look at all the sigs, most everybody is running some sort of a CAI.
QFT.mrvax said:Just remove the air silencer or cut it, slap in a K&N and be done with all the horse-crap. After years of testing, CAI's cannot prove they gain anything on an N/A 2V.
It was definitely not a very scientific test at all and your product was not properly tested Jay.JLTucker said:This was the biggest BS test I have ever seen.
BOTH RAI kits LOST, yes LOST power on a 03 Cobra. Once I read this I was done. This is a very old article and JP Demolet of Densecharger, JPI, Variable tuning, or Tunable inductions (Just a few of the name changes I know about in the last 2 years) uses this in his favor.
Anyone can read this and find tons of wrong info and false testing.
Why wasn't the JLT CAI run brought to a higher RPM? It was climing in HP and the run was shut down??
Put any filter on the MAF of a 03,04 Ocbra and BAMB you'll see 15 RWHP or more. Not 10 less.
Sorry for the rant, but this is the worst case of BS advertising I have seen.
JLTucker said:This was the biggest BS test I have ever seen.
BOTH RAI kits LOST, yes LOST power on a 03 Cobra. Once I read this I was done. This is a very old article and JP Demolet of Densecharger, JPI, Variable tuning, or Tunable inductions (Just a few of the name changes I know about in the last 2 years) uses this in his favor.
Anyone can read this and find tons of wrong info and false testing.
Why wasn't the JLT CAI run brought to a higher RPM? It was climing in HP and the run was shut down??
Put any filter on the MAF of a 03,04 Ocbra and BAMB you'll see 15 RWHP or more. Not 10 less.
Sorry for the rant, but this is the worst case of BS advertising I have seen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?