Cold Air Intake vs. Stock Intake: Quantitative Testing - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 11-24-2015, 03:12 PM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Region: Other
Posts: 174
Sakib, did you put the Steeda sticker that comes with the CAI on the car somewhere? That probably would make up the difference right there!!! That gotta be good for at least 1/2 horsepower. (And guys, I am having very good dealings with Steeda, so far).

Kevin.Cook, I like your idea about funding testing projects, I would be willing to be in on that.
la pantera is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-24-2015, 03:16 PM   #37
Kevin.Cook
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
Sakib, did you put the Steeda sticker that comes with the CAI on the car somewhere? That probably would make up the difference right there!!! That gotta be good for at least 1/2 horsepower. (And guys, I am having very good dealings with Steeda, so far).

Kevin.Cook, I like your idea about funding testing projects, I would be willing to be in on that.
Yup, but in the future, we will have to refer to products as Brand X or something. Unless the people testing are ok with talking to the vendors. lol
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2015, 03:56 PM   #38
Registered Member
Regular
 
Koryak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Boulder
Region: Colorado
Posts: 79
Tnx Diehard for the graph. Steeda is showing a 5% peak torque increase that holds up pretty good over the rev range with their 5.0 CAI. We can only speculate on the V6 CAI but there is probably something but maybe less if the stock intake sizing is better than the 5.0 Coyote.
Koryak is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-24-2015, 06:53 PM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sakib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Mud View Post
wow.......This was really cool....thx for the effort guys


so my ? is (and I know you'll have lots of them) is about the positive/negative pressure readings do you have any idea about filtration capabilities of stock/Steeda filters? Gut feeling is that may be a significant factor.
We didn't do any testing on the filtration capabilities of the two filters, or how much of a pressure change is across the filter. It was beyond the scope of this study. But definitely an interesting question! A logical next step to better understand the pressure result. It would have been cool if we could have measured the differential pressure before and after the filter elements. But we couldn't figure out a good way to do that with the equipment we had, and more importantly, it just wasn't that relevant to the questions we were trying to answer in this study.
Sakib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 08:59 AM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Awesome guys!

I do have to agree, I've always felt this would be the answer.
I do love the sound an aftermarket intake provides but I think with a simple GT sound tube mod you can get the same result in sound...if not better.

As for them picking apart your data? That is absurd. You can conduct studies like this in a controlled environment. The REAL WORLD user is not going to be driving in such conditions... ever. I think they are simply upset that you used their product and name as Kevin mentioned.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 04:15 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Catonsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 690
Interesting results, I can see why steeda is upset but also would look bad if they had this pulled. Kinda surprised by that.
__________________
2013 SGM 3.7 | MPT Tune | JBA Titanium Ceramic Shorty Headers | MGW Gen 1 | Blowfish Street Bracket | BBK TB | 18" Charcoal AMR | FRPP 3.55 | BMR LCA | Steeda Panhard Bar | Dynotech 3.5" Driveshaft |
mariusvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 06:11 PM   #42
VIG
Registered Member
Regular
 
VIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wilmington
Region: Delaware
Posts: 1,238
It's definitely understandable that Steeda is upset. They, along with every other CAI manufacturer, make a killing on them.

I'm very interested in what they have to say though. I am keeping an open mind.
VIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 07:38 PM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
Robostang's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Cheshire
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by shunc01 View Post
I'm selling my airaid who wants one? For cheap....

MPT tune, Axle exchange Aluminum driveshaft, 3:73 gears, borla stype, frrp x pipe, Mac ceramic shorty headers, airaid cai, Jlt separator, koni orange shocks and struts, SR Springs, gt500 mounts, J&M Panhard bar, Bmr LCA, 2010 gt500 wheels, roush chin splitter, roush louvers, and RTR stripes... 😎 🚘
I knew when I bought my Airaid that there were no gains to be had. But that sound when you mash the go pedal is intoxicating!
__________________
2012 Kona Blue GT Premium 401A, Manual, 3.55, Steeda Pro-Action Shocks, Struts, Sport Springs, LCAs, Adjustable Swaybars, Adjustable Panhard Bar, BMR Relocation Brackets and Adjustable UCA, Driveshaft Shop Aluminum Drive Shaft, Airaid CAI, MGW Shifter, GT500 Axle-Backs, 3M Clear Bra and Tint, Side Window Louvers, JLT Oil Separator, Staggered MMD Zeven Wheels and Mickey Thompson Street Comp Tires, Bama 93 Race Tune
Robostang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 10:48 PM   #44
VIG
Registered Member
Regular
 
VIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wilmington
Region: Delaware
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by shunc01 View Post
I'm selling my airaid who wants one? For cheap....

MPT tune, Axle exchange Aluminum driveshaft, 3:73 gears, borla stype, frrp x pipe, Mac ceramic shorty headers, airaid cai, Jlt separator, koni orange shocks and struts, SR Springs, gt500 mounts, J&M Panhard bar, Bmr LCA, 2010 gt500 wheels, roush chin splitter, roush louvers, and RTR stripes... 😎 🚘
Lol and so it begins!
VIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 11:03 PM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Hey, now Cassidy no fair. I read it first mine is getting sold first!
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 11:05 PM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robostang View Post
I knew when I bought my Airaid that there were no gains to be had. But that sound when you mash the go pedal is intoxicating!
Get one off eBay for like $50 and sell the Airaid. Not worth 200 for sound. Am I right? It's actually what I did lol, drilled out a hole and installed a GT sound tube. Better sound than any of the other intakes on the market lol
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 05:34 AM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
1 Alibi 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hackettstown
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 718
" when keeping the rest of the engine/exhaust stock. "
.
And this was a news item ??
.
__________________

" Chance favors the prepared mind "
.
* SOLD * 2011 776rwhp.......documented " 1 of 2 "
2014 - detuned to 780rwhp
2017 F150 Lariat Scab, 5.0
1 Alibi 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 09:08 AM   #48
VIG
Registered Member
Regular
 
VIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wilmington
Region: Delaware
Posts: 1,238
Cold Air Intake vs. Stock Intake: Quantitative Testing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintile View Post
Get one off eBay for like $50 and sell the Airaid. Not worth 200 for sound. Am I right? It's actually what I did lol, drilled out a hole and installed a GT sound tube. Better sound than any of the other intakes on the market lol

If you're just looking for sound and nothing else, I'd do what you did and get the GT sound tube.

My hypothesis is that if the Steeda shows no gains with the larger diameter, then could the other intakes with the stock diameter net negative gains.

In their study they say that the Steeda compensates for the warmer, less dense air by being able to handle more volume. The stock diameter ones aren't able to compensate for the warmer air by larger volume.

Also, the stock unit utilizes Helmholtz resonators.



Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
__________________
IG: workshardplayshard
VIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 09:57 AM   #49
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIG View Post
If you're just looking for sound and nothing else, I'd do what you did and get the GT sound tube.

My hypothesis is that if the Steeda shows no gains with the larger diameter, then could the other intakes with the stock diameter net negative gains.

In their study they say that the Steeda compensates for the warmer, less dense air by being able to handle more volume. The stock diameter ones aren't able to compensate for the warmer air by larger volume.

Also, the stock unit utilizes Helmholtz resonators.



Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Well, we're not so sure about that. Remember that the stock sealed airbox was essentially starved for air at WOT with our pressure testing. So there's also the surface area of the filter that needs to be taken into account. Also, we only listed idle temperature because it was slightly more "controllable," but during WOT the steeda would cool down to similar temps. I really dont see anything having negative gains, and if you already have an intake you might as well keep it, i doubt its hurting anything.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 06:02 PM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Well, we're not so sure about that. Remember that the stock sealed airbox was essentially starved for air at WOT with our pressure testing. So there's also the surface area of the filter that needs to be taken into account. Also, we only listed idle temperature because it was slightly more "controllable," but during WOT the steeda would cool down to similar temps. I really dont see anything having negative gains, and if you already have an intake you might as well keep it, i doubt its hurting anything.
Same goes for the no tune required intakes. It's that one area where the MAF sensor connects that's similar to stock, but almost immediately after the MAF sensor they all get larger, so as you would with a cat-back exhaust you do add more volume as the air will fill the space.
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 06:52 PM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakib View Post
I ran the appropriate tune for the Steeda CAI, from Steeda themselves. The other tune for the stock intake was also from Steeda, but for the stock intake. Not the same tune, but the same company's tune, to keep the comparison fair.
Quick couple questions. What filter did you use for the stock intake? KN or stock paper? Also did you attempt to try the Steeda CAI tune on the stock intake?
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 07:16 PM   #52
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintile View Post
Quick couple questions. What filter did you use for the stock intake? KN or stock paper? Also did you attempt to try the Steeda CAI tune on the stock intake?
Stock filter. Also, you cant run the steeda CAI tune on the stock intake, because the difference in MAF diameter would have caused the car to run incredibly rich and it would constantly be trying to lean itself out.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 08:34 PM   #53
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Ah yes that's right.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 11:14 PM   #54
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sakib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 813
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

I had a great discussion with two Steeda engineers (Jason and Scott) yesterday. Voltwings (I'll call him Travis for the rest of this post, feels weird calling someone I know Voltwings) was unable to join but I caught him up on the phone later, and he is in agreement with what I will say here.

Steeda's main criticism was that the test did not shift through the gears to hold the engine speed at higher revs, >5000rpm where my tests show that the CAI indeed provides more air flow to the engine. The amount of time during the run that the engine was >5000rpm was very short before the runs ended at redline; Steeda says this time is insufficient for the vehicle speed to increase much beyond the vehicle speed when using the stock intake. They told me that in their tests on the drag strip, for the V8, they reduced their 1/4 mile time by 0.2 seconds using the CAI versus the Steeda tune on a stock intake. If it only shaves off 0.2 seconds over a whole 1/4-mile while shifting through gears to keep the engine at higher revs, it makes sense that the time will not be much improved when we keep it locked in second gear. I told them that I'm sure the community would love to see this data, and they said that they could make a video of it. However, this is for the V8, and the scope of our study is only for the 2011-2014 V6 Mustang.

The reason we kept it locked in second gear and launched from a rolling start was to eliminate factors such as shifting and traction. We wanted to measure just the impact of the CAI. However, I think that Steeda's point is fair. If the Steeda CAI tune is designed to maximize the performance of the CAI, the shift table should maximize the time that the engine is running in the RPM range that sees the higher flow rates. Since I have an automatic transmission and 2.73 gears, the launches and shifts should still be quite consistent on multiple runs.

Steeda's second criticism was that we did not verify that cylinder head temperatures and coolant temperatures were below certain thresholds before each run. Apparently their tuning algorithms behave differently when these temperatures are above certain thresholds. They said that there should be sufficient cooling in between runs. Now, we did not run all trials back-to-back. Between each run we drove ~1 mile at normal speed to get back to our starting point, and we idled for ~30 seconds to collect our idle intake temperature data. But it was not consistent, and we were not recording cylinder head temperature, so we can't verify that we were under whatever this threshold is. (We did measure coolant temperature, and we could retroactively check which runs were under the 200F threshold, but the engineers did not seem too interested in that when I said so.)

Steeda made two proposals to work with us: 1) They send us a detailed protocol for their road test that we can use to repeat our experiment. 2) They do a dyno test for the V6, record everything on video, and send us the results. I rejected the second proposal for two reasons. First, the objective of our test was to assess real-world vehicle performance on the road, instead of measuring engine performance as you do on a dyno. Dynos are great for what they are, but that is not the kind of data we are looking for here. Second, a huge point of this whole study was for it to be an independent study. Travis and I are not okay with Steeda doing this for us and sending a video. They might as well do that on their own and post it themselves. (In fact, I'm sure we would all love to see that.)

Travis and I are excited about the first proposal. Steeda has knowledge of the tunes that we do not have, and these thresholds that they have are critical testing conditions. If some runs met the thresholds but others did not, then it is bad experimental practice to group them together. We would like to see their protocol. We would incorporate the methods for verifying cylinder head temperatures and coolant temperatures have sufficiently cooled before runs. We are willing to repeat the experiment.

However, we do not think that the supplementary experiments nullify the work presented here. My impression from the conversation was not that Steeda "tore apart our study" as Mike, the customer service rep, said to me in the first conversation. In fact, they used our Fig. 2 to say that even our results show that the CAI flows more air at high engine speeds. Even Fig. 1 is not wrong... that is accurate data for the methods that we used. The vehicle speed indeed does not increase when the transmission is locked in second gear when using the Steeda CAI versus the Steeda tune on the stock intake. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the Steeda CAI MAY lead to increased performance when allowing the tune to shift the gears; but I'm not going to believe that either until I run the experiment and see the data.

Steeda says they will send us a protocol on Monday. I cannot promise when we will be able to repeat the experiment and update the post. Travis and I are both busy people, doing this on the side as a hobby. It's pretty low on our priority list in life. But we will get to it when we can, as soon as we can.

That said, I want to address some comments that I see happening on this thread that I am not so comfortable with. Nowhere in the post do we say that the CAI hurts performance. The data does not show that. In fact, the data shows that the CAI increases air flow! That is the point of Fig. 2. It's just that this increase does not show up until 5000 RPM, so it is not useful to daily driving. But when you are on the drag strip or under hard acceleration, you will get more air flow with the CAI. That is a fact. The pressure data shows that the engine is starved for air when using the stock intake. Also, we said in multiple places that the conclusions only apply to vehicles with stock engine/exhaust. If you have headers, throttle body, ported intake manifold, your engine may be able to take advantage of the increased MAF provided by the CAI. We did not test that, so we can't draw any conclusions about it. So I don't know why I'm seeing some people who I know to have headers and other engine mods saying they want to sell their CAI... they are drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data we presented, and are not conclusions that we claimed.

The last thing I want is for people to misunderstand our experiment and use it to make decisions that are not backed up by facts. So I will be revising some of the sentences in the write-up to make a couple of these points more clear. I will also add a paragraph to the discussion that addresses the point about the shifting through gears. It is important that people understand the scope of the experiment, and its limitations. I'll have the revisions up by Monday, after Travis has also reviewed and approved of the them.
Sakib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2015, 03:22 AM   #55
Kevin.Cook
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sakib - Thanks for the update. I did want to mention that the 13-14 Premium clusters have the ability to show cylinder head temp and coolant temp. Without going back and looking, I cannot recall if the sct tuner devices show these.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2015, 05:59 AM   #56
Registered Member
Regular
 
Grabber Blue5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: East Haven
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 3,510
It seems that Steeda is becoming increasingly butt hurt lately. On another popular Mustang board regarding the 2015 up cars they posted gains with their intake on a dyno on the 5.0 car. Yet when an independent person posted time slips showing zero gains at the track over the stock intake the thread got immediately shut down. Probably because Steeda being a paid member complained to the powers that be. Steeda has become the new Bama unfortunately getting people to believe in things that just aren't true for the almighty dollar.
__________________
2017 Dodge Challenger T/A Redline Tri-Coat
2015 Dodge Challenger Scat Pack Jazz Blue Pearl Sold
2015 GT Premium 401A Ingot Silver Sold
2011 GT Premium 401A Grabber Blue Sold
Grabber Blue5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2015, 07:13 AM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
RJ13GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Roanoke Rapids
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 157
All these tests and experiments to prove that you are getting a benefit from a cold air intake is enough for me to tell that they aren't worth buying. I learned my lesson about aftermarket intakes years ago. They're next to worthless for hp increases in most cases unless they somehow combat a heatsoak issue. Then they can be a benefit.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
__________________
2013 5.0, Black, Auto, Procharger P1SC stg 2, 4.13'' pulley(8 psi), JMS bap, 3'' x pipe, Circle D 3c, Kooks axleback, BMR control arms. 593rwhp
RJ13GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2015, 11:04 PM   #58
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ13GT View Post
All these tests and experiments to prove that you are getting a benefit from a cold air intake is enough for me to tell that they aren't worth buying. I learned my lesson about aftermarket intakes years ago. They're next to worthless for hp increases in most cases unless they somehow combat a heatsoak issue. Then they can be a benefit.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
You're a bitter little donkey aren't you? There is no heat soak issue. (What's is everyone issue with heat soak?!) The testing proved it. The air moves too quickly to change temperature enough to do anything to hurt performance. Please reread for the love of God.

Sakib, in all fairness I feel your first experiments with Travis were fair and on point. Wasn't your intentions to see the difference between them in a real world setting? I feel you hit the nail on the head and the fact they brought up a GT that shaved .02 secs off a quarter mile time is splitting hairs. For those of us who aren't out to clock split second time differences we will and most likely already are happy to know that we can save our money rather than spending $300 on a metal tube and some plastic that isn't going to do much for us in the daily commute or even just a casual cruise on the weekend. Now due to my curiosity I would love to read your next testing results as this **** just fascinates me, but I again I feel your first set of test were fair and just.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2015, 12:15 AM   #59
Kevin.Cook
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
And to be fair, we are interested in 3.7 results. I honestly do not care about testing on a 5.0.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2015, 04:58 AM   #60
Registered Member
Regular
 
RJ13GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Roanoke Rapids
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintile View Post
You're a bitter little donkey aren't you? There is no heat soak issue. (What's is everyone issue with heat soak?!) The testing proved it. The air moves too quickly to change temperature enough to do anything to hurt performance. Please reread for the love of God.

Sakib, in all fairness I feel your first experiments with Travis were fair and on point. Wasn't your intentions to see the difference between them in a real world setting? I feel you hit the nail on the head and the fact they brought up a GT that shaved .02 secs off a quarter mile time is splitting hairs. For those of us who aren't out to clock split second time differences we will and most likely already are happy to know that we can save our money rather than spending $300 on a metal tube and some plastic that isn't going to do much for us in the daily commute or even just a casual cruise on the weekend. Now due to my curiosity I would love to read your next testing results as this **** just fascinates me, but I again I feel your first set of test were fair and just.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Donkey? Lol! I'm talking in general you ignorant moose. Lol! If it takes a scientist to tell me that there is a benefit from me running a CAI. It isn't worth it to me. I like putting my money into something with a return. No bitterness here. Thats why I skipped the cai and bought the Procharger instead.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
__________________
2013 5.0, Black, Auto, Procharger P1SC stg 2, 4.13'' pulley(8 psi), JMS bap, 3'' x pipe, Circle D 3c, Kooks axleback, BMR control arms. 593rwhp
RJ13GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2015, 09:43 AM   #61
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Charlotte, NC
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ13GT View Post
Donkey? Lol! I'm talking in general you ignorant moose. Lol! If it takes a scientist to tell me that there is a benefit from me running a CAI. It isn't worth it to me. I like putting my money into something with a return. No bitterness here. Thats why I skipped the cai and bought the Procharger instead.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

True but the same can be said for just about any bolt on for the 11-14 v6 mustangs. Your not going to see a noticeable difference with headers, cat back, or intake. In all reality the only noticeable performance upgrade under 500 would be gears or a tune.

With that said I can see the OPs point as well as steedas. It's hard to test how parts perform in the real world when taking into account factors such as driver consistency, tire spin, etc. which is why I think so many companies use a dyno to measure gains. I can understand steedas point that the test really does not measure top end gains which is where it would be most noticeable as this test really only shows results from a given RPM range in 2nd gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
StarzTA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2015, 10:29 AM   #62
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarzTA17 View Post
True but the same can be said for just about any bolt on for the 11-14 v6 mustangs. Your not going to see a noticeable difference with headers, cat back, or intake. In all reality the only noticeable performance upgrade under 500 would be gears or a tune.

With that said I can see the OPs point as well as steedas. It's hard to test how parts perform in the real world when taking into account factors such as driver consistency, tire spin, etc. which is why I think so many companies use a dyno to measure gains. I can understand steedas point that the test really does not measure top end gains which is where it would be most noticeable as this test really only shows results from a given RPM range in 2nd gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

Sakib and i actually discussed this at length the other day. In my mind, i wanted the results to be as real world as possible, not so "controlled." The control was Steeda's main issue however. Sakib also made the comment that we really should make an effort to control as many variables as possible, and randomly allowing the car to idle various amounts of time at a light before the next run isnt exactly "controlled."

He's right, because if we idled one set for 5 seconds, and the next for 20, we obviously cant average that data together very well. Where Sakib and I are now is basically trying to see how controlled we can get while still maintaining the real world numbers that people are actually interested in seeing, as well as remaining as independent from Steeda (while still adhering to their wishes) as closely as possible.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2015, 10:45 AM   #63
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sakib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
Sakib and i actually discussed this at length the other day. In my mind, i wanted the results to be as real world as possible, not so "controlled." The control was Steeda's main issue however. Sakib also made the comment that we really should make an effort to control as many variables as possible, and randomly allowing the car to idle various amounts of time at a light before the next run isnt exactly "controlled."

He's right, because if we idled one set for 5 seconds, and the next for 20, we obviously cant average that data together very well. Where Sakib and I are now is basically trying to see how controlled we can get while still maintaining the real world numbers that people are actually interested in seeing, as well as remaining as independent from Steeda (while still adhering to their wishes) as closely as possible.
Exactly what he said. Only thing I would change (and I know Volt didn't mean it this way) is "adhering to their wishes". Our attitude is not that we are doing what Steeda wishes us to do, but that we are listening to their scientific input on the protocol because they have obviously have knowledge about how the tunes work that we don't. Methods to make sure the tunes are operating the same way on each run are important to make this a legitimate experiment. It doesn't take away from it being a real-world test. It's still a road test. And it will still be an independent test, we will listen to their feedback and incorporate what we want to, but we are still the ones leading the study, running it ourselves, interpreting the data ourselves.

By the way, this happens in real scientific publications too. I've published several papers in peer-reviewed journals. You send your manuscript in and the editor will send it to some other experts in your field. You never find out who those reviewers are. It very well might be someone who is your direct competitor in the research. They give a critique of the paper, and often they make suggestions on how to change the methods, or advise on other experiments that need to be done to justify the conclusions. Then the editor might give the paper back to you and say that the paper is not accepted unless you address this feedback. So then the author could either disagree with the reviewers and send it back by writing why they disagree, or they could take the reviewer's feedback, revise their paper, and send it back. So what's happening here is not much different than that.
Sakib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2015, 12:18 PM   #64
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Maybe there can be a "Road and Track" test done? (The magazines) Do a 0-60 time, 1/4 mile test, 60-100 hwy pull? Something simple yet exactly what happens with a street driven car. They get by with comparisons like that all the time.
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2015, 12:23 PM   #65
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ13GT View Post
Donkey? Lol! I'm talking in general you ignorant moose. Lol! If it takes a scientist to tell me that there is a benefit from me running a CAI. It isn't worth it to me. I like putting my money into something with a return. No bitterness here. Thats why I skipped the cai and bought the Procharger instead.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I think tou and I are on the same point here. CAIs are pretty iseless unless coupled with proper supporting mods yet even then you still need a Procharger to put down big numbers which is fine. I will never go that route ever again with a N/A car. They way I see it make the most tou can as it is with the parts you can easily get added and tuned and if you're not happy get a more powerful car. Look at Grabber blue 91 he did most every bolt on. Wasn't jappy, got a Procharger, things didn't work as expected and rather than damage his car further he sold it for a 2015 GT....now he appears to happy until he gets bored and decides to put more stuff into his car. It's a never ending cycle. Very few of us are happy with what we have and always are greedy for more. It's all apart of the car culture.
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2015, 05:05 PM   #66
Staff

Regular
Staff
 
Strange Mud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Small Town
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 5,020
useless for power...but for sound at a used price (free bump guys!) it was worth it to me.
__________________
2012 V6 with suspension, shifting, stopping and sound mods.
Strange Mud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2015, 07:10 PM   #67
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lewisville
Region: Texas
Posts: 2
Thank you for this informative write-up!
-Cheers
SomaComa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2015, 08:59 PM   #68
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Just thinking, from a scientific standpoint, so to speak.

Stock Intake with a Steeda tune vs. Steeda Intake with a Steeda tune

Because the above two combinations resulted in no change in performance, are we really safe in concluding that an aftermarket intake with stock tune would have same results? After all, we are dealing with two different Steeda tunes.

Additionally, it seems to me that by having the automatic transmission locked in second gear, and the car driven at wide-open throttle from a rolling start at ~10 mph until the engine redline (6800 rpm for stock tune, 7000 rpm for the two Steeda tunes, is not "real-world data". Unless I'm misinterpreting something, aren't we missing out on a couple of near redlines, where the aftermarket intakes do their best?

A less complex and straightforward test would of course be to compare say a 1/4 run between a stock intake and an aftermarket "no-tune" intake. But I know that wasn't possible due to the lack of a "no-tune CAI".

Thank you guys for all you time and effort.
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2015, 09:13 PM   #69
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diehard View Post
Stock Intake with a Steeda tune vs. Steeda Intake with a Steeda tune

Because the above two combinations resulted in no change in performance, are we really safe in concluding that an aftermarket intake with stock tune would have same results? 1. After all, we are dealing with two different Steeda tunes.

2. Additionally, it seems to me that by having the automatic transmission locked in second gear, and the car driven at wide-open throttle from a rolling start at ~10 mph until the engine redline (6800 rpm for stock tune, 7000 rpm for the two Steeda tunes, is not "real-world data". Unless I'm misinterpreting something, aren't we missing out on a couple of near redlines, where the aftermarket intakes do their best?

A less complex and straightforward test would of course be to compare say a 1/4 run between a stock intake and an aftermarket "no-tune" intake. But I know that wasn't possible due to the lack of a "no-tune CAI".

Thank you guys for all you time and effort.
1. We datalogged spark advance, as well as both intake and exhaust cam position for both tunes to compare if anything else was changed for the CAI. Obviously i do not have the tune file, but at least to my eye the tunes were identical when checking the above mentioned metrics against RPM and load.

2. The answer is both yes and no. When datalogging it is typical fashion to gather data from a single gear pull. Ideally this pull would be done in 3rd or 4th gear, but seeing as how 2nd gear with the 2.73 gears redlines at about 90-95 it kind of forced our hand a bit. That is the no part of your question, we were following rather standard datalogging procedure.
The yes part is where Steeda had problems with our testing; that we apparently identified that the intake pulls in more air above 5000 rpms correctly, but that we did not give the engine ample time to capitalize on those gains. That's fair, and there may be some truth there, but speaking for myself here i am not quite sure i am sold. An otherwise stock auto car with 2.73s traps what, maybe 100 mph in the 1/4? You would get through first, through second and go through the traps at the very bottom of 3rd. Maybe ripping through first and starting the engine off in that higher rpm section of second will net gains, i am not 100% doubting that. What i am instead doubting is if its enough to be either measurable, repeatable, or significant. Either way as you have seen they requested we do more testing, and when given the time and opportunity Sakib and I plan to do so. Not for their sake, but for the sake of staying true to this study and providing the community with accurate and useful information.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2015, 09:26 PM   #70
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltwings View Post
1. We datalogged spark advance, as well as both intake and exhaust cam position for both tunes to compare if anything else was changed for the CAI. Obviously i do not have the tune file, but at least to my eye the tunes were identical when checking the above mentioned metrics against RPM and load.

2. The answer is both yes and no. When datalogging it is typical fashion to gather data from a single gear pull. Ideally this pull would be done in 3rd or 4th gear, but seeing as how 2nd gear with the 2.73 gears redlines at about 90-95 it kind of forced our hand a bit. That is the no part of your question, we were following rather standard datalogging procedure.
The yes part is where Steeda had problems with our testing; that we apparently identified that the intake pulls in more air above 5000 rpms correctly, but that we did not give the engine ample time to capitalize on those gains. That's fair, and there may be some truth there, but speaking for myself here i am not quite sure i am sold. An otherwise stock auto car with 2.73s traps what, maybe 100 mph in the 1/4? You would get through first, through second and go through the traps at the very bottom of 3rd. Maybe ripping through first and starting the engine off in that higher rpm section of second will net gains, i am not 100% doubting that. What i am instead doubting is if its enough to be either measurable, repeatable, or significant. Either way as you have seen they requested we do more testing, and when given the time and opportunity Sakib and I plan to do so. Not for their sake, but for the sake of staying true to this study and providing the community with accurate and useful information.
Thanks Volt...Just some thoughts from a not so knowledgeable guy(me) that's trying to learn. Appreciate your comments as always.
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang

Tags
cold air intake

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
mustang v6 2012 air condition after use the hot air do not blow cold air blackout2012 2011-2014 V6 Mustang 5 12-14-2014 08:17 AM
Stock vs Ram Air vs Cold Air Intake Slow4V 1996-2004 Mustang GT 6 04-17-2014 11:02 PM
COLD AIR INTAKE or SHAKER COLD AIR INTAKE zalizar21 2005-2010 V6 Mustang 14 08-19-2012 08:41 AM
some cold air testing wnt2gofst 2011-2014 Mustang GT 41 04-16-2012 11:06 AM
94gt factory cold air intake vs aftermkt cold air intake justjake94boss 1979-1995 Mustang GT 1 04-15-2012 12:22 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



12:00 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.