The JLT vs. Stock Airbox with AED tune results and discussion thread

[TheCPE]

No, that is the maximum flow rate at that fixed CFM. I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that.

"Maximum flow rate at a fixed CFM." You do realize that CFM is the flow rate. So what you just said is maximum flow rate at a fixed flow rate...

Research measuring increased efficiency at a given flow rate.

Oh believe me, I tried finding the elusive efficiency measurement test on a flow bench you described, seems you still have time to patent it

If you can't arrive at the correct answer perhaps you will find this tech article from Kenne Bell helpful:

Mammoth Supercharger

:lol: So you link to an article about forced induction where air is being forced into an engine versus the discussion at hand about an NA application....


I eagerly await the data set from your flow bench test...

 

[SID297]

"Maximum flow rate at a fixed CFM." You do realize that CFM is the flow rate. So what you just said is maximum flow rate at a fixed flow rate...

That was a typing mistake. I corrected it.

Oh believe me, I tried finding the elusive efficiency measurement test on a flow bench you described, seems you still have time to patent it

Funny, I seem to remember posting a video of the exact test. Also, there is a one year public display bar that would prevent the method from being patented. Since the AEM video was produced and displayed in May of 2010 the method would be ineligible for a patent based solely on that one public display. You may want to review 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

:lol: So you link to an article about forced induction where air is being forced into an engine versus the discussion at hand about an NA application....


I eagerly await the data set from your flow bench test...

Does the air intake know whether air is being pulled through it by supercharger or simply manifold pressure? Nope, it doesn't care. Would you care to point out any inconsistencies in the information in that article and anything I have posted?

I'm hesitant to waste my limited time using a flow bench to show a simple principle that only you don't seem to understand. A principle that has been shown in a video and in an article I have already posted? If you ignore all that I doubt taking the time to produce one more article is going to help you.

 

[TheCPE]

That was a typing mistake. I corrected it.

Ok, happens to the best of us.

Funny, I seem to remember posting a video of the exact test.

One purely useless and unrelated videoed test is your indication that the procedure is meaningful when ascertaining flow capabilities of engine components? And in your own video the technician doesn't even assert the method he demonstrates is "the method" to measure efficiency he just says, "hey watch what happens when I do this absurd thing" that apparently cobalt owners are prone to do...

What is the use of that video anyway, you never said, you just said it was useful. All that was demonstrated is a .005 psi differential when silly things were done to an aftermarket CAI... what is useful about that?

Does the air intake know whether air is being pulled through it by supercharger or simply manifold pressure? Nope, it doesn't care.

:??:

What does this even mean? I'm assuming you are asserting that despite the article pertaining to forced induction it is still somehow related to this discussion about an NA setup.

I guess the simplest way to explain why the article is meaningless is that the entire point to this discussion was that both the stock box and the JLT can flow air effectively enough for the maximum output of the NA engine. However, when you start forcing air into the engine then you are going to potentially hit new limiting bottlenecks that wouldn't exist while NA.

Would you care to point out any inconsistencies in the information in that article and anything I have posted?

Ok, here goes.

Let me know where I improperly paraphrase.

You are asserting that the reason the JLT will produce more power than the stock box is that at any given CFM the JLT will be under less pressure at said CFM. And that everyone else uses the standard yet deficient flow bench procedure and thus why the results advertised about CFM and engine components from intakes, to valves, to heads are meaningless.


I'm asserting that the standard flow bench test method for measuring flow efficiency of different components is what should be used. Further because both the stock box and the JLT can flow more than enough air, the bottleneck is not the intake system and therefore I have doubt the JLT truly makes more power (hence my GPS box test forthcoming) than the stock box.


So I'm going to perform my tests in the real world with the two parts and see what happens.

Likewise you can perform your flow bench procedure on the two parts and provide us with your data.

---
One very interesting thing also to consider that will determine if the JLT makes more power is also the flow capabilities of the heads and valves of the 5.0, assuming the bottleneck is the stock air box is just a foolish assumption.

 

[TheCPE]

I'm hesitant to waste my limited time using a flow bench to show a simple principle that only you don't seem to understand. A principle that has been shown in a video and in an article I have already posted? If you ignore all that I doubt taking the time to produce one more article is going to help you.

Deflection.

It has nothing to do with understanding, I know it feels good to say someone that disagrees with you just "doesn't understand" but it doesn't make it true.

The point to you doing the test is to provide the NUMBERS. Where are the numbers. The numbers obtained will easily prove just what I've been saying, the test will be moot, but I'd love to have you report them nonetheless.

 

[GeorgeInNePa]

Just one question...

WBT ran 118 with a tune and the OEM airbox. I ran 118 with a tune and the OEM airbox. Omcar ran 118 with a tune and the OEM airbox.

Can you guys point to the cars with aftermarket CAIs that are running 119-120 with a tune and CAI?

I only ask because I really want to need a CAI, but I've yet to see overwhelming proof of actual performance.

 

[SID297]

One purely useless and unrelated videoed test is your indication that the procedure is meaningful when ascertaining flow capabilities of engine components? And in your own video the technician doesn't even assert the method he demonstrates is "the method" to measure efficiency he just says, "hey watch what happens when I do this absurd thing" that apparently cobalt owners are prone to do...

Allow me to remind you why I posted the video in question. You stated:

This sums up your misunderstanding. Vacuum is absolutely NOT the variable when you are using a flow bench.

I then post a video showing exactly that. How is it not relevant to your comment?

What is the use of that video anyway, you never said, you just said it was useful. All that was demonstrated is a .005 psi differential when silly things were done to an aftermarket CAI... what is useful about that?

It was useful in disproving your above-made assertion.

What does this even mean? I'm assuming you are asserting that despite the article pertaining to forced induction it is still somehow related to this discussion about an NA setup.

Yes, under both circumstances the air intake is under vacuum. Inferences concerning intake efficiency will correlate from one setup to the next.

I guess the simplest way to explain why the article is meaningless is that the entire point to this discussion was that both the stock box and the JLT can flow air effectively enough for the maximum output of the NA engine. However, when you start forcing air into the engine then you are going to potentially hit new limiting bottlenecks that wouldn't exist while NA.

You’re mistakenly focusing on forced induction. Allow me to quote for you the information you should be gleaning from the article:

VACUUM / INLET RESTRICTION - 1” of vacuum restriction can reduce engine power up to 32HP.

Good to know. The info below should help you even more.

To determine overall inlet efficiencies, tap the center of the inlet manifold at the supercharger entrance and connect to a good 0-30” Hg vacuum gauge. Note the peak vacuum reading at WOT. The reading will increase with engine rpm/HP. We use a more sophisticated series of calibrated pressure sensors, one behind each component, and data log the entire dyno run. If your reading is 0” Hg, don’t upgrade any inlet component IF you’re satisfied with the HP number. However, if it’s 1-9”Hg, there’s HP to be gained. 1.0” Hg is often 35-40HP. .1” Hg is 3.5-4HP. This isn’t opinions or theory, but fact. A NASCAR Cup engine makes 850HP. With a restrictor plate, the same engine is 450HP but has approx. 12” Hg vacuum. That’s 8.7 psi or about 6 psi short of God’s 14.7 psi. It’s all about inlet restriction whether it’s supercharged or naturally aspirated. In the ‘60’s, I used a vacuum gauge under the carburetor. Didn’t have throttle bodies then. If the gauge read 0” Hg, the carburetor was large enough. But if it read 2” Hg (13.7 psi) instead of 0” Hg (14.7 psi), I knew that I was “short” 1 psi of God’s Boost or about 7% in HP. 1 ÷ 14.7 = 7%. Same holds true 44 years later with supercharging. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Source: Kenne Bell Article



Is it starting to make sense now? The measure of vacuum at a given flow rate is the measure of restriction. The more restriction the more the engine has to work to pull air into itself. The more the engine has to work to pull air into itself the more power you are leaving on the table.

Are you starting to see the point? If you have two products that are capable of flowing the amount of air the engine requires (with other factors being constant) the one that can do so with the least vacuum, and therefore the least restriction, will produce more power.

Ok, here goes.

Let me know where I improperly paraphrase.

You are asserting that the reason the JLT will produce more power than the stock box is that at any given CFM the JLT will be under less pressure at said CFM. And that everyone else uses the standard yet deficient flow bench procedure and thus why the results advertised about CFM and engine components from intakes, to valves, to heads are meaningless.

Close, the JLT (or other) intake will produce less vacuum. I’m not saying the standard measurement method for maximum flow at an industry standardized vacuum level is deficient in any way. It’s a fine test to determine that information. However, knowing that a part can flow X CFM at Y vacuum isn’t incredibly helpful with your engine is only capable of consuming X-200 CFM. It would be much more useful to know how the different components behave (vacuum readings) at X-200 CFM. That would let you know more about intake efficiency. To put it colloquially, not all CFMs making it into the engine are created equal.

However, there are other variables such as turbulence and temperature which can affect ultimate HP readings. Some of those variables can also be measured on a flow bench with the proper sensors, others require datalogging while driving or on a dyno. At the end of the day, a good CAI makes more HP (say 8-15) than the stock intake on a 5.0. It has been proven time and time again by many sources. You can either accept that or put on your tinfoil hat and believe that the entire performance automotive aftermarket industry are all part of a giant CAI conspiracy.

I'm asserting that the standard flow bench test method for measuring flow efficiency of different components is what should be used. Further because both the stock box and the JLT can flow more than enough air, the bottleneck is not the intake system and therefore I have doubt the JLT truly makes more power (hence my GPS box test forthcoming) than the stock box.

See above. Just because both can flow a paltry 300 CFM it does not necessarily follow that both can do so equally efficiently.

Also, your GPS based testing will be far less accurate than dyno testing. You’d probably be much better off using a system that uses OBD-II data, assuming you haven’t altered tire size, gearing, etc.

So I'm going to perform my tests in the real world with the two parts and see what happens.

Good luck.

Likewise you can perform your flow bench procedure on the two parts and provide us with your data.

I have a lot more pressing tests to complete on at least 4 different in 3 different states before I could even consider getting to something like that.

One very interesting thing also to consider that will determine if the JLT makes more power is also the flow capabilities of the heads and valves of the 5.0, assuming the bottleneck is the stock air box is just a foolish assumption.

The flow rates of those components are more than sufficient for an essentially stock car. Also, concerning yourself with that when comparing two intakes is illogical. Both intakes would be subject to any of the shortcomings found there as those parts are used by both.

 

[SID297]

Just remember where this all started. You asked:

Tucker, why don't you point out what is wrong with kdanner's cfm analysis and thus why a CAI alleviates a bottleneck and creates more power?

Airflow readings are useless if you fair to consider pressure.


It all goes back to the example of the respirator. It can flow all the air you need to breathe, but is is more difficult to breathe with it than without it. Why? Because, your diaphragm has to create a greater vacuum in your lungs to draw air through the filters. Creating that extra vacuum required more energy. In automotive terms, the more energy the engine must expend to draw in its air the less energy it has to eventually put to the ground.

 

[wbt]

Just remember where this all started. You asked:



Airflow readings are useless if you fair to consider pressure.


It all goes back to the example of the respirator. It can flow all the air you need to breathe, but is is more difficult to breathe with it than without it. Why? Because, your diaphragm has to create a greater vacuum in your lungs to draw air through the filters. Creating that extra vacuum required more energy. In automotive terms, the more energy the engine must expend to draw in its air the less energy it has to eventually put to the ground.

The discussion between you guys is fine and dandy but bottom line is the stock CAI performs just as well as the JLT in real world testing at the track.

 

[TheCPE]

Also, your GPS based testing will be far less accurate than dyno testing. You’d probably be much better off using a system that uses OBD-II data, assuming you haven’t altered tire size, gearing, etc.

More of your usual making a claim with zero reason or rationale behind it and assuming that because you said it, it must be true.

The GPS data will have a better resolution than OBDII data and I find it hysterical that before I even perform my tests you are already trying to hedge yourself for the results by bashing the test with zero rationale.

This was fun for about 3 iterations but like a good lawyer you've sucked all the fun out of it. Shame you had to go and pigeon-hole yourself into an indefensible position where ego wont let you recover.

And once more you've deflected pertaining to your special flow bench procedure. But the test you described was never intended to be carried out and it will never be carried out, because if it were it would immediately become apparent how pointless the test is to be carried out in that manner.

I've got my fingers crossed on the off chance that you will perform your special test, if your busy schedule allows I'm sure everyone would be interested in your results; I know I'm giddy with anticipation.

 

[kdanner]

The GPS data will have a better resolution than OBDII data

I'm curious about the sample rate of MPH you can get via GPS, how many samples per second can you get?

 

[SID297]

The discussion between you guys is fine and dandy but bottom line is the stock CAI performs just as well as the JLT in real world testing at the track.

There are many who disagree. Those who do support your position seem to be unwilling to share all the data they have on the topic. I wouldn't post in such absolute terms if I were you.

More of your usual making a claim with zero reason or rationale behind it and assuming that because you said it, it must be true.

The GPS data will have a better resolution than OBDII data and I find it hysterical that before I even perform my tests you are already trying to hedge yourself for the results by bashing the test with zero rationale.

Without the use of an augmentation system GPS is typically only accurate within about 3 meters. This will introduce a significant margin of error into your test that would not exist on a dyno. (The dyno software know the exact diameter of the drum it's on which basing its calculations.)

Are you planning on making the pavement in the exact spot you start so that will be the same each time? Are you going to monitor the atmospheric conditions, if so how? Are you going to monitor all the data from the ECU? How will you account for a head or tail wind? How would you even know if a head or tail wind existed while inside the car during a test? These are all things to consider.

This was fun for about 3 iterations but like a good lawyer you've sucked all the fun out of it. Shame you had to go and pigeon-hole yourself into an indefensible position where ego wont let you recover.

Another ad hominem attack. And what indefensible position would that be? I seem to be the only one here backing a what is being claimed with any outside evidence.

I'm sorry you're not enjoying this exchange. I, however, do find it quite amusing. I have always enjoyed teaching.

And once more you've deflected pertaining to your special flow bench procedure. But the test you described was never intended to be carried out and it will never be carried out, because if it were it would immediately become apparent how pointless the test is to be carried out in that manner.

I showed you a video of the very test I described being carried out to show the very thing I described to you. Ignore it if you like, to do so is foolish.

I've got my fingers crossed on the off chance that you will perform your special test, if your busy schedule allows I'm sure everyone would be interested in your results; I know I'm giddy with anticipation.

I'll do it if I have the time, but it's not going to be for a while (at least weeks). I could call someone else and see if they'd carryout the test, but I suspect you'd cry foul if the numbers came from a CAI manufacturer.


Are you still ignoring the fact that time and time again many (probably hundreds) different people have showed gains from a CAI on a dyno? Is your only answer to that fact that everyone who has showed such gains is either a liar or incompetent?

 

[SID297]

I'm curious about the sample rate of MPH you can get via GPS, how many samples per second can you get?

It will depend on the equipment you're using. It's like anything else, the more you spend the better the resolution will likely be.

 

[TheCPE]

More useless stuff...

To put an end to this infinite loop we are in...

Do your special flow test and post the results, it is that simple. You are so sure of yourself than why not prove me wrong, do the test...

I'll go ahead and point out why it will be moot. I'll use your video as the example...

The CAI in your linked video was able to flow 300 cfm at a mere .30 psi. So what psi do you think would be required to flow 500-600 cfm across the JLT or the stock air box? We don't have those numbers but we can make an educated guess that the range of .30 - .60 would be sufficient for both the stock box and the JLT. Which means the test is moot, because the psi differential that may or may not exist between the stock box and the JLT will be far to minute to account for 15hp.

Again, do the test and prove me wrong :banana:

 

[JerryC]

ok, ok...

The JLT makes power on the dyno, I don't think there is much to be gained by disputing that.

We need somebody to figure what it takes to take those HP gains to the track and get results that are comparable to the dyno results.

 

[TheCPE]

I'm curious about the sample rate of MPH you can get via GPS, how many samples per second can you get?

I seem to recall a discussion on this a while back. GPS isn't taking velocity samples. It receives signals from up to 12 satellites (only 3 are necessary to completely resolve position) with embedded ephemeris data as well as error correction data and the satellite messages are synchronized with atomic clocks.

You are using a system of 4-12 equations to solve for position. With this system of equations you can find position at a specified time and thus calculate velocities and accelerations.

The time resolution with my GPS box is 1/100th of a second, so you can calculate a new position every .01 seconds. At 130 mph you are traveling about 2 feet, so you can calculate a new velocity every 2 feet just to give you an idea of the resolution.

 

[shadowstang03gt]

this thread gives me a headache.

 

[kdanner]

I seem to recall a discussion on this a while back. GPS isn't taking velocity samples. It receives signals from up to 12 satellites (only 3 are necessary to completely resolve position) with embedded ephemeris data as well as error correction data and the satellite messages are synchronized with atomic clocks.

You are using a system of 4-12 equations to solve for position. With this system of equations you can find position at a specified time and thus calculate velocities and accelerations.

The time resolution with my GPS box is 1/100th of a second, so you can calculate a new position every .01 seconds. At 130 mph you are traveling about 2 feet, so you can calculate a new velocity every 2 feet just to give you an idea of the resolution.

Right, obviously it doesn't directly read velocity, it computes it based on the change in position and the time differential. What I'm getting at is this, if you pull a log off this device(I guess you can do that?), in 1 second how many samples would you have? 100?

I'm asking for comparative reasons with what I can get by datalogging on the CAN bus, which also varies depending on the device used, i.e. a consumer device like the handhelds people use to flash their cars are quite a bit slower than J2534 passthru device.

 

[wbt]

There are many who disagree. Those who do support your position seem to be unwilling to share all the data they have on the topic. I wouldn't post in such absolute terms if I were you.

You're damn right I am going to post in such a definitive manner. I did the test and spent MY OWN TIME AND MONEY doing so. The results were clear and they were provided. I could care less who disagrees. Where are their comparative results? There are also those who, just like me, didn't gain a thing at the track. Are you dismissing their testing as well?

Are you still ignoring the fact that time and time again many (probably hundreds) different people have showed gains from a CAI on a dyno? Is your only answer to that fact that everyone who has showed such gains is either a liar or incompetent?

Who gives a damn if the dyno shows positive results WITH THE HOOD OPEN. We have been over and over this in two separate threads now and I am perplexed why you don't "get it".

Dyno with the hood closed with both the stock and aftermarket CAI's and see that gain with an aftermarket CAI diminish. I believe it was you who pointed out with the Airaid that was the case.

What I am seeing here is you trying to "prove" that a aftermarket CAI MUST be better than stock because it allows "easier" airflow. If that was the case, then real world track testing would show the same.

Your rebuttal is moot. Are you looking out for the best interest of your site sponsors here or are you more concerned about giving the community results they can base a purchase decision from?

From what I can tell, you are more concerned about protecting the the site sponsors....:nono:

 

[shadowstang03gt]

You're damn right I am going to post in such a definitive manner. I did the test and spent MY OWN TIME AND MONEY doing so. The results were clear and they were provided. I could care less who disagrees. Where are their comparative results? There are also those who, just like me, didn't gain a thing at the track. Are you dismissing their testing as well?



Who gives a damn if the dyno shows positive results WITH THE HOOD OPEN. We have been over and over this in two separate threads now and I am perplexed why you don't "get it".

Dyno with the hood closed with both the stock and aftermarket CAI's and see that gain with an aftermarket CAI diminish. I believe it was you who pointed out with the Airaid that was the case.

What I am seeing here is you trying to "prove" that a aftermarket CAI MUST be better than stock because it allows "easier" airflow. If that was the case, then real world track testing would show the same.

Your rebuttal is moot. Are you looking out for the best interest of your site sponsors here or are you more concerned about giving the community results they can base a purchase decision from?

From what I can tell, you are more concerned about protecting the the site sponsors....:nono:

honestly i would believe JLT or any other company on the same level over your lack luster testing. JLT has been around for a long time.

 

[wbt]

honestly i would believe JLT or any other company on the same level over your lack luster testing. JLT has been around for a long time.

That is because you follow the heard. I am still waiting for you to post anything of value in any thread. Where are your test results?