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

[MikeLTDLX]

Here is my question, if the gains (whether in HP or ET/trap) are so debatable and or arguable... is buying these CAIs still worth it? Im considering waiting until a CAI where there are CLEAR gains is released...

I don't think any CAI is going to show clear and irrefutable gains. Aside from the possible performance increase, there are also the intangible gains that appeal to many...as in the appearance of the CAI or the sound. For me, it is going to be interesting now that it is getting hot outside. I will be logging this JLT and seeing if timing gets pulled due to the hot air. If I find timing getting pulled with the JLT, but not with the box....you know where I am going.

Mike

 

[AluminatorSnake]

You might be misunderstanding what the equation gives you; it is an average power output over a period of time. It doesn’t give you an absolute hp number, because you are right traction along with wind resistance and all other frictional loses in the real world will negate some of the power. If someone were using a time slip and change in kinetic energy equations to calculate the absolute HP than your assertion would be correct.

Your point about traction is however moot in this scenario where a differential in HP is being calculated. Why?

The 60’ times are as identical as you can ask for; the place most likely to suffer from a large variation in traction. Further, the 1/8 ETs are also all nearly identical off by mere 1-2 hundredths. This is significant because the likelihood of significant traction loses and thus potential differences due to variance in the traction lost on different runs would occur before the 1/8.

By looking at his time slips it is safe to say there isn’t significant difference in traction between his runs (throwing out the run he specifically mentioned screwing up the launch on).

Finally, I’m not sure why you decide that you would double the power differential calculated due to “unknown” traction differences anyway. If the traction assertion held water, ie 60’ times were different, if anything you eliminate the possibility to draw any concrete conclusions.
This goes back to the idea that very consistent runs were needed for useful data since Mike’s tests had a lot of variation due to his launches and shifts.

I never said it doubled I just said it gets closer to the 10 hp. Even if it would only be 1 hp more its still closer to 10. Read it closer.

Yes, the 60's for this tests are accurate. I probably should have started with still having a for a slight lack of traction for all the runs instead of just pointing out the math side. Even the 1/4 mile calculators online even state something along the lines that the calculated numbers are capable of being achieved if traction is available. 99.99% of the time more power= more ability to overcome traction. Thats why i stated what i did. But, ill agree and say that traction is moot for the test as it seems like it was almost duplicated.


But still we were looking for .05-.1 second and ~1mph. Having an automatic car and correcting the runs to account for atmospheric changes do a good job at eliminating variables. His car is faster with the JLT. The numbers show that to be true. If you are willing to pay 300 your car has the ability to be faster.

I know you (CPE) were wanting to test by GPS, but it seems as if WBT is arguing against his own test now, even though the results provide data within the range and limit of what we were looking for. He stressed that his test is the most accurate, and it is. I believe you would agree with that. His test shows his car is faster once you eliminate a variable (correcting for DA), but now since the data from the tests proves against his thinking, his problem is now that it costs $300 which was not the reason the test was performed.

 

[AluminatorSnake]

According to the timeslips, there is .03 difference in 60' times. Couple that with the less than 1MPH gain corrected and there is less than a 10HP difference here. Something else to take into account is the wind speed. We were fighting a 10-15MPH head wind most of the evening. That could account for the MPH difference between the intakes.
One could argue variables until we all die. Bottom line is the stock intake was on par and within the margin of error in comparison to the JLT CAI.

Let's not forget we have two more rounds of tests coming.

Ohh so now there was a head wind? Why wasnt that stated in your first post? You and others have stressed that your test has been the most accurate and did not mention that in your post of timeslips. But now there is a head wind that could completely nullify your tests that you performed that showed that the jlt was faster than the stock intake. If that was an issue you were dealing with why didnt you state it in your first post, now your test isnt as accurate as claimed. Is that because your data proves you wrong and your almighty stock intake lost?

Its gonna lead people to think that you are just against a CAI.
Just pointing out voids in your test/story.

let the testing continue

 

[TheCPE]

See above

Ok, well I’ll rephrase, I don’t know why you would assume that the calculated value should increase at all due to “unknown” traction differences. Again, the point is if you have inconsistent data than you can’t make any conclusions, you don’t just increase the calculated value.

I’m not sure how you calculated that a .05-.1 second ET and 1 mph trap differential would equate to 15 hp. The .069 ET and .69 MPH difference in wbt’s runs equates to ~5hp. A solid 15hp would be more like .15-.2 with more than 2 mph trap differential.

I can’t speak for wbt but my opinion based on the corrected data and analysis is that his runs were extremely consistent and the differential shows that at a maximum there was a ~5hp difference between the stock box and the JLT which is considerably less than the advertised gains. Once the TX mile tests and my tests are completed there should be significant independent test data to determine if the ~5hp is truly there (and possibly more) or is statistically insignificant.

It only makes sense that the smaller the measured differential the more samples you need for adequate confidence in the results. Luckily the TX mile test is being done as well so there should be some interesting data.

As far as the cost being brought up, I’m just guessing that the point of these tests aside from figuring out if and how much the gains would be was to ascertain the bang-for-the buck. This is an individual determination obviously, as some find under hood dress up and the sound important perhaps making a smaller hp gain enough to still make the purchase. Myself, I’m only looking at strictly real world performance gains and don’t put much weight on noise or dress up.

 

[Bud]

One could argue variables until we all die. Bottom line is the stock intake was on par and within the margin of error in comparison to the JLT CAI.

Out of 180 posts, that's about what I got out of it.

 

[SVTPete83]

I can't believe this topic is still alive!

 

[wbt]

I know you (CPE) were wanting to test by GPS, but it seems as if WBT is arguing against his own test now, even though the results provide data within the range and limit of what we were looking for. He stressed that his test is the most accurate, and it is. I believe you would agree with that. His test shows his car is faster once you eliminate a variable (correcting for DA), but now since the data from the tests proves against his thinking, his problem is now that it costs $300 which was not the reason the test was performed.

Ohh so now there was a head wind? Why wasnt that stated in your first post? You and others have stressed that your test has been the most accurate and did not mention that in your post of timeslips. But now there is a head wind that could completely nullify your tests that you performed that showed that the jlt was faster than the stock intake. If that was an issue you were dealing with why didnt you state it in your first post, now your test isnt as accurate as claimed. Is that because your data proves you wrong and your almighty stock intake lost?

Its gonna lead people to think that you are just against a CAI.
Just pointing out voids in your test/story.

let the testing continue

You missed the point altogether about the cost. I simply stated it cost ~$300 to gain .069 and .696 in the quarter with my testing. It is up to the community to decide from a performance perspective if they see that as being worth it. You are the one who wants to begin a separate argument about cost. If you want to go down that road and compare other CAI's, I believe the JLT plastic CAI would be the least expensive for said gains. Not the point of this discussion however.

Head wind wasn't mentioned because I had no way to account for it in the results. It was variable, not steady. Nothing about that matters. You again missed my point regarding variables. It doesn't invalidate the results in any way.

I have stated before if I saw gains with the CAI I would keep it on the car. I have no agenda against them.

From what I am gathering is that you have no experience to speak from here so you would rather just post to argue. Proof being how you rounded numbers to make the difference greater than it really was. Arguing that tire spin is where it is all at but the 60' times are within .03 of each other, etc... You haven't added a single constructive thing to this discussion.

I'm sure there is another thread relating to cutting progressive rate springs you can chime in on somewhere based on your experience. ;-)

 

[AluminatorSnake]

Ok, well I’ll rephrase, I don’t know why you would assume that the calculated value should increase at all due to “unknown” traction differences. Again, the point is if you have inconsistent data than you can’t make any conclusions, you don’t just increase the calculated value.

I’m not sure how you calculated that a .05-.1 second ET and 1 mph trap differential would equate to 15 hp. The .069 ET and .69 MPH difference in wbt’s runs equates to ~5hp. A solid 15hp would be more like .15-.2 with more than 2 mph trap differential.

I can’t speak for wbt but my opinion based on the corrected data and analysis is that his runs were extremely consistent and the differential shows that at a maximum there was a ~5hp difference between the stock box and the JLT which is considerably less than the advertised gains. Once the TX mile tests and my tests are completed there should be significant independent test data to determine if the ~5hp is truly there (and possibly more) or is statistically insignificant.

It only makes sense that the smaller the measured differential the more samples you need for adequate confidence in the results. Luckily the TX mile test is being done as well so there should be some interesting data.

As far as the cost being brought up, I’m just guessing that the point of these tests aside from figuring out if and how much the gains would be was to ascertain the bang-for-the buck. This is an individual determination obviously, as some find under hood dress up and the sound important perhaps making a smaller hp gain enough to still make the purchase. Myself, I’m only looking at strictly real world performance gains and don’t put much weight on noise or dress up.

I wasnt doing math for the net of 15 hp that was just the number that had been floating around of people looking for a gain and that the want to net approximately .1 and 1 mph. Yes, calculated it doesnt give roughly 5whp. WBTs tests show gains close to the .1 and 1mph considering. I am with you about your GPS tests that you wish to run and i hope you get a chance to. More properly conducted tests should help this point.

You missed the point altogether about the cost. I simply stated it cost ~$300 to gain .069 and .696 in the quarter with my testing. It is up to the community to decide from a performance perspective if they see that as being worth it. You are the one who wants to begin a separate argument about cost. If you want to go down that road and compare other CAI's, I believe the JLT plastic CAI would be the least expensive for said gains. Not the point of this discussion however.

Head wind wasn't mentioned because I had no way to account for it in the results. It was variable, not steady. Nothing about that matters. You again missed my point regarding variables. It doesn't invalidate the results in any way.

I have stated before if I saw gains with the CAI I would keep it on the car. I have no agenda against them.

From what I am gathering is that you have no experience to speak from here so you would rather just post to argue. Proof being how you rounded numbers to make the difference greater than it really was. Arguing that tire spin is where it is all at but the 60' times are within .03 of each other, etc... You haven't added a single constructive thing to this discussion.

I'm sure there is another thread relating to cutting progressive rate springs you can chime in on somewhere based on your experience. ;-)

Although you didnt have a way to measure the headwind, its a variable that needs to be noted. Thats elementary science project thinking, you note things that cant be controlled. Such as wind in your case, by the way it sounded it was calm, considering Mike claimed to have a crosswind and you claimed noting.

I wasnt starting an argument about the cost only making a point that it wasnt the case at hand. Also if you would have read i did state, between CPE and myself that traction on the two best runs was moot.

And im glad to see that you argue like a 5 year old. I cant find that thread you speak of so if you would gladly PM me i would like to see it again. Although, i did say in the last thread that if I did say cut progressive springs doesnt change then that i was in fact wrong. But you say i claimed from my "experience" that i cut progressive rate springs, I did cut my springs but they are linear so unless a typo or i read it incorrectly i didnt say i cut progressive rate springs :kaboom: Either way I did apologize for incorrect information, but you continue to bring it up like an ass. But do pm me the link that i said that in.

 

[me32]

LOL @ all the absurdly flawed logic and theoretical equations being tossed around in here, thanks for the laugh guys!

took you awhile to jump in :rolling:

 

[xxbmxlsxx]

:bash:

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

took you awhile to jump in :rolling:

man, that's probably all i'm gonna say in here. the pseudoscience is ****ing eyeball deep in this one, i don't know if i have enough time in my life to debate this garbage!:lol1: i know of a couple others laughing at this too:lol:

 

[D.T.R]

I would recommend holding off until we complete the next series of tests. That will provide a total of 3 independent tests, under different conditions, with results you can draw a conclusion from.

I don't think any CAI is going to show clear and irrefutable gains. Aside from the possible performance increase, there are also the intangible gains that appeal to many...as in the appearance of the CAI or the sound. For me, it is going to be interesting now that it is getting hot outside. I will be logging this JLT and seeing if timing gets pulled due to the hot air. If I find timing getting pulled with the JLT, but not with the box....you know where I am going.

Mike

Interesting.
I'm running a stock airbox with an AFE filter, supposedly increasing air flow by 30%... I'm wondering if that combo performs similar to a CAI...

 

[MikeLTDLX]

Interesting.
I'm running a stock airbox with an AFE filter, supposedly increasing air flow by 30%... I'm wondering if that combo performs similar to a CAI...

I can tell you that Shaun dyno tested the AFE, K&N and stock filter and there was no real difference between the three.

Mike

 

[D.T.R]

 

[me32]

man, that's probably all i'm gonna say in here. the pseudoscience is ****ing eyeball deep in this one, i don't know if i have enough time in my life to debate this garbage!:lol1: i know of a couple others laughing at this too:lol:

Man you must be off your game. Normally you always got something to say. You must of found some better threads to keep ya busy.

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

Man you must be off your game. Normally you always got something to say. You must of found some better threads to keep ya busy.

well, i had my hands full with the denver boys during the entirety of the NFL season, then i moved straight into going at it in the '13 GT500 section after the playoffs, gotta take a vacation from this shit!:lol1: that and i don't like gettin in on this stuff late.
can't lie, i did mult-quote a bunch of posts when i first read this thread, LOL.

 

[JerryC]

LOL @ all the absurdly flawed logic and theoretical equations being tossed around in here, thanks for the laugh guys!

Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

 

[USNavyFlyer]

I'm tired just reading this

Wow, lot of stuff thrown around in here. I just know a combustion engine operates better the more air it has. You take a jet up to its max altitude and you have to be in burner to maintain that altitude. As well as high altitude air fields greatly reduce power. Now if stock is the max air the engine needs at max power the engine is capable of, sure, will work fine, if its not more air is good, though the fuel/air mixture would have to be adjusted. Simple as that without having to be all scientific.

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

me, poison? nah, i would never do such a thing:-D

 

[z28th1s]

This is what I got out of 8 pages of reading.

JLT CAI
11.34@122 60' - 1.62 DA 1,880
11.35@122 60' - 1.64 DA 1,671
***REMEMBER SUBTRACT 122-3= 119 for these corrected runs

CORRECTED JLT

[email protected]
[email protected]

Stock CAI
11.49@119 60' - 1.74 <-------I loaded the car up too much on the converter and spun terribly DA 1,208
11.31@119 60' - 1.61 DA 1,208

CORRECTED STOCK (ignoring spinning run)

[email protected]


If your goal is to run as quick as you can with your car then a 11.09 is quicker than a 11.16!! At the end of the day I don't want to get outrun by .069 by another car just because I wanted to run the stock airbox!