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

Status
Not open for further replies.

wbt

Banned
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
715
Location
Texas
[youtube_browser]M9Nv7yLRjJo[/youtube_browser]

well i sure hope i never hear anyone say that the ZL1 is a low 12/high 11 second car without mentioning that it went 13.5 as well then...

:lol:what a joke!

Another useless post by yourself.....

Tell me, what dog do you have in the hunt here? From what I can tell you don't own a new 5.0 or have any experience with them whatsoever. Please enlighten the rest of us with your profound knowledge or are you just posting to be a jackass?
 

TheCPE

Skeptic
Established Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
1,702
Location
FL
Just don't take it personal when I say a fact like the guy at the Texas Mile's fastest run was WITH a JLT, because it's a fact, period. ;)

It is also a fact that with the JLT he ran his slowest time at the Texas Mile.

Now I can't imagine why you aren't advertising that... :nono:



For those interested wbt's JLT is sitting in my garage and I will be performing my tests this weekend.

My test will be a single gear pull using a GPS box with before and after runs done in the same locations and same DA.

If the JLT makes more power it will be easily apparent with the GPS data.

Now I know the results wont mean anything to the people that WANT to believe the part makes power or WANT to sell the part but to anyone else, the results should be interesting, and oh yeah, I'm not trying to sell anything.
 

Carbd86GT

You're Gator Bait
Established Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
5,838
Location
Jupiter, Florida
It is also a fact that with the JLT he ran his slowest time at the Texas Mile.

Now I can't imagine why you aren't advertising that... :nono:

Because you can't blame someone's driving inconsistency on a cold air intake. The potential is obviously there, it went faster, now it's up to the end user to drive their car.
 

Tucker

Active Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
4,727
Location
Chesapeake VA
It is also a fact that with the JLT he ran his slowest time at the Texas Mile.

Now I can't imagine why you aren't advertising that... :nono:

I'm not advertising any of it, becasue it's a joke. He addressed me in his post and I ignored it. Bottom is, you guys can't handle the facts that YOU post.
All your cars have gone faster WITH the JLT. But you'll keep testing until you get that glory run without it and then you can jump for joy
.

For those interested wbt's JLT is sitting in my garage and I will be performing my tests this weekend.

My test will be a single gear pull using a GPS box with before and after runs done in the same locations and same DA.

If the JLT makes more power it will be easily apparent with the GPS data.

So your testing will be "unbiased" and "inconclusive" but all the thousands of others don't know what they are doing?:lol:
Now I know the results wont mean anything to the people that WANT to believe the part makes power or WANT to sell the part but to anyone else, the results should be interesting, and oh yeah, I'm not trying to sell anything.

Not really about "believing" in it, it's about knowing what's fact and what's been proven for 70 years. I "believe" in Big Foot, but I know for a fact a better breathing engine makes more power!

Thanks
Jay
 

TheCPE

Skeptic
Established Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
1,702
Location
FL
Because you can't blame someone's driving inconsistency on a cold air intake. The potential is obviously there, it went faster, now it's up to the end user to drive their car.

Anyone that cherry picks a data point as proof of the performance of their product is dishonest.

Pertaining to driver inconsistency, just what do you think his inconsistency was in his automatic GT driving down a mile straight away... that is a terrible excuse.

Further, once again look at wbt's time slips if "driver inconsistency" is going to be your excuse.

I think it was apparent about 8 pages back but it wouldn't matter what evidence or proof was provided a salesman will spin it however he needs so that he can sell a product.

So I provide this challenge:

What would it take for Tucker to admit his product doesn't work? What test and result would it take?

If there isn't one, that is a shame... an unfalsifiable product (much like an unfalsifiable theory) is useless.
 
Last edited:

TheCPE

Skeptic
Established Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
1,702
Location
FL
Bottom is, you guys can't handle the facts that YOU post.

The longer this thread goes on the more character suicide you perform.

You are a salesman and will spin anything without regard to how dishonest you look.

The best results to date are wbt's runs and they completely proved that your product doesn't make anywhere close to the advertised gains of 15hp. Based on his results at best it made an extra 5hp over the stock box.

But you'll keep testing until you get that glory run without it and then you can jump for joy.

That is just stupid. I can't speak for anyone else but I have no dog in this other than saving myself a wasted $300 or finding out that the $300 would be well spent. What logical reason could their possibly be for me to WANT your product not to work?

So your testing will be "unbiased" and "inconclusive" but all the thousands of others don't know what they are doing?:lol:

Who are these thousands of others? Who else has done real world testing on the 5.0 with a CAI?

it's about knowing what's fact and what's been proven for 70 years.

Another absurd statement.

The 5.0 hasn't been around for 70 years and what might have worked on cars 70 years ago is entirely unrelated to what a CAI might do for this platform.

I know for a fact a better breathing engine makes more power!

That is correct, and these tests are to determine whether or not your CAI makes the engine breath better.
 

MikeLTDLX

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
2,174
Location
Mandeville, La
I think it works. However, I really want to prove that it works. I was in a perfect situation this weekend...until those screws went missing.

Jay, why do you insist on running a different thread pitch with the JLT? I prefer the Torx screws that came with the stocker. While I can understand the universal aspect of a Phillips screw...why change the thread?

Mike
 

Carbd86GT

You're Gator Bait
Established Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
5,838
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Anyone that cherry picks a data point as proof of the performance of their product is dishonest.

When was the last time that ANYONE that has raced their car in certain trim said "My car ran 12.0, but it also ran 12.9" and then called their car a 12.9 car? Yes, time spread I used is more dramatic, but it gets the same point across.

Pertaining to driver inconsistency, just what do you think his inconsistency was in his automatic GT driving down a mile straight away... that is a terrible excuse.
Just because the car has an auto and is doing a mile race DOES NOT take driver inconsistency out of the equation. No THAT is silly.

Further, once again look at wbt's time slips if "driver inconsistency" is going to be your excuse.
I'll have to go back and re-read it, I read it too long ago to remember any of it now.

I think it was apparent about 8 pages back but it wouldn't matter what evidence or proof was provided a salesman will spin it however he needs so that he can sell a product.

So I provide this challenge:

What would it take for Tucker to admit his product doesn't work? What test and result would it take?

If there isn't one, that is a shame... an unfalsifiable product (much like an unfalsifiable theory) is useless.

Likewise question to you... What will it take to show that you are/were/will be wrong? There are 3 tests that show the JLT intake having the faster time, but I'm sure your test will be different and more correct than anyone else's I'm sure ;-)
 
Last edited:

Tucker

Active Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
4,727
Location
Chesapeake VA
I think it works. However, I really want to prove that it works. I was in a perfect situation this weekend...until those screws went missing.

Jay, why do you insist on running a different thread pitch with the JLT? I prefer the Torx screws that came with the stocker. While I can understand the universal aspect of a Phillips screw...why change the thread?

Mike
Simple, Ford changes these screws all the time.
05 GT, M4x10 (we didn't include screws)
05 V6, course threaded screws (started including screws in V6)
06+ GT Ford put course thread screws in GT's (now we include screws in all)
GT500 M4x10
And so on.

It's easier to include and machine fine tread M4 screws than 5 different set ups for each model year screw change.:)

But, if your 5.0 has fine threaded screws, they would have worked on our tube.:rolling:
 

MikeLTDLX

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
2,174
Location
Mandeville, La
Simple, Ford changes these screws all the time.
05 GT, M4x10 (we didn't include screws)
05 V6, course threaded screws (started including screws in V6)
06+ GT Ford put course thread screws in GT's (now we include screws in all)
GT500 M4x10
And so on.

It's easier to include and machine fine tread M4 screws than 5 different set ups for each model year screw change.:)

But, if your 5.0 has fine threaded screws, they would have worked on our tube.:rolling:

I had your screws, not the factory screws. Your screws were not threading in the factory box, and I did not want to force the issue. :(
 

TheCPE

Skeptic
Established Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
1,702
Location
FL
When was the last time that ANYONE that has raced their car in certain trim said "My car ran 12.0, but it also ran 12.9" and then called their car a 12.9 car? Yes, time spread I used is more dramatic, but it gets the same point across.

Apples to oranges. Comparing people quoting their best time at the track isn't related at all to scientific testing of a car part. In one scenario you are looking to improve upon your previous best DRIVING and the other you are intentionally trying to keep everything as constant as possible.

Just because the car has an auto and is doing a mile race DOES NOT take driver inconsistency out of the equation. No THAT is silly.

They are infinitesimal compared to taking a 6MT down the 1/4 mile.

Likewise question to you... What will it take to show that you are/were/will be wrong? There are 3 tests that show the JLT intake having the faster time, but I'm sure your test will be different and more correct than anyone else's I'm sure ;-)

First, I only know of two tests that provided meaningful data with the JLT. Kdanner's and wbt's tests. What is the third? If you are referring to Mike's original test where the 60 ft with the JLT was significantly better and accounted for all of the increase than you've just proven either that you are ignorant or unobjective.

Second, why be so vague about the performance increase of the JLT and say "faster time". With such vague language shaving a thousandth of a second would be sufficient to meet your criteria, however I don't think anyone is going to get too excited about being a thousandth of a second faster which is precisely the point of this entire exercise. Are the "gains" in line with what is advertised and not just in the noise.

Based on wbt's tests I have absolutely no problem with the claim that the JLT has the potential for a 5hp gain. Once I perform my test the gain can either be verified to be statistically significant or in the noise.

From the start I've had the opinion that the CAI isn't good for anywhere close to the asserted 15hp gains claimed/advertised based on dyno pulls and so far that seems to be proven by these independent tests.
 

Tucker

Active Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
4,727
Location
Chesapeake VA
The longer this thread goes on the more character suicide you perform.

:shrug: I don't think so, were busier than ever, I'm just enjoying this now.

You are a salesman and will spin anything without regard to how dishonest you look.
:shrug: Spinning what? Dishonest about what? I'm simply stating facts.

The best results to date are wbt's runs and they completely proved that your product doesn't make anywhere close to the advertised gains of 15hp. Based on his results at best it made an extra 5hp over the stock box.

In his test, yes, that's what were all trying to tell you. If it gained .069, .05 or .5, it GAINED. It's up to you, the customer to decide if you want it or not.



That is just stupid. I can't speak for anyone else but I have no dog in this other than saving myself a wasted $300 or finding out that the $300 would be well spent. What logical reason could their possibly be for me to WANT your product not to work?
:shrug: Not too sure, but you sure are wasting a lot of time fighting about something you "have no dog in". That's what I find so funny.


Who are these thousands of others? Who else has done real world testing on the 5.0 with a CAI?

Thousands of sales and fast cars all over the world. You may not realize the amount of these we sell on a daily basis. Why? because they work and your helping prove it each time you do a test.

Another absurd statement.

The 5.0 hasn't been around for 70 years and what might have worked on cars 70 years ago is entirely unrelated to what a CAI might do for this platform.

:bored: Cars that benefit from air have, LOL



That is correct, and these tests are to determine whether or not your CAI makes the engine breath better.

best of luck in your testing!


I'm not sure how many tests or time you guys want to spend on this, but keep testing.

People want the power
People want the look
People want the sound
People want to squeeze every ounce of power out of their car

Why 3 people want to make it a life mission to dis prove something as simple as an air intake is beyond me, but hey go for it.

My thinking would be... Hey, I added part X to my car, went to the track, it went .xx faster, cool, on to the next part.

Not go to the track 5 more times, go to the Texas Mile, argue online on 2-3 different forums, send kits all over the country for others to test all over a tenth or so in the 1/4.

Seems weird when it's all spelled out doesn't it?
 

wbt

Banned
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
715
Location
Texas
best of luck in your testing!


I'm not sure how many tests or time you guys want to spend on this, but keep testing.

People want the power
People want the look
People want the sound
People want to squeeze every ounce of power out of their car

Why 3 people want to make it a life mission to dis prove something as simple as an air intake is beyond me, but hey go for it.

My thinking would be... Hey, I added part X to my car, went to the track, it went .xx faster, cool, on to the next part.

Not go to the track 5 more times, go to the Texas Mile, argue online on 2-3 different forums, send kits all over the country for others to test all over a tenth or so in the 1/4.

Seems weird when it's all spelled out doesn't it?

Not really considering we are doing the real world testing on our own time/dime that should have been done prior to product release. ;)
 

MikeLTDLX

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
2,174
Location
Mandeville, La
best of luck in your testing!


I'm not sure how many tests or time you guys want to spend on this, but keep testing.

People want the power
People want the look
People want the sound
People want to squeeze every ounce of power out of their car

Why 3 people want to make it a life mission to dis prove something as simple as an air intake is beyond me, but hey go for it.

My thinking would be... Hey, I added part X to my car, went to the track, it went .xx faster, cool, on to the next part.

Not go to the track 5 more times, go to the Texas Mile, argue online on 2-3 different forums, send kits all over the country for others to test all over a tenth or so in the 1/4.

Seems weird when it's all spelled out doesn't it?

Yeah, I am going to have to agree with 90% of this, Jay. The caveat being that if I was able to run the box this weekend, and I went faster, I would be in the midst of a quandry. I like the appearance and the sound of the JLT very much. The sound alone is worth $300 if the performance were a wash. I really like going fast though and I am chasing ET and tenths. I still can't believe that I ran as well as I did this weekend in that heat, without getting really good 60 foot times. I would like to think the JLT was part of that equation, but I 100% must prove it before I can consider it a part that makes the car quicker.

Mike
 

TheCPE

Skeptic
Established Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
1,702
Location
FL
People want to squeeze every ounce of power out of their car

I am no different. Except that I don’t take a salesman’s word for something; never have and never will. I don’t care what number is printed on a box; I want to know what the tangible real world gains are when installed on my car. That is why every performance mod I’ve done to my car I’ve tested in the real world.

Why 3 people want to make it a life mission to disprove something as simple as an air intake is beyond me, but hey go for it.

This is a hobby, cars and going fast. I’m also an analytical person and want to know what the quantitative gains were with my mods as opposed to being content to quote advertised hp and say that is what my car makes ‘cause that box says so.

My thinking would be... Hey, I added part X to my car, went to the track, it went .xx faster, cool, on to the next part.

Not go to the track 5 more times, go to the Texas Mile, argue online on 2-3 different forums, send kits all over the country for others to test all over a tenth or so in the 1/4.

Seems weird when it's all spelled out doesn't it?

Not to me.
Long before the CAI debate even started I’d already performed this same test on my previous two mods. It didn’t seem weird at all to me that the first thing I wanted to do after making some modifications to my car was to measure just how much of a difference they made in a scientific way.

Pertaining to someone shipping their CAI “all across the country”, I was of the opinion that the CAI wasn’t good for 15hp and it would be a waste of my money. Since someone else was also interested in legitimate real world testing and had already ponied up the money and was willing to ship it to me, I figured win-win for me! For me the sound and look doesn’t warrant $300 and neither does ~5hp as opposed to the advertised 15hp.
 

Ry_Trapp0

Condom Model
Established Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
12,287
Location
Hebron, Ohio
i said i would stay away from this but i can't help it, the garbage in here is eyeball deep!!!

Another useless post by yourself.....

Tell me, what dog do you have in the hunt here? From what I can tell you don't own a new 5.0 or have any experience with them whatsoever. Please enlighten the rest of us with your profound knowledge or are you just posting to be a jackass?
that was actually one of my more useful posts in this garbage thread, seeing as how it directly pertained to a comment in the quoted post. of course, it's easier to sling mud than it is to sling logic, and thus we arrive at your post.

my dog is the one that's laughing at this bullshit flawed "testing" that you guys speak of as gospel. hey bro, have you found any more 30HP shorties? cause i sure haven't seen any more of those:lol:

Anyone that cherry picks a data point as proof of the performance of their product is dishonest.

Pertaining to driver inconsistency, just what do you think his inconsistency was in his automatic GT driving down a mile straight away... that is a terrible excuse.
it's not "cherry picking", it's excluding outliers.

weather conditions? track conditions? you guys leave so many variables on the table in your "testing" it's not even funny.

...I have no dog in this...
:lol:now THAT is comedy gold!!!
 
Last edited:

wbt

Banned
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
715
Location
Texas
i said i would stay away from this but i can't help it, the garbage in here is eyeball deep!!!


that was actually one of my more useful posts in this garbage thread, seeing as how it directly pertained to a comment in the quoted post. of course, it's easier to sling mud than it is to sling logic, and thus we arrive at your post.

my dog is the one that's laughing at this bullshit flawed "testing" that you guys speak of as gospel. hey bro, have you found any more 30HP shorties? cause i sure haven't seen any more of those:lol:

Again where is your 5.0 and what testing have you done? You don't have anything constructive to post and I could care less what your opinion on the matter is. When you own one of these cars and have something to post of value then lets hear about it. You offer NOTHING and have NOTHING to offer.

For the record on the shorties, a good read here: http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/2011-mustangs-354/792754-shorty-headers-worth.html

I stand behind everything I have tested and the results provided both dyno and track. That is something you can make 0 claim to.
 

AluminatorSnake

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Pennsylvania
Anyone that cherry picks a data point as proof of the performance of their product is dishonest.

Pertaining to driver inconsistency, just what do you think his inconsistency was in his automatic GT driving down a mile straight away... that is a terrible excuse.
Further, once again look at wbt's time slips if "driver inconsistency" is going to be your excuse.

I think it was apparent about 8 pages back but it wouldn't matter what evidence or proof was provided a salesman will spin it however he needs so that he can sell a product.

So I provide this challenge:

What would it take for Tucker to admit his product doesn't work? What test and result would it take?

If there isn't one, that is a shame... an unfalsifiable product (much like an unfalsifiable theory) is useless.

There is a huge difference in the prep on a 1/4 mile and an unprepped surface that is used for a mile, to validate Jareds statement. Even the best drivers in an auto can have a hard time replicating the same traction. So unless there is a 60' or 100' measurement, traction in the mile could play a large role in his times.
 

TheCPE

Skeptic
Established Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
1,702
Location
FL
it's not "cherry picking", it's excluding outliers.

If the slowest run is an outlier than so is the fastest. That is why you average, and if you look at the averages of before and after than there was no significant difference. And btw, you don't just call something an outlier you have to determine it is legitimately an outlier based on how many standard deviations it is from the average.

weather conditions? track conditions? you guys leave so many variables on the table in your "testing" it's not even funny.

What do you know about my test procedure? I can tell very little because you don't understand what you are saying. Just how are the weather and track conditions variables for my test?

You are ill-informed and your posts provide no value, please continue to ignore the thread.
 

TheCPE

Skeptic
Established Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
1,702
Location
FL
There is a huge difference in the prep on a 1/4 mile and an unprepped surface that is used for a mile, to validate Jareds statement. Even the best drivers in an auto can have a hard time replicating the same traction. So unless there is a 60' or 100' measurement, traction in the mile could play a large role in his times.

Unless I'm mistaken kdanner wasn't launching the vehicle at the TX Mile... most people don't launch for a 1 mile run. You roll out and start applying more power as you accelerate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread



Top