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

[TheCPE]

When you do your test please be sure to post the datalogs so we can see the tunes are the same for each run.

I'm not the tuner, it is an email tune with no JLT and with JLT modification only :shrug:

I just showed 15+ RWHP over the stock box on our '13 no problem.

You ran it at the drag strip?

Or are you talking about a dyno again...

Don't you think you should address why you continue to claim 15+ hp and yet wbts testing showed ~5hp in the real world?

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

[1] 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.

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

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

ad hominem - An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.​

[1] my ability to critique the flawed methodology and corresponding results being promoted as gospel in this thread is not dependent on my possession of a 5.0l mustang. you don't have to be a musician to know that william hung can't sing.
apparently the only thing you can offer is flawed testing and logical fallacies.

[2] yep, read that thread, as well as the others. saying that a part will gain 25HP by comparing dyno runs from 2 different cars is not quality testing.

[3] i'd rather have zero testing and results in my name than obviously flawed testing and corresponding results. quality > quantity

[1] 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.



[2] 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?

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

[1] when we're talking about a part that is less restrictive on the intake side, which run is the more likely outlying statistic? it's not scientific(not that this "test" ever was), just common sense.
true, there is FAR from enough data from this texas mile test to conclusively prove anything.

[2] this discussion is about the texas mile JLT testing, is it not? are you really gonna say that weather and track conditions are inconsequential in that test?
as far as your testing, 60-130s with GPS data acquisition, right? wasn't that your thread from a little while ago?

[3] my posts are pointing out flaws in the methodology being discussed here, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. it's very easy to add me to your 'ignore' list if it bothers you that much. i certainly won't be going away by your request though:lol:

damn that was funny. great post its still slower than a 11-12 GT500 stock hahahahaha

:beer:

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

"From our testing, we've found that the factory air intake assembly for the '11 GT flows 748.7 cfm, which is a reduction in airflow of approximately 50 cfm versus the factory '10 GT air intake assembly, which flowed right at 800 cfm," said Bender. "This difference is due to the fact that the new vehicle now features a single round throttle body that is placed lower in the engine compartment. The new inlet tube is both smaller and has a different airflow path, which makes it more restrictive than the one that was used on the '10 GT models."

So Bender and the rest of the C&L team designed a new cold-air intake to replace the stock piece. What they came up with was a kit that flows over 1,100 cfm, a 45 percent increase over the stock piece.
2011 Ford Mustang GT Intake And Exhaust Installation - Inhale And Exhale - Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords Magazine

thought that was pretty interesting.

 

[JerryC]

Just a thought, if flow numbers are what matters, why would you not just have an intake that is basically putting the air filter on the throttle body?

Seems like there is more to making hp from an intake, than just flow numbers.

 

[TheCPE]

[1] when we're talking about a part that is less restrictive on the intake side, which run is the more likely outlying statistic?

That is terrible logic. First, prove by how much this CAI is less restrictive, don't just say it is. Second, prove that is actually a bottleneck, if it isn't than it is moot. Third, determining an outlier by disregarding all but desired/expected results as opposed to by using statistical analysis is just plain stupid.

[2] this discussion is about the texas mile JLT testing, is it not? are you really gonna say that weather and track conditions are inconsequential in that test?

No. This is about several different independent tests that are being done. You specifically referenced mine when pointing out weather and track conditions and you have no idea what my test is as obvious below in your next quoted section.

as far as your testing, 60-130s with GPS data acquisition, right?

No, that isn't how I'm going to test the JLT. That is a measurement I've done to see how my car would compare to other vehicles in a roll race. As expected, you haven't read much in this thread, don't know what you are talking about and you post useless stuff.

[3] my posts are pointing out flaws in the methodology being discussed here, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

Your posts are pointing out your lack of understanding of what is being discussed here.

You have still yet to offer any valuable response in this thread! :beer:

 

[TheCPE]

"From our testing, we've found that the factory air intake assembly for the '11 GT flows 748.7 cfm, which is a reduction in airflow of approximately 50 cfm versus the factory '10 GT air intake assembly, which flowed right at 800 cfm," said Bender. "This difference is due to the fact that the new vehicle now features a single round throttle body that is placed lower in the engine compartment. The new inlet tube is both smaller and has a different airflow path, which makes it more restrictive than the one that was used on the '10 GT models."

So Bender and the rest of the C&L team designed a new cold-air intake to replace the stock piece. What they came up with was a kit that flows over 1,100 cfm, a 45 percent increase over the stock piece.
2011 Ford Mustang GT Intake And Exhaust Installation - Inhale And Exhale - Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords Magazine

thought that was pretty interesting.

This proves once again you haven't read much in this thread or at least understand what you were reading. We've been down this road already.

Who cares if the aftermarket CAI supposedly can flow 45% more if it isn't a bottleneck.

 

[TheCPE]

Just a thought, if flow numbers are what matters, why would you not just have an intake that is basically putting the air filter on the throttle body?

Seems like there is more to making hp from an intake, than just flow numbers.

I wish someone would make that, it would be hilarious, and would probably "add" 50 hp! :banana:

 

[JerryC]

I wish someone would make that, it would be hilarious, and would probably "add" 50 hp! :banana:

Add E3 plugs and Zmax oil treatment and get another 20 HP!

 

[wbt]

[1] my ability to critique the flawed methodology and corresponding results being promoted as gospel in this thread is not dependent on my possession of a 5.0l mustang. you don't have to be a musician to know that william hung can't sing.
apparently the only thing you can offer is flawed testing and logical fallacies.

That is assuming you have experience, knowledge and facts to back it up with. You don't. You are a moron plain and simple.

 

[AluminatorSnake]

That is assuming you have experience, knowledge and facts to back it up with. You don't. You are a moron plain and simple.

How do you know he doesnt have the know how, or facts?

And lets do the same to you, you have noexperience, knowledge, or facts to back up your claim about him being a moron, so by your logic you must be a moron yourself. See what i did there?

Since you havent disputed the fact that once corrected that your car ran faster by .69 seconds and .69 mph with the JLT, are you going to keep it on your car once you get it back? Didnt you say that if your car ran faster with it on you would leave it on?

 

[Red Turtle]

This thread has run its course.