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

[MikeLTDLX]

What is up with that track in TX? INSANE MPH!

Anylizing your times compared to my last time at the track IMO both our tracks are F'd up. LOL

WBT's 1/8th to 1/4 ET and MPH gain: (accleration rate assuming no tire slipage)
4.1s / 27.18mph gain
4.088 / 26.7mph
4.093 / 24.23mph (after boxes were run over)

Kdanner's:
4.018 / 28.79
4.02 / 28.89
4.018 / 25.86 (box run over)
4.013 / 25.69 (box run over)
4.012 / 25.78 (box run over)

Last time I ran: (fastest run 11.25, slowest 11.38)
Right lane:
4.082 / 18.0mph
4.083 / 17.91
4.078 / 17.77
4.068 / 17.95
Left lane:
4.074 / 22.071
4.063 / 22.54
4.072 / 22.58

Never seen a low 11 / high 10 second car pick up 28+MPH at my local track! Last time out my buddies ZR1 picked up 23-24mph (10.9 ET), and his 8 second Turbo fox picks up 28-29mph max. At the same time seeing my low 11 second car picking up 18mph is also rediculous! Especially when switching lanes is such a huge difference in MPH yet ET is the same.

Looks to me like all 3 cars/drivers are very consistent, but niether track MPH is consistent. IMO yet again, the CAI test is invalid as the data is not consistent enough.

WBT, can you post all the JLT vs STOCK CAI timeslips?
And where are the data logs to verify Ignition timing, Cam timing, and A/F were identical?

Shaun:

On my best airbox run to date (the 11.96), I gained 23.89 mph between the 1/8th and 1/4.

The best airbox run on my JLT test night was a gain of 23.37.

The best JLT run on JLT test night was a gain of 23.28.

The bigger question is, why are you not picking up? We have basically the same tune, so what is going on? Your ET and mph are crushing mine, but you are not seeing the top end gain that I am.

Mike

 

[MikeLTDLX]

Stock CAI probably creates a high pressure zone in the box due to it being sealed and 100+MPH air hitting the inlet 'ram air' style.
JLT and all others are not a sealed inclosure, so *if* there is any high pressure in the stock box at 1/8th to 1/4 mile speeds, the aftermarket CAI's would not benefit compared to stock.

So....who's going to put a boost gauge on their stock CAI box and go race? LOL

You??? :beer:

Mike

 

[kdanner]

What is up with that track in TX? INSANE MPH!

It's consistently like that, in January I saw a 27.75 gain on a 3.99 back half, 25.3 gain on a 4.11 back half from 14 months ago.

 

[Shaun@AED]

Sac raceway F'd with their 1/4 timers a while back. Ever since trap speed has been down an average of 4, but they left the 1/8 alone.

 

[MikeLTDLX]

Sac raceway F'd with their 1/4 timers a while back. Ever since trap speed has been down an average of 4, but they left the 1/8 alone.

Well, that could be it right there.

Mike

 

[kdanner]

And where are the data logs to verify Ignition timing, Cam timing, and A/F were identical?

Obviously I won't share the datalogs, there are numbers which can be seen there which could then be exploited by others for profit. My recipe as far as ignition lead, lambda, etc, will remain just that, mine.

 

[Tucker]

:shrug:

Tucker, not knocking the product, I'm just thinking out loud. I think your CAI should make the car go faster, but if track results don't back up the dyno results I start looking for reasons why.
Restricted inlet, aero around the inlet, whatever.

I understand and it's been covered, but not so much in this thread.

The tuner needs to know how to tune the car correctly for an intake on the street.
If the tune only changes the MAF transfer it can hit many limiters and reduce tq to the ground.
We know the powers there per engine dynos and chassis dynos, but it's up to the tuner to make it work on the customers car.

Shaun @ AED got it fugured out as well as tons of others.:beer:

I have a question.
If the timing lights were damaged should the times be off too?:shrug:

Or is that calculated differently?

 

[wbt]

What is up with that track in TX? INSANE MPH!

Anylizing your times compared to my last time at the track IMO both our tracks are F'd up. LOL

WBT's 1/8th to 1/4 ET and MPH gain: (accleration rate assuming no tire slipage)
4.1s / 27.18mph gain
4.088 / 26.7mph
4.093 / 24.23mph (after boxes were run over)

Kdanner's:
4.018 / 28.79
4.02 / 28.89
4.018 / 25.86 (box run over)
4.013 / 25.69 (box run over)
4.012 / 25.78 (box run over)

Last time I ran: (fastest run 11.25, slowest 11.38)
Right lane:
4.082 / 18.0mph
4.083 / 17.91
4.078 / 17.77
4.068 / 17.95
Left lane:
4.074 / 22.071
4.063 / 22.54
4.072 / 22.58

Never seen a low 11 / high 10 second car pick up 28+MPH at my local track! Last time out my buddies ZR1 picked up 23-24mph (10.9 ET), and his 8 second Turbo fox picks up 28-29mph max. At the same time seeing my low 11 second car picking up 18mph is also rediculous! Especially when switching lanes is such a huge difference in MPH yet ET is the same.

Looks to me like all 3 cars/drivers are very consistent, but niether track MPH is consistent. IMO yet again, the CAI test is invalid as the data is not consistent enough.

WBT, can you post all the JLT vs STOCK CAI timeslips?
And where are the data logs to verify Ignition timing, Cam timing, and A/F were identical?

In reality, this is the best CAI track comparison to date.

I made a total of 4 passes. The only slip that wasn't posted was the 11.49 run. No reason to post it as I blew the tires off the car on launch so it is not comparable.

Kris didn't datalog my car at the track as he was capturing info from his to prep for the Texas Mile next weekend. We did capture data when we street tuned earlier this week. That will be up to him to post it. I can assure you the ONLY difference in the tunes was the MAF transfer function.

 

[MikeLTDLX]

I can assure you the ONLY difference in the tunes was the MAF transfer function.

Perhaps this is an issue, if you guys hit a limiter in the tune. I really don't know. I do know that Shaun and I logged and logged and logged and constantly hit issues. Were you guys seeing any timing being pulled? We were, so I ran one degree reduced global with both the JLT and the Box tune at the track (to be even). Also, the timing reduction was not consistent. It did it sometimes, and sometimes it did not. False knock, maybe...or real. :shrug:

Mike

 

[Tucker]

Obviously I won't share the datalogs, there are numbers which can be seen there which could then be exploited by others for profit. My recipe as far as ignition lead, lambda, etc, will remain just that, mine.

Without seeing logs we have no idea if the tune is the same stock vs intake.

This right here makes for a 100% inconclusive test no matter who does it.

Timing and all other peramters must be the same for a fair test.

The people involved in the test hate intakes and parts sellers, do you really think they are going to give an unbiased test?

That's like GM getting a 2013 GT500, testing it on their track and reporting the ZL1 killed it.

 

[Tucker]

There you go with your selective reading again. Keep it up, you make yourself look more foolish every time you do it. Are you really that desperate to sell these things?
I'm going to waste more of my time and put your product on my car at the Texas Mile next week. More real world testing which you have totally failed to do before selling these things.

1) Not desperate at all, just love to show people what you read on the net isn't always fact.

2) Good luck at the Texas mile. That takes balls! :beer:

Best of luck, we're looking forward to the results.
I'm guessing a head wind on the stock box runs and an inconclusive result...

 

[TheCPE]

I think to date that wbts runs are the most useful. Would it be better if the trap system hadn't been run over and started malfunctioning? Sure.

However with a few simple equations and using the numbers on the time slips you can tell that either the trap calculation is wrong or during the stock box runs he accelerated much faster for most of the last 1/8 and then let off and coasted down the last bit (where the trap is calculated) which is quite a stretch to assume and would require nothing short of a miracle to do that and still have a 4.09 sec back half to match the JLT runs.

The time (4.09) was the same for the last 1/8, the initial velocity was basically the same ~95.5, and the distance 660 feet was the same. Do the calculation and you get 3.15 and 3.17 m/s/s accelerations ie the same. So if this is true again you only have two possibilities as to why the final velocity is different.

And as far as my understanding of the timing systems, the trap is calculated in the last 66 feet with two sensors whereas the ET is stopped by the last sensor only. Hence the ability for an improperly calculated trap but correct ET.

When I get the JLT to test I'll be using tunes from the same shop with only difference being that one is for stock box and one is for JLT.



One final note just to play devil's advocate here:

If as Tucker continues to assert, the problem really is in the tunes and that these things really do make 15 additional hp, than what good is a part that requires such impeccable tuning that no shop and no hobbyist has yet to be able to figure out how to get these gains in the real world?

 

[wbt]

Perhaps this is an issue, if you guys hit a limiter in the tune. I really don't know. I do know that Shaun and I logged and logged and logged and constantly hit issues. Were you guys seeing any timing being pulled? We were, so I ran one degree reduced global with both the JLT and the Box tune at the track (to be even). Also, the timing reduction was not consistent. It did it sometimes, and sometimes it did not. False knock, maybe...or real. :shrug:

Mike

No timing being pulled with either intake when we street tuned.

We ran into no limitations and experienced no "limiters" of any sort.

 

[wbt]

Without seeing logs we have no idea if the tune is the same stock vs intake.

This right here makes for a 100% inconclusive test no matter who does it.

Timing and all other peramters must be the same for a fair test.

The people involved in the test hate intakes and parts sellers, do you really think they are going to give an unbiased test?

That's like GM getting a 2013 GT500, testing it on their track and reporting the ZL1 killed it.

So you are basically calling Kris and I liars. Real classy.

I don't hate parts sellers or intakes. I hate mis-information and vendors who do nothing but spam and push parts making claims that their part will make "X" amount of gains.

The community needs folks who are not affiliated with selling parts to independently verify such claims and post unbiased, real world results.

You have consistently shown the "real" Jay Tucker in these discussions and have lost a lot of face over it. What a shame.

 

[kdanner]

Perhaps this is an issue, if you guys hit a limiter in the tune.

There are no limiters impacting these cars. I haven't had any kind of limiter impacting me from a 2011 auto GT since June of 2010. Shaun is stuck with a tuning solution which has severe limitations in both the ability to change the calibration, and the ability to datalog. When an automatic transmission is thrown into the mix, this is even further compounded.

Without seeing logs we have no idea if the tune is the same stock vs intake.

This right here makes for a 100% inconclusive test no matter who does it.

Timing and all other peramters must be the same for a fair test.

You've already proven yourself multiple times to read and quote only the sections you want to, leaving things out that directly refute the sections you want to quote.

Even if I gave you a datalog you wouldn't understand it. And if you did, you still wouldn't be able to tell anything about many possible changes by looking at a log, you'd have to have the calibrations and the ability to read and understand them too. You think I'm handing over my calibrations? Hell no.

You know I have a whole bunch of logs from those very consistent passes my car made last night. I could have easily said they were logs of WBT's passes and handed them over, and no one would have ever known the difference. Or for that matter I could just edit up some logs and make them say whatever I want. But I didn't take the dishonest route, even though you want to imply that I am dishonest somehow in this testing.

It was a great night at the track, everything went well, I had previously road tuned these cars quite a bit, and I didn't have to change one damn thing with them all night last night. WBT's car got flashed one time, to change the transfer function. Other than that it is doing exactly what I want it to. Mine, I didn't have to do anything more than put some fuel in it. It only needs the tires changed and the front end taped up and it is ready for the Texas Mile.

 

[Tucker]

One final note just to play devil's advocate here:

If as Tucker continues to assert, the problem really is in the tunes and that these things really do make 15 additional hp, than what good is a part that requires such impeccable tuning that no shop and no hobbyist has yet to be able to figure out how to get these gains in the real world?

It hasn't been hard for the last year and a half, so that's not what I'm saying.
We have several cars running low 11's 1/5 years ago at the 5.0 shootout without a problem.
IS it in the tune? YES
IS it hard to tune? That's a question for the tuners here?

So you are basically calling Kris and I liars. Real classy.

I don't hate parts sellers or intakes. I hate mis-information and vendors who do nothing but spam and push parts making claims that their part will make "X" amount of gains.

The community needs folks who are not affiliated with selling parts to independently verify such claims and post unbiased, real world results.

You have consistently shown the "real" Jay Tucker in these discussions and have lost a lot of face over it. What a shame.

I'm not calling anyone a liar, but on that same note are you calling me a liar on the gains we make?
It's a 2 way street brother.

If the logs are not posted the test results are void. You guys have made it clear you don't like intakes and don't like me (as sad as that makes me). So to do your own test and not prove it was even is a waste of readers time. Fact!
Put the shoe on the other foot. I do this test and it's a fail due to the interest I have to make it work. Same goes for you.

The "real" Jay Tucker stands behind his product and fights for what's right.

You can spin it how ever you like, but the fact is intakes work and until you prove anything else the public knows what's right.

Others may sit back and read without posting. I will post about what's false and show when people are not looking at the entire picture.
Sorry, I'm not going away anytime soon.

 

[kdanner]

The 2011-12 GT is just like every other "air pump" in the world, let it breathe easier, and it will reward you with more power. :beer:

You know, this IS interesting. You're correct about one thing, let it breathe easier and you will be rewarded with more power. Of course there has to be a restriction to begin with in order for that to happen.

Here's the problem, the actual numbers, specifically 772 CFM. So lets convert liters to cubic feet. 1 liter = 0.0353146667 cubic feet , we have a 5 liter engine, so the displacement of the engine in cubic feet is 0.1765733335. Now we want to look at how many cubic feet in 1 minute. Well the higher the RPM, the more cubic feet per minute. So let's use my car, I take it right up to the 7800 RPM that is all the processor can do. Don't forget we only get the 5 liters of displacement after 2 crankshaft revolutions, so we need to cut the RPM value in half. Now assuming 100% volumetric efficiency, and actuality is that it is less than that, but even if it was, 0.1765733335*3900=688 CFM. So the math also shows why I don't have an aftermarket CAI, or a throttle body for that matter. Even if we had 100% volumetric efficiency we wouldn't top 772CFM until nearly 9000 RPM.

 

[Shaun@AED]

You know, this IS interesting. You're correct about one thing, let it breathe easier and you will be rewarded with more power. Of course there has to be a restriction to begin with in order for that to happen.

Here's the problem, the actual numbers, specifically 772 CFM. So lets convert liters to cubic feet. 1 liter = 0.0353146667 cubic feet , we have a 5 liter engine, so the displacement of the engine in cubic feet is 0.1765733335. Now we want to look at how many cubic feet in 1 minute. Well the higher the RPM, the more cubic feet per minute. So let's use my car, I take it right up to the 7800 RPM that is all the processor can do. Don't forget we only get the 5 liters of displacement after 2 crankshaft revolutions, so we need to cut the RPM value in half. Now assuming 100% volumetric efficiency, and actuality is that it is less than that, but even if it was, 0.1765733335*3900=688 CFM. So the math also shows why I don't have an aftermarket CAI, or a throttle body for that matter. Even if we had 100% volumetric efficiency we wouldn't top 772CFM until nearly 9000 RPM.

Odd. Limiter at 7900, hit's 7900. Must be something in the calibration.... :burnout:

 

[kdanner]

Odd. Limiter at 7900, hit's 7900. Must be something in the calibration.... :burnout:

I can show you one hitting 8100+ too, will it run the automatic trans? No.

 

[Shaun@AED]

I can show you one hitting 8100+ too, will it run the automatic trans? No.

Me too...
Copperhead is a Copperhead.
They CAN process over 7800RPM, despite transmission.