Best intake option in 2017?

[timmydatooth]

Originally Posted by guybo

http://dsportmag.com/the-tech/scion-...ing-ecutek/10/

With all the guessing and uninformed conjecture on here, I'm a little baffled. There is an independent group that actually tested a bunch of intakes with a tuned and untuned car. I don't understand many of the responses to this thread- this is proof of what an intake will do for your car.

read the article but found it kind of confusing, what was the end result? what was the best intake for our cars? they weren't really clear with that part unless I missed something

[Lantana frs]

Originally Posted by timmydatooth

read the article but found it kind of confusing, what was the end result? what was the best intake for our cars? they weren't really clear with that part unless I missed something

They never overlayed the tuned intake dynos with tuned stock dynos. Probably didn't want to upset their advertising clientele. Don't bother with an intake.

[Detroiter]

They definitely should have put these within the same chart but wanted to post them here just to save everyone the trouble of digging through. Looks to me like some of the intakes definitely make a difference when tuned compared to tuned on stock intake.

[GrimmSpeed]

I answered Timmy's PM this morning before I saw this thread, so I figured I'll post exactly what I sent to him right here for everyone to see. He said to me that the Injen and GrimmSpeed intakes look the same to him, and wanted to know what made the GrimmSpeed intake better:

"Hey Timmy,

It's good to see you are doing your research instead of just blindly buying something. The differences between our intake and Injens are substantial over just the difference in filter.

1. An oiled filter is less restrictive than a dry filter, and less restriction is better for making power. That is why we offer our intakes standard with oiled filters, but we do have a dry filter for sale separately that fits on our website if it ends up being a deal breaker.

2. The differences in the airbox designs are substantial. Injen took a lazy approach and just made the open face of the airbox face the front of the car. Super easy to fit and design, but not good for intaking cold air, especially with its proximity to the radiator. Ours seals to the factory snorkel, which gives a much better supply of cool air. If you go through our development thread i believe we showed where we didnt attach the snorkel to our intake, and actually lost power. I feel that this is the largest flaw with Injen's airbox.

3. The tube routing. The injen intake uses the stock intake tube route which requires a longer tube and a 90 degree bend angle. More angle and more tube length = more restriction. Our intake uses literally the minimum length and bend angle necessary which allows for the least amount of restriction.

4. The MOST important is the large difference in MAF placement and how they tune. The Injen MAF placement is not great. Since the MAF is placed AFTER the 90 degree bend and the reduction in tube diameter, Injen relies on a development where they weld in another smaller tube into the intake tube near the MAF to try and trick the MAF into reading properly. This strategy kind of works, but really doesn't, which requires this intake to be tuned to have the MAF scaled more often than not. Our intake was designed so carefully with everything from MAF tube diameter, to location, clocking, depth, and even has the same factory design air straightener. This is why our intake is regarded so highly, because it follows the OEM MAF curve, and is only off by about 4%. A difference so low that it doesnt require a MAF rescale at all, and has never thrown a CEL.

I would suggest you dig a little deeper on the Injen intake, because there have been TONS of instances of the MAF reading so poorly that the car throws a CEL. On this forum I've read more reviews about the Injen intake that were negative, than that were positive, but I've been on this forum for 4 years now too.

Hopefully this gives you some stuff to look into, and helps out in your search!

Chase
Engineering"

Originally Posted by phrosty

I disagree. Grimmspeed fails the cheat test by doing what most part developers do: not posting dynos comparing the same car tuned for stock and tuned for their intake.

Not singling them out for any reason other than you mentioning them. Every one else does it too (including the Perrin I have). It's all a racket. Get an intake if you want a good sound, not for perf.

The cheat test eh? I could go on and on about the fact that we're the only manufacturer to show as much development, or the only manufacturer to show the testing on the stock intake, or to provide dynos of stock intake, inlet tube, drop in filter, other intakes, and OFT tuned intakes. But that dead horse has already been beaten.

BUT, I jumped into the way back machine here because I knew for a fact that we posted a dyno run of the stock intake with OFT tune, vs our intake untuned, and with the same OFT tune. You might even recognize the name of the guy asking the question:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=33

So I think we actually passed your cheat test. Twice now

Chase
Engineering

[guybo]

I'd like to see a chart comparing the time response to throttle input of various intakes and stock + drop in. My car's throttle response is quicker by a tick with the Injen intake and it makes sense because the TB is much closer to the MAF sensor. It's one of the first things I noticed. There is a slight delay in the time it takes for air to travel from the MAF to the TB and the closer it is, the quicker the throttle response.

From what I read, the closer the MAF is to the throttle body, the quicker the throttle response and the better the engine's high end performance but it's worse for torque and low end performance. The dyno results show that slightly more Tq is made with the Injen though (most of the intakes create Tq). The extra turbulence in the air near the TB is what causes the idling issues and for the fuel trims to be off so much at idle. But on the high end, the faster air flow makes the air less turbulent and it creates more power.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by sly

I trust Cosworth. According to them, an intake does little to improve the performance of our cars. We already have a larger throttle body than the WRX.

Different engine in WRX. Bigger throttle bodies is an old modification method on NA cars. Personally, I don't expect to see any considerable top end gains. If someone cares too much on this, then he bought the wrong car. Great throttle and engine response is what it counts more for me and maybe some torque gains in the low-mid rev range.

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by guybo

I'd like to see a chart comparing the time response to throttle input of various intakes and stock + drop in. My car's throttle response is quicker by a tick with the Injen intake and it makes sense because the TB is much closer to the MAF sensor. It's one of the first things I noticed. There is a slight delay in the time it takes for air to travel from the MAF to the TB and the closer it is, the quicker the throttle response.

From what I read, the closer the MAF is to the throttle body, the quicker the throttle response and the better the engine's high end performance but it's worse for torque and low end performance. The dyno results show that slightly more Tq is made with the Injen though (most of the intakes create Tq). The extra turbulence in the air near the TB is what causes the idling issues and for the fuel trims to be off so much at idle. But on the high end, the faster air flow makes the air less turbulent and it creates more power.

Why would the MAF sensor placement have an impact on throttle response? Are you suggesting that the throttle acts differently based on where the air measurements are taken? I assumed it was just based on throttle mapping and the actual air passing through the throttle butterfly....

[phrosty]

Originally Posted by GrimmSpeed

BUT, I jumped into the way back machine here because I knew for a fact that we posted a dyno run of the stock intake with OFT tune, vs our intake untuned, and with the same OFT tune. You might even recognize the name of the guy asking the question:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=33

So I think we actually passed your cheat test. Twice now

Chase
Engineering

I think you misunderstood me. Here and in my original post, I talked about tuned for stock & tuned for aftermarket. So, a proper maf table on each end. Literally every dyno you've posted has been flawed in this way. You can't compare two things but leave one end uncalibrated. So, no pass for now.

But, I really did not intend to turn this general industry criticism into an argument with a specific vendor. I'll put it to a rest. I cede that you have been among the most open vendors to develop an intake, and I do respect that. I'm sure I'm coming off as some biased dude because I own something else, but I'm really not.

[GrimmSpeed]

Originally Posted by phrosty

I think you misunderstood me. Here and in my original post, I talked about tuned for stock & tuned for aftermarket. So, a proper maf table on each end. Literally every dyno you've posted has been flawed in this way. You can't compare two things but leave one end uncalibrated. So, no pass for now.

But, I really did not intend to turn this general industry criticism into an argument with a specific vendor. I'll put it to a rest. I cede that you have been among the most open vendors to develop an intake, and I do respect that. I'm sure I'm coming off as some biased dude because I own something else, but I'm really not.

I think that its more than a little unfair to say that "Literally every dyno you've posted has been flawed in this way" when of the countless dynos we posted, almost none of the dynos posted were comparing tunes, but instead were comparing hardware.

Also, our testing method is substantially more reliable, repeatable, and applies to the majority of owners. Using the same tune file for the stock intake (which is what the tune file was made for) and on our intake makes the testing of the output with a tune more valid because it removes another variable. If we had done a protune on our intake, and a protune on the stock intake people would just accuse us of not fully tuning the stock intake, and going balls-to-the-wall with our intake. By using the same tune file it shows that the gains are still there, even after the hardware switch, and proves that the difference is BECAUSE of the hardware switch. The only thing that protuning our own intake would accomplish is that we'd see a greater gain. But in a world where the majority of users aren't going to get a protune, but rather will use an OTS from the OFT, showing the data that the majority will get is even more advantageous.

Also we've proven that there is validity in using the tune file for the stock intake because the MAF table is proper for it. The maximum variance between the stock MAF table, and the one Shiv developed was 4%. A variance so small that he nor I have to recommend anything other than his staged tunes for the stock intake.

But clearly we're not going to make you happy, and that's just fine. I just find it extremely unfair to claim that we were cheating data, and that our testing was flawed, when what we did was actually the opposite. To date no one has ever provided the amount of effort, information, or dyno charts for a single product here. I get it, it's fun for people to call shenanigans on manufacturers on the forums, and I encourage that wholeheartedly. Some of these shops are "sweetening up" their data, hell I even saw one intake dyno on here that was clearly done in two different gears, and I remember one company that was posting them with two different IAMs. So always be critical of what someone is telling you even if they are "trustworthy," but make sure you understand what they're presenting to you and why.

Chase
Engineering

[nikitopo]

Some guys here believe cars are like playstations. I prefer manufacturers to compare hardware, than to compare tunes. At least on this GrimmSpeed was much more honest than other manufacturers.

[guybo]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

Why would the MAF sensor placement have an impact on throttle response? Are you suggesting that the throttle acts differently based on where the air measurements are taken? I assumed it was just based on throttle mapping and the actual air passing through the throttle butterfly....

Yes. it does. I was hoping Grimmspeed would speak up on this though I'm curious what they've found in regards to the MAF placement and the pros and cons of putting it closer to the TB. Clearly it sucks at idle and very low RPM, but what has GS found in testing?

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by guybo

Yes. it does. I was hoping Grimmspeed would speak up on this though I'm curious what they've found in regards to the MAF placement and the pros and cons of putting it closer to the TB. Clearly it sucks at idle and very low RPM, but what has GS found in testing?

All the MAF does is measure airflow, it doesn't have an affect on the airflow. The latter is what impacts on throttle response. You want to avoid any turbulence so the readings are clean so that it doesn't impact on fueling/performance but this can be because of it's location too close to the throttle butterfy but equally any other poor placement in the intake.

[GrimmSpeed]

Originally Posted by guybo

Yes. it does. I was hoping Grimmspeed would speak up on this though I'm curious what they've found in regards to the MAF placement and the pros and cons of putting it closer to the TB. Clearly it sucks at idle and very low RPM, but what has GS found in testing?

Well there really isn't much I can add on top of what Kodename47 already said.

We didn't do any testing on placing the MAF near the throttle body, because generally speaking if you can avoid doing so, you always should. With that said, a lot of intake manufacturers chose this route, including TRD. There are so many factors that influence reversion, both in pressure wave, and in actual airflow (restriction in exhaust, cam timing, intake manifold runner length, intake manifold plenum volume, intake diameter and length, restriction in intake, etc). Some times you can get away with having the MAF too close to the throttle body, and sometimes you can't. Sometimes just the proximity to the throttle blade causes issues with the sensor reading, and sometimes there are actual issues with airflow reversion going back up the intake and past the MAF. It's not something we tested, because we were able to avoid it altogether. I can see why TRD placed their MAF where they did on their intake, and it was certainly for packaging. But I don't really know why some other manufacturers placed theirs closer to the throttle body, other than the fact that they were trying to get more developed flow (further away from the bend at the entrance of the tube). That would be a good question to ask them.

As far as an increase in throttle response? That's not something you'll ever get an answer for, because there is no actual definition of throttle response, and it's not something you can measure. Everyone's definition of throttle response will be something different. To me in the literal sense it means the time it takes for the throttle to respond to input (your foot). The only way you can change that on a drive by wire car is to mess with the throttle tables. On cable cars, the response was/is about as fast as you could smash your foot. If what you're referring to is that there might be a change in how quickly the engine reacts based on the distance from the throttle body that the MAF is, from a pure physics standpoint it wouldn't really be noticeable unless you're really good at detecting differences in fractions of a second on extremely tiny scales. So no, unfortunately.

But that's the main issue with "throttle response" as a performance perimeter. It's completely undefined, and unmeasurable as a result.

Chase
Engineering

[guybo]

Originally Posted by GrimmSpeed

Well there really isn't much I can add on top of what Kodename47 already said.

To me in the literal sense it means the time it takes for the throttle to respond to input (your foot)

Yeah that's what I take it to mean too. From what I read that distance from the MAF to the TB can make a difference that is noticeable in that time. Maybe not. Maybe I'm feeling something different but especially on the highway I notice a difference between my old set up with the silicone inlet and K&N drop in and the Injen SP I have now.