[JPxM0Dz]

Originally Posted by Laika

Airaid should consider redesigning the intake (because they won't have any buyers after these independent tests) and offer current owners a replacement.

It shouldn't even be that expensive. I'm willing to say most of the problem comes from the design of the box. Look at the AFe takeda and how the opening of the box goes far forward and if I remember correctly, even ever so slightly through the opening behind the bumper.The airaid doesn't quite come close to this and other members have suggested this lends it to pulling in more hot air around the radiator.

In the long run I wouldn't care about paying for another intake (afe) but I'd really like Airaid to resolve their issue because their customer service is second to none. Let's hope that shows in this situation too.

Anyone agree?

This is their position that was posted in another thread, so until they can see that there is an issue or problem with the existing intake, I highly doubt we will see an updated design

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...t=19413&page=4

Originally Posted by AIRAID

These are certainly interesting results, but they just don’t add up. With all due respect to the OP, we take issue with the following:

1. It doesn’t look like the long term fuel trims had been established for our intake system. We are basing this on the extremely rich AFR, especially on the 4th gear run. It’s not surprising that it lost power- it’s below 10:1 at 6600 RPM. The test vehicle averaged 12:1 on the baseline runs. Our kit would never run this fat when the vehicle is properly acclimated. Besides losing a noticeable amount of power, this would also result extremely poor fuel economy. This would be a direct contradiction to the increased MPG claims of many of our current users.

2. There’s no way to compare dyno runs against each over a 4 week period and expect to come up with valid data. We could show similar variances in power on a single stock vehicle from morning to afternoon, let alone over a month. When testing these cars, you’re really splitting hairs with bolt on parts. The wider your test spread, the less accurate your data.

3. We’ve sold over a hundred of these systems to date without issue. How would anyone NOT notice a 10% power loss after installing our intake on their daily driver?

4. There seems to be confusion as to whether or not the ECU was reset with each test. If the ECU was not reset and the vehicle was not given enough time to establish long-term fuel maps, this would explain the results.

It takes highly accurate equipment to measure the small gains produced by bolt-on parts on these engines. We use a Mustang AWD -500 series. This Eddy Current dyno applies a road/vehicle load simulation during the test. This load applied is very critical on today’s more sophisticated fuel systems. Proper fuel delivery is based off of load calculations with input from the mass air meter, TPS, and or MAP.

We also invest hundreds of hours of R&D into every intake kit we develop. We have tested this particular kit on several different cars, including our own, during development and well into production. We have consistently produced the numbers that we claim, and we stand behind them. On this particular kit, as with all of our kits, we published fair, average horsepower and torque numbers, not the max we saw from one test. We’re not in the business of selling products that don’t work as claimed; those that do aren’t around for very long.

When taken as a whole, these results simply do not add up and contradict not only our own tests, but those of other customers and consumers.