[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by sflgator

Oh, ok. Sounds great! The Stett CAI may just be on the agenda for my 2010 335i then. How is the install? It seems a bit more complicated and time consuming than a DCI...is that the case?

It is more difficult, but my DIY in the other section should make it easy. Really it still is only 1 - 1 1/2 hours for a moderately skilled installer.

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by Riss Racing

Great review! The dual cone system did well on Nicks dyno.

I think what Former_Boosted_IS's testing tells us is that open-hood, huge fan blowing dyno testing vs. "real-world" street drive testing will yield completely different results.

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

It is more difficult, but my DIY in the other section should make it easy. Really it still is only 1 - 1 1/2 hours for a moderately skilled installer.

Ok. So, like 2-3 hours for me then...ha ha. Thanks.

[jcarlucci1]

Has this really been proven though? yes, I know the dci's show gains over the stock box on the dyno, but with several people running in the 11's and low 12's on the stock airbox it may not be as restrictive as some say it is (mainly those selling aftermarket intakes) There has been alot of feedback from those who went from dci back to stock and felt more power, including myself..would be interesting to see..

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

jcarlucci, I think you are right in your AIT estimate on the stock IC.

Remember, even if the stock intake provides colder air then the DCI, the flow increase in the DCI should more than over come any AIT advantage the stock intake has.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by jcarlucci1

Has this really been proven though? yes, I know the dci's show gains over the stock box on the dyno, but with several people running in the 11's and low 12's on the stock airbox it may not be as restrictive as some say it is (mainly those selling aftermarket intakes) There has been alot of feedback from those who went from dci back to stock and felt more power, including myself..would be interesting to see..

It would take a lot of arm twisting right now because I am trying to move forward with the car. I will think about testing the stock intake.

Regardless, we have a ton of info that we never had before.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Regardless, we have a ton of info that we never had before.

And that's what really matters. Props.

[STETT Performance]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Ok, I have done FATs style testing on the 2nd run in the data log (first on the charts). This is for 2nd through 3rd gear because I could verify 100% throttle on both runs in this section.

DCI FATs style time = 7.69 seconds
STETT CAI FATs style time = 7.47 seconds

That makes the STETT CAI 0.22 seconds faster through the 2nd to 3rd gear pull.

This then means the STETT CAI produced 8 degrees colder AITs in that run and the car was 0.22 seconds faster from 2nd through 3rd gear.

Keep in mind as outside/ambient air temps drop (colder outside), the engine bay temps don't drop accordingly. Therefore the differences on cooler days/nights should be more. Those borderline freezing nights in December become much more easy to tolerate!

Originally Posted by sflgator

I think what Former_Boosted_IS's testing tells us is that open-hood, huge fan blowing dyno testing vs. "real-world" street drive testing will yield completely different results.

Dyno's will yield accurate numbers (when properly calibrated) but real world application does take many more variables into effect. Most dyno fans can only muster up enough air to simulate 10-15mph of airflow. There are some big ole fans that can get a bit higher.

Nice work Former_Boosted_IS!

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by STETT Performance

Keep in mind as outside/ambient air temps drop (colder outside), the engine bay temps don't drop accordingly. Therefore the differences on cooler days/nights should be more. Those borderline freezing nights in December become much more easy to tolerate!



Dyno's will yield accurate numbers (when properly calibrated) but real world application does take many more variables into effect. Most dyno fans can only muster up enough air to simulate 10-15mph of airflow. There are some big ole fans that can get a bit higher.

Nice work Former_Boosted_IS!

No problem STETT. I and a lot of the community apprecaite your willingness to have your product tested like this. This answered some key questions.

[Panoz]

I'm impressed from the detailed review of the "Former_Boosted_IS" . That was very impressive.

Do not take me wrong that I believe Vendors should have all these comparisson tests made in the first place and not the "end-users".

[STETT Performance]

Originally Posted by jcarlucci1

Has this really been proven though? yes, I know the dci's show gains over the stock box on the dyno, but with several people running in the 11's and low 12's on the stock airbox it may not be as restrictive as some say it is (mainly those selling aftermarket intakes) There has been alot of feedback from those who went from dci back to stock and felt more power, including myself..would be interesting to see..

Even though dyno numbers don't always show full gains, I think the fact our CAI dyno's 15-20rwhp more than the stock airbox speaks for itself. There's no rule that says to run 11's you have to have a CAI. You maybe running 11.90's with the stock box but by uncorking the intake side you could be running 11.60's. A bone stock Z06 can run 11.5's all day long but swap the stock airbox for something less restrictive and it will run 11.2's. There's no doubt the stock airbox can be used to make impressive numbers but a CAI will make even more impressive numbers.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by Panoz

I'm impressed from the detailed review of the "Former_Boosted_IS" . That was very impressive.

Do not take me wrong that I believe Vendors should have all these comparisson tests made in the first place and not the "end-users".

It is ok. Sometimes vendors numbers don't seem to match end user results. There are intakes that starts with the letter "I" and "A" that have shown nothing but a loss in power, yet the company claimed 20 rwhp. I think relying on our own independent testing is always going to be the most reliable.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by STETT Performance

Even though dyno numbers don't always show full gains, I think the fact our CAI dyno's 15-20rwhp more than the stock airbox speaks for itself. There's no rule that says to run 11's you have to have a CAI. You maybe running 11.90's with the stock box but by uncorking the intake side you could be running 11.60's. A bone stock Z06 can run 11.5's all day long but swap the stock airbox for something less restrictive and it will run 11.2's. There's no doubt the stock airbox can be used to make impressive numbers but a CAI will make even more impressive numbers.

STETT, the stock box is sitting on top of the hot engine and in my opinion there is no way it could do anything but produce the hottest charge temps. Your intake is showing 9 degrees F colder air then intakes on the side of the engine. In my opinion, the stock intake should suffer from massive heat transfer by conduction from the engine and convection (being at the top of the enclosed engine bay) and produce the hottest AITs of all. Colder AITs will always help in the long run. Even if you get one fast run on the stock box, the AITs will rise fast if you do not take precautions with things like an intercooler, CAI, or meth.

Second, be careful basing your decision on 1/4 results. Things like skill level, wheel weight, tires, etc. all affect things enormously. My testing was simple and repeatable by anyone. I was not testing what is faster, but what will allow you to produce the most power and most consistent power. If the flow is equal and the air is colder, then if all else equal you will be faster.

[eyemdbmw]

sorry for the noob question but have we proven that air flow is equal between the CAI and DCI. It seems like we might have, in a round about way, proven this, yes?

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by eyemdbmw

sorry for the noob question but have we proven that air flow is equal between the CAI and DCI. It seems like we might have, in a round about way, proven this, yes?

Not a noob question. We determined the JB3 did not cut boost in the high rpms. If there was a flow issue with the CAI, then the JB3 will detect it and reduce boost. Those are the facts that we know on this issue.

[Proper Motion LLC]

AIT and IAT is the same shit right? lol

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by 09AlpineTTSedan

AIT and IAT is the same shit right? lol

Yes. Some call it Air Intake Temperature (AIT) and others Inlet Air Temperature (IAT).

[scalbert]

When looking at the above, it appears the DCI pulls were longer; there are more data points during the pulls. The primary difference I see is that begining temperatures are different which would be expected and more dramatic in stop and go traffic. At WOT and at speed, the engine bay air volume is replaced in less than a second. The replenishing air comes from outside the engine at a high speed so the differences would be minimal here. But as mention, in low speed situation, the starting temperatures would be different.

Any chance you measured boost as well as solenoid duty cycle? I would like to see what the relative airflow was.

Nevertheless, I may pick up this intake as summer dropped on us quickly and the traffic heat soak is noticeable.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by scalbert

When looking at the above, it appears the DCI pulls were longer; there are more data points during the pulls. The primary difference I see is that begining temperatures are different which would be expected and more dramatic in stop and go traffic. At WOT and at speed, the engine bay air volume is replaced in less than a second. The replenishing air comes from outside the engine at a high speed so the differences would be minimal here. But as mention, in low speed situation, the starting temperatures would be different.

Any chance you measured boost as well as solenoid duty cycle? I would like to see what the relative airflow was.

Nevertheless, I may pick up this intake as summer dropped on us quickly and the traffic heat soak is noticeable.

Scalbert, no that is not true. Remember listed those over data points only because the time just make the bottom of the graph look terrible. The time of the runs was logged as I showed in my pseudo FATS testing. Those time of the runs was very close and with identical RPM start and stop numbers. In addition the difference between the two rapidly changed as the rpms rose noting the larger gap at the top of the graph.

I didn't measure boost because it is a null value since the JB is manipulating it. I didn't measure solenoid duty cycle, but since the JB3 dynamically adjusts boost we would see the difference in a boost drop off at high RPMs.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Scalbert, no that is not true. Remember listed those over data points only because the time just make the bottom of the graph look terrible. The time of the runs was logged as I showed in my pseudo FATS testing. Those time of the runs was very close and with identical RPM start and stop numbers. In addition the difference between the two rapidly changed as the rpms rose noting the larger gap at the top of the graph.

I didn't measure boost because it is a null value since the JB is manipulating it. I didn't measure solenoid duty cycle, but since the JB3 dynamically adjusts boost we would see the difference in a boost drop off at high RPMs.

As I said, it appeared that way but without the raw data, one cannot say for sure.

I thought it was a long shot as you would have to externally tap into the solenoid signals with a duty cycle monitor when runnign the JB3. The PROcede does have duty cycle output available as a data logging channel. It would be interesting to see though. Considering if both ran the same boost but with one requiring more duty cycle, you could conclude one was more free flowing. That said, I doubt there would be any measureable difference at all in this regard.

Looks like I have found my next purchase though...

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by scalbert

As I said, it appeared that way but without the raw data, one cannot say for sure.

I thought it was a long shot as you would have to externally tap into the solenoid signals with a duty cycle monitor when runnign the JB3. The PROcede does have duty cycle output available as a data logging channel. It would be interesting to see though. Considering if both ran the same boost but with one requiring more duty cycle, you could conclude one was more free flowing. That said, I doubt there would be any measureable difference at all in this regard.

Looks like I have found my next purchase though...

I can post the log times if needed though. The runs were identical in rpm start and stop as I mentioned, but here is the pseudo FATS testing for 2nd through 3rd gear pulls:

DCI FATs style time = 7.69 seconds
STETT CAI FATs style time = 7.47 seconds

I am glad I was able to help. I suspect it would be a cake walk install for you, but if you have any questions just drop me a pm.

[Alex]

Excellent info for a newb, thanks for your hard work.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by Alex

Excellent info for a newb, thanks for your hard work.

Alex, no problem at all. I hope these threads will remain searchable so others can benefit without doing the same testing.