~ EVO X : AEM - WORKS - INJEN Intake Shootout: Round 1

[evoate]

Adding the AEM intake is like getting a partial tune (because it is slightly changing tuning paramters...a/f...boost). Save the money you would spend on the intake and just get a real tune. It would be cheaper and with better results.

Once the car is tuned, then add your intake or exhaust (one part at a time) and retune it again. Now you are seeing the net result of the modification. At this point, if the mod allows you to run higher boost or more timing, it is because of the mod and not because there was room already left on the table prior to adding the part.

Most people are going to get their car tuned for maximim performance (or should). So next test, take a tuned car then add/change a part and re-tune. The net result will be much more useful that just putting parts on a stock car that alter parameters and in the end (once tuned) won't really add much to the final numbers.

[artnsx]

Great stuff, threads like these are what make forums so great.

Most people are going to get their car tuned for maximim performance (or should). So next test, take a tuned car then add/change a part and re-tune. The net result will be much more useful that just putting parts on a stock car that alter parameters and in the end (once tuned) won't really add much to the final numbers.

agreed, that info would be useful, but also consider that some people may be limited on spending or are simply looking to keep their mods very light (intake and exhaust) and will never get re-tuned. To these people, the information provided thus far is very useul

[saimike]

Originally Posted by artnsx

Great stuff, threads like these are what make forums so great.




agreed, that info would be useful, but also consider that some people may be limited on spending or are simply looking to keep their mods very light (intake and exhaust) and will never get re-tuned. To these people, the information provided thus far is very useul

I disagree.

Everybody has a slightly diff setup. The only way to compare apples to apples is to use a completely stock car. Otherwise you will keep getting requests to test it with intake-a, exhaust-b, etc. And get endless debates that if u do this or that differently, the results will be diff.

[evoate]

Although I don't think this test of the AEM intake was done properly (if you are going to get the car tuned), I did like how the stock filter was compared to the works filter and also to no filter (because maf and boost are not altered by these changes).
I would have also liked to see a test of no filter with front of airbox completely removed (maf exposed) to see if the airbox (particularly the intake snorkel) is restricting any of the flow.

Overall, this would have been a better test if only air filter's that use stock maf (like Buschur's, ETS and drop-ins) were tested....otherwise tuning is necessary to see what the filter itself is actually doing for you if it alters boost and/or AF.

If you are never going to get tuned or add an MBC (doesn't make sense to me) then get the AEM filter, but it seems to me you are wasting more money on parts and getting less HP and your car is still not running as it should with proper AF's etc.

[Enjoitk]

i love my aem intake

[ImEv0]

great post! i cant wait for round 2!

[evo_soul]

A few points have been raised and i would like to respond to them. I like this feedback because it allows me to consider multiple angles on this debate and if possible refine the testing model.

Originally Posted by evoate

Adding the AEM intake is like getting a partial tune (because it is slightly changing tuning paramters...a/f...boost). Save the money you would spend on the intake and just get a real tune. It would be cheaper and with better results.

Once the car is tuned, then add your intake or exhaust (one part at a time) and retune it again. Now you are seeing the net result of the modification. At this point, if the mod allows you to run higher boost or more timing, it is because of the mod and not because there was room already left on the table prior to adding the part.

Most people are going to get their car tuned for maximim performance (or should). So next test, take a tuned car then add/change a part and re-tune. The net result will be much more useful that just putting parts on a stock car that alter parameters and in the end (once tuned) won't really add much to the final numbers.

Alot of intakes are coming smarter. Smart in the sense of their design and complexity. For example sake, relating to this dyno test. Both AEM and INJEN to some degree tune their Intakes, which in a sense somewhat return the car. When these companies and others like them release a product , the have goal and parameters to work within.

To address your second point, once you get into Tuning is a fair more difficult and complex matter. One that I dont think is possible to accurately gauge / benchmarket. Logic is this. No two tuners are created equal, and No two cars are created exactly equal. The are differences in Tuning styles and experience. About the car... Even right of the production line no two cars, or if you want to say, no two batches are exactly identical. One car may give 1 hp more than the other one, in another case far less. You get the point. The problem when you combine these two things together it becomes impossible to use a uniform standard of gauging one products performance over another. Finally tuning a product beyond what it was original designed to do or perform may have other side effects, in some cases harmful. Both from a warranty stand point or powertrain life expectancy.

Revisions in regards to what was discussed here can not be incorporated into this testing. The cost of tuning, and retuning, and then redundancy testing would make Frank Sprongl a very unhappy man.

Originally Posted by saimike

I disagree.

Everybody has a slightly diff setup. The only way to compare apples to apples is to use a completely stock car. Otherwise you will keep getting requests to test it with intake-a, exhaust-b, etc. And get endless debates that if u do this or that differently, the results will be diff.

This is to further the point expressed earlier.

This testing is limited because it is not really wise to attempt to do what I call Synergy benchmark testing. Your example A Intake with B exhaust. It would leave some with the idea that "oh well" Intake A is great so I will go out and get Exhaust C and the results should be the same. Or you can look at it form the different side of that argument... but the main point is to evaluate what a Manufacturer releases in its form and gauge its performance on a uniform configuration. Its difficult enough to control other variables as it is. weather, humidity and human error / experience. All have been minimized to the best of my ability.

[evo_soul]

Addressing your second post...

Originally Posted by evoate

Although I don't think this test of the AEM intake was done properly (if you are going to get the car tuned), I did like how the stock filter was compared to the works filter and also to no filter (because maf and boost are not altered by these changes).
I would have also liked to see a test of no filter with front of airbox completely removed (maf exposed) to see if the airbox (particularly the intake snorkel) is restricting any of the flow.

Overall, this would have been a better test if only air filter's that use stock maf (like Buschur's, ETS and drop-ins) were tested....otherwise tuning is necessary to see what the filter itself is actually doing for you if it alters boost and/or AF.

If you are never going to get tuned or add an MBC (doesn't make sense to me) then get the AEM filter, but it seems to me you are wasting more money on parts and getting less HP and your car is still not running as it should with proper AF's etc.

In regards to the first part of this post about the AEM test not being done properly, can you please be more specific If you think my response misses what you were talking about?
Testing the capability of the stock box in its Stock Box configuration complete is a more legitimate way of performance a no filter test. Now yes the hood is raised during our testing. Which some may have a problem with, but for the sake of simulating real world performance. But since we dont have a wind tunnel available this will make due. Get to the "airbox completely removed" part. In a real world senario this wouldnt work due to heat soak. Assuming that air flow is more efficient, the problem of true heat soak could possibly wash out any benefit.

In regards to your last point, about waste of money. That would be a value judgement which can not be easily assigned. There are costs, availability, experience, and a whole list of other factors that go in to making any kind of judgement. Now as a pretty fair example. If I ask Frank, a ECUTEK tuner how much is it going to cost me to tune my EVO X (which I dont have, sigh....) He is going to tell me 1600 bucks. (Canadian) Some would say, great, other would say wow thats expensive I think not, others will say I really want to a tune but I will elsewhere. But there is a value judgement that everyone arrives at. It depends on where you live, quantity of service suppliers, and also the quality of these suppliers. Oh ya and back to the cost = wallet.

The other alternative is to reach out to a hardware solution such as the things we are doing now here. Testing Bolt on hardware solutions is what I am doing. Testing them right out of the box as they were intended to be used. So when it comes to a value judgement I can say that it doesn't really much have anything to do with this testing.

MBC ? I dont rule out auxiliary hardware, so long as its something the manufacturer designates as a must for the primary product in question. I would perfer similar options because the testing gets way less complicated. and remember there is a budget that must be followed which is very very very tiny. hehe but hey I am open to someone donating a few grand to do more advanced stuff. lol

[evoate]

Originally Posted by evo_soul

Alot of intakes are coming smarter. Smart in the sense of their design and complexity. For example sake, relating to this dyno test. Both AEM and INJEN to some degree tune their Intakes, which in a sense somewhat return the car. When these companies and others like them release a product , the have goal and parameters to work within.

To address your second point, once you get into Tuning is a fair more difficult and complex matter. One that I dont think is possible to accurately gauge / benchmarket. Logic is this. No two tuners are created equal, and No two cars are created exactly equal. The are differences in Tuning styles and experience. About the car... Even right of the production line no two cars, or if you want to say, no two batches are exactly identical. One car may give 1 hp more than the other one, in another case far less. You get the point. The problem when you combine these two things together it becomes impossible to use a uniform standard of gauging one products performance over another. Finally tuning a product beyond what it was original designed to do or perform may have other side effects, in some cases harmful. Both from a warranty stand point or powertrain life expectancy.

Revisions in regards to what was discussed here can not be incorporated into this testing. The cost of tuning, and retuning, and then redundancy testing would make Frank Sprongl a very unhappy man.




This is to further the point expressed earlier.

This testing is limited because it is not really wise to attempt to do what I call Synergy benchmark testing. Your example A Intake with B exhaust. It would leave some with the idea that "oh well" Intake A is great so I will go out and get Exhaust C and the results should be the same. Or you can look at it form the different side of that argument... but the main point is to evaluate what a Manufacturer releases in its form and gauge its performance on a uniform configuration. Its difficult enough to control other variables as it is. weather, humidity and human error / experience. All have been minimized to the best of my ability.

http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-x-d...tuned-ttp.html <---This is exactly why you can't just go throwing intakes on (without tuning) and put them on the dyno and say look at the HP this one made.

[rcboosted]

Originally Posted by evo_soul

TTP to addresss your comment on if there is a flaw in the design. I am not really in a position to answer that question if there is a problem you find with its construction or methods the manufacturer used I will certainly raise it with my next Q&A with AEM.

Did you ever find out if AEM is raising the boost?

Whether it's getting old or if we're beating a dead horse, I still think if the boost level is raised, it is NOT a fair test. What if I start selling a stock intake coupled with a sort of MBC that raises the boost? Can I say my intake is better? Testing back to back with a stock intake and my intake, I'll be making more power. But is my packaged stock intake better than factory stock intake? How can you argue it's not better if the dyno graph showed gains?

If a test isn't done with the same parameters, what good is it? Sure if I just want to throw an intake on the car and stop modding, AEM is better. But what if the WORKS filter actually flows better, but I ended up buying the AEM because people argue that the AEM "as a product" gave me more gains, then later on I mod the car further and found out my AEM intake is keeping me from making more power, which intake is better then?

I'm not saying WORKS is better than AEM, I'm just saying the test need to address all the paramenter to be fair. IF the AEM intake raises boost, perhaps 2 tests for the AEM. One tested as-is, the other without the raised boost to really test the actual flow of the intake/filter.