Doug@C&L

Ok, the info you've been wanting but are too afraid to ask, hahaaa.

The Granatelli CAI as compared to the C&L Street intake kit. Like I said in another post I thought about dynotuning these two but that might start the he said/she said stuff so I went a little more scientific. I had multiple intake assemblies flow tested as well as checking the inside diameter of the GMS meter housing section of their air intake kit. To do this, I took a drive up to C&L in Huntsville, as they have a fully computerized custom flowbench that is capable of accurately measuring airflow at extremely high volumes. Before you cry "foul", I will assure you that these tests are repeatable, and if anyone questions them, C&L told me that they would be happy to perform this same test for MOST anyone who wants to see this for themselves at their facility. As you all know, I won't post something unless I can stand behind it and the only way I can do that is with unquestionable VALID proof.

First off the flow numbers. This test was done using the standard air filters provided from the manufacturers at different vacuum levels to show maximum possible airflow. The "ACTUAL DEPR" value is the number of inches of vaccum (measured in water) applied to the intake assemblies. When claiming flow values, 25 and 28 inches of depression are most commonly used.

Stock GT airbox Data

GMS CAI assembly Data

C&L Street Data

C&L Racer Kit Data

Stock = 456cfm @ 20 inches 515cfm @25 inches 553cfm @28 inches

GMS = 825cfm @ 20 inches 933cfm @25 inches 989cfm @28 inches

C&L Street = 836cfm @ 20 inches 941cfm @25 inches 1003cfm @28 inches

C&L Racer 95mm = 887cfm @ 20 inches 1005cfm @25 inches 1070cfm @28 inches

Graph showing the differences...


Close huh? Should be as they are basically the same size MAF housing, but I am getting ahead of myself. Now in a post written by JR he says that the C&L intake "requires about 10% less fuel because that is what it flows - about 10% LESS AIR". That would mean that the C&L would have to flow 93.5 LESS cfm @20 inches, 101.3 LESS cfm @25 inches and 112.9 LESS cfm @28 inches. The above numbers disprove that as the test has shown. Here is JR's post...

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...&postcount=260

The air filter...

On the end of the GMS air filter, it says " Made in America", so I did some calling around trying to figure out who made this for him as we all know S&B makes the filters for JLT, C&L, and Demolet and no telling how many others. Of course then there is also K&N but it's not a K&N. After discussing it with a few companies one gave me a short list of things to look at and then gave me a idea of who is making these.

According to one of the product engineers at a filter company, they are unaware of any filter manufactured in the U.S. that is made with the metal seam on the inside of the filter, as is the case with the GMS supplied filter. They have seen such filters produced overseas. These filters take on the appearance of being "oiled" (red or blue in coloring) but stipulate that you do NOT oil them, but rather wash them with water,these are not cotton gauze filters like S&B and K&N and other similar "rewash and re-oil" style filters. This is how the GMS filter is labeled. It says: "DO NOT OIL RINSE WITH WATER TO CLEAN" and "MADE IN USA". Filters like this are typically manufactured overseas(the filter engineer used Korea as an example) and they use a felt material instead of cotton. The felt is "dyed" to make it look like an oil-type filter.

It should be noted that this filter is NOT like the one featured on the GMS website and in his "Paid Advertising Tests" in the magazines that shows an annodized metal end cap.

GMS Air filter Pic 1

GMS Air Filter Pic 2

The endcap of the filter is very thin, and you can see in the picture how a finger pushing from the inside is visible through the end of the filter material.

Now as for the way the pipes look. Well, just look at the pictures below and you tell me?

GMS sitting on top of the C&L CAI

GMS on top of the C&L, frontal view

Pretty similiar huh?

Now as for the airbox or sheild that come with the GMS kit I got it looks almost the same as the one that USED to come with the C&L kits. Although, C&L now has a new airbox with a more rounded top and a single piece of molding, as you can see in the last image, its the one on top.

The GMS sheild

The GMS sheild with the old C&L sitting inside of it

The GMS sheild with the old C&L inside with the new C&L inside

Now while I was there, I did some measuring of the GMS intake pipe and the MAF diameter. As you will notice, it is hard to accurately show the diameter of the inside of the part, as we are dealing with a tapered entry. We opened up the calipers to measure the diameter of some clay after using it to guage the size of the I.D. This way we made sure the caliper readings were the same as the size of the clay.

This is a tapered pipe and even in the largest part of the taper it still only measures 86mm. At the MAF measurement point its only about 83mm..

MAF Diameter Air filter Openings

GMS MAF Opening = 82.8 mm (83mm)

GMS Filter Opening = 85.72 mm (86mm)

This alarmed me because in two posts JR expressly said " Our CAI is NEVER narrower then 90mm on the inside. This is larger then 90% of the CAI's on the market." in this post...

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...9&postcount=87

He also says when comparing his intake to the C&L " C&L - Not a one piece design, smaller inside diameter..." and it is basically the same size...

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...&postcount=242

Finally I did some datalogging with the GMS supplied jumper harness and got some wierd results. With the"C&L Street" air meter housing in place (with the stock MAF sensor) and NO TUNE, the short term fuel trims went up in the + 20's as expected, in other words it NEEDED a tune to correct this. I then plugged in Granatelli's "MAF Jumper" and the fuel trims immediately went into the - (negative) teens. It ranged anywhere from -4 at cruise to -14 or so at idle, which is barely within CEL specs but on my tunes I like for it to be within Ford specs of +/- 5% of 0. When you are close to the Ford specs this gives you plenty of room for different climate changes and air density levels, like altitude. Once you reach the maximum adjustment of the fuel trims, +20 or -20 on both Long and Short terms, that is when you get the codes P0151 and/or P0153 and/or P0171 and/or P0173 depending on if you are rich or lean.

Interestingly enough, the car would NOT rev past 4,500 when I put the jumper on the stock MAF sensor (in a C&L housing). This leads me to believe that the sensor that Granatelli is providing in his kit is probably "not" the same as a stock Mustang unit (or else everyone else would have the 4,500 rpm stall issue) and it wouldn't cause such a rich condition when the jumper is used with the stock meter. It does prove that the device that he is providing is nothing more than a mod to increase the MAF voltage output. In essence, his supplied sensor sends a leaner signal than the stock unit and this jumper device is used to bring the MAF voltage into a range that is comparable with the stock sensor in the factory airbox. His supplied MAF won't function properly without it.

In short, dont use this jumper with the stock MAF because it won't work properly but rather only on the MAF that comes with the GMS CAI. If you are to have a custom dynotune developed for your GMS intake, or if you purchase a tune from me for it, then you will need to use your STOCK MAF sensor into the tube and remove the GMS sensor and jumper. If he were using the "stock" sensor in his kits, then I would not have experienced such a rich condition during my testing. If he was really supplying "CALIBRATED" sensors, then this jumper device would be completely un-necessary.

GMS Jumper cut away

One word about the jumper assembly, it is so long, that it runs all over the PCV valve on the valve cover and interferes with the PCV hose, and the original connector must be stretched "pretty hard" just to get it to plug into the adapter. Once it is all said and done, it is kind of "forced into place".

I will let you come to your own conclusions about the GMS intake. C&L has acknowledged to me that it has obvious similarities with their street system that was introduced nearly 2 years ago. Aparently, this is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened.

96-04 2V GT upper intake plenum (pic)

The plenum on the right is a GMS part.


The C&L intake assembly was first shown at the 2004 PRI show, just 6 weeks after the 2005 Mustang started arriving in dealerships. The first production "Street" kits shipped in early 2005. The larger C&L "Racer" system came out in the Fall of 2005. As far as I can tell from what people have been saying on this forum, the GMS unit did not make it into the hands of customers until either late July or early August of this year.

In conclusion, I've found the GMS intake to be VERY similar to the C&L street kit, but with a supplied "mystery" sensor and a jumper mod to correct for the proper A/F. The questionable thing is, if they are supplying this jumper to correct the voltage reading to the computer, then why didn't they just set it up for use with the stock sensor? The calibration of his supplied sensor is not the same as factory when used in the GMS assembly, and this is why the jumper board is necessary. I plan on doing some dynotesting in a few weeks with one and I'll have my own C&L with me to show some numbers. I dont expect any more or less because they are basically the same dimensions. Please dont take this in the wrong context as I'm not trying to downplay the GMS unit, if I were then I might as well say the C&L Street kit isn't any good either. I'm just trying to show the similarities to the C&L and dispell all of the inaccuracies claimed about the GMS intake as comparied to the C&L Street kit.

Thanks, Doug.

Knight

So are you accusing Granatelli of copying all of C&L's stuff?

did you test the flows of the 99-04 gt upper intake plenum? i was thinking of getting one sson and want to know aout the flows of different ones.

Doug@C&L

Now dont get this wrong, I'm not accusing GMS of anything, I'm just stating how the GMS pipe looks and flows like the C&L, just stating the facts.

As for the Upper intake I only took pictures of that, as it is simliar except for the logo on it.

Thanks Doug.

hi5.0

Interesting - will be watching to see where this one goes...

GT John

WOW!

What an article. Thorough and factual. Leaves the reader with a lot of food for thought.

On the GMS Jumper Cut Away.

I am familiar with simular circuits as these. In Direct Digital Control Systems circuits as these are used to manipulate voltages or currents to produce a desired effect/result. When I saw that GMS was inserting a "Conditioner" in series with the wiring between the sensor and the ECU that was the first thing that popped into my mind. Now I know why. Thanks.

Just for general "Did You Know" this article should become a "Sticky"

I'm still staying with my WMS System though.

GOFISCH

Nice article. But my GMS intake looks much prettier than the one in your picture.

Thomas S

Very nice write-up! I'd still like to see a dyno comparison. I think everyone trusts you to be fair.

Doug@C&L

Yes, definatly. I have one of our members here, Sodaman, and he has one and will be at the St. Louis Dynoday with his GMS kit. I've already used the C&L a/f adjustments on his car and sent him a X-cal and he says it's working great. From there we'll put it on the dyno using both the GMS jumper and my tune and the stock meter to see what the a/f readings come out to be. As for Hp, comparing the Jumper harness to a tuned setup wouldn't be fair because I add timing on the tuned setup and the jumper doesnt.

As for installing a C&L on his car, I could probably do that too but with the above results showing that they are so similiar there's no real reason to. To me that would be like dynoing a Red Mustang and a Blue Mustang just to see which one makes more power. Still, the posibility exsists and I may do so if we have time at the dynoday.

Thanks! And that's what I'm saying here. This isn't a one is better then the other as far as Hp and Tq go, this is a comparison thread giving facts between the two intakes, mainly showing the similiarities, and dispelling all of the wrong information between the two.

Thanks! Doug.

bwilder10h

Very interesting and very detailed offering Doug.

Which filter do you think is better in terms of leaving the dirt and dust at the door? I didn't order an intake when I bought my tuner from you because I've always heard those open filters don't work as good as a closed airbox and a paper filter. What are your thoughts?

LBJay

I have no dog in this hunt but I have a question.

Since according to my quick calculations the maximum flow that could be needed on a 4.6L is under 500cfm, doesn't that make the above flow number all but useless? Both seem to be able to flow well in excess of the needed cfm.

blaster

I think the point of doing measurements was to dispel the claim that the C&L flowed 10% less than the GMS.

ski

Great write-up, Doug.
Your test results provide further proof that Granatelli states false and misleading claims for his products.

Doug@C&L

The point is to show the maximum amount of flow between these two units and at different points, hence the 20,25 and 28. These are the standards of by which most all airflow measurements are taken, IE Cylinder heads, intake manifolds.... If the measured airflow levels were lower then the differences would still be the same just lower overall numbers.

If 500 cfm was the best then the stock GT intake wouldnt be able to be improved upon.

Thanks! Doug.

Fords4Ever

Doug,

It seems that the only dyno comparison that would make sense would be a bone stock GT with C&L CAI and a minimum street tune vs Granatelli CAI w/MAF and no tune - one that makes it run with no codes.

Additionally another dyno comparison could be run with stock GT with C&L CAI and any other incremental tune, 89,91, race, etc. vs Granatelli CAI with stock MAF and the same tunes as just previously mentioned.

This is just my opinion but I (and I suspect some others) could care less what the actual cfm flow is, etc. the bottom line is on the ground HP and TQ.

If you (or someone, not trying to pin this one you) don't use the same car and keep all other variables to a minimum, then a dyno doesn't seem to make much sense - IMO.

Just my .02 also I'd like to hear Granatelli's responses. I am a litle concerned about the contradictions to JR's posts/statements. I'd like to hear him clear those up.

LBJay

CFM= (CID*RPM*VE) /3465
(VE= volumetric efficiency)

Leaving VE out of the equation (usualy less than 100%) That would be (281x6250)/3465 = 508 CFM

At 90% VE it's only 457cfm.

Am I missing something?

neil07gt

CAI are more efficient than a stock box. The engine doesn't have to work as hard to pump the air. Your formula doesn't take into account the work needed to overcome the restriction of the intake.

LBJay

By taking out the VE, the calculation is the theoretical MAXIMUM amount the engine can draw with no intake restriction at all.

VE is all the restrictions/loss in the entire intake/exhaust system.
MAX vs Actual CFM

ski

Volumetric efficiency is the pressure of the air flowing into the cylinders of an operating internal combustion engine during the inlet cycle as compared to the pressure of the surrounding atmospheric air. If the cylinders are filled with air at atmospheric pressure, then the engine has 100% volumetric efficiency. However, if the cylinders are filled with air that's less than atmospheric pressure, or a partial vacuum, then the engine has less than 100% volumetric efficiency.
This means that the S197's engine will always flow inlet air at approx. 508 cfm at 6250 rpm. The only parameter that will vary is the pressure of the air that's in the cylinders.

Since all engines have components(air intake, filter, throttle body, intake manifold, valves, and ports) installed upstream of the cylinders that cause resistance, and hence loss of pressure, to the air flowing through these components, then it's obvious that the air which flows into the cylinders of all naturally aspirated engines will be less than atmospheric. (Supercharged and turbocharged engines are an exception, since they have air in their cylinders that's normally at pressures that are higher than atmospheric due to pressure boosting.)
The amount of pressure loss below atmospheric, and hence the loss of VE and resultant loss of power, can be reduced by decreasing the resistance that each component imparts on the air flow. This is accomplished by increasing the cross sectional area of the various inlet components(optimal x-sec. area depends on the engine's displacement, and whether it's N/A or blown), increasing the smoothness of their passageways, and maintaining quality during their production.

The flow tests on the C&L, GMS, and stock intakes indicate that the C&L unit has the highest air flow at the 3 test vacuum levels. This means that its design contributes the least amount of resistance to the air flowing through it of the 3 tested intakes.
And this in turn means that it can either flow the same amount of air per unit time with a lower pressure loss(higher VE & more power) as compared to the other 2 tested intakes, or similarly flow a larger amount of air per unit time with the same pressure loss(more air & more power).

In addition, the 20, 25, and 28 inch levels of depression are a STANDARD by which things are flowed, under a vacuum, measured in inches of water. These vacuum levels are HIGHER than what these intakes are exposed to when installed in a vehicle, in the "real world". If you were to measure all of these assemblies at a lower test pressure, then the numbers would be correspondingly lower "across the board", but the same percentage differences in flow between them would still exist. If you choose to compare the flow capacity of each of the intakes at a specific CFM/Airflow rate, then you would be measuring the differences in depression or level of vacuum, and not actual AIR FLOW RATES. You would then see that the higher flowing units are measuring that specific airflow rate at a lower test pressure/depression than the lower flowing intake assemblies which are lower flowing, and therefore, more restrictive. This results in a higher vacuum or depression level in the intake assembly, and the engine has to work harder to draw the airflow through the intake assembly. You can't simply choose to say that "3 inches of test pressure" is the typical amount of vacuum in the intake at wide open throttle, because the actual amount of vacuum/depression within the higher flowing assemblies would be LOWER, because they are LESS RESTRICTIVE.

ski

When the air/fuel ratio and timing is the same on ANY vehicle, the only thing that can distinguish the performance of one part from another IS THE ACTUAL AIRFLOW.

ski

Quote from JR:
"Our CIA is never narrower then 90mm on the inside. This is larger then 90% of the CIA's on the market. If you are not happy we will always refund your money."

There you go.
You should ask for a refund if you feel that you were misled by his statements into purchasing his intake assembly.