Comparison of the GMS and C&L CAI's with detailed info...
11/3/06, 12:51 AM
#201
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
I agree with you and the mystery is what exactly is the purpose of this re-calibrated MAF sensor if we already know the jumper harness is what actually adjusts for the proper A/F ratio through its modified signal 
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 9/17/23 at 11:26 PM. Reason: Revised Text
11/3/06, 12:53 AM
#202
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11/3/06, 12:56 AM
#203
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Yea, that's the ticket 
11/3/06, 04:57 AM
#204
So with C&L claiming..
How does that make them any different than GMS?
With some people falling 10+ HP short of C&L claims, why aren't they sending them back in droves?
Gains of 26 rear wheel HP and 22 ft/lbs of torque are realized in "peak to peak" comparison, and as much as 30 more rear wheel HP and 25 ft/lbs of torque in the upper RPM's have been measured, and should be expected.
With some people falling 10+ HP short of C&L claims, why aren't they sending them back in droves?
11/3/06, 07:57 AM
#205
Legacy TMS Member
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?
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?
Does the GMS do a good enough job filtering the air? What about C&L? I just bought a Granatelli a couple weeks ago (long before I saw this thread). If GMS provides an inferior filter, will the C&L filter fit (since the two intake tubes are so similar? Like everyone I want more power, but not if it means an inferior filter...
11/3/06, 10:17 AM
#206
Member
Join Date: August 2, 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My main point isn't about A/F, or whether the GMS CAI makes power. It's that it DOESN'T make twice the power of the C&L as they are basically the SAME THING, only C&L designed it two years earlier.
The bottom line here is msully has implied his GMS CAI and "h-back exhaust" has him at the equivalent of 315 RWHP on a Dynojet, which works to around 370 crank HP. This is a crock of ****.
The bottom line here is msully has implied his GMS CAI and "h-back exhaust" has him at the equivalent of 315 RWHP on a Dynojet, which works to around 370 crank HP. This is a crock of ****.
Always dyno when adding a CAI. Canned tune, no tune, whatever. What we DO know is the stock tune is mega rich for headroom. I'd like to see a stock stang dyno'd, then a GMS CAI added and NOTHING else, and then dyno'd. F' the HP and TQ, I want to see the A/F.
You shouldn't just "trust Granatelli".
You shouldn't just "trust Granatelli".
11/3/06, 10:33 AM
#207
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I just made an appointment for tomorrow morning, so I should know exactly where my a/f is, and if it's safe. But, when I actually post the dyno numbers, I'm just going to cut and paste the same dynosheet that GMS has on their website, and alter the graph to say 2005 Mustang GT, like every other GMS user does. 
11/3/06, 11:40 AM
#208
GT Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: L.A. area
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope this isn't a double post....Anyway, don't know if this relates to all the bickering, but last August I took my '07 to Granatelli and had a CAI/MAF installed and Dyno'd as a comparison to an '06. Granatelli was not out of my sight during the Dynos...here is a copy of a post back then:
Saturday as promised. Here are the results
stock for stock they are only 2.7hp apart from each other
after the install of just a Cold Air Intake
so the 2006 did +28.8 HP and +24.1 ft/lbs!
and the 2007 did +25.5 HP and +21.5 ft/lbs!
Saturday as promised. Here are the results
stock for stock they are only 2.7hp apart from each other
after the install of just a Cold Air Intake
so the 2006 did +28.8 HP and +24.1 ft/lbs!
and the 2007 did +25.5 HP and +21.5 ft/lbs!
11/3/06, 11:44 AM
#209
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I just made an appointment for tomorrow morning, so I should know exactly where my a/f is, and if it's safe. But, when I actually post the dyno numbers, I'm just going to cut and paste the same dynosheet that GMS has on their website, and alter the graph to say 2005 Mustang GT, like every other GMS user does.
Uhm, wow. OK, maybe I'll be a little bit more careful about what I say. I just got a PM from another user with a GMS CAI, and he pointed out the times on the two dyno graphs. If you look at the date and time on one of the dynoruns on the GMS website, which says it is on a 2006 Mustang GT here http://www.granatellimotorsports.com...yno27small.jpg it shows the base run being done on 10 August, at 1:44:19 PM. Now, the one that msully posted here which says its on a 2007 GT vert http://forums.bradbarnett.net/attach...0&d=1162271757 shows the same base HP and torque numbers, and exactly the same date and time, 10 Auguest at 1:44:19 PM. So now I see what eci was referring to, and my apologies. I saw the different cars listed, and also the different HP and torque peaks. Obviously someone really is altering some stuff around here, I just had a hard time believing someone actually would. Msully, if you're still around, would you like to try and clarify this a little? This just gives me more reason to get dynod, so tomorrow, I will have a better idea of what I'm actually putting down. For now, I'm going to go eat a large slice of humble pie. Got milk?
11/3/06, 11:46 AM
#210
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope this isn't a double post....Anyway, don't know if this relates to all the bickering, but last August I took my '07 to Granatelli and had a CAI/MAF installed and Dyno'd as a comparison to an '06. Granatelli was not out of my sight during the Dynos...here is a copy of a post back then:
Saturday as promised. Here are the results
stock for stock they are only 2.7hp apart from each other
after the install of just a Cold Air Intake
so the 2006 did +28.8 HP and +24.1 ft/lbs!
and the 2007 did +25.5 HP and +21.5 ft/lbs!
Saturday as promised. Here are the results
stock for stock they are only 2.7hp apart from each other
after the install of just a Cold Air Intake
so the 2006 did +28.8 HP and +24.1 ft/lbs!
and the 2007 did +25.5 HP and +21.5 ft/lbs!
Edit: OK, I see what you're saying now, first was comparison between the 2006, but still, the date/time thing gives me the heebie jeebies
11/3/06, 12:20 PM
#211
I don't see how just becasue I haven't jumped on the GMS bashing bandwagon that makes us GMS shills.
If you read most of my posts, all I said was it would be nice to see a fair comparison of each product on a dyno so we can see all of the numbers, a/f ratio included.
11/3/06, 12:30 PM
#212
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying you haven't upgraded your muffler bearings yet?
I don't see how just becasue I haven't jumped on the GMS bashing bandwagon that makes us GMS shills.
If you read most of my posts, all I said was it would be nice to see a fair comparison of each product on a dyno so we can see all of the numbers, a/f ratio included.
I don't see how just becasue I haven't jumped on the GMS bashing bandwagon that makes us GMS shills.
If you read most of my posts, all I said was it would be nice to see a fair comparison of each product on a dyno so we can see all of the numbers, a/f ratio included.
11/3/06, 12:36 PM
#213
So with C&L claiming..
Gains of 26 rear wheel HP and 22 ft/lbs of torque are realized in "peak to peak" comparison, and as much as 30 more rear wheel HP and 25 ft/lbs of torque in the upper RPM's have been measured, and should be expected.
How does that make them any different than GMS?
With some people falling 10+ HP short of C&L claims, why aren't they sending them back in droves?
Gains of 26 rear wheel HP and 22 ft/lbs of torque are realized in "peak to peak" comparison, and as much as 30 more rear wheel HP and 25 ft/lbs of torque in the upper RPM's have been measured, and should be expected.
How does that make them any different than GMS?
With some people falling 10+ HP short of C&L claims, why aren't they sending them back in droves?
11/3/06, 12:50 PM
#214
Cobra R Member
Join Date: November 12, 2004
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe you guys are still worked up so much on this cai. It works. It feels good etc. Looks great. If you like it buy it , you wont be disappointed. Then when your ready to tune, swap out the MAF's install a tune from doug, and be even better. Why is there so much talk about this dyno, that dyno, dates etc. I was a mechanic for about 8 years. I have worked on just about every kind of car. I like the CAI, best looking on the market, other than the plastic C&L racer in my opinion. Polished and shiny. Works Well whatever way you want to run it. I can't wait till doug dyno's my car next weekend, hopefully you all will trust that dyno graph. We will have plenty of witnesses there for the dyno day. So I guess just wait till then. Will post numbers as soon as available. Two thumbs up on this CAI.
11/3/06, 01:11 PM
#215
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if I used a JLT intake I would still be a GMS hater, simply because I cannot tolerate deceitful people.
11/3/06, 01:33 PM
#216
GT Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: L.A. area
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blitz, I'm not trying to call you a liar or anything, but again, here we have another dyno with the same date and time for a base run, August 10, at 1:44:19 PM. I think I've warped into the Twilight Zone
Edit: OK, I see what you're saying now, first was comparison between the 2006, but still, the date/time thing gives me the heebie jeebies
Edit: OK, I see what you're saying now, first was comparison between the 2006, but still, the date/time thing gives me the heebie jeebies
As I think you realize mine is the'07 Dyno on Aug 12. The "numbers" were "copied"-literally and exactly from a post on this website a few days later..it was posted by Granatelli as a comparison to an '06 that was in his shop a few days earlier. I have copies of my runs at home...we also did a run with one of his throttle bodies which added another 12 RWHP...I stayed with the stock throttle body for now, but will be adding it later. If I remember correctly it brought the total RWHP to 298+a hair.
I posted the info here simply as a point if interest. I must say however I am happy with the set-up, have had no problems, and that my dealer views GMS as a quality operation.
FYI...I just realized my "join" date is the same as my "DYNO date"..I had followed the different topics on TMS since learning way back in March, from this site, that I could order an '07 as early as 3/17...which I did a few days later, takinf delivery 7/20. Never had a reason to post here earlier, although had a lot to say on Blue Oval looking for my car!
11/3/06, 01:54 PM
#218
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redfire--
As I think you realize mine is the'07 Dyno on Aug 12. The "numbers" were "copied"-literally and exactly from a post on this website a few days later..it was posted by Granatelli as a comparison to an '06 that was in his shop a few days earlier. I have copies of my runs at home...we also did a run with one of his throttle bodies which added another 12 RWHP...I stayed with the stock throttle body for now, but will be adding it later. If I remember correctly it brought the total RWHP to 298+a hair.
I posted the info here simply as a point if interest. I must say however I am happy with the set-up, have had no problems, and that my dealer views GMS as a quality operation.
FYI...I just realized my "join" date is the same as my "DYNO date"..I had followed the different topics on TMS since learning way back in March, from this site, that I could order an '07 as early as 3/17...which I did a few days later, takinf delivery 7/20. Never had a reason to post here earlier, although had a lot to say on Blue Oval looking for my car!
As I think you realize mine is the'07 Dyno on Aug 12. The "numbers" were "copied"-literally and exactly from a post on this website a few days later..it was posted by Granatelli as a comparison to an '06 that was in his shop a few days earlier. I have copies of my runs at home...we also did a run with one of his throttle bodies which added another 12 RWHP...I stayed with the stock throttle body for now, but will be adding it later. If I remember correctly it brought the total RWHP to 298+a hair.
I posted the info here simply as a point if interest. I must say however I am happy with the set-up, have had no problems, and that my dealer views GMS as a quality operation.
FYI...I just realized my "join" date is the same as my "DYNO date"..I had followed the different topics on TMS since learning way back in March, from this site, that I could order an '07 as early as 3/17...which I did a few days later, takinf delivery 7/20. Never had a reason to post here earlier, although had a lot to say on Blue Oval looking for my car!
11/3/06, 01:57 PM
#219
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately no, I have removed my GMS t-body and reverted back to stock. While looking very nice, the idle thing just wore me down on a daily driver.
11/3/06, 02:46 PM
#220
GT Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: L.A. area
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts