Comparison of the GMS and C&L CAI's with detailed info...
11/3/06, 03:29 PM
#221
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it's not necessarily what it does at idle, if sitting at a stoplight or at park, whatever, it idles fine. OK, you know how you first start up your mustang in the morning, and it revs at the higher RPM idle for a while until it warms up, and then it drops down to the normal idle RPM's? Well, if I'm driving and I let off the gas, that's what it does, it hesitates at that higher RPM for a second, and then it drops down to the normal idle. It is possible I had my blades opened too much after reading this http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...&postcount=474
but for now it was just getting on my nerves too much. It might not bother some people, just like drone apparently doesn't bother some people, but for being my daily driver, having to feel that during rush hour stop and go traffic, it got old.
but for now it was just getting on my nerves too much. It might not bother some people, just like drone apparently doesn't bother some people, but for being my daily driver, having to feel that during rush hour stop and go traffic, it got old.
11/3/06, 05:04 PM
#222
Can you provide a dyno of a GMS CAI that shows substantially less than 25RWHP gains? If not then how can you call his performance claims false and misleading?
It just sems like you (and others) have a severe bias and no matter what Doug finds out when he dyno's these CAIs you'll still find a reason to complain about GMS.
11/3/06, 07:24 PM
#223
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was sent to me by another member via PM, I will not disclose their identity out of respect, but it's interesting:
Is Granatelli running his Mustang dyno in "dynojet mode"? If so, Then the 283 RWHP HP numbers seem right. VERY dishonest though if he is doing this and not putting it in the notes. The Mustang community knows to refer to Mustang dyno numbers differently.
253HP on a Mustang dyno would equate to about 288 on a dynojet.
Again, I have NEVER seen more than 262-263 myself SAE corrected on a dynojet. I have a friend/customer who has a Mustang dyno, and he told me that it puts out 14% lower numbers, on average, than a dynojet. So, if you take someone's Mustang dyno numbers and multiply it by 1.14, then it should give you an idea of where the numbers SHOULD/WOULD be on a dynojet.
Another interesting thing is the fact that (like a dynojet) there are MULTIPLE MODES of HP measurement standards in the options of the Mustang Dyno software, including a "DJ power" selection (for dynojet), which gives estimated dynojet numbers on the Mustang dyno. The ONLY way that I can imagine that ANYONE who has just an intake and exhaust could EVER see 280+ at the wheels on a Mustang dyno would just about HAVE to be set up in that mode. I GUARANTEE you that if these guys were to put these cars on a dynojet, they would NOT top 300 HP. No way.
Again, I have NEVER seen more than 262-263 myself SAE corrected on a dynojet. I have a friend/customer who has a Mustang dyno, and he told me that it puts out 14% lower numbers, on average, than a dynojet. So, if you take someone's Mustang dyno numbers and multiply it by 1.14, then it should give you an idea of where the numbers SHOULD/WOULD be on a dynojet.
Another interesting thing is the fact that (like a dynojet) there are MULTIPLE MODES of HP measurement standards in the options of the Mustang Dyno software, including a "DJ power" selection (for dynojet), which gives estimated dynojet numbers on the Mustang dyno. The ONLY way that I can imagine that ANYONE who has just an intake and exhaust could EVER see 280+ at the wheels on a Mustang dyno would just about HAVE to be set up in that mode. I GUARANTEE you that if these guys were to put these cars on a dynojet, they would NOT top 300 HP. No way.
11/3/06, 09:21 PM
#224
This was sent to me by another member via PM, I will not disclose their identity out of respect, but it's interesting:
Quote:
253HP on a Mustang dyno would equate to about 288 on a dynojet.
Again, I have NEVER seen more than 262-263 myself SAE corrected on a dynojet. I have a friend/customer who has a Mustang dyno, and he told me that it puts out 14% lower numbers, on average, than a dynojet. So, if you take someone's Mustang dyno numbers and multiply it by 1.14, then it should give you an idea of where the numbers SHOULD/WOULD be on a dynojet.
Another interesting thing is the fact that (like a dynojet) there are MULTIPLE MODES of HP measurement standards in the options of the Mustang Dyno software, including a "DJ power" selection (for dynojet), which gives estimated dynojet numbers on the Mustang dyno. The ONLY way that I can imagine that ANYONE who has just an intake and exhaust could EVER see 280+ at the wheels on a Mustang dyno would just about HAVE to be set up in that mode. I GUARANTEE you that if these guys were to put these cars on a dynojet, they would NOT top 300 HP. No way.
Is Granatelli running his Mustang dyno in "dynojet mode"? If so, Then the 283 RWHP HP numbers seem right. VERY dishonest though if he is doing this and not putting it in the notes. The Mustang community knows to refer to Mustang dyno numbers differently.
Quote:
253HP on a Mustang dyno would equate to about 288 on a dynojet.
Again, I have NEVER seen more than 262-263 myself SAE corrected on a dynojet. I have a friend/customer who has a Mustang dyno, and he told me that it puts out 14% lower numbers, on average, than a dynojet. So, if you take someone's Mustang dyno numbers and multiply it by 1.14, then it should give you an idea of where the numbers SHOULD/WOULD be on a dynojet.
Another interesting thing is the fact that (like a dynojet) there are MULTIPLE MODES of HP measurement standards in the options of the Mustang Dyno software, including a "DJ power" selection (for dynojet), which gives estimated dynojet numbers on the Mustang dyno. The ONLY way that I can imagine that ANYONE who has just an intake and exhaust could EVER see 280+ at the wheels on a Mustang dyno would just about HAVE to be set up in that mode. I GUARANTEE you that if these guys were to put these cars on a dynojet, they would NOT top 300 HP. No way.
Is Granatelli running his Mustang dyno in "dynojet mode"? If so, Then the 283 RWHP HP numbers seem right. VERY dishonest though if he is doing this and not putting it in the notes. The Mustang community knows to refer to Mustang dyno numbers differently.
By your logic the "Mustang Community" should be able to tell right off the bat that it's in "DynoJet Mode" simply by looking at the 259 RWHP "base" run.
11/3/06, 09:33 PM
#225
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
And speaking of misleading claims, here's a new one that Doug also found to be false concerning the so-called GMS 90mm intake tube that in reality is just about the same 83 to 86mm as the C&L...Now It all makes perfect sense as to why GMS requested that I ship my Steeda intake to be calibrated for his MAF sensor/electronics, otherwise, if his intake tube was really 90mm? this so called re-calibrated sensor would already be properly calibrated...So why in the world would GMS request that Doug use the transfer function for the C&L street intake on a 90mm intake for?? does that make any sense, think about it... But I suppose the GMS supporters are now going to consider Doug as just another of those GMS haters as well, right?
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 9/17/23 at 11:30 PM. Reason: Revised Text
11/3/06, 10:16 PM
#226
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
If this is correct and the logic seems right, then I agree Granatelli probably should notate on the dyno sheet that it's in "DynoJet Mode". However I wouldn't go so far as to say it's dishonest because it's the increase in RWHP that he's advertising.
By your logic the "Mustang Community" should be able to tell right off the bat that it's in "DynoJet Mode" simply by looking at the 259 RWHP "base" run.
By your logic the "Mustang Community" should be able to tell right off the bat that it's in "DynoJet Mode" simply by looking at the 259 RWHP "base" run.
but your right, he should have noted that on the dyno sheet, otherwise, I could understand how most would interpret that as being misleading unless he just assumed everyone was already aware of it... However, that still doesn't make it right because not everyone in the Mustang community is aware nor able to tell right off the bat about it being in dynojet mode...Therefore, he should have taken that into consideration...
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 9/17/23 at 11:32 PM. Reason: Revised Text
11/4/06, 09:46 AM
#227
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I just don't get it, C&L claims 26RWHP and apparently delivers less than 17RWHP if you use ECI's dyno #s and that's assuming CORSA is lying about their claims too.
Can you provide a dyno of a GMS CAI that shows substantially less than 25RWHP gains? If not then how can you call his performance claims false and misleading?
It just sems like you (and others) have a severe bias and no matter what Doug finds out when he dyno's these CAIs you'll still find a reason to complain about GMS.
Can you provide a dyno of a GMS CAI that shows substantially less than 25RWHP gains? If not then how can you call his performance claims false and misleading?
It just sems like you (and others) have a severe bias and no matter what Doug finds out when he dyno's these CAIs you'll still find a reason to complain about GMS.
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?
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
Thanks, Doug.
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
Thanks, Doug.
As I've said in this thread and other threads in this forum, the man is deceitful and unethical, and the above is undeniable proof of that.
I would never do a penny's worth of business with him even if his products had the best prices and performance.
11/4/06, 12:38 PM
#228
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
I couldn't have said it any better myself 
what it all boils down to is trustworthiness and character, however, once you cross over that line, there's no going back...Therefore, as a direct result, I will never do business with GMS regardless of how great their products may happen to be...
what it all boils down to is trustworthiness and character, however, once you cross over that line, there's no going back...Therefore, as a direct result, I will never do business with GMS regardless of how great their products may happen to be...
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 9/17/23 at 11:34 PM. Reason: Revised Text
11/4/06, 02:00 PM
#229
Cobra R Member
Join Date: November 12, 2004
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
You guys seem to be really harsh here. I really don't understand all the time and effort dedicated to making someone look like a liar. Wether they have made mistakes, misinformation from his engineering people or whatever. Why such the hostility towards the guy. If people like his stuff then let them buy them. But no need to consistently look for defects in his products or specifications or paragraphs seems like a real waste of time. I can't believe that he hasnt posted in quite some time, but yet everyday there is more criticism of the product. Thats just me I guess. It's one thing if you have met the guy and talked to him about the stuff. But why not just wait a week and well get the truth on what it produces both with the jumper harness and his maf and with the stock maf sensor. Then at least people will know what this CAI can do. Sorry just my look on things here.
11/4/06, 05:26 PM
#230
Cobra R Member
Join Date: August 23, 2004
Posts: 1,945
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.
11/4/06, 08:16 PM
#231
11/4/06, 10:22 PM
#232
I have to say that I looked back at a few posts and the "requires about 10% less fuel because that is what it flows - about 10% LESS AIR". statement has me concerned if in fact Doug's measurements are accurate.
As far as the air filter claim, just because Doug "called around" that is proof that the GMS filter is not Made In USA?
And the dyno dates are strange, that one doesn't make sense to me but on the other hand he'd have to be really stupid to use the exact same run that he posts on his website and keep giving that to customers as their base run. I agree somethings up and it should be addressed by someone.
It would be great if JR would respond, in fact maybe there should be a thread dedicated to questions for JR on statements he has made that you and others have found to be false or misleading.
I think anyone, JR included deserves the opportunity to defend himself.
11/5/06, 05:07 AM
#233
Maybe not "their" base run. That may be what GMS is using as a standard Mustang baseline run. Msully would have to answer if he paid to have an actual Baseline run done or just the after.
11/5/06, 05:53 AM
#234
I seen people say that difference is as low as 8% all the way up to 15%, that's a very large range.
11/5/06, 06:22 AM
#235
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 16, 2006
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well. looks like we are going to have a busy upcoming weekend here in St. Louis.
There will be 8 Mustangs at the dyno shop for custom tuning (a two day event). As to how many will be available for testing, I'm not sure of the number.
I have arranged my schedule to be available for both days.
I hope Doug brings one of the new SCT Live Wire toys with him. I would like to see that thing in action. If I like it, I'll buy it and find a place to mount it for easy display 24/7.
Wouldnt miss this for anything.
There will be 8 Mustangs at the dyno shop for custom tuning (a two day event). As to how many will be available for testing, I'm not sure of the number.
I have arranged my schedule to be available for both days.
I hope Doug brings one of the new SCT Live Wire toys with him. I would like to see that thing in action. If I like it, I'll buy it and find a place to mount it for easy display 24/7.
Wouldnt miss this for anything.
11/5/06, 07:53 AM
#236
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
And the dyno dates are strange, that one doesn't make sense to me but on the other hand he'd have to be really stupid to use the exact same run that he posts on his website and keep giving that to customers as their base run. I agree somethings up and it should be addressed by someone.
It would be great if JR would respond, in fact maybe there should be a thread dedicated to questions for JR on statements he has made that you and others have found to be false or misleading.
I think anyone, JR included deserves the opportunity to defend himself.
It would be great if JR would respond, in fact maybe there should be a thread dedicated to questions for JR on statements he has made that you and others have found to be false or misleading.
I think anyone, JR included deserves the opportunity to defend himself.
BTW, you omitted one of Granatelli's false claims:
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
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
11/5/06, 08:06 AM
#237
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's an entirely unacceptable practice in dyno testing. A baseline run must be performed on each and every vehicle, since each one will produce a different baseline.
However, one can easily understand why a vendor would want to use a 250 hp baseline run as their "standard" for the S197(manual) -> Its average baseline is approx. 260 hp. Thus, the majority of them will gain an unrealistic amount of hp with the vendor's mods if he were to use a 250 hp baseline.
However, one can easily understand why a vendor would want to use a 250 hp baseline run as their "standard" for the S197(manual) -> Its average baseline is approx. 260 hp. Thus, the majority of them will gain an unrealistic amount of hp with the vendor's mods if he were to use a 250 hp baseline.
11/5/06, 09:34 AM
#238
All the curves on the GMS site have before and afters on the same day.
As for a manufacturer using low(est) pulls as a baseline for reported gains, that's almost SOP in the industry from what I've seen.
If you look at OKLACOPs Post here. He only pulled 256 (Mustang Dyno) with a Lidio's 93 octane tune. Both he and msully are Autos.
11/5/06, 10:17 AM
#239
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: November 10, 2004
Posts: 2,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have neither of these intakes. i have no beef with JR as i have never dealt with any of his products before. But there is one constant in this thread. Doug @ Bamachips. I trust Doug Implicitly. Even now with the Supercharger, no longer running his tune, he helps me with any question i have and is willnig to help. Doug has earned my Trust and Respect as he has with many others on this site and Modular Fords where he doesnt even post. His reputation alone is worth the trust and respect. If Doug does a test and refutes GMS's claims with facts then i beleive it. No one is saying the GMS intake sucks (well i guess all intakes suck dont they 
) but what he is saying is that GMS says their intake flows better than a C&L. The test disproves that. They both flow pretty similar considering they are a similar part in look and design.
All of this squabbling over what? 5-8hp? if your worried about 5-8hp youve got bigger problems. if you want to gain HP quickly go with a FI system or NOS. If you want to do it properly, build from the bottom end up, rods pistons crank heads, ect.
) but what he is saying is that GMS says their intake flows better than a C&L. The test disproves that. They both flow pretty similar considering they are a similar part in look and design.All of this squabbling over what? 5-8hp? if your worried about 5-8hp youve got bigger problems. if you want to gain HP quickly go with a FI system or NOS. If you want to do it properly, build from the bottom end up, rods pistons crank heads, ect.
11/5/06, 02:13 PM
#240
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sheet is msully's not one posted on the GMS site. It could be that he asked for a "stock Mustang baseline" to be on his sheet but did not want to pay for an actual baseline pull. You would have to ask him.
All the curves on the GMS site have before and afters on the same day.
As for a manufacturer using low(est) pulls as a baseline for reported gains, that's almost SOP in the industry from what I've seen.
If you look at OKLACOPs Post here. He only pulled 256 (Mustang Dyno) with a Lidio's 93 octane tune. Both he and msully are Autos.
All the curves on the GMS site have before and afters on the same day.
As for a manufacturer using low(est) pulls as a baseline for reported gains, that's almost SOP in the industry from what I've seen.
If you look at OKLACOPs Post here. He only pulled 256 (Mustang Dyno) with a Lidio's 93 octane tune. Both he and msully are Autos.
However, I can visualize an unknowledgeable customer who is inexperienced with dyno testing asking a manufacturer to print a fake dyno graph that shows the customer's modded dyno run, and a baseline dyno run from another vehicle.
But if the manufacturer, who fully understands the potential inaccuracy of doing this, complies with the customer's request, then the manuf. is undeniably unethical since he knows fully well that this can show unrealistically high gains for his performance product(s).
I was not questioning the 'before and after' dyno runs on the GMS site.
I realize that every manuf. will show the lowest pull of a series of baseline runs, as long as there is a 1% or less deviation between the runs after being SAE adjusted.
However, that was not my point.
I do not understand the point of your last comment(OKLACOPS vs. msully).