Comparison of the GMS and C&L CAI's with detailed info...

Closed Thread Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:02 PM

#341

harleybill

Mach 1 Member

Joined: August 26, 2004

Posts: 757

Likes: 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug904

If you go to C&L's website, you will not only see that their '05 intakes have patents pending on them, but you will also notice that on the main page there are TWO U.S. patent numbers on their upper intake plenum listed. If you go back to my original post in this thread, you will find an image that shows a BLATANT copy of the C&L plenum (which IS PATENTED) that was released by Granatelli some time last year. The C&L plenum was released in 2003. These are facts I'm trying to show.

thanks, Doug.

Then if you have a case, take him to court. Nuff said. Your are starting to sound a little "winney" there Doug, don't let this crap get you going lilke these other guys.
Thanks...Harley.

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:04 PM

#342

harleybill

Mach 1 Member

Joined: August 26, 2004

Posts: 757

Likes: 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by eci

That argument is hilarious to me. It's been stated over and over that you need a tuner for a lot more than just "more HP and torque".

CMD plates? Tuner.
O/R H? Tuner or MIL eliminators.
Gears? Tuner.
Tire size change? Tuner.
Drive by wire throttle lag? Tuner.
Octane switch? Tuner.

Get it yet? I'd say I spent twice as much but got about 10x as much. When you pay Doug $399 or whatever for the XCAL 2, you're getting a REQUIRED piece of hardware if you plan on ever making your Mustang perform well. You aren't paying $399 for "a tune". You're talking about wasting money yet you have a GMS t-body on your car. Pot. Kettle.

I said "nearly" the same smeg head, or can't you read either.

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:05 PM

#343

Doug@C&L

Thread Starter

Legacy TMS Member

Joined: July 28, 2004

Posts: 848

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by harleybill

Then if you have a case, take him to court. Nuff said. Your are starting to sound a little "winney" there Doug, don't let this crap get you going lilke these other guys.
Thanks...Harley.

Hey Bill,

I'm not trying to sound winney just give you the right information, you asked if it was patented and it is.

Now, I'm also trying to defend myself against him too. He's trying to deface my company stating that I dont know how MAF's work.

thanks, Doug.

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:06 PM

#344

Granatelli

Former Vendor

Joined: January 13, 2006

Posts: 1,030

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by 05GTRedfire

if you take a poll of actual GMS CAI users, and how they feel about their product, I'm sure you would see that almost everyone (again, can't please everybody) would say that they are happy with the noticable performance gain.

Edit: AND......JR, please, what kind of material is your air filter supplier using? Is it safe? Does it filter at least as much contaminants as the factory, or better?

We are the filter manufacture and the filter is a poly cotton blend. We have the filters oil impregnated and dyed red. We also make these filter for other companies in Green and Blue.

The filter is safe and it filters down to 10 microns.

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:13 PM

#345

Granatelli

Former Vendor

Joined: January 13, 2006

Posts: 1,030

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctorQ

JR: I think it would be helpful if you could briefly comment on your calibrated MAF sensor and your MAF wiring harness that comes with your CAI 410010 kit? It would be nice to hear from someone who understands the design, as opposed to those just guessing. Specifically, since it appears the MAF wiring harness is responsible for the proper communication to the ECM (for fuel table changes, and maintaining proper A/F mix ratios), what is the function of your MAF sensor and how does it differ from the stock sensor? Why are both needed? Thanks again for helping sort this out.

Simply put the meters can come completely programmed ("mapped") from Hitachi and go right into the 410040 tubes however that would make it very easy for everyone to copy the part. The way we have set it up, you need both parts of the puzzle. The calibration harness is no more then a key to connect the dots.

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:18 PM

#346

Granatelli

Former Vendor

Joined: January 13, 2006

Posts: 1,030

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by eci

Can you explain how your baseline numbers on your Mustang Dyno would equate to around 285 RWHP STOCK on a Dynojet? Thanks.

I don't understand your question. We use a Mustang and I don't play that Mustang vs Dynojet numbers game. All our comparisons are done the same day back to back whenever possible - AND in front of the customer

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:19 PM

#347

NJJOE

Bullitt Member

Joined: October 10, 2006

Posts: 335

Likes: 0

JR thanks for the filter information. I appreciate it.

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:21 PM

#348

ski

Bullitt Member

Joined: June 24, 2005

Posts: 311

Likes: 0

[quote=Granatelli;775739] I always answer the good and the bad.[/quote]
Now is your chance to show everyone what you're made of, and back up your words by addressing the following items. Or are you just blowing out more hot air?

Your claim that your CAI's ID is never less than 90mm.
Your claim that the C&L's CAI flows 10% less air than your CAI.
You printed a fake dyno graph for msully.

Nov 7, 2006 | 12:21 PM

#349

Galaxie

I Have Admin Envy

Joined: January 30, 2004

Posts: 6,740

Likes: 1

My eyes hurt from reading

I don't want this thread to turn into a mudslinging match. I remember reading a thread on another site where two exhaust manufacturers embarassed themselves in my eyes.

I believe the best thing to do for now is close this thread. It will be re-opened once the dyno numbers are available for further technical discussion

If anyone disagrees with me, kindly send a PM