Comparison of the GMS and C&L CAI's with detailed info...
10/31/06, 12:42 AM
#102
Member
Join Date: August 2, 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow - there's alot to take in here, but this is where I'm at as someone who's fairly green and bought a GMS CAI as their first performance mod ever:
1. The appeal of the GMS kit was that I didn't need a tune. (Although I'm pleased to see that I can, and almost definately will, add a tune later).
2. The kit did make a noticeable difference in performance and has not thrown a CEL (me=satisfied customer).
3. Until I see data showing that the GMS CAI f**k's up the a/f ratio (which seems to be what this thread keeps coming back to with no proof yet), I will continue to be happy with my purchase.
1. The appeal of the GMS kit was that I didn't need a tune. (Although I'm pleased to see that I can, and almost definately will, add a tune later).
2. The kit did make a noticeable difference in performance and has not thrown a CEL (me=satisfied customer).
3. Until I see data showing that the GMS CAI f**k's up the a/f ratio (which seems to be what this thread keeps coming back to with no proof yet), I will continue to be happy with my purchase.
10/31/06, 07:29 AM
#103
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1- Why was the modded run made 2 months after the base run?
2- How many miles were on the car for each run?
3- What was the ambient temperature and humidity for each run?
4- Were both runs SAE adjusted?
10/31/06, 08:05 AM
#104
Legacy TMS Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took your dynosheet and blew it up and I can see why you have 33 rwhp increase. The way it jumped out at me was the RPM's at which is says you made your peak Hp on your stock baseline run 5200 rpms.
Looking at the light blue line you can see that once you hit 5200-5300 RPM's your Hp just drops like a rock. This is caused by either detonation or just the PCM pulling timing. If you say you were running on 87 both runs then I would definatly say detonation. This in turn pulls your timing and KILLS hp and tq. Since your Tq was already on the downward slope it doesn't affect the Top number but since the HP curve was still on the rise then it does affect Top Hp numbers.
I've attached a baseline pull from my car showing how the line should stay straight on a good pull and even climb on most. For some reason you engine was pulling timing and it didn't give an accurate number to compare the GMS run to. I've got a call into my dynoshop to get the baseline results from a 5-speed I did this weekend so we can compare the two.
thanks, Doug.
Looking at the light blue line you can see that once you hit 5200-5300 RPM's your Hp just drops like a rock. This is caused by either detonation or just the PCM pulling timing. If you say you were running on 87 both runs then I would definatly say detonation. This in turn pulls your timing and KILLS hp and tq. Since your Tq was already on the downward slope it doesn't affect the Top number but since the HP curve was still on the rise then it does affect Top Hp numbers.
I've attached a baseline pull from my car showing how the line should stay straight on a good pull and even climb on most. For some reason you engine was pulling timing and it didn't give an accurate number to compare the GMS run to. I've got a call into my dynoshop to get the baseline results from a 5-speed I did this weekend so we can compare the two.
thanks, Doug.
10/31/06, 08:41 AM
#106
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, that's the only part of the deal I take issue with - and here's why. If I, or any other company, produce a new product, and spend a lot of time and effort designing it properly to do a specific job, and then someone else comes along and just copies it, in the long run the customer is the loser. Because eventually, the innovators will just throw in the towel due to overhead and aggravation, and the others that copy the innovators will have nothing to draw from, hence stagnation in the marketplace and inferior products - which is what drove me into business in the first place - I got sick of buying things that didn't work or didn't perform as advertised.
I'm not saying that products don't have room for improvement once released, but when you blatantly duplicate someone else's homework assignment and don't even cchange the title of the report, should you still get an A for your efforts? So if you're going to spend your hard-earned money on a product, I'd hope that if you wanted a concise and clear explanation of how and why it works you could get it, and not a bunch of marketing hype covering up what is really going on. Not saying that you care to understand the intricacies of it, just that if you want a clear explanation, one should be available for you.
With regards to the "comparison" between the C&L and the GMS, again, I just don't understand why the BBK wasn't mentoned too. Again, I'm not trying to defend JR or GMS, I have no idea which chicken or egg came first, but when I was looking for a CAI, my main point was not having to use a tuner, so mainly I was looking at the WMS. Well, the WMS you still had to modify some factory harnesses, so when JR started advertising his, and initially how he explained it just used a MAF that was "calibrated" to that specific intake, well it made sense to me. Now, just how exactly they are "calibrating" the MAF to work, again, not 100% sure, and yes, I guess ultimately it should be up to the manufacturer to fully explain how it is they are achieving their results.
10/31/06, 08:56 AM
#107
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took your dynosheet and blew it up and I can see why you have 33 rwhp increase. The way it jumped out at me was the RPM's at which is says you made your peak Hp on your stock baseline run 5200 rpms.
Looking at the light blue line you can see that once you hit 5200-5300 RPM's your Hp just drops like a rock. This is caused by either detonation or just the PCM pulling timing. If you say you were running on 87 both runs then I would definatly say detonation. This in turn pulls your timing and KILLS hp and tq. Since your Tq was already on the downward slope it doesn't affect the Top number but since the HP curve was still on the rise then it does affect Top Hp numbers.
I've attached a baseline pull from my car showing how the line should stay straight on a good pull and even climb on most. For some reason you engine was pulling timing and it didn't give an accurate number to compare the GMS run to. If you had been able to prevent the timing retard you were well on the way to going over 260 rwhp. I've got a call into my dynoshop to get the baseline results from a 5-speed I did this weekend so we can compare the two.
thanks, Doug.
Looking at the light blue line you can see that once you hit 5200-5300 RPM's your Hp just drops like a rock. This is caused by either detonation or just the PCM pulling timing. If you say you were running on 87 both runs then I would definatly say detonation. This in turn pulls your timing and KILLS hp and tq. Since your Tq was already on the downward slope it doesn't affect the Top number but since the HP curve was still on the rise then it does affect Top Hp numbers.
I've attached a baseline pull from my car showing how the line should stay straight on a good pull and even climb on most. For some reason you engine was pulling timing and it didn't give an accurate number to compare the GMS run to. If you had been able to prevent the timing retard you were well on the way to going over 260 rwhp. I've got a call into my dynoshop to get the baseline results from a 5-speed I did this weekend so we can compare the two.
thanks, Doug.
10/31/06, 09:09 AM
#109
I'm sorry I didn't really make this as clearly as it should be. This test was done using the GMS jumper harness but using the stock MAF sensor, not the GMS sensor. I did this only to see what would happen if I used their jumper with my stock sensor and C&L to see if it would make it where I didn't have to have a tune with my C&L for proper a/f. In short, no it didn't, using the stock meter.
If you use the MAF sensor that was provided with the GMS kit then the A/F should be acceptable within Ford's limits. There again I will test this in more detail when I goto dynotune a car in St. Louis. So you should have nothing to worry about nor those who already have the kits.
If you were to ever get a custom tune/dynotune for the GMS kit though the absolute best thing to do is to return to using your Stock MAF meter because it has the correct range for the GT and doesn't require a jumper to start from. Then have it tuned for the best possible A/F ratio's and you'll do even better.
Thanks, Doug.
If you use the MAF sensor that was provided with the GMS kit then the A/F should be acceptable within Ford's limits. There again I will test this in more detail when I goto dynotune a car in St. Louis. So you should have nothing to worry about nor those who already have the kits.
If you were to ever get a custom tune/dynotune for the GMS kit though the absolute best thing to do is to return to using your Stock MAF meter because it has the correct range for the GT and doesn't require a jumper to start from. Then have it tuned for the best possible A/F ratio's and you'll do even better.
Thanks, Doug.
10/31/06, 09:16 AM
#110
Legacy TMS Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are saying that he got 33 rwhp from the CAI and the exhaust? Now that, even though still a little high is more believeable then the CAI alone.
As for not dynoing it, well I thought if I went more scientific and show more numbers that are repeatable on paper then this would give a better comparison. For example when 5.0 Mustang magazine compared the JLT to the C&L they were within 2-3 rwhp of each other, does that make them the same thing? No, being that the GMS is so very very close to it in dimensions and visually as well that is what makes it so close.
The reason I dont have the BBk on here is because BBK isn't on this forum telling everyone that they have a better intake then C&L when it might as well be the same thing.
You want a comparison for the BBK, what JR has done with all of his threads about this intake being bigger and better then the C&L would be the same as if BBK had come on here and said their intake was bigger and better then the GMS.
Thanks, Doug.
As for not dynoing it, well I thought if I went more scientific and show more numbers that are repeatable on paper then this would give a better comparison. For example when 5.0 Mustang magazine compared the JLT to the C&L they were within 2-3 rwhp of each other, does that make them the same thing? No, being that the GMS is so very very close to it in dimensions and visually as well that is what makes it so close.
The reason I dont have the BBk on here is because BBK isn't on this forum telling everyone that they have a better intake then C&L when it might as well be the same thing.
You want a comparison for the BBK, what JR has done with all of his threads about this intake being bigger and better then the C&L would be the same as if BBK had come on here and said their intake was bigger and better then the GMS.
Thanks, Doug.
. He must be enthralled with his new Fuego tuner that's about to be released.
10/31/06, 09:52 AM
#112
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless someone can provide definite proof that both runs are SAE adjusted, and the car has the same amount of mileage on it for both runs.
I'm extremely suspicious of before and after results from dyno runs that are performed 2 months apart.
10/31/06, 09:58 AM
#113
Legacy TMS Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, just his baseline, the after run looks good just as it should, without any major dips or spikes. Just the baseline run isn't a comparable run to establish gained HP and Tq numbers from.
Thanks Doug.
10/31/06, 10:05 AM
#114
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are saying that he got 33 rwhp from the CAI and the exhaust? Now that, even though still a little high is more believeable then the CAI alone.
As for not dynoing it, well I thought if I went more scientific and show more numbers that are repeatable on paper then this would give a better comparison. For example when 5.0 Mustang magazine compared the JLT to the C&L they were within 2-3 rwhp of each other, does that make them the same thing? No, being that the GMS is so very very close to it in dimensions and visually as well that is what makes it so close.
The reason I dont have the BBk on here is because BBK isn't on this forum telling everyone that they have a better intake then C&L when it might as well be the same thing.
You want a comparison for the BBK, what JR has done with all of his threads about this intake being bigger and better then the C&L would be the same as if BBK had come on here and said their intake was bigger and better then the GMS.
Thanks, Doug.
As for not dynoing it, well I thought if I went more scientific and show more numbers that are repeatable on paper then this would give a better comparison. For example when 5.0 Mustang magazine compared the JLT to the C&L they were within 2-3 rwhp of each other, does that make them the same thing? No, being that the GMS is so very very close to it in dimensions and visually as well that is what makes it so close.
The reason I dont have the BBk on here is because BBK isn't on this forum telling everyone that they have a better intake then C&L when it might as well be the same thing.
You want a comparison for the BBK, what JR has done with all of his threads about this intake being bigger and better then the C&L would be the same as if BBK had come on here and said their intake was bigger and better then the GMS.
Thanks, Doug.
And while I see now what you are trying to dispute, as far as JR's claims with regards to the intake tube, so instead of 90mm, its actually 83-86mm, and so instead of GMS saying their intake flows 10% more then the C&L, well C&L is saying theirs flows about 10% more than the GMS. As far as dynoing, I mean, weren't you curious? You tested the C&L with the GMS jumper harness, did you test the GMS CAI with its MAF? You've made it a point to dispute just about every claim JR has made with regards to this product, except the horsepower gains, and I'm wondering why.
10/31/06, 10:16 AM
#115
GT Member
Join Date: August 18, 2005
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug, I just talked to Andy and there was another spot open on the St.Louis dyno day Sunday. I have the GMS so there will be 2 of us to test. I would like to get a SCT tune also, what info do you need from me?
Thanks,
Mitch
Thanks,
Mitch
10/31/06, 10:28 AM
#116
Legacy TMS Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, 33rwhp from both CAI and exhaust-http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpost.php?p=757611&postcount=484
And while I see now what you are trying to dispute, as far as JR's claims with regards to the intake tube, so instead of 90mm, its actually 83-86mm, and so instead of GMS saying their intake flows 10% more then the C&L, well C&L is saying theirs flows about 10% more than the GMS. As far as dynoing, I mean, weren't you curious? You tested the C&L with the GMS jumper harness, did you test the GMS CAI with its MAF? You've made it a point to dispute just about every claim JR has made with regards to this product, except the horsepower gains, and I'm wondering why.
And while I see now what you are trying to dispute, as far as JR's claims with regards to the intake tube, so instead of 90mm, its actually 83-86mm, and so instead of GMS saying their intake flows 10% more then the C&L, well C&L is saying theirs flows about 10% more than the GMS. As far as dynoing, I mean, weren't you curious? You tested the C&L with the GMS jumper harness, did you test the GMS CAI with its MAF? You've made it a point to dispute just about every claim JR has made with regards to this product, except the horsepower gains, and I'm wondering why.
You are on track but as far as the flows go, I'm not saying the C&L flows 10% more then the GMS, as in the first post the flows are well within 10cfm of each other, which is around 1-2% of each other. Truly I wouldn't even say that the C&L flows anymore but just the same as the GMS, no more no less.
Email me and I'll go more into detail about dynotuning with the jumper, BamaChips@gmail.com
thanks, Doug.
10/31/06, 11:08 AM
#117
Doug, I do have one question...Do you think the GMS is safe to run on the cars or do you think it could lead to problems? Just curious and I think others are wondering this as well. I have the GMS and have been satisfied but I do think JR may be more of a salesman than engineer so I always like to hear any type of data that supports or refutes somebody's claims. All else being the same, if the HP is nearly the same for both products and they are both "safe", the GMS is substantially less expensive without the tune. That was my bottomline at the time and it still holds true. Hopefully your upcoming dyno runs will clarify the final pegs in this board.
10/31/06, 11:19 AM
#118
Legacy TMS Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug, I do have one question...Do you think the GMS is safe to run on the cars or do you think it could lead to problems? Just curious and I think others are wondering this as well. I have the GMS and have been satisfied but I do think JR may be more of a salesman than engineer so I always like to hear any type of data that supports or refutes somebody's claims. All else being the same, if the HP is nearly the same for both products and they are both "safe", the GMS is substantially less expensive without the tune. That was my bottomline at the time and it still holds true. Hopefully your upcoming dyno runs will clarify the final pegs in this board.
The only thing I can recommend for now is just to ensure you use the GMS in the required fashion, with both the Jumper and the GMS MAF sensor. As long as your car runs and you have no CELs then you should be fine.
I plan on dynotesting the GMS jumper/MAF combo on the dyno in St. Louis with plenty of guys there to watch. While doing so I will datalog the PCM and check out the part throttle a/f and on the dyno the WOT a/f as well as spark and load values. From this input I will be able to tell you without any doubts what my recommendations are with this intake.
If you were to go local and have it dynotuned I would use the factory maf and remove the jumper this way you can start out the way the factory does.
Thanks, Doug.
10/31/06, 11:21 AM
#119
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 10, 2006
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. I would like to know as well if Doug thinks that the GMS w/ MAF is safe to have on the car. I am a little curious now whether I should go back to the stock filter and ask for a refund or leave it on. I just put the GMS w/MAF on and I really haven't driven it too much. But I am curious to hear from Doug.