Comparison of the GMS and C&L CAI's with detailed info...
10/31/06, 09:09 PM
#122
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H-Back? Still no way. As Doug proved, his baseline run was "challenged". He's probably making 20 RWHP more with the exhaust and CAI, than he was stock. Which are good numbers by the way. Realistic numbers.
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I just don't want people thinking they'll gain 33RWHP with a CAI and some cat back exhaust on a GT. You won't.
For the record, I have the C&L CAI, Bamachips 91 race tune, Corsa X, and Corsa mufflers and gained 17 peak RWHP on a dynojet, SAE corrected, with that setup. GMS doesn't have some extra special knowledge to double that with their parts.
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I just don't want people thinking they'll gain 33RWHP with a CAI and some cat back exhaust on a GT. You won't.
For the record, I have the C&L CAI, Bamachips 91 race tune, Corsa X, and Corsa mufflers and gained 17 peak RWHP on a dynojet, SAE corrected, with that setup. GMS doesn't have some extra special knowledge to double that with their parts.
10/31/06, 09:27 PM
#123
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is my dyno sheet. The lower run is stock, the other 2 are with the mods listed above. See how my HP doesn't fall on it's face like his did on his base run? His car had issues on its base run and probably read 10-12 RWHP lower for peak because of it, skewing his results.
10/31/06, 10:40 PM
#124
Member
Join Date: July 6, 2006
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H-Back? Still no way. As Doug proved, his baseline run was "challenged". He's probably making 20 RWHP more with the exhaust and CAI, than he was stock. Which are good numbers by the way. Realistic numbers.
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I just don't want people thinking they'll gain 33RWHP with a CAI and some cat back exhaust on a GT. You won't.
For the record, I have the C&L CAI, Bamachips 91 race tune, Corsa X, and Corsa mufflers and gained 17 peak RWHP on a dynojet, SAE corrected, with that setup. GMS doesn't have some extra special knowledge to double that with their parts.
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I just don't want people thinking they'll gain 33RWHP with a CAI and some cat back exhaust on a GT. You won't.
For the record, I have the C&L CAI, Bamachips 91 race tune, Corsa X, and Corsa mufflers and gained 17 peak RWHP on a dynojet, SAE corrected, with that setup. GMS doesn't have some extra special knowledge to double that with their parts.
I know I would be bummed if I spent an extra $300 for a tune and found it out it provided no additional hp or tq benefit over a product like the GMS CAI without a tune and only needed 87 octane fuel. I know if I had the C&L and a tune I would probably be drinking the same kool-aid but the fact remains that the GMS CAI does work well and probably as well as other CAI's with the mandatory tune.
Doug, please do the dyno comparison with the GMS CAI and the C&L with the 87 tune and lets put thing to rest. In fact it might be interesting to do the comparison to the GMS with the 87, 91 and 93 just for fun.
10/31/06, 10:46 PM
#125
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, lets just compare out peak hp and tq numbers with our mods. I only have the GMS CAI and 2.5" exhaust. You have the C&L CAI, the beloved Bama chips 91 race tune, Corsa X and Corsa mufflers. The bottom line is we have basically the same peak hp and tq with our current set ups. I realize these are not side by side dyno numbers but there is no difference in our peak hp and tq numbers. Look at the other mustang forums and you will see others with similiar hp and tq numbers with the GMS CAI.
I know I would be bummed if I spent an extra $300 for a tune and found it out it provided no additional hp or tq benefit over a product like the GMS CAI without a tune and only needed 87 octane fuel. I know if I had the C&L and a tune I would probably be drinking the same kool-aid but the fact remains that the GMS CAI does work well and probably as well as other CAI's with the mandatory tune.
Doug, please do the dyno comparison with the GMS CAI and the C&L with the 87 tune and lets put thing to rest. In fact it might be interesting to do the comparison to the GMS with the 87, 91 and 93 just for fun.
I know I would be bummed if I spent an extra $300 for a tune and found it out it provided no additional hp or tq benefit over a product like the GMS CAI without a tune and only needed 87 octane fuel. I know if I had the C&L and a tune I would probably be drinking the same kool-aid but the fact remains that the GMS CAI does work well and probably as well as other CAI's with the mandatory tune.
Doug, please do the dyno comparison with the GMS CAI and the C&L with the 87 tune and lets put thing to rest. In fact it might be interesting to do the comparison to the GMS with the 87, 91 and 93 just for fun.
Doug's race tune provides INSTANT throttle response, something you cannot have with your stock tune. It isn't kool-aid. Have you driven both the stock tune and one of Dougs? I have.
The fact is you *need* a tune to get rid of the lazy factory throttle.
I have a manual, on an auto a tune makes an ever bigger difference as it will adjust shift points and make the auto drive a whole lot better.
I don't regret buying a tuner one bit. I could never go back to the crappy stock tune. I will also be getting gears. You'll be spending $399 for a tuner if you want to correct your speedo. I didn't pay Doug $300 for the tune either. I paid him $399 and got an SCT XCal 2 and 3 tunes. I can now adjust my car how I see fit. Adjust tire size and gears to correct speedo, adjust spark. You know, things enthusiasts need. Enjoy your factory 87 tune. The stock tune was rich on my car before any mods, around 11.5.
10/31/06, 10:53 PM
#126
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
OK, lets just compare out peak hp and tq numbers with our mods. I only have the GMS CAI and 2.5" exhaust. You have the C&L CAI, the beloved Bama chips 91 race tune, Corsa X and Corsa mufflers. The bottom line is we have basically the same peak hp and tq with our current set ups. I realize these are not side by side dyno numbers but there is no difference in our peak hp and tq numbers. Look at the other mustang forums and you will see others with similiar hp and tq numbers with the GMS CAI.
I know I would be bummed if I spent an extra $300 for a tune and found it out it provided no additional hp or tq benefit over a product like the GMS CAI without a tune and only needed 87 octane fuel. I know if I had the C&L and a tune I would probably be drinking the same kool-aid but the fact remains that the GMS CAI does work well and probably as well as other CAI's with the mandatory tune.
Doug, please do the dyno comparison with the GMS CAI and the C&L with the 87 tune and lets put thing to rest. In fact it might be interesting to do the comparison to the GMS with the 87, 91 and 93 just for fun.
I know I would be bummed if I spent an extra $300 for a tune and found it out it provided no additional hp or tq benefit over a product like the GMS CAI without a tune and only needed 87 octane fuel. I know if I had the C&L and a tune I would probably be drinking the same kool-aid but the fact remains that the GMS CAI does work well and probably as well as other CAI's with the mandatory tune.
Doug, please do the dyno comparison with the GMS CAI and the C&L with the 87 tune and lets put thing to rest. In fact it might be interesting to do the comparison to the GMS with the 87, 91 and 93 just for fun.
Btw, I also noticed there was a 2-month gap between your stock runs and modded runs and would like to know the reason... Anything could have changed between those 2 months, like Ie the ambient temp and humidity factors can increase or decrease your peak HP...
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 9/17/23 at 10:53 PM. Reason: Revised Text
10/31/06, 10:55 PM
#127
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he's just seeing what he wants to see. He thinks we're idiots for wanting tuners and doesn't seem to understand that they are for far more than just HP and TQ. Eventually he'll want to mod something on his car that requires a tune, and he'll spend the $399 and find out what he's been missing.
10/31/06, 11:10 PM
#128
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
I think he's just seeing what he wants to see. He thinks we're idiots for wanting tuners and doesn't seem to understand that they are for far more than just HP and TQ. Eventually he'll want to mod something on his car that requires a tune, and he'll spend the $399 and find out what he's been missing.
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 9/17/23 at 10:57 PM. Reason: Revised Text
11/1/06, 07:01 AM
#129
V6 Member
Join Date: May 27, 2005
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well after reading all of this info, I have to say I'm really surprised. I had been waiting on Doug's results after seeing that he was working on some data with regards to the GMS CAI. What I fully expected and truly believed was that we were going to see comparisons between a GMS CAI with his MAF and other CAI's, like the C&L and some tunes. What I expected to see was Doug saying, ok, with a stock GT, the numbers were this. With the GMS CAI the numbers were this. With a C&L and an 87 tune, the numbers were this, with a 93 tune the numbers were this. As you can see, my 87 tune was a bit lower than the GMS, but my 93 was a bit higher, or whatever. I was able to get out an additional <blank> horsepower on the GMS by custom tuning on the dyno. I was able to get <blank> horsepower on the GMS by using the stock MAS instead of their MAS. I was really looking forward to getting some independent tuner info, because now that I have the GMS CAI, I want more.
Instead, what we got was another witch hunt. We could have just added this thread to the "Granatelli Intake w/New MAF" thread, along with all the other haters. Doug, I am really surprised that you went this route, I wouldn't have expected this. I am not trying to defend Granatelli in any way, any fool can see the similarities between the two intakes, but if you were earnestly only trying to point out the similarities, or differences, then why didn't you include the BBK CAI too? http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.c...15_1921_554634 Looks pretty similar too if you ask me.
I spoke with you once on the phone a couple of months ago, back when I was researching which CAI to buy, and you told me then about how you felt that GMS just copied other peoples products, and then you did mention the BBK, and you went on to say well there's only so many ways you're going to be able to make a new intake, so why single out the GMS? It doesn't bother me that you gathered data, it bothers me that you gathered this data and then say that you're not trying to implicate something, when you clearly are. Right now, it's like, "I'm not one to gossip, but..."
As has been posted by numerous people, the GMS CAI with their MAF works. Period. You say that their MAF isn't actually calibrated because it didn't work with a stock MAF, and you also say that it's dangerously close, and would cause those error codes. I have yet to see a single GMS CAI customer post that they've gotten a CEL after everything was installed and working, and after all the crap that's been posted, I'm sure if it happened someone would, then all the naysayers could go, "See!? GMS sucks!" Only it hasn't happened.
I don't claim to know exactly how the GMS CAI works, I only know that it does. Just like everyone else who has purchased and installed one knows it too. Again, I was really looking forward to seeing some tuning results, but instead all we got was a new thread full of the same ol ****
Instead, what we got was another witch hunt. We could have just added this thread to the "Granatelli Intake w/New MAF" thread, along with all the other haters. Doug, I am really surprised that you went this route, I wouldn't have expected this. I am not trying to defend Granatelli in any way, any fool can see the similarities between the two intakes, but if you were earnestly only trying to point out the similarities, or differences, then why didn't you include the BBK CAI too? http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.c...15_1921_554634 Looks pretty similar too if you ask me.
I spoke with you once on the phone a couple of months ago, back when I was researching which CAI to buy, and you told me then about how you felt that GMS just copied other peoples products, and then you did mention the BBK, and you went on to say well there's only so many ways you're going to be able to make a new intake, so why single out the GMS? It doesn't bother me that you gathered data, it bothers me that you gathered this data and then say that you're not trying to implicate something, when you clearly are. Right now, it's like, "I'm not one to gossip, but..."
As has been posted by numerous people, the GMS CAI with their MAF works. Period. You say that their MAF isn't actually calibrated because it didn't work with a stock MAF, and you also say that it's dangerously close, and would cause those error codes. I have yet to see a single GMS CAI customer post that they've gotten a CEL after everything was installed and working, and after all the crap that's been posted, I'm sure if it happened someone would, then all the naysayers could go, "See!? GMS sucks!" Only it hasn't happened.
I don't claim to know exactly how the GMS CAI works, I only know that it does. Just like everyone else who has purchased and installed one knows it too. Again, I was really looking forward to seeing some tuning results, but instead all we got was a new thread full of the same ol ****
If the GMS and C&L intakes of the same internal measurements then there is no benefit to comparing HP, as they will both make the same power when the tune is kept the same (same a/f and timing).
Based on the fuel trim #s that Doug posted, the GMS meter does not work properly. Just because a CEL light doesn't come on does not make it right.
11/1/06, 07:17 AM
#130
The Man... keeping you down.
Join Date: August 15, 2004
Location: Stealin' ur internetz
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Peak numbers are for bragging and dyno queens, "area under the curve" is for winning races. Want to compare dyno runs and modifications, overlay the two curves and see which one has more area under the curve.
11/1/06, 08:21 AM
#131
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His dyno sheet notes that approx. 600 miles were on the car for the 1st dyno run in Aug., which means the engine and drivetrain were not yet broken in.
So if the car was not parked for the next 2 months(which I'm sure it was not), and was driven another 1000 or so miles(which is typical) before the 2nd run was made in Oct., then the engine and drivetrain components would have been broken in for that 2nd run, which in turn would have put more hp to the wheels without even installing the GMS mods.
11/1/06, 08:24 AM
#132
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 27, 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I know why Doug didn't do a side by side HP comparison, but I have a feeling after this SEMA show that we'll have some posts about customer's HP gains with the GMS on Doug's dyno, and I'm pretty sure some people will be eating their words. By the way, I used to get pretty bad throttle lag too, I have an auto, but after reading another thread I now have virtually no throttle lag, so no, you don't "need" a tune for that. And as far as people seeing what they want to see, I agree with that, only I don't think it's who you think it is.
11/1/06, 08:43 AM
#133
Member
Join Date: August 2, 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And like I said, as long as the GMS CAI is making the improvement that I think it's making, and not f**king up the a/f ratio, then I'm still a satisfied customer.
11/1/06, 08:47 AM
#134
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.
If you use the MAF sensor that was provided with the GMS kit then the A/F should be acceptable within Ford's limits.
11/1/06, 08:49 AM
#135
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11/1/06, 09:10 AM
#136
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 24, 2005
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more words for JR to eat:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...2&postcount=10
"We do custom tune the MAF electronic but we are not tricking it we are really tuning it. This in turn gives you the proper A/F ratio"
If the MAF is not being tricked, then why the need for the jumper harness to raise the voltage signal to the ECM?
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...2&postcount=10
"We do custom tune the MAF electronic but we are not tricking it we are really tuning it. This in turn gives you the proper A/F ratio"
If the MAF is not being tricked, then why the need for the jumper harness to raise the voltage signal to the ECM?
11/1/06, 12:00 PM
#137
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 10, 2006
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the way that I see it. When Doug gets back from his trip he will have all the Dyno results and will be able to tell us if the GMS w/MAF and harness is within specs for the A/F ratio. Then we will know whether or not it is safe to run on the car. IF they are out of spec, then I am sure Doug will make a tune for the GMS for use to buy and use, providing we stick the stock sensor back into the GMS.
I am just curious to know if the A/F ratio is safe with the current setup. GMS w/ MAF.
Doug stated that if we are currently running the GMS w/MAF and there are no check engine lights on then we "Should" be within specs. So, I am running mine until he comes back and confirms what the true results are.
I am just curious to know if the A/F ratio is safe with the current setup. GMS w/ MAF.
Doug stated that if we are currently running the GMS w/MAF and there are no check engine lights on then we "Should" be within specs. So, I am running mine until he comes back and confirms what the true results are.
11/1/06, 01:00 PM
#138
Basically (crudely?) doing with the MAF voltage what changing the fuel maps in the ECU would do.
Just a guess. (been 25+ years since I messed with ICs)
Why use a different MAF than stock?
Got me
11/1/06, 01:11 PM
#139
I think he's just seeing what he wants to see. He thinks we're idiots for wanting tuners and doesn't seem to understand that they are for far more than just HP and TQ. Eventually he'll want to mod something on his car that requires a tune, and he'll spend the $399 and find out what he's been missing.
11/1/06, 01:42 PM
#140
FR500 Member
Join Date: August 23, 2004
Posts: 3,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts