CNL Cold Air Intake - 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V
6/11/10, 09:57 AM
#41
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no axe to grind nor do I work or am friends with any competitor. I gave my opinion about an incomplete test based on JJ's numerous posts on numerous forums. Any logical car guy should comment when a test is not complete and JJ's initial test was far from complete. He admitted there were issues with the throttle closing so that clearly makes it an incomplete test. I never disparaged JJ in any way shape or form, I simply commented on how incomplete his initial test was.
You guys are way too sensitive.
Like I said again, I never disparaged JJ at all, I simply commented on an incomplete initial test. Again, any logical car guy should question testers when their initial tests are incomplete.
Again, you guys are way too sensitive.
I understand what you're saying but when it comes to showing results from aftermarket parts it's best to ensure that all controllable variables are resolved prior to posting results. You, and many other vendors, have a huge impact on the aftermarket and initially posting incomplete results sways business negatively or positively. Everyone jumped on your initial results and started to disparage the MMR piece prior to getting full results, remember people always remember the negative no matter how much more positive is done after the fact.
Obviously you have no idea what a troll is. Stop being so overly sensitive, I questioned an inconclusive test. I did not disparage anyone for the last time.
You guys are way too sensitive.
Like I said again, I never disparaged JJ at all, I simply commented on an incomplete initial test. Again, any logical car guy should question testers when their initial tests are incomplete.
Again, you guys are way too sensitive.
I understand what you're saying but when it comes to showing results from aftermarket parts it's best to ensure that all controllable variables are resolved prior to posting results. You, and many other vendors, have a huge impact on the aftermarket and initially posting incomplete results sways business negatively or positively. Everyone jumped on your initial results and started to disparage the MMR piece prior to getting full results, remember people always remember the negative no matter how much more positive is done after the fact.
Obviously you have no idea what a troll is. Stop being so overly sensitive, I questioned an inconclusive test. I did not disparage anyone for the last time.
You have to admit it looks very suspicious for you to sign up and start posting like this days after JJ posted his review of a MMR product. You swear up and down you don't work for MMR?
V/r
Greg
6/11/10, 09:58 AM
#42
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 13, 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand what you're saying but when it comes to showing results from aftermarket parts it's best to ensure that all controllable variables are resolved prior to posting results. You, and many other vendors, have a huge impact on the aftermarket and initially posting incomplete results sways business negatively or positively. Everyone jumped on your initial results and started to disparage the MMR piece prior to getting full results, remember people always remember the negative no matter how much more positive is done after the fact.
I understand you saying JJ could have included more testing in the original post but that wasn't the point. It was strictly if Joe Average bolts it on as MMR instructed does it make the power they claim. Nothing more, nothing less.
Last edited by bpmurr; 6/11/10 at 10:02 AM.
6/11/10, 10:17 AM
#43
Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I've said countless times now I stated my opinion on a flawed test and results shown from an inconclusive test. My goal is not to disparage JJ or pump up MMR, if you paid attention to anything I've said you would have seen that I put money on the C&L being a better product. I am sticking to my guns because as soon as the average Joe sees JJ's initial results he will right off MMR and start gossiping about how terrible of a CAI and that is not entirely fair to MMR, or any other parts provider who might be in the same position. I'm not a fan of MMR but I am a fan of conclusive, honest tests.
This is where you are missing the point of JJ's test. JJ installed the product as instructed from MMR to see if it lived up to their claims. Upon doing so the results were not as MMR claimed. The results of that testing lead MMR to adjust their install instructions fixing the error. JJ is not a vendor of MMR's product. This test was done to show what would happen if Joe Average installed as instructed by MMR. Therefore nothing is flawed in JJ's test.
I understand you saying JJ could have included more testing in the original post but that wasn't the point. It was strictly if Joe Average bolts it on as MMR instructed does it make the power they claim. Nothing more, nothing less.
I understand you saying JJ could have included more testing in the original post but that wasn't the point. It was strictly if Joe Average bolts it on as MMR instructed does it make the power they claim. Nothing more, nothing less.
This entire thing is about seeking the truth and questioning inconclusive tests.
Last edited by yefferys50; 6/11/10 at 10:18 AM.
6/11/10, 11:00 AM
#44
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 25, 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Average Joe here. I am not a car guy at all. I would have bought the MMR product and just installed to and think that was it. I would not think about having to anything else if it was not in the directions. JJ's test was spot on in my eyes. Glad to see MMR is changing their instructions so that the average Joe will klnow that there is more to it then just installing it.
6/11/10, 12:40 PM
#45
GT Member
Join Date: April 29, 2010
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So.....I (and a bunch of others here) are not "logical car guys"? What are we then? Overly-sensitive girls?
I think the basis of your posts is flawed, and you simply refuse to admit any misunderstanding, misreading, or miscalculation on your part. In short, you have issues with admitting being wrong.
But its ok. I'm overly-sensitive, so I guess I'll just get overly-over it.
BTW...Sherman is my hometown. I am now depressed (overly-sensitively so).
I think the basis of your posts is flawed, and you simply refuse to admit any misunderstanding, misreading, or miscalculation on your part. In short, you have issues with admitting being wrong.
But its ok. I'm overly-sensitive, so I guess I'll just get overly-over it.
BTW...Sherman is my hometown. I am now depressed (overly-sensitively so).
6/11/10, 12:55 PM
#46
MOTM Committee Member
So.....I (and a bunch of others here) are not "logical car guys"? What are we then? Overly-sensitive girls?
I think the basis of your posts is flawed, and you simply refuse to admit any misunderstanding, misreading, or miscalculation on your part. In short, you have issues with admitting being wrong.
But its ok. I'm overly-sensitive, so I guess I'll just get overly-over it.
BTW...Sherman is my hometown. I am now depressed (overly-sensitively so).
I think the basis of your posts is flawed, and you simply refuse to admit any misunderstanding, misreading, or miscalculation on your part. In short, you have issues with admitting being wrong.
But its ok. I'm overly-sensitive, so I guess I'll just get overly-over it.
BTW...Sherman is my hometown. I am now depressed (overly-sensitively so).
6/11/10, 02:39 PM
#47
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work for Layered Technologies in Plano, TX. Would you like to send an email to my work email address to verify? I also have no ties to MMR, JJ, or any other performance shop for that matter. The two performance shops I have used in the past were Gearheads and HPP both located here in North Texas.
Like I've said countless times now I stated my opinion on a flawed test and results shown from an inconclusive test. My goal is not to disparage JJ or pump up MMR, if you paid attention to anything I've said you would have seen that I put money on the C&L being a better product. I am sticking to my guns because as soon as the average Joe sees JJ's initial results he will right off MMR and start gossiping about how terrible of a CAI and that is not entirely fair to MMR, or any other parts provider who might be in the same position. I'm not a fan of MMR but I am a fan of conclusive, honest tests.
I get that, the problem lies in the fact that it's still an inconclusive tests and the results of which have hurt MMR's reputation. Knowing that the ECU in the 2011 is advanced most Mustang guys would know that changing a part that alters the amount of metered air would require, at the very least, resetting the ECU to reset the short and long term fuel trims. The ECU with the stock airbox has fuel trims suited to the stock airbox, when that stock airbox is altered the fuel trims will need to be reset so the ECU can adapt properly. Any results shown should have been after an ECU reset, that does not fall under a tune and would better validate whether MMR is advertising the no tune power gains accurately.
This entire thing is about seeking the truth and questioning inconclusive tests.
Like I've said countless times now I stated my opinion on a flawed test and results shown from an inconclusive test. My goal is not to disparage JJ or pump up MMR, if you paid attention to anything I've said you would have seen that I put money on the C&L being a better product. I am sticking to my guns because as soon as the average Joe sees JJ's initial results he will right off MMR and start gossiping about how terrible of a CAI and that is not entirely fair to MMR, or any other parts provider who might be in the same position. I'm not a fan of MMR but I am a fan of conclusive, honest tests.
I get that, the problem lies in the fact that it's still an inconclusive tests and the results of which have hurt MMR's reputation. Knowing that the ECU in the 2011 is advanced most Mustang guys would know that changing a part that alters the amount of metered air would require, at the very least, resetting the ECU to reset the short and long term fuel trims. The ECU with the stock airbox has fuel trims suited to the stock airbox, when that stock airbox is altered the fuel trims will need to be reset so the ECU can adapt properly. Any results shown should have been after an ECU reset, that does not fall under a tune and would better validate whether MMR is advertising the no tune power gains accurately.
This entire thing is about seeking the truth and questioning inconclusive tests.
A simple "no I don't work for MMR" would do. I usually won't give out personal details on forums and you might hurt your company's business with a winning attitude here.
Regarding JJ's results, it sounds like MMR agrees since they are changing the instructions, JJ followed the directions and he got the stated results. I wouldn't assume anything in the instructions. I've see disconnect the battery mentioned in instructions for other bolt ons.
6/11/10, 04:49 PM
#48
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 13, 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get that, the problem lies in the fact that it's still an inconclusive tests and the results of which have hurt MMR's reputation. Knowing that the ECU in the 2011 is advanced most Mustang guys would know that changing a part that alters the amount of metered air would require, at the very least, resetting the ECU to reset the short and long term fuel trims. The ECU with the stock airbox has fuel trims suited to the stock airbox, when that stock airbox is altered the fuel trims will need to be reset so the ECU can adapt properly. Any results shown should have been after an ECU reset, that does not fall under a tune and would better validate whether MMR is advertising the no tune power gains accurately.
This entire thing is about seeking the truth and questioning inconclusive tests.
This entire thing is about seeking the truth and questioning inconclusive tests.
6/11/10, 04:55 PM
#49
Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple "no I don't work for MMR" would do. I usually won't give out personal details on forums and you might hurt your company's business with a winning attitude here.
Regarding JJ's results, it sounds like MMR agrees since they are changing the instructions, JJ followed the directions and he got the stated results. I wouldn't assume anything in the instructions. I've see disconnect the battery mentioned in instructions for other bolt ons.
Regarding JJ's results, it sounds like MMR agrees since they are changing the instructions, JJ followed the directions and he got the stated results. I wouldn't assume anything in the instructions. I've see disconnect the battery mentioned in instructions for other bolt ons.
6/11/10, 04:56 PM
#50
Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um, you still aren't getting it. Not everyone knows to reset the ECU, I know I wouldn't have. (I guess I'm not a real Mustang guy) Therefore JJ tested the CAI as instructed from MMR. After the test it was clear MMR didn't provide proper instruction. JJ's test helped them fix their instructions which will help future owners. JJ could have flat out tuned it and did all kinds of other stuff but that's not what MMR was advertising.
6/11/10, 05:13 PM
#51
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 13, 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times do I have to tell you I understand what the original test was about. That DOES NOT change the fact that the first test was inconclusive and not a fair test for the MMR CAI. You keep talking about understanding so try to actually understand what I'm saying and move on.
JJ installed the CAI as instructed by MMR and it didn't do what they said.
What else needed to be done? Any additional testing is outside the scope of what MMR said needed to be done. It's not up to JJ to be MMR's R&D division. Everything else he's done after the original test is just extra but not required.
6/11/10, 05:44 PM
#52
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 3, 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... Any logical car guy should comment when a test is not complete and JJ's initial test was far from complete. He admitted there were issues with the throttle closing so that clearly makes it an incomplete test. I never disparaged JJ in any way shape or form, I simply commented on how incomplete his initial test was.
6/11/10, 05:49 PM
#53
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 3, 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times do I have to tell you I understand what the original test was about. That DOES NOT change the fact that the first test was inconclusive and not a fair test for the MMR CAI. You keep talking about understanding so try to actually understand what I'm saying and move on.
6/11/10, 09:15 PM
#55
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telling where I specifically work isn't really all that personal and it was further proof that I do not work, nor am I affiliated with, MMR. I also do not see how my posts have anything to do with my company's business. Also please tell me how my non disparaging remarks were bad in any way. FYI, I gave credit in JJ's second test results in his new thread...that proves I am not out to get him I just wanted more comprehensive results because that is only fair to any parts manufacturer.
Last edited by 1trickpony; 6/11/10 at 09:22 PM. Reason: grammer
6/12/10, 09:25 AM
#57
Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone has different standards for what they consider personal so its up to you what you post. If you're a butt hole and I know where you work I'll avoid your company in the future. There's several car dealers and vendors on this site. I'll never do business with them after the way they posted on here. There's some guys I'll buy from because of it.
6/12/10, 11:45 AM
#58
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 13, 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6/12/10, 12:50 PM
#59
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeffery,
I'm not calling you a butt hole. I was providing an example of how your posts combined with your personal data (such as were you work) can have a negative result. I don't want to make this a personal attack but you sound a little overly sensitive at this point. I'm moving on here and welcome to the Mustang Source.
I'm not calling you a butt hole. I was providing an example of how your posts combined with your personal data (such as were you work) can have a negative result. I don't want to make this a personal attack but you sound a little overly sensitive at this point. I'm moving on here and welcome to the Mustang Source.
