grambles423
Automotive Engineer
To see their effects on OTHER tunes yes. But to see their physically limiting effects, no.
After riding in a TSI with a Carbonio I don't understand the noise complaint. It seems to be a double standard as noise is okay but just not from the Carbonio intake. Many different modifications create more noise like the 8" subwoofer listed in your sig. When people upgrade from the all season Pirellis to a set of stickier tires (Michelin PSS makes more noise than the stock tires) and the road noise from tires can be pretty annoying. A aftermarket downpipe with a cat is undoubtedly louder and will make an unpleasant sound at a cold start. What's the deal with the Carbonio?
With Grambles performing these tests with a K04 it could be viewed as a positive due to the K04 airflow requirements amplifying the weaknesses and differences between the intakes. With the IHI the difference between the Modshack and Carbonio may not even be apparent.
Characteristics at 250 g/s may not show up at 180 g/s.
Intakes can cause restriction up high. If the compressor is actually trying to pull as hard as it can through a "straw", for lack of a better word, it will not meet those requested values. You're limited physically in the system as opposed to what the computer THINKS it can do.
This is why a lot of track cars have completely open ended compressors.
In that case - shouldn't all be tested on a totally stock car? Anything else brings tune specifics into play.
For example - a modshack on an APR K04 might log differently than a Carbonio because the APR K04 programming is EXPECTING specific flow characteristics from a part it was specifically developed with?
In my head I see a flaw in the test, but I am not sure if it is a real flaw or just in my head.
Maybe the solution is to remove boost from the equation.
Wow, great thread, right on. Yes, it was clear the Carbonio was less restrictive than the stock box that I am back to (w/pointless drop-in filter) but I couldn't get past the noise & sound which bums me out because it is clear from more 'hard data' like this that it is superior to the stock airbox. Oh well.
The only caveat though is that all these tests were run w/k04 which is just better from the start. Bigger turbo, etc. so it seems like an intake would show a more noticeable difference working in tandem w/k04 vs. with something more 'common' like stage 1 on a k03 turbo no?
Great sticky though. Real good. Thanks for your ongoing technical contribution to this forum Grambles!
I'll be posting up a before and after dyno once I get my APR/Carbonio Intake installed.
Mike
In that case - shouldn't all be tested on a totally stock car? Anything else brings tune specifics into play.
For example - a modshack on an APR K04 might log differently than a Carbonio because the APR K04 programming is EXPECTING specific flow characteristics from a part it was specifically developed with?
In my head I see a flaw in the test, but I am not sure if it is a real flaw or just in my head.
Maybe the solution is to remove boost from the equation.
This is trickier in that one has to question if the tune comes into play at this point or not. It is known that GIAC Stage 2 and up does play better with the CCB than the Carbonio (though at Stage 2 it is negligible, once you hit k04 it is common).
I'll be posting up a before and after dyno once I get my APR/Carbonio Intake installed.
Mike
Here's one:
cool, so the dotted line is stock w/stock air and the solid line is w/carbonio? if so, i see no benefits until around 4000 RPMs at which point the carbonio is superior. the stock airbox actually seems better up to about 3500 or so.. looks like the intake totally destroys the stock airbox around 5000RPM and beyond, but since i rarely shift any higher than 4500 RPMs, looks like I'm not missing much. there being a 30HP deficit at redline doesn't mean a whole lot to me in 95% of my daily driving.