Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimorejohn1
From GM High Tech
On the aesthetic side of things, the Aircharger system looks like a very high quality OEM stock component under the hood (with the exception of the polished filter cap), and looks like it belongs there. Also, when we took the car to wide-open-throttle on our dyno runs there was a very noticeable difference in the sound of the intake, and a very slight change in the exhaust note of the SS. Over all, the car just sounded more aggressive. - Baseline Rear Wheel HP: 312.9 HP
- Baseline Rear Wheel Torque: 331.5 Ft/Lbs
- K&N Aircharger – Rear Wheel HP: 337.9 HP - increase of 25.0 rwhp
- K&N Aircharger - Rear Wheel Torque: 352.26 Ft/Lbs - increase of 20.76 ft/lbs
Also this was done by GM:
So, is the K&N Typhoon intake all style and no substance? Well, as it turns out you can have your under-hood bling with plenty of power to go with it. With the Typhoon, we gained just under 24 horsepower, and over 23 pound feet of torque over stock – that’s just 1 horsepower less than the Aircharger, and 2 pound feet of torque more.
Our best dyno numbers for the K&N Typhoon on the L99 SS were 336.9 horsepower, and 355.1 pound feet of torque. Let’s just say, that power gain is probably within the statistical variance of our dyno. However, if you want to ignore variance, the plastic air charger out powered the aluminum tube intake by 1 hp, but fell short by a few ft/lbs. - Baseline Rear Wheel HP: 312.9 HP
- Baseline Rear Wheel Torque: 331.5 Ft/Lbs
- K&N Typhoon – Rear Wheel HP: 336.9 HP - increase of 24.0 rwhp
- K&N Typhoon- Rear Wheel Torque: 355.16 Ft/Lbs - increase of 23.6 ft/lbs
http://www.lsxtv.com/tech-stories/en...ntake-options/ |
I've noticed you posted this a few times recently and wanted to let you know that
GM had nothing to do with this testing and they are in no way affiliated with the tester. This was done by GM High Tech Performance
Magazine. They re just a magazine like any other and have nothing to do with General Motors the car manufacturer. Our company was actually in this test, did very well with it, and even with that being said the testing methods were not the best and left some room for variance. The Jannetty Racing CAI testing done was far more scientific and controlled, and supplied much better data.
I am not pointing this comment to any manufacturer specifically, but there is not a CAI made by any company, including ours, that will net you 25 rwhp over stock for this vehicle
that can and has been proven consistently on a 3rd party Dyno by a trusted source on this forum without tuning. Our CAI gets 16 rwhp over stock and we are at the higher end of the spectrum in terms of gains.
I just did not want you to keep posting that and telling people "GM tested them" when GM as a company was in no way involved.
