Introducing the JacFab CAI system! Dyno numbers, and videos inside.

[BLACK10]

We look forward to testing it out! Looks great!

[Jason@JacFab]

Well, I'm pretty happy with the fueling I'm seeing. I installed a wideband o2 sensor & gauge on the car today, and the intake is within the normal range (avg 14.5:1 at cruise), at WOT the intake is at about 12.2:1 avg, which I think is very safe, especially when most tuners are tuning for 12.5 to 13.0:1 (depending on the tuner, and the application) at WOT, so we're good to go!

Essentially the intake is now finished design wise, the only thing that will change is it's appearance (finished lid, slight change in the tube, permanent MAF mount, different color options). Going to call and try to get an appointment to get the production prototype intake vs stock intake on the dyno again this Friday! Fingers crossed it's as good, or better than the original prototype was!

[IndeedSS1]

Originally Posted by RacnJsn95

Well, I'm pretty happy with the fueling I'm seeing. I installed a wideband o2 sensor & gauge on the car today, and the intake is within the normal range (avg 14.5:1 at cruise), at WOT the intake is at about 12.2:1 avg, which I think is very safe, especially when most tuners are tuning for 12.5 to 13.0:1 (depending on the tuner, and the application) at WOT, so we're good to go!

Essentially the intake is now finished design wise, the only thing that will change is it's appearance (finished lid, slight change in the tube, permanent MAF mount, different color options). Going to call and try to get an appointment to get the production prototype intake vs stock intake on the dyno again this Friday! Fingers crossed it's as good, or better than the original prototype was!

[2012-2SS]

So with that much flow are you throwing codes on the stock tune like some other intakes do?

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by 2012-2SS

So with that much flow are you throwing codes on the stock tune like some other intakes do?

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

a lot of that has to do with altering the placement of the maf (angles) too much makes it SEEM like flow is altered but they all flow very similar numbers based on CFM.

[Jason@JacFab]

Originally Posted by 2012-2SS

So with that much flow are you throwing codes on the stock tune like some other intakes do?

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

As of right now between the original prototype and this new one, I have put about 5000 miles on the car, 5 dyno pulls, and about 25 1/4 mile track passes, and the check engine light has not come on once.

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

a lot of that has to do with altering the placement of the maf (angles) too much makes it SEEM like flow is altered but they all flow very similar numbers based on CFM.

I agree about the MAF placement, and angles, but I wouldn't call a 100+ CFM difference over all of the tested competition "very similar" (personally )

Forgot I haven't posted a picture of the most recent iteration, so it's pictured below. It's not the production lid, just a quick lid I made and stuck on there... The only change to the tube is that it will have a barb fitting welded on for the intake air bridge (I didn't bother welding one on since I have the RX Catch can, and would need to cap it anyway.). The MAF block was just siliconed on in this picture as I knew I was going to have to probably move it around a couple times. The MAF if is now located on the front side of the tube section of the velocity stack / filter clamp piece and will be permanently attached (NOT siliconed) on production intakes.

[vam5555]

that looks awesome.

Can't wait for the next update on this.

[Denis]

no kidding...hurry up and get this thing done!! HAHA

[1989GTA]

"The MAF if is now located on the front side of the tube"

That is what I was thinking looking at the picture. I would try and center it in the straight section. I believe GM says centered on a minimum of a 6" section of straight pipe. You could probably fudge that measurement into the bend a little if need be.

[Jason@JacFab]

Originally Posted by 1989GTA

"The MAF if is now located on the front side of the tube"

That is what I was thinking looking at the picture. I would try and center it in the straight section. I believe GM says centered on a minimum of a 6" section of straight pipe. You could probably fudge that measurement into the bend a little if need be.

You must have read that before I edited it... It is now on the front side of the tubular section of the plastic velocity stack/filter clamp piece (It was previously in about a 10:30 o'clock position, now in about a 2:00 position.). I played with the distance, moving it in and out and it seems to be happy where it's located. I am not noticing any strange symptoms of it not having 6" of straight tube in front of it. It seems very drivable to me, no strange bucking or surging. I am trying to avoid putting the MAF sensor into the aluminum tube section as it would probably increase the IAT readings vs keeping it in the plastic section. Moving the MAF into the aluminum tube is a last resort, but it seems pretty happy where it is in regards to both fueling, and drivability.

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by RacnJsn95

As of right now between the original prototype and this new one, I have put about 5000 miles on the car, 5 dyno pulls, and about 25 1/4 mile track passes, and the check engine light has not come on once.



I agree about the MAF placement, and angles, but I wouldn't call a 100+ CFM difference over all of the tested competition "very similar" (personally )

Forgot I haven't posted a picture of the most recent iteration, so it's pictured below. It's not the production lid, just a quick lid I made and stuck on there... The only change to the tube is that it will have a barb fitting welded on for the intake air bridge (I didn't bother welding one on since I have the RX Catch can, and would need to cap it anyway.). The MAF block was just siliconed on in this picture as I knew I was going to have to probably move it around a couple times. The MAF if is now located on the front side of the tube section of the velocity stack / filter clamp piece and will be permanently attached (NOT siliconed) on production intakes.

100 cfm difference between many different intakes is incrementally small but between the best and worst, pretty big.

[thepirate]

This really does look awesome. And i like how you have never said anything but good things about other intakes like CAI's intake.

I might just wait to see how this all comes together before i pull the trigger on a CAI.

[1989GTA]

"I am not noticing any strange symptoms of it not having 6" of straight tube in front"

You should not. What I was trying to say is that you need 3" in front and back of the MAF to straighten out the air for a total of 6" of straight. That is per the GM instructions on installing the card style MAF in a 4" piece of tubing. Sounds like you have it and a very nice product to boot. I think you have a winner there.

[Jason@JacFab]

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

100 cfm difference between many different intakes is incrementally small but between the best and worst, pretty big.

How about 100+ over all other intakes tested so far.

+106.4 (over a popular tube and cone filter style intake, the next best in line)
+149.1 (over a popular OTR style intake... Yes... That really happened)
+202.2 (over kind of an oddball intake, w/ a tube & oval filter, the worst so far)

I've got one still to test, and one more in the mail that will be here this week.

Originally Posted by thepirate

This really does look awesome. And i like how you have never said anything but good things about other intakes like CAI's intake.

I might just wait to see how this all comes together before i pull the trigger on a CAI.

There is no sense in bashing other companies products, for the most part they all look nice and most seem to perform well to the feel, and all have different power bands.

Unfortunately, more than I vendor, I see myself as a regular guy... What I don't approve of is manufacturers claiming ludicrous info and not wanting to explain how that info was come up with, and no documentation of how it was tested. I have no reason to lie to anyone, or falsify anything, I would rather someone bought my product and hopefully think they would get what I claim based real world testing performed to the best of my ability, not because I spewed out a number with undocumented testing (and not necessarily a HP related number in some cases). If you want to claim something, you gotta have proof of how you came up with that claim.