AIRAID Dyno Test & Videos For 3.6L Camaro

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by mrray13

But the dyno can be tweaked. It can be made to read pretty much anything. Not saying that's what is happening here, but the test car's big baseline numbers point to that. And if those numbers are skewed, again not saying they are, then the rest of the test is void. What real world cars only lose 4% of their torque through the driveline?


The ECU is reading what is happening at that moment, and is adjusting for it. It's real time. While the ECU is attempting to recover to a preset limit, it still has to know what exactly is happening now, so it can make the proper adjustments. That's probably oversimplifed as well, but it's the basic idea. In reality, it's probably more accurate then any dyno, save for what is happening at the wheels.

Gotta remember too, torque is all that is actually measured on a chassis dyno. HP is derived from the torque using math. So if the torque numbers are wrong, so are the hp. Which goes back to that initial 4% loss.

Sounds to me like you are making an accusation... If you can't prove that then leave that speculation out of this thread. We don't have paying sponsors so our members can have uncensored dialog with vendors. But accusations that are unfounded are not allowed.

Either you agree or disagree with the findings. If you can't counter with your own personal experience then leave it be.

You've made your point. Take it to PM's moving forward.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by mrray13

It's running leaner then the other CAI he has as well, not just the stock box. He's data logged the Injen, which has shown to keep the AFR closer to stock then the AirRaid.

I'll let scrming clarify it more, as it was his data.

[devildoc]

GTAHVIT - so does that count towards me since I have my own experience and dyno proof? I believe the accusations are true on some basis. Tell me how there is only a 4% drivetrain loss for tq? Doesn't seem odd to you? I mean come on you have me, the guy that supposedly started all of this, putting all of his intergrity on the line and allowing people to call me a bitch yet we have knowledgable people on here trying to prove points. I think mrray's points are valid enough. You can move this I guess to the vendor area, but by being in the V6 area I would hope that it is open to all comments! I know your a Mod so I respect any decision you make but they also have you as a mod because you are fair.

[scrming]

Originally Posted by David@Airaid

Hello scrming,

I am not questioning what you have found as of yet. You claim the car is “running a bit leaner” which it does as the dyno sheet shows. What is missing here is that just because the Airaid is not as rich as with the OEM system it’s a bad thing for the vehicle and will make less power which is not true.

I think that’s the main confusion.

Thanks,
David

Actually you will find I made no comments regarding actual performance.. I just posted what I have observed so far in the data logs... and in fact my O2 data seems to agree with your findings that Airaid shifts the A/F....

Historically, yes, you leaned out a motor a bit to get more power... But what we are finding is that this motor while appearing to run overly rich, apparently likes it this way.

Again... I purposely have avoided performance comments but I can see at WOT I was pulling timing... I've scheduled some dyno time for Saturday...

[bmwdon]

I thought this motor was tuned on the lean side from the factory?

Originally Posted by scrming

Actually you will find I made no comments regarding actual performance.. I just posted what I have observed so far in the data logs... and in fact my O2 data seems to agree with your findings that Airaid shifts the A/F....

Historically, yes, you leaned out a motor a bit to get more power... But what we are finding is that this motor while appearing to run overly rich, apparently likes it this way.

Again... I purposely have avoided performance comments but I can see at WOT I was pulling timing... I've scheduled some dyno time for Saturday...

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by bmwdon

I thought this motor was tuned on the lean side from the factory?

Nope, IIRC, the commanded AFR is like 11.7. Without CAI, and with tune, my biggest hp numbers happen at ~11.97, while biggest torque numbers are ~12.86, according to the DynoJet. I'm unsure of what Vince's data logs show for that.

The motor like the richer side of things, lol.

[az2009se]

Originally Posted by devildoc

So this was a stock camaro? Making the most power anyone has seen in a stock car so far. Then by adding an intake making just as much power as Mrrays camaro is making with a tune,LT,and exhaust! Seems a lil to far fetched....

The car in the video is mine. Completly stock except for the Airaid. 87 octane.

[Beauwulf]

OK, being one of the original Trifecta tune testers, I may be able to shed some light here.

I have the Airaid CAI on my car. I ran a dyno test before the tune was installed and got a 4-5 HP gain with the Airaid (hood closed). I ran the next run with the hood open and, without cooling the car down, gained 9 HP. The conditions (raining cats and dogs) and operator were in question so I made no comment on that aspect of the test and waited confirmation of the result.

Also, the dyno I was on is an "eddy current" type and, typically, reads 30 HP less than a Mustang dyno... 40 less than a dynojet (this is a known difference throughout the automotive industry and the topic of many heated debates!) so my numbers are lower in total but still showed the increase.

Bottom line, different dynos read different total numbers! A dyno is a tool for DIRECT comparison only! You just can't get the same numbers from one to another!

OK... when Vince reviewed the first log files on mine after the tune, he found a problem with the power enrichment calibration. Sometimes it was working and sometimes not. Vince said at it's worst, my AFR was up to 14.7/1...! This could be the issue with DDoc's pulls. Combine that with the differences both Scrming and I have seen in performance based on IAT reported temps and you can get a variable that exceeds the gains seen from the Airaid and could explain DDoc's lower numbers... hell, it could just be that the operator didn't have the peddle all the way to the floor... you just can't be sure from one set of runs. Yes, you should look into it further but, I truely don't believe it's all the fault of the Airaid.

When I installed the Airaid, before the tune was done, I did find the throttle response to be marginally better (primarily on a hard launch). The only real issue I noted, other than the inconsistent runs caused by the enrichment calibration problem, was a slight lean surge at idle in traffic. Given the slight lean condition from the intake and south Florida heat and traffic, that's a minor issue. No more surging after the tune... but, it's winter here so.... that remains to be seen if it's all cured.

My only real critique of the Airaid is in the way it transitions from the filter housing to the tube. There is a hell of a ledge there that has got to upset the flow somewhere in the rev range. That is another potential issue for performance if the tube is grossly misaligned. After looking at some of the "fast prototype" inserts Airaid used to "tune" this intake, I could see where a mialignment could cause a substantial difference in the effectiveness of the intake.

I understand the need for the accordion section due to the (excessive) engine movement but, that is just not right! I am working on a cure for that.....

My feeling is that, although the stated gains where not realized on the second test car, they are within the range of error of the whole dyno process. The difference between fuel trims (basic condition of the car...) on the different cars used could attribute to the lower number on the second car... let alone all the other variables involved in dyno testing.

And, one last thing, I've seen up to 5 HP difference on my race bikes just from the amount of filter oil that was applied... food for thought....

On a side note... a manual tranny will "soak up" about 12-15% of the HP while an auto eats 17-20%. The reason a good auto can run with a standard is in the application of the available torque. Just look at the stock times of the L99 Vs the LS3. The auto has 26 fewer HP and still puts down very similar times in the 1/4. The MPH is usually a bit higher on the standard but, the ET is very close.

[Mankind]

I think this will be my last time looking at this thread. I don't see how the original base line numbers on torque can be so high. If they are then the owner has possibly the most powerful stock LLT GM dropped in the camaros so far. Lucky him/her. On several occassions i noticed answering a cpl questions were sort of avoided and this has made my mind up to go with a different CAI. Thx again for doing the tests and posting the vids.



:(

[Beauwulf]

Originally Posted by Mankind

I think this will be my last time looking at this thread. I don't see how the original base line numbers on torque can be so high. If they are then the owner has possibly the most powerful stock LLT GM dropped in the camaros so far. Lucky him/her. On several occassions i noticed answering a cpl questions were sort of avoided and this has made my mind up to go with a different CAI. Thx again for doing the tests and posting the vids.



:(

Please realize that there can be a tremendous difference between dyno results! Just google "dynojet vs superflow" and you will see that most people believe the dynojet results to be inflated over other types of equipment.

It is a well known issue and has been debated "ad nosium" over the years... LOL! Basically, it doesn't matter as it's the differences on the same dyno that are important!

You guys know me... if it was BS, I would call it M8!

[scrming]

Originally Posted by Beauwulf

Please realize that there can be a tremendous difference between dyno results! Just google "dynojet vs superflow" and you will see that most people believe the dynojet results to be inflated over other types of equipment.

It is a well known issue and has been debated "ad nosium" over the years... LOL! Basically, it doesn't matter as it's the differences on the same dyno that are important!

You guys know me... if it was BS, I would call it M8!

I've seen 7 RWHP swings just between pulls..

[Airaid Filters]

Originally Posted by Beauwulf

OK, being one of the original Trifecta tune testers, I may be able to shed some light here.

I have the Airaid CAI on my car. I ran a dyno test before the tune was installed and got a 4-5 HP gain with the Airaid (hood closed). I ran the next run with the hood open and, without cooling the car down, gained 9 HP. The conditions (raining cats and dogs) and operator were in question so I made no comment on that aspect of the test and waited confirmation of the result.

Also, the dyno I was on is an "eddy current" type and, typically, reads 30 HP less than a Mustang dyno... 40 less than a dynojet (this is a known difference throughout the automotive industry and the topic of many heated debates!) so my numbers are lower in total but still showed the increase.

Bottom line, different dynos read different total numbers! A dyno is a tool for DIRECT comparison only! You just can't get the same numbers from one to another!

OK... when Vince reviewed the first log files on mine after the tune, he found a problem with the power enrichment calibration. Sometimes it was working and sometimes not. Vince said at it's worst, my AFR was up to 14.7/1...! This could be the issue with DDoc's pulls. Combine that with the differences both Scrming and I have seen in performance based on IAT reported temps and you can get a variable that exceeds the gains seen from the Airaid and could explain DDoc's lower numbers... hell, it could just be that the operator didn't have the peddle all the way to the floor... you just can't be sure from one set of runs. Yes, you should look into it further but, I truely don't believe it's all the fault of the Airaid.

When I installed the Airaid, before the tune was done, I did find the throttle response to be marginally better (primarily on a hard launch). The only real issue I noted, other than the inconsistent runs caused by the enrichment calibration problem, was a slight lean surge at idle in traffic. Given the slight lean condition from the intake and south Florida heat and traffic, that's a minor issue. No more surging after the tune... but, it's winter here so.... that remains to be seen if it's all cured.

My only real critique of the Airaid is in the way it transitions from the filter housing to the tube. There is a hell of a ledge there that has got to upset the flow somewhere in the rev range. That is another potential issue for performance if the tube is grossly misaligned. After looking at some of the "fast prototype" inserts Airaid used to "tune" this intake, I could see where a mialignment could cause a substantial difference in the effectiveness of the intake.

I understand the need for the accordion section due to the (excessive) engine movement but, that is just not right! I am working on a cure for that.....

My feeling is that, although the stated gains where not realized on the second test car, they are within the range of error of the whole dyno process. The difference between fuel trims (basic condition of the car...) on the different cars used could attribute to the lower number on the second car... let alone all the other variables involved in dyno testing.

And, one last thing, I've seen up to 5 HP difference on my race bikes just from the amount of filter oil that was applied... food for thought....

On a side note... a manual tranny will "soak up" about 12-15% of the HP while an auto eats 17-20%. The reason a good auto can run with a standard is in the application of the available torque. Just look at the stock times of the L99 Vs the LS3. The auto has 26 fewer HP and still puts down very similar times in the 1/4. The MPH is usually a bit higher on the standard but, the ET is very close.

Originally Posted by Beauwulf

Please realize that there can be a tremendous difference between dyno results! Just google "dynojet vs superflow" and you will see that most people believe the dynojet results to be inflated over other types of equipment.

It is a well known issue and has been debated "ad nosium" over the years... LOL! Basically, it doesn't matter as it's the differences on the same dyno that are important!

You guys know me... if it was BS, I would call it M8!

Hello Beauwulf,

Both are excellent posts. Thank you

David

[i007spectre]

Even if i made only 1 more hp, it still looks sweet under the hood. Friend at work has airaid on her challenger r/t.

[faninc]

SCRMING-

If you are seeing the AIRAID pulling timing pretty good, does that mean it would be hard to net HP gains using it? Just plain confused?

[scrming]

Originally Posted by faninc

SCRMING-

If you are seeing the AIRAID pulling timing pretty good, does that mean it would be hard to net HP gains using it? Just plain confused?

I think I'm going to refrain from making any statements regarding HP or performance... I am simply going to post data and let every one draw their own conclusions..

[faninc]

SCRMING- My question does not have to be about Airaid or any other CAI...

Just looking for an understanding- if a car is pulling timing is it also possible to show gains in HP, given that situation?

[Agent Atomic Orange]

Originally Posted by esperman

WOW. I noticed a difference between driving the A6 & Manual cars, but didn't think the standard was that more efficient.

Gotta love a manual LOL

I've got a manual w/airaid. It rocks! (I am still worried about the autos in the 1/4)

[mrray13]

Originally Posted by Beauwulf

Please realize that there can be a tremendous difference between dyno results! Just google "dynojet vs superflow" and you will see that most people believe the dynojet results to be inflated over other types of equipment.

Yep, we know that. That's not the arguement.

As it is, and in no small part due to a pm, I'll officially refrain from anymore posting in this thread. I'll wait scrming's results and go from there. I can't wait for Saturday.

[Wizzer]

Originally Posted by brAnd7onX

You sound like a whiney little @#*%#. Are you expecting all cars to post the same exact hp and tq numbers on different dynos?? The point David has made here is that the Airaid does in fact increase power with the intake. It doesn't matter if his test car had 345rwhp and the intake added 350rwhp. Bottom line would be that the intake made 5rwhp. Got it?

I dont take sides here but I have to say david did what we all asked and I am happy with what I saw.

Enough said lets close the topic here. No need to work everyone up and bash a product that has proven it self

Thanks AirRaid.

Wizzer

[esperman]

Originally Posted by Beauwulf

OK, being one of the original Trifecta tune testers, I may be able to shed some light here.

I have the Airaid CAI on my car. I ran a dyno test before the tune was installed and got a 4-5 HP gain with the Airaid (hood closed). I ran the next run with the hood open and, without cooling the car down, gained 9 HP. The conditions (raining cats and dogs) and operator were in question so I made no comment on that aspect of the test and waited confirmation of the result.

Also, the dyno I was on is an "eddy current" type and, typically, reads 30 HP less than a Mustang dyno... 40 less than a dynojet (this is a known difference throughout the automotive industry and the topic of many heated debates!) so my numbers are lower in total but still showed the increase.

Bottom line, different dynos read different total numbers! A dyno is a tool for DIRECT comparison only! You just can't get the same numbers from one to another!

OK... when Vince reviewed the first log files on mine after the tune, he found a problem with the power enrichment calibration. Sometimes it was working and sometimes not. Vince said at it's worst, my AFR was up to 14.7/1...! This could be the issue with DDoc's pulls. Combine that with the differences both Scrming and I have seen in performance based on IAT reported temps and you can get a variable that exceeds the gains seen from the Airaid and could explain DDoc's lower numbers... hell, it could just be that the operator didn't have the peddle all the way to the floor... you just can't be sure from one set of runs. Yes, you should look into it further but, I truely don't believe it's all the fault of the Airaid.

When I installed the Airaid, before the tune was done, I did find the throttle response to be marginally better (primarily on a hard launch). The only real issue I noted, other than the inconsistent runs caused by the enrichment calibration problem, was a slight lean surge at idle in traffic. Given the slight lean condition from the intake and south Florida heat and traffic, that's a minor issue. No more surging after the tune... but, it's winter here so.... that remains to be seen if it's all cured.

My only real critique of the Airaid is in the way it transitions from the filter housing to the tube. There is a hell of a ledge there that has got to upset the flow somewhere in the rev range. That is another potential issue for performance if the tube is grossly misaligned. After looking at some of the "fast prototype" inserts Airaid used to "tune" this intake, I could see where a mialignment could cause a substantial difference in the effectiveness of the intake.

I understand the need for the accordion section due to the (excessive) engine movement but, that is just not right! I am working on a cure for that.....

My feeling is that, although the stated gains where not realized on the second test car, they are within the range of error of the whole dyno process. The difference between fuel trims (basic condition of the car...) on the different cars used could attribute to the lower number on the second car... let alone all the other variables involved in dyno testing.

And, one last thing, I've seen up to 5 HP difference on my race bikes just from the amount of filter oil that was applied... food for thought....

On a side note... a manual tranny will "soak up" about 12-15% of the HP while an auto eats 17-20%. The reason a good auto can run with a standard is in the application of the available torque. Just look at the stock times of the L99 Vs the LS3. The auto has 26 fewer HP and still puts down very similar times in the 1/4. The MPH is usually a bit higher on the standard but, the ET is very close.

Beauwulf, good points. I await further insight from scrming & Vince before making any decision to pull of the Airaid or keep her on. I am more concerned with AFR & timing at this point.

Also, please be advised all the cool guys here now have Star Trek Avatars....

[devildoc]

Originally Posted by Agent Atomic Orange

I've got a manual w/airaid. It rocks! (I am still worried about the autos in the 1/4)

Why you worried about us Agent? ....

[esperman]

Originally Posted by devildoc

Why you worried about us Agent? ....

cause we could miss a gear!

[faninc]

I am going to sign off from this topic- I want to thank all of you for the education I received! Here is my take away from ALL this...

GM is now producing engines that are not leaving much on the table anymore...I saw that in my 07 Vette and now with this LLT V6. Diablo has confirmed that they could not find any real improvements in testing for this engine and the CAI's seem to have varying results...+ or - 5 HP, is within Dyno variance.

Congrats GM! Good luck all, see ya on other topics.

Time to start driving my car again...staying Airaid and Ls3 mufflers. May throw some 93 octane for kicks...LOL

[devildoc]

Beauwulf......thanks for the write up and insight! Seems we both had the same problem.

[97one]

Originally Posted by bmwdon

the true test is track time I can't wait to get all my parts on the car that includes an airraid setup

WOW after reading 120 posts it's nice to see track time mentioned...

I would love to see some time slips with & without the Airaid on the same day with the same DA.
I don't know if Scrming is going to do any track tests?