[Roto-fab 1]

After seeing the results posted in the CAI evaluation, we immediately scheduled dyno time for our testing. A special thanks goes out to Bob and Brent at EPP for re-arranging their schedule so we could get in for testing so quickly. We spent the better half of Friday at EPP dyno testing our intake and the stock system. We didn’t want to post comments without first simulating the test ourselves. We strive to build a great product and provide great customer service. We have many satisfied customers here on this forum- several of which own a chassis dyno!
On to our testing- the Roto-fab system was ran first as it was already on the vehicle. We then switched to the stock system, back to the Roto-fab, stock again, and finally back to our system. The samples listed below were ran with the hood closed. Coolant and oil temps were identical at the start of each run.
The results are very similar to numbers reported to us from individual customers on this forum as well as several tuners.

------------Max HP----------Max Tq.-------Avg HP----------Avg Tq
Stock--------340.9-----------356.8----------291--------------334
Roto-fab-----356.0-----------366.5----------302--------------345


The results show a peak gain of 15.1 HP and 9.7 ft/lb torque. Average HP gain was 11 and average torque gain was 11 ft/lbs. The numbers are lower for our testing because testing was done on a Mustang brand dyno and an L99 car. The important thing is the difference between the two. We will have the actual dyno sheets emailed to us on Monday.
The numbers are from last pull with the Roto-fab system initially on the car, then the first pull with the stock system. They were back to back runs. We later performed 50 MPH extended runs with each system to allow “learning” time. When we switched from the stock back to the Roto-fab system, gains were similar to those shown above.
We went on to test a variety of variables including air flow to the front of the car. This was very interesting because it clearly showed our system provided cooler air to the MAF as air flow to the front of the car was reduced. With an ambient temperature of 64 F, one fan feeding the grill area and a 7 minute “drive“ on the dyno, here are the inlet temps:
Stock- 129 F
Roto-fab- 111 F
Obviously these are less than desirable intake temps which are caused by lack of air flow to the front of the vehicle. So why do I find this information interesting and important? When driving, we start out at 0 MPH, not 60 MPH! Most dyno testing is performed start to finish with a constant amount of air blowing on the front of the car.
This shows how effective our air box is compared to stock. By effectively sealing to the hood and pulling air from the stock location (as well as other openings which you can see with your air box removed) we are using several areas to pull cool air. In addition, our large box design has a “reservoir” of air at it’s disposal. And yes there is a duct behind your grill that feeds cool air straight into our air box. However, the stock box has only one small duct pointing towards this area. At lower speeds such as we were simulating, the stock box is apparently pulling air from the engine compartment because at low speeds it’s the path of least resistance to it’s one opening. Keep in mind the incoming air from the duct in the grill must change directions…and has a longer path As speed increases, the stock inlet through the grill flows more air which allows intake temps between the two systems to equalize. The numbers we saw aren’t useful as we don’t know what speed this was simulating. However, it is a good comparison which shows our system is superior to the stock box in terms of isolating from engine compartment heat. This is especially true at lower speeds. It’s an important and overlooked area that doesn’t normally show up in dyno testing. This is what makes our system a true Cold Air Intake system!

We went on to test our stainless steel inlet tube against our plastic version. We thought this might be valuable since we sent only our plastic tube for testing while many early dyno numbers from our CAI were achieved with the metal version. The numbers didn’t vary greatly, but the results were still extremely interesting and valuable. We found the plastic tube was consistently better until about 4000 RPM; however, the stainless steel tube picked up more from 4000-6000 RPM. There could be several reasons for this, so we will do more testing to see if we can optimize our design.

Our last bit of testing focused on variations of coolant and oil temperatures. At the time, we were looking for possibilities as to why our dyno results varied so greatly with the test results posted. We found that slight variations in temps were making huge power differences. BTW, this is a very obvious statement for anyone that’s been involved with dyno testing! This is especially true with modern GM engine management systems. Even with a great deal of effort, it’s often difficult to keep consistent parameters while testing. It’s one of the reasons people always say “dyno numbers will vary”…and they always do! If it was cut and dry, we wouldn’t have debates over product comparisons and claims year after year, decade after decade.

Looking back on Ted’s testing, our intake performed well in several areas. Our intake temps were among the lowest, fuel trims were in a good range and fit/instructions received positive comments. Obviously, the power numbers didn’t look right to us, so I decided to call Ted today and talk with him about our findings as compared to what was posted on his test. One of the main topics I questioned was the knock values on his chart. They weren’t consistent with what we were seeing on the dyno. I felt we had an edge over most intakes because of our intake air temps and some of our design features, yet we were loosing timing and ultimately power in the higher RPMs. We discussed some of the differences between the engine management systems of the LS3 equipped cars vs. the L99 vehicles. We will be dyno testing an LS3 car as soon as we make the arrangements. Like our test yesterday, it will involve only our intake and the stock intake. Much like our dyno session yesterday, our goal is to duplicate the testing as done in Ted’s facility, compare our results and go from there. Ted was very knowledgeable and helpful in terms of sharing his test parameters and thoughts on the testing itself. I'm sure I will be talking with him again after our next dyno session. As many have said, this forum and the people on it are great assets to Camaro enthusiasts.

In regards to the CAI comparison test, I don’t believe any test such as this performed at one facility should be viewed as the final and conclusive piece of evidence from which we are all judged by. Please keep in mind any tuner could have initiated a challenge such as this and the results easily could have been very different. Overall, I can honestly say we wouldn’t have dropped everything to go dyno testing on Friday, so the CAI comparison did contribute to further testing on our part. Also, we learned a few things we wouldn’t have otherwise...and we're not done yet!
It’s not our intention to split hairs on numbers and theories which most people don’t care about. It is, however, our intention to provide a good quality bolt-on product that will satisfy our customers. We will continue our testing and address any areas where we see room for improvement.
FYI, we will be posting video of our dyno testing on youtube. It’s a good video for those that have asked about the sound of our intake. We will post a link on this thread when the video is loaded.