Independent testing of the Grimmspeed Intake

[BarManBean]

Remove the silencer.

 

LOL. no. as others have said this simply isn't true. the wooshy noises from an aftermarket intake are great. and i'm a guy who likes to have a "family acceptable" noise level. best part about an aftermarket intake vs. an exhaust is that an intake only produces noise when you tell it to, much like an electric cut-out on an exhaust.

 

One test on one car by one tuner. I'm not saying anyone is wrong,or right, but You shouldn't get your panties in a bunch just yet. Keep in mind that this was tested on a vf52, which is a pretty small turbo (No matter what lgt.com tells you) that really doesn't max the stock intake. I would bet that a bigger turbo would probably see more benefit.

 

For sure. What I think does seem true is that GS's design isn't a true magic bullet for producing *way more* power. No need to switch from a cobb to a grimmspeed or whatever. Unless you are maxing your intake and have a reason to improve maybe?

[xtea]

I don't think anyone's debating that. For certain, if the bottleneck of your system is your intake, then certainly the GS intake (or any other, less-restrictive aftermarket alternative) will help. But the point that I believe was trying to be made is that the GS intake won't magically net higher numbers over a stock airbox setup that isn't restricted by intake resistance.. Just like any other aftermarket intake where this discussion has been beaten to death already.

 

Now, if you're running a setup where you need a less-restrictive intake to achieve your gains, then for certain I would get the GS intake over any other in the market. It's very well-built/designed, and it looks fantastic. But unless you're at a Stg3+ setup, the stock setup is sufficient.

 

I sort of feel like all the testing Chase, Derp, and DB did was to tell us the intake would make more power over the stock intake when both are Protuned. If you go back and read the thread that was the intent of testing with db. Either tuning aliance didnt do there job, which seems very unlikely, or we got shamwowed.

[BarManBean]

As a general point, if you don't seal off the fender from the heat produced by the headers, you are going to have hot air issues from that area. I don't see a point in tucking an air intake into that area without first sealing the headers from the fender well.

 

Seems that initial testing has shown that stock snorkel is better than an intake dumped into the hot-ass fender well.

[BarManBean]

Aftermarket intake > stock intake, but not every aftermarket intake is "best" for every setup.

[TheMonaLisa]

I sort of feel like all the testing Chase, Derp, and DB did was to tell us the intake would make more power over the stock intake when both are Protuned. If you go back and read the thread that was the intent of testing with db. Either tuning aliance didnt do there job, which seems very unlikely, or we got shamwowed.

 

 

I feel that is an unfair ultimatum. Too many different variables to account for. In the end the intake gained 9 whp. Also Tuning Alliance said the intake made more boost up top (0.7psi more). Chase said it make 1 psi. That's basically the same thing. I mean 0.3psi difference is probably from the altitude difference.

While driving today (all back roads) my Grimmspeed intake temp was 70F while the ambient temp was 64F. And if I put the hammer down the intake temp would actually drop to 68F from the increased speed. Yes the intake temp would steadily climb at a red light but who cares. The second I steered driving again it would immediately drop back down to 70F.

I have stock headers with a Grimmspeed up-pipe that is bare metal. No thermal coating or heat wrap.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris GTO TT]

I feel that is an unfair ultimatum. Too many different variables to account for. In the end the intake gained 9 whp. Also Tuning Alliance said the intake made more boost up top (0.7psi more). Chase said it make 1 psi. That's basically the same thing. I mean 0.3psi difference is probably from the altitude difference.

While driving today (all back roads) my Grimmspeed intake temp was 70F while the ambient temp was 64F. And if I put the hammer down the intake temp would actually drop to 68F from the increased speed. Yes the intake temp would steadily climb at a red light but who cares. The second I steered driving again it would immediately drop back down to 70F.

I have stock headers with a Grimmspeed up-pipe that is bare metal. No thermal coating or heat wrap.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Similar results to what I was seeing too. I also feel like the the GS Intake heat soaks slower at a stop than the stock intake.

[Mike07LGT]

One test on one car by one tuner. I'm not saying anyone is wrong,or right, but You shouldn't get your panties in a bunch just yet. Keep in mind that this was tested on a vf52, which is a pretty small turbo (No matter what lgt.com tells you) that really doesn't max the stock intake. I would bet that a bigger turbo would probably see more benefit.

 

Of course it would.. vf52 is basically what the car should have came with stock, like the wrx does. Unless you have a bigger turbo or want to hear the turbo noise this test just assures me that the money is better spent elsewhere. If and when the time comes that I need an intake, I'd probably still get this one like others have said it is nice quality and looks good compared to the others out there

[solidxsnake]

I sort of feel like all the testing Chase, Derp, and DB did was to tell us the intake would make more power over the stock intake when both are Protuned. If you go back and read the thread that was the intent of testing with db. Either tuning aliance didnt do there job, which seems very unlikely, or we got shamwowed.

 

I feel that is an unfair ultimatum. Too many different variables to account for. In the end the intake gained 9 whp. Also Tuning Alliance said the intake made more boost up top (0.7psi more). Chase said it make 1 psi. That's basically the same thing. I mean 0.3psi difference is probably from the altitude difference.

 

The tests that Chase posted didn't include AFR. Without knowing for certain that the AFR was identical between the different setups, power numbers are meaningless. Hence this thread.

[Tuning Alliance]

I agree with that^^ I very much enjoy the wooshy noises of an aftermarket intake.

 

The was noticeable improvement in sound effect. =)

[covertrussian]

The tests that Chase posted didn't include AFR. Without knowing for certain that the AFR was identical between the different setups, power numbers are meaningless. Hence this thread.

 

How are power numbers meaningless? I would argue that AFR's are more meaningless as long as your not lean (dangerous lean will vary car to car, so worthless to compare it too).

 

They didn't graph it, but they did explain it:

 

Our tuner knew to apply the 12% MAF scale because we preformed a dyno run previous to that pull with our intake and the stock airbox Stg 2 OTS tune. The car made great power at 253 ftlbs, and was at 238 whp and climbing when the tuner backed out of the pull due to knock. The AFRs were in the low 12:1. With the MAF scale applied the power output was IDENTICAL, but the AFRs were within a tenth of a point of stock at 10.5:1.

 

I saw the same exact thing on my custom built WAI. I was lean with the intake, after applying 25% to MAF scales and reducing boost by 8% (~1psi) my AFR's were just about identical to the stock intake, see graph below.

 

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/WAI%20v1/VDyno%20-%20Stock%20vs%20WAIv1%20BPI%20Flowstack.png~original

 

As long as I kept my IAT's down (which is hard on a WAI), I saw power increase with just about identical boost, timing, and AFR's values. Much more detail and map traces of Boost, Timing, and AFR's can be found here.

 

 

Here is why I believe this car didn't see that much of a power gain:

I'm pretty certain that map is past MBT with a more efficient intake. Stock tune would probably show more power gains since the factory map is not fine tuned for the less efficient Intake. This is why a more proper test would have been to fine tune the stock intake and squeeze every last horsepower out of it, then drop in a new intake and fine tuning it to see if it will gain more power.

 

That is the real way of seeing if one part has more potential vs another part.

[xtea]

Here is why I believe this car didn't see that much of a power gain:

I'm pretty certain that map is past MBT with a more efficient intake. Stock tune would probably show more power gains since the factory map is not fine tuned for the less efficient Intake. This is why a more proper test would have been to fine tune the stock intake and squeeze every last horsepower out of it, then drop in a new intake and fine tuning it to see if it will gain more power.

 

That is the real way of seeing if one part has more potential vs another part.

 

Isn't that what tuning alliance did?

[covertrussian]

Isn't that what tuning alliance did?

 

Doesn't sound like it based on this text from the first post:

I will use controlled settings for boost, timing, and will calibrate each MAF curve to a consistent AFR.

 

I would say the details of the test are a little slim in general, but that could be be just me and my OCDness for details.

[Tuning Alliance]

I think the reality solidxsnake witnessed (he was there), was that only one pull with the grimmspeed was able to beat the the panel filter. We had five other runs where it made less, generally due to high IAT. Also it was not in the configuration it was sold in during this best run, as we had to remove the air box and install the factory duct.

 

Also the car did not pull any timing with the stock intake or panel filter. The first run with the panel it was 11.0 afr and it was quite happy. The first run on the GS and it pulled timing at high rpm, and it was 10.8 AFR.

 

For a gain of 3whp over the aftermarket panel, the risk of higher intake temps doesn't seem to outweigh the gains.

[Tuning Alliance]

Doesn't sound like it based on this text from the first post:

 

 

I would say the details of the test are a little slim in general, but that could be be just me and my OCDness for details.

 

A little slim? What data or details is it lacking?

[serx7]

Similar results to what I was seeing too. I also feel like the the GS Intake heat soaks slower at a stop than the stock intake.

 

Encouraging info. I'm hoping to see to see similar results w/ my driving conditions which I think is likely since I don't usually end up in standing traffic that much.

 

I feel that is an unfair ultimatum. Too many different variables to account for. In the end the intake gained 9 whp. Also Tuning Alliance said the intake made more boost up top (0.7psi more). Chase said it make 1 psi. That's basically the same thing. I mean 0.3psi difference is probably from the altitude difference.

While driving today (all back roads) my Grimmspeed intake temp was 70F while the ambient temp was 64F. And if I put the hammer down the intake temp would actually drop to 68F from the increased speed. Yes the intake temp would steadily climb at a red light but who cares. The second I steered driving again it would immediately drop back down to 70F.

I have stock headers with a Grimmspeed up-pipe that is bare metal. No thermal coating or heat wrap.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Of course it would.. vf52 is basically what the car should have came with stock, like the wrx does. Unless you have a bigger turbo or want to hear the turbo noise this test just assures me that the money is better spent elsewhere. If and when the time comes that I need an intake, I'd probably still get this one like others have said it is nice quality and looks good compared to the others out there

 

Comparing several 3rd gear datalogs I have from before/after the GS CAI install, it looks like I'm seeing boost gains over the stock airbox that start just below 6000 rpm (approx +0.2 psi @ 5900 rpm), increasing to approx +1 psi by 6300 rpm, increasing to approx +1.25 psi @ 6700 rpm. This is w/ no changes to boost targets, WGDC Low or turbo dynamics in the tune, 66F IAT, same stretch of highway.

 

Airboy spreadsheet road dyno are showing in the range of 10-15 whp/wtq gains w/ the GS CAI below 6000 rpm w/ the gains increasing slightly towards 20-ish whp/wtq b/n 6000-6800 rpm (same gear - 3rd, same IAT 66-68F, same stretch of road, 0.5-1 deg less timing above 4500 rpm w/ the GS CAI to avoid intermittent knock). I'm also seeing logged WGDC being 8-10% lower while under boost w/ the GS CAI, to achieve same/similar boost as compared to w/ the stock airbox. So it does seem the GS CAI is flowing better than the stock setup.

 

Subjectively the car feels somewhat less 'held back' way up top. TBH I wasn't expecting to feel any real world gains and was expecting road dyno results to show much smaller gains than what they do show, so b/n that, the much more audible because race car turbo/intake sounds and the not-that-bad $250+shipping entrance fee, I think I'm happy.

 

If I could race my car against itself stock airbox vs GS CAI side by side I don't think I'd see much in the way of walking away until that last ~800-1000 rpm before redline. Jury's still out on standing/slow moving traffic IAT but I figure worse comes to worst I could make some MacGyver modifiations to the wheel well trim/etc to help w/ airflow, or could always sell off the intake and not take much of a $ hit in the process.

[xtea]

Can someone explain to me how DB got about 100+ rpm faster spool and around 20/20 gains all over with the gs intake on a stock vf40? Is the the real answer that they did not try that hard with the stock intake pro tune before switching to the gs intake? It looked like chris gto tt had even more dramatic improvement than that, of course it was different day but the improvement was pretty intense.

[xtea]

Jury's still out on standing/slow moving traffic IAT but I figure worse comes to worst I could make some MacGyver modifiations to the wheel well trim/etc to help w/ airflow, or could always sell off the intake and not take much of a $ hit in the process.

 

If I put this thing on, and I probably will because I'm that stubborn, I will be dremeling the gs intake box to fit the snorkus and then weather strippng it to create a seal.

[serx7]

If I put this thing on, and I probably will because I'm that stubborn, I will be dremeling the gs intake box to fit the snorkus and then weather strippng it to create a seal.

 

If I end up keeping the GS CAI, which I think I will b/c if nothing else I'm too lazy to remove it, clean up the stock airbox assy and reinstall it all , I'll probably consider doing something similar. I don't know if doing so will create turbulence problems and/or whether any such turblence issues would become noticeable in real world conditions, but I guess I'll worry about that if/when the time comes.

[xtea]

If I end up keeping the GS CAI, which I think I will b/c if nothing else I'm too lazy to remove it, clean up the stock airbox assy and reinstall it all , I'll probably consider doing something similar. I don't know if doing so will create turbulence problems and/or whether any such turblence issues would become noticeable in real world conditions, but I guess I'll worry about that if/when the time comes.

 

Wouldn't the stocker experience the same turbulence if it were an actual concern?

[covertrussian]

A little slim? What data or details is it lacking?

 

How many pulls did you do per setup? Based on how your first post is worded, it sounds like you did only 3 runs total. If you did more then 3 runs (which I'm sure you did, just need to reword the first post), then on which run per setup is the power numbers shown for?

 

How much time spent between pulls?

 

Was the hood closed for all of the pulls?

 

Did you perform an A-B-A test? Where for the last couple pulls you install the original part and see how it performs? This is important since the car will usually will continue to loose power as you continue doing back to back pulls.

 

What was the ambient temperature, barometric pressure, humidity level during this test?

 

What base map was used for the stock intake? Was the timing and fuel tables left the same during all of the runs? Did you try to tune for max power for any of the setups?

 

Like I said I'm OCD, but I also want to see good accurate data before I shun a part as "useless".

[xtea]

How many pulls did you do per setup? Based on how your first post is worded, it sounds like you did only 3 runs total. If you did more then 3 runs (which I'm sure you did, just need to reword the first post), then on which run per setup is the power numbers shown for?

 

How much time spent between pulls?

 

Was the hood closed for all of the pulls?

 

Did you perform an A-B-A test? Where for the last couple pulls you install the original part and see how it performs? This is important since the car will usually will continue to loose power as you continue doing back to back pulls.

 

What was the ambient temperature, barometric pressure, humidity level during this test?

 

What base map was used for the stock intake? Was the timing and fuel tables left the same during all of the runs? Did you try to tune for max power for any of the setups?

 

Like I said I'm OCD, but I also want to see good accurate data before I shun a part as "useless".

 

I am completely with you, but I would assume it would've been in tuning alliances best interest to get measurable gains from the intake if they could as it would lead to more business for them.

[covertrussian]

If I put this thing on, and I probably will because I'm that stubborn, I will be dremeling the gs intake box to fit the snorkus and then weather strippng it to create a seal.

 

When I asked GS on why they didn't reuse the front snorkel they said it's due to placement of the piping and filter. Which means you might need to custom fab a new box to get this to fit. Plus the front snorkel delivers air to be right behind the filter, which is unfortunate.

 

http://i.imgur.com/IDgKPlr.jpg

 

Question about this install, was the filter installed 1" into the pipe like GS says so? Due to the built in flowstack, if you install it more then 1" in it will mess with AFR's (GS mentioned that this happened a good bit with WRX guys). I personally saw the same with my built-in flowstack amsoil filter too, if I installed the filter more then 1" in my AFR's would tank to 9's from mid 10's.

 

I am completely with you, but I would assume it would've been in tuning alliances best interest to get measurable gains from the intake if they could as it would lead to more business for them.

 

But then this would be a biased test . This test so far is showing that TA is not biased towards GS intakes, which is good for a test like this.

[xtea]

As I finish up my present tune (without the intake) on a bunch of new parts installed I think I am feeling a little underwhelmed with product assertions and I might be taking it out on this thing.

[serx7]

Wouldn't the stocker experience the same turbulence if it were an actual concern?

 

I don't know. the air takes a different initial path through the filter/airbox w/ the stock setup and IIRC GS pointed out that their airbox design reduces/minimizes turbulence effects, so I wasn't sure what if any effect cutting their box to mate w/ the stock airbox duct would have. Unless someone perhaps @ GS indicates otherwise I'm not going to be too concerned about it.

[wicknetzel]

I don't know. the air takes a different initial path through the filter/airbox w/ the stock setup and IIRC GS pointed out that their airbox design reduces/minimizes turbulence effects, so I wasn't sure what if any effect cutting their box to mate w/ the stock airbox duct would have. Unless someone perhaps @ GS indicates otherwise I'm not going to be too concerned about it.

 

This. You are comparing two completely different things when you talk about using the stock flat panel versus a round intake in terms of turbulence. When you consider the flow stack design, you want an equal amount of air being able to enter from the entire circumference of the intake. Throwing induced air into the mix would have to be in such a way to not create turbulence, and cycling air around the box would likely do this.

 

IMO, you're better off chasing after blocking the heat from the headers than trying to induce airflow. We're also talking about IATs on a dyno... which is not reflecting real road atmosphere. Not to mention, ducting only does so much at a standstill, which seems to be people's concern here.

 

Last thought in regard to the design is this: people who are ACTUALLY engineers designed this and thought very hard about it. That's what you paid for. Before you hack up your new intake... I'd talk to them about your concerns.

 

Here's what I can tell you in my case. I had a reputable tuner (popular here, but don't want to drag them in unless they volunteer) do my stage 2 setup (uppipe, downpipe, GS TMIC) and all that I did was scale my MAF by 12% from that. When I compared datalogs, I saw slightly earlier boost and a consistent 1 psi increase once I got past peak boost (my vf40 was already maxed out, so I wasn't expecting to see a higher peak boost). Keep in mind, 1 psi goes a longer way when you have a larger intercooler and are flowing a larger number of moles of air over the stock TMIC.