Cobb or SPT intake?????

[SubaruFanatic]

Why does everyone say the spt are no good? I would really like to know how much different it can be than a cobb or perrin?? its a short ram intake, and my tuner said it wouldn't be a problem tuning it. Also how can it run the car lean if you have o2 sensors that are designed to richen the mixture if it detects a lean condition? I love the sound it makes also.

[TSiWRX]

^ Search the original posts regarding the SPT intake (here's one, to get you started: http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/per-your-request-extensive-testing-spt-intake-system-lgt-39773.html?t=39773&highlight=spt+maf+inversion), you'll see why it was considered a headache, along with the first-generation Perrin SRI (current generation? unknown/unverified). The technical explanations are there and still remain documented: basically, it's the usual: MAF-"inversions," IAT increases, and the need to rescale.

 

Of the three issues, there's no good solution for the IAT increase. Yes, installing the heat-shield will provide some relief, but it's still not as good as either a true cold-air setup or the factory airbox, for that matter. This was one of those theoretical dogmas that David Buschur, before his rude eviction from NASIOC, managed to actually prove with both dyno as well as real-world data (he also dispelled another couple, too, but they're of no consequence to this thread).

 

With regard to the rescaling and the MAF-inversions, yes, like your tuner said, both can be accounted for by a proper tune.

 

Cobb's intake isn't "better," per-se. Rather, it's just that Cobb's designed their OTS maps to work in conjunction with their own intake (remembering dazzen's references, above, to Cobb's own stipulations). Similarly, the K&N Typhoon and others have come to be known - via many members' personal datalogs - to provide with more stable MAF readings, thus also making them more suitable for vehicles which do not take advantage of aftermarket engine-management, and are still on factory mapping.

 

Another reason why many in the BL/BP community view the BL/BP-SPT SRI in a negative light is because SoA/SPT never made-good with their promise of actually documenting gains with either components on the BL/BP "Power Pack," nor did they make-good on the promise to return with incontrovertible evidence that what Cobb/TDC had put out to warn our community, at the time, was either false or of minimal concern.

 

Cut to the bone, in all honesty, the SPT SRI, itself, is not necessarily any better or worse than any other intake of this genre - as long as you account for the MAF misbehavior. The fact that with an otherwise unmodified car (which is what this intake was supposedly designed to be perfectly compatible with) that you cannot account for this behavior, which can be said to be somewhat dangerous, is what makes it virtually unacceptable: it fails its specific design parameter.

 

I've used my first-generation Perrin Short Ram since '05. Why? Because it was, at the time, one of the only ones out there, and I got addicted to the way it sounds. But I had and have no illusions towards this product, I know well its shortcomings, and I've paid dearly to have it accounted for (Tim Bailey, ex-PDXT, now Cobb-Surgeline, spent 2 and 1/2 hours on the dyno, getting my car right). And at the same time, I know well that in some setups, it just won't work (a local enthusiast, at the time, had a fully-supported 18G-fitted WRX, with the Perrin SRI on his setup, Bailey just could not get it tuned...they pulled off the Perrin SRI and popped on the factory airbox, and not only did the tune stabilize, but they "found" another 20 wHP and nearly 40 wTQ, IIRC, that they'd been unable to achieve with the Perrin SRI in-place) - and I'm prepared for the day that, when it does, because I've changed my setup, that I'll ditch it for something which works.

 

With the SPT, it's the same.

 

Don't carry with you the illusion that a component is better than it is, simply because you own it.

 

The data is there, and so far, that data has yet to be disproved by anyone.

 

Will the lean-condition caused by MAF-scaling and occasional MAF-"inversions" necessarily blow up your engine? On the factory mapping, more likely than not, no, it won't - but yes, it will run you closer to that edge.

 

Will you necessarily induce so much det., with this intake on an off-the-shelf map - unaccounted for by a custom tune - that you'll either blow the engine or cause it to pull enough timing that it'll actually make your car slower? again, it's an unknown, but since you're already running closer to that edge, it'll further cut your margin for error. GT_Red, I think that's basically what those of us who warn against the SPT intake's claims are trying to say. Is specific remapping/tuning "necessary?" No. But does all current data show that you'll run closer to that edge, if you don't? That's most certainly yes.

 

And SubaruFanatic, your tuner is right - it's not a problem tuning it - but the simple fact that it needs to be tuned for...that already goes one step towards the "no good" category, and even more so when one remembers the original claims and aims of this product.

 

Finally: as a guy who is, himself, addicted to the sounds made by a less-than-perfect SRI, I have this advice for you: don't get too hung up about this. As long as you're approaching it the right way (i.e. get it accounted for) and carry no illusions about it being less-than-perfect, there's no shame in having it for the way it sounds.

 

 

 

----

 

 

is this safe to run on an OTS Stage 1 map for a 2005 LGT 5spd?

 

Since you're using Cobb's product - the AccessPORT - you should read their documentation, and follow their advice.

 

That's clearly explained in the "Map Notes" that you should have downloaded, to go along with your download of their "Stage I" OTS map.

[cobb]

then why can u buy a spt intake from a dealer and they not tell u that u need a tune

[SubaruFanatic]

If i'm correct isn't SPT subaru performance parts? And dont they warranty the vehicle with an SPT intake? I think its the only intake they will warranty the car with

[TSiWRX]

then why can u buy a spt intake from a dealer and they not tell u that u need a tune

 

If i'm correct isn't SPT subaru performance parts? And dont they warranty the vehicle with an SPT intake? I think its the only intake they will warranty the car with

 

^ That is correct.

 

SPT stands for "Subaru Performance Tuning," and is the stateside equivalent, for lack of better words, of STi.

 

Subaru insists that the intake will not run the car "dangerously lean," that it does not exhibit the MAF-inversions that were documented by Cobb/TDC, and that there is no appreciable effect from the increased IATs.

 

In the link I provided above, on the last page, you'll see a few Photobucket links that are no longer valid. They were scans of a SPT document, posted by another hobbyist, in which Subaru Fixed Operations insisted that the claims posted of the BL/BP SPT SRI on various Forums were inconsequential, and said that they would, furthermore, provide proof of such.

 

No such proof ever came about, to-date.

 

As fellow hobbyists/enthusiasts, we can trust one of two things:

 

- such unfounded claims, which were never backed up with data

 

or

 

- the data we have from sources which we know to be trustworthy

 

Insisting that the intake is a good piece does nothing at all.

 

The data is there, and the data shows what it shows.

 

I was disappointed in the SPT SRI not because it had those quantifiable shortcomings. As many have said, those are issues which could be addressed via tuning.

 

Rather, I was disappointed that the use of a component with the SPT stamp-of-approval on it would run the car in a manner which cuts down on its safety margins (again, cobb, please read my post above, as well as that of others, in more detail - is it that you "need" a tune? no, with factory mapping, you'll still be running within spec: it's just that you'll start shaving into your margin of safety), and also in a manner which would adversely affect performance (those of you with dataloggers can easily see how IAT relates to timing, even if you decided that you don't trust Buschur's data), when compared to the factory airbox.

 

I was disappointed in that a component which would supposedly help those among us who are warranty-mindful, would have such shortcomings.

[B-BGTLimited]

I was disappointed in that a component which would supposedly help those among us who are warranty-mindful, would have such shortcomings.

 

Yes but being a dealer designed part, I wouldn't have expected no short comings... Hell just look at the factory tune they put on these cars and how much power you can gain with a simply stage 1 tune, granted yes the boost is upped a little, but even if you didn't do that you could still gain a decent amount of power fine tuning the tables and not catering to the EPA, YET still pass emissions limitations.

[TSiWRX]

^ Point taken.

 

I think that many of us had higher hopes of SPT-branded items simply based on what had been seen, at the time, of the SPT items for the Impreza community. At that time, those products were working well.

 

It seemed as if something got lost or muddied along the line, as the products entered into the BL/BP chassis - first the cat-back had issues, and then the SRI fell on its face.

 

IIRC, subsequent (time-line wise) to the BL/BP-chassis parts issues, the new/current-generation Impreza SRIs also saw some concerns (again IIRC, Airboy and the Cobb crew both logged that intake to run the car slightly rich, and IATs were still a concern [which was very nicely compensated for with a self-fabricated "lid," as one member on the Cobb Forums demonstrated), albeit nowhere near as badly as that of the BL/BP SRI.

[holdenspecb]

Cobb with the cold air box built for it, the box brought my temps down a lot.

[SubaruFanatic]

damn wish i woulda known all this before i bought my spt intake, now my buddy and I are thinking about putting out stock intakes back on. When I get the car tuned will he be able to keep it from running in the dangerous zone or will this intake be so inconsistent that its not worth the hassle?

[TSiWRX]

^ If you're using an OTS Cobb map, I'd definitely switch back to the factory intake - all of it - and reset the ECU and let the car re-adjust, starting from a "clean-slate."

 

If you're otherwise stock, it's a toss-up. I'd switch back if you do mostly all in-city driving, as the IATs really shoot up under such conditions, and the ECU's attempt to avoid det. will impact what is arguably the most fun part about driving a performance-oriented AWD vehicle....getting that "hole shot."

 

And as for a custom tune to specifically address this issue, I think you'll be OK - several tuners in the community have said that it's something that can be accounted for.

[SubaruFanatic]

I am having a custom tune and i'm at stage 2.5 so I think it will be ok

[TSiWRX]

^ If your tune accounts for the intake (i.e. that your vehicle was tuned with the intake in-place), then you should be OK.

[tobey457]

So here's an article by Subaru on the SPT intake and exhaust systems.

 

http://www.driveperformance.subaru.com/version3_2/upgrades.asp

 

Highlights (that pertain to this discussion):

 

SPT PARTS HAVE TO EARN THE LOGO THEY WEAR.

SPT parts must undergo exhaustive tests before they’re approved and released to market. The testing helps ensure performance, reliability, and durability. For example, SPT engineers recently conducted tests on air intakes (WRX and WRX STI – SOA8431000; Legacy GT and Outback XT – SOA8431010) and exhaust systems over a year’s time. SPT’s thorough testing included a variety of weather conditions and tens of thousands of miles in different vehicles across the country before the systems were approved.

Putting cars with these parts installed on a chassis dynamometer – the most basic engine-related performance-parts test – demonstrated whether or not the intake and exhaust systems provided more power. If not, the systems would have little value from a performance standpoint and would not be worthy of the SPT logo.

They found these new systems increased peak horsepower and torque across the rpm range compared to original equipment (OE). However, dynamometers don’t completely represent real-world driving, so several other tests were needed.

 

INTAKE TEMPERATURE TESTING

Extracting higher performance from an engine starts with the air it breathes. In general, the cooler the air, the better. Cooler, denser air improves performance because it has the ability to pack more air and fuel into the same space, resulting in a more explosive combustion, which translates into more power.

SPT heat shields were developed to separate the air intake from the hot air in the engine compartment. Combining SPT air intakes and heat shields (WRX and WRX STI – SOA8431030, Legacy GT and Outback XT – SOA8431040) resulted in reduced intake-air temperatures. Temperatures did not differ significantly from those measured using the OE air box.

Even during low-speed driving, intake-air temperature remained within a few degrees of ambient air temperature.

 

MASS AIRFLOW SENSOR TURBULENCE TESTING

The mass airflow sensor (MAF) monitors the speed of air entering the engine and outputs a voltage for the engine’s electronic control unit (ECU) to use in determining the volume of available air and necessary fuel charge. For the MAF to function properly, airflow across it must be smooth, steady, and following a straight path. High turbulence can cause erratic voltage readings from the MAF. If turbulence occurs, then the ECU cannot accurately determine how much air is entering the engine and how much fuel to mix with the air, which can result in power loss and poor drivability.

SPT air intakes relocate the MAF sensors. Extensive testing was required to make sure the smooth airflow of the intake was compatible with the sensor. Tested in traffic, on the dynamometer, and under light and heavy loads at low and high speeds, the MAF output in the SPT intakes proved to be accurate because of the smooth airflow.

 

 

Now, my intentions are not to start a war, but knowing the internet this will probably do just that. But why in the world would anyone spend $30k on a car and NOT trust the manufacturer of that car? Not only that, but why would that same person TRUST some random post on the internet, or some tuner that can't be held responsible if their tune blows up someone's car? I think we might be a little too eager to grab onto something negative and run with it, while completely ignoring common sense in the process.

 

I don't know, I just find all of this logic completely backwards, but maybe it's just me.

[TSiWRX]

Now, my intentions are not to start a war, but knowing the internet this will probably do just that. But why in the world would anyone spend $30k on a car and NOT trust the manufacturer of that car? Not only that, but why would that same person TRUST some random post on the internet, or some tuner that can't be held responsible if their tune blows up someone's car? I think we might be a little too eager to grab onto something negative and run with it, while completely ignoring common sense in the process.

 

I don't know, I just find all of this logic completely backwards, but maybe it's just me.

 

 

^ tobey, you're using your logic - which I'm glad that you are - so please entertain these fundamental questions, which have been at the core of this debate, since when Cobb/TDC first published their findings:

 

Why has Subaru (Subaru of America, Fuji Heavy Industries, Subaru Fixed Operations, Subaru Performance Tuning - the name does not matter, I'm addressing the entire entity) not stepped forward to defend this particular product: specifically, the BL/BP Legacy Short-Ram Intake, with or without heat-shield?

 

More to the point, this question is-(again)-here and has-been examined historically, as I had presented, with citations to in-(and out-)thread links:

 

Why was it that when they (Subaru Fixed Operations) did come forward with a form-letter, refuting Cobb/TDC's claims of the MAF-scaling concerns, MAF-inversions, and IAT-increases, using general verbiage (i.e. no numbers, just as in the document you cited above) only, they never returned with the promised dyno and road-testing data (including datalogs) to back up their counter-claims?

 

Why did those are those letters lost to the ether of the Internet [edit: I *finally* found a copy - looks like someone was smart enough to copy-paste, verbatim, and thus captured the text: http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/spt-intake-development-information-subaru-america-40814.html?t=40814 - note the thread-ending "show me the plots/data" post...more on that, later], when Cobb/TDC's assertions are not? Why do those claims, if they are false, persist?

 

Why is it that when Subaru was faced with a situation where consumers took this information and went too far - that they extrapolated, incorrectly, such assumptions to the Impreza "Power Pack" items of the same - Subaru became so aggressive in their efforts to refute such misconceptions (it's well known that the Impreza-chassis components "work as-advertised") that Cobb actually issued a clarification of their statements, and even apologized to Subaru for any confusion that they may have unintentionally caused (while this thread, since it does not directly concern the Legacy SRI, is not resident, AFAIK, on LegacyGT.com, it does remain logged on NASIOC for all to see). Why was it that when Cobb, in the statement, stood behind their observations of the BL/BP Legacy SRI, there was then no further outcry from Subaru?

 

Common sense should say that those with vested interest are to be given a second look - that their words should not be held at face-value.

 

This should apply to Cobb as well as every other tuner/shop/manufacturer who makes a competing product - but it should also not exclude Subaru. This logic cuts both ways, and you must weigh both sides of the argument. To me, the simple fact of the situation is that Subaru has failed to offer the proper support to document their counterclaims, that their return argument was but empty words, and that their promised data never materialized.

 

In terms of trust?

 

Do I trust someone who comes with only pretty words and empty promises, or do I trust someone who can show me actual data? Certainly, I shouldn't trust that data blindly - again, that would violate the "vested interest" rule, to begin with, even to forget about the possibility that such data may either be in honest error or may be a fabrication. But when the other side promises a counterpunch that they cannot then deliver, not within days or weeks, or even months, but years after the fact? Where's the data that Subaru promised us, here in the enthusiast community (certainly, a reluctance to publish such detailed and dry data to the general public is understandable, but it would stand to reason that to satisfy us, Subaru would take a different approach - one which they specifically promised to honor, BTW, but has failed to do so) to refute Cobb's claims? Where's the data?

 

Similarly, you're very correct in saying that logic should dictate that we as smart shoppers not trust random posts on the Internet.

 

But are these posts just random? Certainly, it could be said to be mass-effect, that people are just jumping on the bandwagon, looking for the gang-bang. To be honest, it's absolutely possible that there is likely a bit of that to be had - the confusion with the Impreza components would speak to that. .

 

But search around a bit, and you'll find many instances of independent corroboration of the initial Cobb/TDC claims, and such information comes from many who are established figures in the Subaru hobbyist/enthusiast community. Why would they put their good names to risk?

 

Furthermore, why would such individuals - whom you can see help other hobbyists/enthusiasts *daily* with everything from their interpretation of datalogs, their troubleshooting of potential mechanical upsets, all for free, all without even potentially knowing, at all, the other person on the other side of the keyboard/screen - individuals with no vested interest, say the things that they do, and to continue to say it to this day?

 

The truth of the matter is that we'd all love Subaru-approved performance-enhancing components. Who among us do not envy the Japanese for their access to STi-enhanced components? Who among us, in those original threads involving either the BL/BP SRI or the BL/BP cat-back exhaust, did *not* appreciate the fact that these items would insure that there would be no warranty-claim concerns? To have access to factory-supported performance-enhancing components is the dream of many auto enthusiasts - myself included. And as I've said publicly, on those threads, it is the disappointment with which we've been faced that causes so many of us to speak out against these components.

 

The need to rescale the MAF, the MAF-inversions, the IAT-increases: these are hard datapoints which can and have been documented.

 

Logic would say that if the other side of the equation, who has been shown to be aggressive in pursuing restitution if they feel that they've been wronged (recall the Cobb/Impreza SRI reference prior) should be just as aggressive in repelling these posts, if they're misconceptions, too, no?

 

tobey, please don't misunderstand the point of my post above. It's honestly not to flame you - to start a war, as you said.

 

Rather, you asked for logic and common sense. I hope you can see the route of logic and common sense that myself and others have taken, in examining issues concerning the SPT BL/BP Legacy SRI.

[tobey457]

I don't take offense to your post at all, your posts seem informative with actual data and real information, not just regurgitated hearsay and internet babble.

 

The general undertone in these SPT intake threads is that you will blow your engine if you use one. That is 100% false. I'm not saying that's your stance at all, but some schmo always jumps in with internet hearsay to trash the SPT intake, with no real-world experience. I can certainly find threads where someone popped a stock engine, but no one can find one thread in any Subaru forum where the believe an SPT intake played a part in their engine failure. And if they did... so what, stock engines fail too? And there are plenty of people running SPT intakes with no engine issues... so now what?

 

Just seems like there is more misinformation out there about the SPT intake, which is why I decided to post. I'm not pointing the finger at you by any means, your info seems solid. I'm not defending anyone either, or saying that the SPT intake is great or that it will do no harm. I'm just trying to throw out another viewpoint so that maybe we can all realize the sky is actually not falling. Or maybe it is... what the hell do I know?

[TSiWRX]

^ Exactly, and I think that's very well put.

 

People need to realize that the BL/BP SPT SRI, when it is grafted onto an otherwise stock BL/BP Legacy, should not have any problems - yes, it'll run the car closer to the edges of its safety margin, but it should still be OK. I'm not quite willing to go to the point of certainty, as you have, for we do not have access to such a statistic in our communities (nor, I think, can such definitive conclusions ever be reached, particularly given Subaru's engine durability/reliability - or lack thereof - of-late), but I do think that such catastrophic events, solely stemming from use of the SPT - or any other - SRI on the BL/BP with no other modifications would be unlikely.

 

Nevertheless, Subaru's claims of MAF-stability and power increases are respectively simply not true and of dubious origin (as based on the MAF-instability and IAT-increases), and consumers should aware of this.

 

At the same time, it should also be reiterated that just like many aftermarket intakes and, "by-Hoyle," even with just an aftermarket panel replacement, one should account for such changes with a properly constructed aftermarket engine-management map - and to avoid using "off the shelf" (OTS) maps with such.

 

[mustangendsley]

I think it is really funny that a lot of rally subaru teams use the SPT intake and have no complains about it, but everybody else does. I know many gt's that have the SPT intake and have no problems what so ever.

[TSiWRX]

^ No problems on the BL/BP LGT if it's properly compensated for. And again, for otherwise completely stock vehicles, there's a sufficient safety-margin built-in that all that's happening is that the car's being pushed further towards the edges of that envelope.

 

"Have no problems whatsoever" isn't the point of the underlying debate regarding the BL/B)-specific SPT SRI.

 

The underlying problems of MAF-scaling, MAF-inversions and IAT-increases are items which have been *proven* by datalogs both from non-related professional sources as well as by individual and true-independent hobbyists. That's hard numbers which are *not* up for debate, and are, furthermore, hard numbers which Subaru repeatedly said that they would disprove via their own data, but have, now YEARS from such dates, *still* failed to supply.

 

The vehicle may "have no problems whatsoever," but will the datalogs say the same? We've repeatedly confirmed in the community that answer is a "no" - it's the same with the first-generation Perrin SRI as well.

 

Owners/users of the BL/BP SPT SRI need to stop being so reactively defensive of their choice - stop referring back to those Subaru-released documents which provide absolutely no true data-based/logical support, and realize exactly what it is that so many of us are warning about, when it comes to the BL/BP SPT SRI. READ the pertinent threads and posts, and understand first and foremost what the presented MAF misbehaviors mean, and understand how this single factor drastically impacts the "tune/tuning" of a vehicle (in-particular when it comes to aftermarket engine-management solutions).

 

As for the rally teams?

 

Those are BL/BP-vehicles?

 

Or are they Imprezas?

 

The SPT SRI for the Imprezas are completely different items, and you'll see this proven on both NASIOC as well as on Cobb's own technical Forums, via independent (end-hobbyist) datalog data.

 

The generalization of "all SPT SRI's suck" was one which Cobb specifically came forward to dispel, on NASIOC.

[cobb]

i just dont see subaru spending the time and money to make a intake and market it without needing a tune and still warranty ur car, but i forgot everyone here is a mechanic and knows that u need a tune. silly subaru u shoulda read this forum first before u made ur intake

[mustangendsley]

all intakes need a tune!!!

[AZZMAN]

I have and SPT intake with Cobb exhaust and Accesport with a tune... They all work great 60k+ Stage II since about 8k and not one problem yet...

[TSiWRX]

^ Exactly.

 

Properly accounted for, most intakes, including the BL/BP SPT SRI as well as the first-generation Perrin SRI - both notorious for their MAF-misbehavior - should be just fine.

 

The key here is that they need to be specifically accounted for. Again, that's not something that anyone in our community would debate.

 

 

----

 

 

i just dont see subaru spending the time and money to make a intake and market it without needing a tune and still warranty ur car, but i forgot everyone here is a mechanic and knows that u need a tune. silly subaru u shoulda read this forum first before u made ur intake

 

^ No, Subaru should realize that not all of us take what they want to feed us at face-value, that we don't just take their word as the Holy Grail.

 

Subaru should not think that their customers are going to simply turn off their brains, their power to reason logically and independently, to use good common sense, when sorting through marketing claims and presented data:

 

- when *anyone* and *everyone* can easily hook up a datalogger and see, for themselves, that what Cobb/TDC and many other independent hobbyists have documented as concerns are true -

 

- when we can see as a community that Subaru has failed to provide us with any data to refute such claims, even now YEARS after they'd promised such proof -

 

- when we can all see for ourselves that when Subaru knows that they are in the right - with the very concrete example of their noticing that the bad reception that the BL/BP SPT SRI has contaminated their other-vehicle-specific SRI units - that they will insist on proper restitution; and that those, such as Cobb, who thought that they may have even remotely contributed to such confusion having stepped forward to offer clarification (and to stand-by their observations of the BL/BP SPT SRI, to which Subaru did not further pursue debate) -

 

The logic is simple for anyone who can reason to follow along.

 

One thing you're right about, though, cobb, we're not all mechanics here. But to-wit: how many times has "what the dealership/service-tech/mechanics said" been proven wrong, by the collective knowledge of our Forum brothers and sisters?

 

Yet it also doesn't take much formal "mechanical" schooling to understand how to read what's presented on a datalog (there are many such community resources available, both here, on NASIOC, as well as on the RomRaider Forums), and we all know what's actual data when we see it - and we can recognize just as easily the absence of such data.

 

The data is irrefutable and undeniable. Period.

 

 

---

 

 

all intakes need a tune!!!

 

To a degree, this is true.

 

http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/intake-tuning-107711.html?t=107711

 

^ As that thread points out, heck, even a panel-filter change only can cause MAF-scaling to be off....

 

But once more, the word "need" has to be called into question -

 

Yes, in order for the intake to live up to its full potential and/or to further help protect the engine against det. as a result of an improper A/F mix, aftermarket intakes would do well to be accounted for, via proper MAF-scaling, at the very least.

 

But on an otherwise stock vehicle? That "need" becomes much more questionable. Yes, it's likely to run the car closer to the margins of the rather large safety envelope that the engineers have had the foresight to integrate into the system - but does that truly "necessitate" specifically addressing the intake modifications? I think that there's room there for debate, and that a lot of it will depend on end-user preferences.

 

But again, in going back to the BL/BP SPT SRI unit, look at what tobey quoted, directly of Subaru.

 

Is what Subaru says there, in only words, with no data whatsoever to back up their statements, actually true, as compared to data as we have seen today?

 

If it's framed in that manner, then yes, this intake "needs" a tune - it requires it to achieve the parameters that Subaru insists it would attain, simply as a sole bolt-on.

[cobb]

a tune voids ur warrenty, spt intake dont? u do the thinking

[TSiWRX]

I am doing the thinking - I'm dissecting everything that Subaru has said, versus all that has been proven, with hard data, in our community.

 

And I'd also like to ask you not to insult me.

 

Once again, we are retreading the same ground that's been covered many, many times.

 

The BL/BP SPT intake will not keep MAF-scaling intact.

It will not offer lower IATs than the factory airbox.

It will present with MAF-inversions.

 

These are all well-documented within the enthusiast/hobbyist community, with hard data - and Subaru's assertions against such observations, insisting that they are unfounded or untrue, simply holds no water, particularly as, even now after -YEARS- of this intake being on-market, they have yet to return to *any* of the enthusiast communities to deliver their then-promised data, to defend their stance.

 

Just the same, it has also been stated and re-stated that on an otherwise stock vehicle, while such misbehaviors can and will impact performance of the vehicle in an overall -NEGATIVE- way, factory engine-management *should* keep the vital parameters in-check well enough that it *should* not cause the vehicle/engine to run outside of its generous safety margins.

 

While the less-well-informed/misinformed or the hype-mongers in the community may have said things akin to: "OMG, that intake's gonna blow your engine," those of us who have sat down to examine the issue know that this is most likely either not the case or will only very, very, very rarely be the case.

 

Instead, the true concerns of the BL/BP-specific are as-presented above, and the quarrel is with what Subaru claimed that this intake would (and would not) do, rather than the hype, both positive and negative.

 

That this intake keeps the warranty intact is something that *every* one of us who were here during the days when this intake was first put on-market celebrated. The fact that we are all enthusiasts here, but that our enthusiasm has been often tempered with fear of "what's that going to do to the warranty" meant that we were all very much looking forward to this product, as well as the specter of perhaps finally seeing Subaru, corporate, playing a bigger part in the BL/BP enthusiast community. This is proven again and again in the historical threads/posts, logged for all to see.

 

Our collective dis-satisfaction and disappointment came as a result of the intake not delivering the performance that it promised, in the manner in which it was promised.

[B-BGTLimited]

I had an SPT intake, I sold it since it made a god awful noise under acceleration. Definitely sounded like wastegate flappage... But that didn't make sense to me, I could only associate this nose with the intake having an S like curve. I went back to stock within an hour of installing it. BUT later I got a Tactrix cable and did a Stage 1 tune with that, after looking at a few LV shots and asking for some tweaks to the tune (as the creator requested from his users) I was then criticized on the board because my LV showed a higher than target negative trim for the open loop section (asking if I had a non stock airbox or filter, or anything changed), and was then reprimanded that I can't tune without a wideband... Thanks Dad... :rolleyes:I've been around OBDII tuning for a while now and I'm familiar with what I'm doing.

 

But after all this BS, I went out and bought the dreaded Ebay AEM knock off... I did this for two reasons. Its a CAI setup vs the SPT WAI (without box) and it had a nice smooth section of pipe before the MAF sensor and looked like it would not produce much turbulence. Now with the SAME stage 1 tune my Open Loop trim is WAY better that it was before, more like a -2 now vs my -8 before... when I was getting yelled at for possibly having a non stock intake on my car, now with one it's better.

 

YES when I do make my downpipe I do plan on installing a wideband to ensure my WOT mixture is fine, but to be quite honest right now I think I'm perfectly fine.

 

Yes I've had to do some MAF scaling for the rest of the table as expected due to the change in airflow, but it is working out just fine. I have yet to hydrolock my motor as tons of others have said about CAI, so there is one "hobbyist" statement that I will never listen to. And I have no knock at WOT and part throttle there is no knock correction being recorded, and my IAM sets to 1 rather quickly after a reset as well.

 

Now the biggest thing I have noticed as far as a difference between my Cheapo intake and this SPT pipe would be the noise. YES with this the BPV and overall turbo spool is much louder, BUT its SMOOTH sounding. There is no flutter sound at all, just a nice smooth hoover vac sound before it fade's away because its sucking so much... LOL Oh and don't worry I did not use the included wire mesh filter with my intake, I made sure to get a oil free DryFlow AEM cone filter.

 

Sometimes the hobbyist used to test things may be a little biased, I'm not saying that any of the results that have been posted about the SPT are false, But as others have said, if the dealer will give you a warranty with this part installed, its NOT putting your car right on the edge of self destruction.

 

If someone other than Cobb published these findings then I think the "3rd party" aspect of the testing would be much more apparent, but when a performance part competitor posts information regarding a part they are competing with having flaws then it makes it much harder for some of the public to believe they didn't take the time to pick and choose the data that supports their beliefs. It happens all the time.

 

I guess coming from a car where I had no aftermarket, and no warranty I may have a different respect for modifying it. Or maybe I just care a bit less and I will make things work the way I want them, and well if it breaks because I changed something the wron way then I'll pay to fix it. I'm not out to try and fool a company to think their car failed when I was ******* around with it. Honestly that's what comes with modifying a car, own up to it or don't do it.