Cobb or SPT intake?????

[TSiWRX]

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.

 

Water-ingestion is very, very, very rare. Yes, it can happen, but again, it's *very* rare. A diverter valve will be even more insurance, but the construct/durability of the valve itself is sometimes a concern.

 

I've had true cold-air intakes on my DSMs, even when I was up here in NE-Ohio, and never had problems. And yes, those were daily-driven vehicles.

 

On the other hand, the moisture-on-MAF issues (eliciting driveability issues and/or CEL/DTC concerns) is definitely a real one, and specifically so with the made-for-BL/BP AEM CAI. There's been more than thorough documentation of this from among our own ranks - and the solutions are well worked out, too.

 

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.

At the time when Cobb/TDC published that data, Cobb did not have an aftermarket intake for the BL/BP on-market. It wasn't until years later that that finally happened.

 

Additionally, corroborating hobbyist data (including your own, from what you wrote above) show that those concerns are present and are true.

 

Again, no one who is using their logic and common-sense properly is saying that the SPT SRI on the BL/BP will, in and of itself, definitively cause the engine to self-destruct.

 

Rather, it is the specific claims that's the focus, and so far, we have not seen counterproof from Subaru to refute such - and similarly, data from the community would suggest that what Cobb/TDC initially posed was indeed true.

 

Similarly, it is also true, even by your noted observations, that this intake does present with MAF issues, and such issues will undeniably translate to putting the car further towards the edges of that safety envelope.

 

That Subaru honors warranty on the product does have a bearing on all of this - but that is solely limited to those who would modify their vehicle with Subaru-approved components, which, for the BL/BP, in terms of drivetrain-performance, would be limited to this SRI and the SPT cat-back.

 

While it is debatable as to whether the two together would actually prove power gains, that possibility should not be discounted, and instead would be a favorable thing, particularly if the warranty remains intact.

 

However, evidence of IAT-increase, MAF-scaling requirements and the potential of MAF-inversions, all would suggest that performance is not optimized with this unit - not as-claimed by its makers.

 

Thus, if maintaining warranty is the end-user's only concern, then by all means, go for it.

 

But the fact that this unit does not perform as-advertised, and that those performance shortcomings have been documented and remain as-yet uncontested in any quantitative/objective way?

 

That's just as undeniable.

[B-BGTLimited]

On the other hand, the moisture-on-MAF issues (eliciting driveability issues and/or CEL/DTC concerns) is definitely a real one, and specifically so with the made-for-BL/BP AEM CAI. There's been more than thorough documentation of this from among our own ranks - and the solutions are well worked out, too.

 

So your telling me that the stock air-box with a snorkel that goes to the front of the car NEVER ingests water? When I removed the box I could see drip marks from water traveling down that intake track to the air box where I'm sure the turbo sucked some in.

 

But the fact that this unit does not perform as-advertised, and that those performance shortcomings have been documented and remain as-yet uncontested in any quantitative/objective way?

 

That's just as undeniable.

 

Do you really expect subaru to dyno test their equipment to try to prove Cobb wrong? They could probably care less, and to be honest with how much scare goes around on this board about the SPT equipment causing engine failures I'm not surprised that no one who actually would spend the time ON a dyno is using it.

 

I also was never defending the intake, I'm simply stating I swapped it out due to noise I did not like, and no I never took the time to scale it or dyno test it.

 

Bottom line it is what it is. And I don't see anyone on here that's willing to spend the time and money to do side by side comparisons of parts. At least a third party unassociated with Cobb, SPT and the alike. Its the same for my 60*v6 board... there are tons of theory's bouncing back and forth, but no one to test them for sure, so how can you prove a theory wrong.

 

Until you get someone to do this testing then I guess it will always be up in the air and always be a debate on here.

 

Here's a theory for ya, 100 shots of NAWZZZZ blows motors... Yet at the same time I drove to Chicago with my Beretta sprayed 9 times hitting my 7300RPM limiter multiple times due to wheel spin, end up laying down a 13.07@106 and I still drove the car home. Oh my only casualty was a burn up axle seal and that was because I didn't lube it when installing the axle. It all depends on how its setup/tuned/built.

[TSiWRX]

So your telling me that the stock air-box with a snorkel that goes to the front of the car NEVER ingests water? When I removed the box I could see drip marks from water traveling down that intake track to the air box where I'm sure the turbo sucked some in.

 

No, that is not what I said - you're reading too much into things.

 

What I said in regard to the AEM CAI is specific, that while no-one here has reported true "water-ingestion" problems, more than a handful have reported MAF-moisture/condensation issues sufficient to cause either noticeable driveability problems and/or to elicit CEL/DTC.

 

Whether or not the factory airbox assembly intakes any moisture is irrelevant - what is known is that there has never been reports of such moisture issues, if any, to be the definitive cause of driveability problems or to elicit trouble codes via the ECU, as such concerns have manifest with the AEM CAI for the BL/BP.

 

When the AEM CAI was new to the BL/BP community (about three years ago), there was initially only one or two such posts, in threads spanning multiple pages, with the majority of members *not* having any such problems, and with the reported problems only manifesting under rather uncommon but rather specific conditions (i.e. high-pressure underbody car-wash). However, as time progressed, more and more found themselves affected - and this eventually led some to fabricate their own moisture-shields, which usually completely resolved the issue. These threads are still resident in the Forum history.

 

Do you really expect subaru to dyno test their equipment to try to prove Cobb wrong?

Yes, I would expect this - and this was expected by much of the community at-large.

 

Why?

 

Because they specifically said - promised - that they would do so.

 

And even if they didn't follow-up with that promise, why would they not simply publish the data that they already supposedly had?

 

They could probably care less....

That was proven false by the fact that Subaru pursued the popular (Forum level) confusion between the BL/BP SRI with the Impreza-specific SRIs with sufficient enough vigor that Cobb, on NASIOC, specifically addressed that confusion, with words that specifically say that they have not observed such problems with the Impreza components, but that they stand behind their observations and conclusions of the BL/BP SRI.

 

If Subaru cared less, why pursue such clarification to the extent that it would cause Cobb to issue a statement?

 

If Subaru cared less, why would they issue the press statements regarding the Cobb/TDC claims, to begin with?

 

Both those original promises as well as these last two sets of assertions are all public posts that still reside on/in the respective communities - available for all to see.

 

...and to be honest with how much scare goes around on this board about the SPT equipment causing engine failures I'm not surprised that no one who actually would spend the time ON a dyno is using it.

Actually, no-one except the ignorant/new have made such catastrophic claims.

 

And there have also been more than a handful who have used this intake - pursuing mapping specific to their vehicle with this intake in-place - at various "Stages" of modification.

 

Once again, these are points borne out in old posts, for all to see.

 

I also was never defending the intake, I'm simply stating I swapped it out due to noise I did not like, and no I never took the time to scale it or dyno test it.

No, no, I totally understand your points. Don't worry, B-BGTLimited, I think we're actually on the same page, it's just that we're approaching this from two different viewpoints. I understand that you weren't defending the intake, and what's more, that your own -KC and LV data, without scaling, themselves corroborate what's observed by Cobb/TDC as well as what other hobbyists here have seen with their own datalogs.

 

Bottom line it is what it is. And I don't see anyone on here that's willing to spend the time and money to do side by side comparisons of parts. At least a third party unassociated with Cobb, SPT and the alike.

But plenty of third-parties - independent hobbyists who have bought the intake and used it - have datalogged the same behaviors. Your own observations of increased -KC as well as the LV concerns also goes more towards what Cobb/TDC and others have observed, rather than Subaru's claims.

 

Its the same for my 60*v6 board... there are tons of theory's bouncing back and forth, but no one to test them for sure, so how can you prove a theory wrong.

The only things that are wrong here are the claims that Subaru made, regarding this intake not causing MAF misbehavior or IAT increases.

 

Those claims are not theories. They're claims - which should have been based on solid data.

 

That these claims were disproved by what Cobb/TDC and many independent hobbyists have posted, and that Subaru has failed - even today - to return with the conclusive quantitative data that they claim was available or will be available is also not a theory.

 

Until you get someone to do this testing then I guess it will always be up in the air and always be a debate on here.

But again, there have been datalogs.

 

The debate is no debate for me - the facts are as they are:

 

We have Cobb/TDC's original claims, which were countered, but not with hard data, data that was promised but *still* has not materialized.

 

We have independent datalogs of MAF-misbehavior and IAT increases, confirming what Cobb/TDC reported, from many members of our own community.

 

We have Subaru defending the Impreza-chassis SRI to the point that Cobb was compelled to come forward, on one of the largest (if not largest) Subaru on-line communities, to issue a clarification that their observations and advice only extends to the BL/BP SPT SRI and specifically does *not* involve the Impreza-chassis products; yet, the same defense of the BL/BP data was not pursued by Subaru.

 

These are not theories, these are facts: facts borne out by countless posts that still reside within the Forum history of these communities, available for anyone and everyone to search up and read.

 

Those who are hysterical enough or ignorant enough to think that "the SPT SRI for the Legacy blows engines" are not reading sufficiently into the text of the posts - they are not realizing exactly where we are finding issues with Subaru's claims.

 

Similarly, those who would put on this intake and say that they're not having any problems are also not looking deep enough into the debate: that these issues typically won't manifest in sufficient degree to cause overt driveability problems nor elicit CEL/DTC, but nevertheless, things are not nearly as peachy as Subaru's marketing claims would make them out to be.

[GearOnePerformance]

i dont think subaru wants to spend the time or money on the subject. They're too busy boasting record numbers. Honestly, as a technician that's really what it seems like especially with some of the dumb shit they have been doing to technicians as of late. As my point of advice or just observation even, i see ALL turbocharged subys that come in for service ( except a few oil changes that im too busy to get to....mostly diag stuff), and i personally see legacys and wrx's and STi's come in with the spt intake after 100k miles. I know these were installed at the time of purchase also because i need that information for warranty purposes, but my point is that generally these people have seen NO problems over the span of that mileage and or multiple years of use. BTW most of these ppl are old dudes that have no clue what a "tune" means.

 

^ this is just what i have SEEN with my own eyes. That being said, i ordered one friday for monday, at my discounted pricing of course lol, and will datalog my own findings on my new 05 LGT

[GearOnePerformance]

ALSO, an intake and cbe wont void warranty at MY dealership. unless i can directly relate your concern with that part ( ie catless exhaust with a p0171, p0420 and you have NO TUNE...yes this happens lol), you're in the clear.

[TSiWRX]

^ +1 on both.

 

That's exactly the point - that within parameters of the factory engine-management mapping, the SPT SRI should, for the BL/BP (specifically, as the ones for the Impreza platform, including the WRX-STI, exhibit different behavior), still come within the bounds of the safety envelope/allotment.

 

Hopefully, warrantyengine, your specific vehicle will simply "take better" to the intake, and you won't have to do much adjustment or worry. Based on past data, I have no doubt that if the typically observed MAF-misbehavior with this intake is seen in your case, you can well compensate for them, and that it should cause you no further concern (well, aside from the persistent IAT issue, but then again, every one of us with a SRI, no matter the brand/make, worries about that! ).

 

And to wrap back to Subaru revisiting the topic -

 

I also agree with your viewpoint. I think that this is one of those things which they would just like to see "buried," which, in all but the enthusiast/hobbyist circles, it has been. Like you said, the average customer who just wants to feel that they've got some "go fast" parts on the car? they won't even know - or care.

 

As long as the component doesn't exhibit overt driveability issues or elicit a DTC/CEL, how is such an average customer going to know that *anything* is even remotely wrong? They simply cannot - for what we've seen in this community, we've seen in datalogs only.

 

And even if - in a worst-case-possible scenario - in a few hundred cases that this intake's skewing of the MAF parameters caused sufficient det. to destroy an engine? Subaru probably won't even notice the cost of such replacements, and would likely gladly trade eating that cost for the lack of revisited attention to a component that's obviously still bringing in money for them, and for further lack of public attention to the issue (after all, with the exception of a few of us old-hats who are still active on the Forums here, who have seen the saga develop from the start, virtually no-one remembers the promises of counter-data that Subaru made, at the time - it's essentially lost-to-history, and the only thing they'll see is that the component does not "void the warranty").

[TSiWRX]

ALSO, an intake and cbe wont void warranty at MY dealership. unless i can directly relate your concern with that part ( ie catless exhaust with a p0171, p0420 and you have NO TUNE...yes this happens lol), you're in the clear.

 

^ That brings up a question for me -

 

Why would a P0171 or P0420, in conjunction with the SPT SRI and cat-back (i.e. "Power Pack"), particularly on a high-mileage or older (i.e. MY 2004 or 2005) BL/BP raise any flags? Would not mechanical failure of the O2 sensors and/or a vac/boost/exhaust leak potentially return with the same?

 

Certainly, if the ECU reflash state does not check-out to be Kosher via SSM-III uplink, then there's something fishy going on, but why would those DTCs, in and of themselves, be problematic in a warranty-claim situation?

 

Honest question(s) - not trying to start anything.

[moncur_6]

I read this whole thread...you guys definitely know your s***...I appreciate all the info considering I just bought a Cobb SF Intake today and was going to install it and get a tune. I'm going to hopefully directly compare my numbers between stock and Cobb intakes on my Stage 2 LGT and see what kind of differences (good, please!) I get performance-wise.

 

As for loving the sound it makes, that's a lot of the reason why I bought the part...ha ha

[TSiWRX]

^ That's me, I got addicted to the way an SRI sounded on my BL.

 

I think that the SF will do fine - but again, its weakness will be the same as all others of the "SRI" genre: IAT.

[GearOnePerformance]

they dont, im just trying tomake an example..like, an intake can be related to a lean code, not saying that it always is (it rarely is), but that it could. By the same token i cant dispute a warranty repair on an injector, if you have a cbe

[TSiWRX]

^ Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

[joedirtae09]

I just read thru most of the posts and I still dont get it... too many conflicting points!!

 

All I have on my car right now is an AP with the latest maps... If install the SPT Intake w/heat sheild will I be putting my engine at serious risk? Would I be at less risk if I get it tuned or would that just be safer?

 

I plan on getting it tuned when I eventually get an exhause but thats not anytime soon...

[TSiWRX]

I just read thru most of the posts and I still dont get it... too many conflicting points!!

 

Just use your reasoning and logic, you'll be fine.

 

Ask yourself this simple questions:

 

Who's made claims that was not backed up by hard data?

 

All I have on my car right now is an AP with the latest maps... If install the SPT Intake w/heat sheild will I be putting my engine at serious risk?

 

Look in Cobb's "Map Notes," what do they tell you?

 

"Serious" risk?

 

That's virtually unquantifiable. What will be true will be that your MAF will not be scaled per the Cobb OTS mapping's "expectations," and that your AFRs will thus be off.

 

Will this put you out of the window of safety? No-one will know, unless you can log your specific vehicle.

 

And then, even if you find that you're within "acceptable" limits, you've still got to ask yourself how far outside of the safety envelope is a margin that you are willing to tolerate.

 

This is a big-boy/big-girl decision, and no-one but you can make it for yourself.

 

Would I be at less risk if I get it tuned or would that just be safer?

 

A proper "tune" should account for the intake, so yes, it should be "safer," in that respect.