I was going to post this in the current thread on JCW vs stock CAI, but I really didn't want to derail that thread.

I've been following CAI-related threads for quite a while and I'm getting quite frustrated, and I can't be the only one. It has been said on many occasions that the best overall performance is to be had with the stock CAI (or stock JCW CAI). From what I have read this is based on a combination of Jan's insights and various butt dynos.

I greatly respect Jan's competency, but before I (as a scientist) can accept the premise that the stock CAI gives the best performance, is it too much to ask for a little DATA? Yes, I realize that the only way to truly test this is on a wind-tunnel dyno (and you can rent one for $3000/hour for a minimum of one day!!!!!). But clearly there appears to be another way to measure this - hence the number of claims supporting these performance claims.

Please, let's settle this once a for all and put the data on the table. If there isn't any data, then stop the conjecture. If the data is squishy, then by all means say that - squishy data (data not really subject to stringent statistical treatment) is a bit better than pure "he said/she said". If other tuners have noticed what Jan has said, they haven't commented that I've seen, but I'd like for them to. I'd also LOVE to hear from the various CAI vendors as well - they MUST have tested their products!).

If the data backs all of this up, I may just switch back to stock (or JCW). I'm not interested so much in sound as I am in performance.

Please, let's check our ego's at the door and deal with numbers. I just want to get to the bottom of this issue.

 

I would say 0-60 mph would be the preferred test for me. All else are just lab numbers. Good luck with a "unbias" vendor result. At least Jan is impartial as he does not make CAIs.

Do a double test, one with and one stock. Then switch CAIs and do it again. Measure 0-60 and other lap times. All the bench HP gains but if it cannot go faster, it is worthless.

 

I’d be interested in seeing what data was available as well (I'm a scientist as well)…but even absent that…as was pointed out other tuners must have their own anecdotal opinions that would be interesting to hear.

 

I have the Dinan CAI and love it. Definitely adds more power if you ask me. I don't have data to back that up myself, but Dinan claims a better seal than stock... http://www.dinancars.com/store/produ...cat=762&page=1

Also a lot of peeps think the Dinan and JCW are very comparable minus the flap in the JCW. The one exception is price, as the Dinan is much less.

 

oops just realized that your post is for for the 2nd gen mini.

 

OK I will tell you how i made my decision. When I had my car **** ***** by Jan. I had 208 hp and 220 tq. THat was with my CDA intake. at that time my scangauge2 would show max hp at 274 or 278 when I put my stock intake back on my scangauge 2 showed 310hp.

I always remember that anyone and everyone reads these threads

 

I wouldn't use a scanguage as the basis of your judgement as they are not accurate in measuring hp.

I must agree with mellanor as there seems to be no data available showing deltas to either prove or disprove the claims. However it would seem a fairly straight forward exercise to do.

I too am a scientist and unless I can see the hard evidence I aint going to believe anything.

It seems that once upon a time on NAM performance data was something that everyone screamed for before they believed any claims. However nowdays people don't seem to care and use anecdotal evidence to argue their point.

 

I understand, I also dont trust the scangauge. I just use it as a better or worst gauge. the numbers are unreliable however I believe you can use it to judge if something adds hp or not.

Oh and I wouldn't judge N.A.M. by my one post. I was just trying to answer the question of how we are coming to our conclusions.

 

This thread has only been live for a few hours now. Lets see if any of the vendors jump in here. I know a few like DoS and Alta post regularly here. Other like K&N and NM Engineering do not.

I liked the NM Engineering intake that was on my car for a short time in the fall of 2009. it looked good and sounded good. It was nice that it came with the hard turbo inlet tube. I like the DoS intake that I currently have on my car. It looks good for different reasons and sounds awesome.

I am happy with the mods on my car and I will leave it at that.

 

I appreciate even the squishy data, chakraj. Although the scangauge is unreliable for accuracy, I would surmise that it's precision should be sufficient to examine delta's. I'm not terribly familiar with the CDA intake - does that take fresh air from the cowl (like the DoS CAI does)? Do you know if the results were reproducible? That is, if you then took off the stock and put back on the CDA it read lower HP again?

Yeah, I know - that would really be a pain in the butt to keep swapping.

 

On a side note.... How do you get scanguage to put out HP numbers?

 

DYNOLICIUS iphone performance meter... not the best but $13. Not accurate enough.

 

scangauge2 x-gauge how to add hp readings

Linky:http://www.scangauge.com/support/horsepower.shtml

New ScanGaugeII Features! Displaying Horsepower as a Gauge
You can have Horsepower read out on your ScanGauge as you drive.

• To start, from the HOME screen use MORE>MORE>MORE>XGAUGE
• Then in the top right select the number of the XGauge memory you want to use (0 to 24)
• Next EDIT this will take you to the TXD screen
• Using the buttons next to + and - after each character the -> in the top right will move to the next character space.
• Enter 00 into the TXD screen and press OK> You will be taken to RXF
• Enter 400080000000 and press OK> you will be take to RXD
• Enter 0000 and press OK> you will be taken to MTH (math)
• Enter 000A00170000 and press OK> you will be taken to NAME
• You can enter whatever name you would like up to 3 characters, when you are finished press OK>
• Lastly press SAVE.

Now you can select your new gauge just like any other one. From the home screen, press GAUGE press the button next to the gauge you want to use for the XGauge. Keep pressing as needed until your newly created XGauge name appears.

 

//http://gizmodo.com/5034542/13-iphone-app-faces-off-against-embarrasses-150-dedicated-dynometer
More accurate than scangaugeII ,
link/

 

I have to admit I'm underwhelmed by the data so far. However, I'll make some assumptions:

1. Jan has not read this thread. He's too busy. Perhaps somebody could nudge him?
2. At least 2, and maybe more, CAI manufacturers HAVE read this thread and have decided not to answer. I base this on how often I see them comment on the NAM boards.

Here's hoping Santa will leave us all an early Xmas present by tomorrow...

 

As we all know, there are limits to how much air an engine can take-in and how efficiently an engine can bring that air into the combustion chamber. All that a CAI is doing is improving air intake efficiency in the quest to make more power. Filter material type, filter shape, filter housing design and intake tube routing design are just a few of the factors that will improve the qualities and amount of the air that an engine can take in.

The main advantages that I've seen with the DoS CAI on the R56 are torque gains throughout and improved horsepower from 4500 RPM to redline. Really look at the data that's readily available on R56 CAI's out there (skipping BS like 2nd gear pulls & massive Bhp corrections). You'll see that the well designed CAIs are not being used to make drastic improvements to peak hp output on the R56. Instead, you will see that they are being used to improve horsepower and torque delivery in the areas where the stock curves typically dip and suffer. As a result, they are generating smoother torque and hp curves to create a more responsive driving experience.

The chart below is a fairly typical set of before (stock box, blue) and after (DoS CAI, red/magenta) curves for what we have seen on most R56 MCS's with no tuning. On the chart below, smoothing is kept at a minimum to keep the curves as tight to the raw data as possible. The final outputs shown are at the wheels (not corrected for Bhp), illustrating final driveline losses. (Remember, MINIs are like snowflakes when it comes to performance potential, so your car's results will vary +/-.)



0-to-60 testing would most definitely be a great next step for this thread. Just make sure that you're using the same car (preferably on the same day) in similar weather conditions and not endangering the general public out on the roads during your testing. If anyone is interested in doing 0-to-60 testing, I'd recommend using a G-Tech meter or an Auterra DashDyno because I've tried them. They're not too expensive and have the ability to download their data onto a laptop. (However, Dynolicious is indeed looking interesting and is more affordable since looking at the video above.)

Feel free to take any of the info that I've offered above with a grain of salt, as I am a vendor. However, the hope with the info above is to show data that most vendors and customers can readily measure as a baseline for performance and what they should expect.

As always, don't hesitate to PM or email if you have any questions.

-Clint

 

I'm pseudo-impressed. I may need to try this out on my wife's phone.

 

Well here is a dyno plot for an 07 MCS and another for a 09 MCS JCW, otherwise stock and no other changes to the car but the intake itself. All performed at the same day, and within minutes of each run. We use a brief (but consistent) cool down between runs to verify results. This is a repeatable test with any local dyno shop.

Hope this helps! Let me know if I can help with any specific questions. (I don't want to make a sales pitch, but trying to answer the request for information.)

2007 MCS



2009 JCW

 

This is a great start, and I'm very pleased to have some data to work with. This community is based on trust, so I see no reason not to take the data you've shared at face value. Thank you for sharing this - we realize that it isn't risk-free for vendors.

Now, if at all possible I'd like the tuners to chime in, as that is ultimately the source for the claim that the stock CAI yields better performance. Can you please share some data with us? BAck to back runs with/without aftermarket CAI's, etc?

Is anybody interested in trying some 0-60 testing? Perhaps if there is a club run coming up at a track we could look at this.

 

As a target of the venom of the stock airbox guys I'd like to chime in with my support of this thread.

Certainly the anecdotes aren't in sync with the vendors dynos, but scientificly I can't see how better flow would lead to poorer performance, unless we're not talking about WOT or something.

 

Intakes are mostly about less restriction and cooler air, right? I wonder about the intakes that are open to the underhood heat. But how much a difference does it really make? Here's some IAT (intake air temperature) information.

My friend's got an R56 with the newer style K&N intake and a ScanGauge. No other mods. On the highway the IAT usually settles at 5-7F above ambient. Under boost it spikes and then settles down about 10-15F above ambient. It then usually takes a few minutes on the highway to settle back down to the usual 5-7F above ambient. In stop and go traffic with ambient temp. in the 80s, the IAT will get up to 110F on occassion, then slowly cooling down once you get out of traffic.

I know that IAT is also a function of the intercooler efficiency and humidity, but at least here's some data to work with on one product.

Anyone else?

 

I think it's already pretty well established that hot-air-intakes such as Alta's, or the DDM Street Intake, are for sound only and probably decrease performance. I mean how can taking in hot air from the engine bay help with power?

I can see though why the DOS intake is different, as it takes air from a completely different place. If any intake can improve performance, this probably is the one.

PS - I have a feeling Alta's dyno run was done with the hood open, and a big fan blowing on it.

 

I agree that DOS makes some reasonable arguments about the engineering design advantages of their CAI over stock and others.

They refer to dyno test results on the product page...but I don't see the data on their site...although I could have missed it.

I would also be interested in seeing some IAT data as well.

 

Just a quick FYI and not at all trying to incite a riot. We only test with hood closed. Fans are placed in front of the vehicle to help simulate the air flow in a moving vehicle.

Again hood CLOSED in all testing. Doing it with the hood open, one isn't a fair test, and second may not help anyway.

 

Adam has a point. I've tested both ways (hood open & closed) and have not seen differences in DoS's results.