Does anyone have any input on this CAI

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by 06 White GT, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. yup, altitiude, track prep, humididty, temperature, head wind/tail wind. Driver Error, Driver Skill, Drivers choice of set up or lack there of. Type of tire used...ok, I feel I made my point anyone else want to keep this list going?
  2. Ryan @ SCT did my tunes....Amatuer??

    Ken Bejonnes tunes them with purchasing through him....Amatuer also??

  3. Oops!! Forgot to say I ran a 13.7 at 101 bone stock. But if you ever been on the track here in Hawaii, everyone will agree it is a VERY JUNK track!!! So its pretty damn good given the track we are given to run on. I have said before I can go even to 13.2 based on my mph of 102.5, but I am traction limited. I never said I was a professional driver either, but to go from a 13.7 to the low 13's is pretty damn good for the price I paid for my CAI/Tune combo. And I didnt know SCT was full of amatuer tuners. Guess you must be a qualified professional tuner with a reputable company.....

  4. And this is on the 87 tune recently. I know if I throw better control arms and 4.10's I will be in the 12's. My point is everyone's CAI/tune is almost the same!!!! Some tune a little more aggressively but that also weakens the car's longevity. So we can argue who is better but lets look at price vs results and Im glad I spent my money wisely....

  5. REALLY!!! Then why do most companies post their rear wheels gains with their advertisements? Tell me if that is not a marketing strategy to get customers also!!! You think its just to show the power given? Your right every car is different. But Im positive theyre gonna post their strongest numbers to lure customers to their product. So dont say Im stupid unless you fully understand marketing and attracting customers. Posting dyno results for a product to lure customers is a selling tool!!!!
  6. First of all Ramjetlx, you completly misunderstood my reply concerning J DeMolet's quote, and took everything way out of context.. in fact my reply to his quote had absolutely nothing to do with what your car's best time numbers were, nor did I ever mention that to begin with..what I did question about his CAI system was if his materials and labor costs are so far superior and more expensive than a metal system, as he claims.. then his CAI kit should retail at a higher price, instead of being almost $150.00 less than a C&L which retails for $369.00.. the bottom line here is.. I'm not looking to put down anybody's product, so if you were able to bust out in 13.4's then good for you, However..whenever somebody makes a claim that I don't feel makes any sense, nor adds up...then yes, I'm going to question it. and not to sound like a wiseass or anything, but what Mr. DeMolet also needs to realize here is this is a technical forum, not a sales forum, and should therefore post any future quotes and opinions he may have, in a techincal manner..Thank You:flag:
  7. RED 05 bulitgt:

    I'll try to answer your question technically of what I meant:

    I had an 03 Cobra underhood system that utilized a custom molded carbon fiber shield.
    Once my initial cost of the mold expenditure was done each of the pieces were much cheaper than laying them up by hand and there was no labor cost, only the per piece price.
    I can't build the carbon fiber TB pipe in this manner for the 05's. You have to do them by hand which means a higher labor cost than complete ready to ship molded pieces.
    But if you have one person who can build say 10 of these in one day this translates into a reasonable cost per system piece price.
    Your labor is higher than a premolded piece.
    Carbon fiber and polycarbonate sheets aren't cheap but sourcing these in multiple sheet pressings enables a cost per system price that's reasonable.
    You can offer a nice quality system that's reasonably priced. Individually the cost of my TB pipe is higher both in materials and labor than if I used a polished aluminum Tb pipe I could simply add couplers to and drop in the box ready to ship but making my TB pipe and shields in quantity maintains a decent cost per system profit margin and enables offering top quality materials.
    When you see a companys' retail price come down by $ 100. over what it was intially they obviously have a good margin of profit to work with.

    I know this is argued to death, but I feel that the plastics are a superior material to use in a product that has such a large correlation to heat being an insulator.
  8. C&L - $350, AEM - $289, Tunable Induction - $225. So now you're accusing your competitors of price gouging the consumer?

    We do not want to know what you 'feel'. Simply provide us with test data which backs up the claim on your website: "Performance gains will quickly be sacrificed with metal components in the induction system."
  9. No other company names were mentioned. There are systems lower cost than mine.

    You're a good debater ski but you'll never agree with the plastic vs. metal standpoint of the plastics having an 'edge' on heat conduction.

    The bottom line is if you like metal better I respect your opinion and it's good to be happy with the choices we make in a particular mod.
  10. Which ones? Remember, we're comparing your system with those made from aluminum.

    But I do agree with the proven fact that plastics are better insulators than metals. Just read my 1st post in this string.
    What I do not agree with are suppliers who blatantly advertise that a plastic CAI has a temperature related performance advantage over an aluminum unit without presenting any test data to back up their claim in order to try to gain a market advantage over their competitors. So just show me the test data that substantiates your claim, and I'll be on my merry way.
  11. Thanks for you're reply, personally I have nothing against your system.. However, my reply to you're original quote in my opinion, was not only taken as a non technical statement, but I also took it as a marketing statement and as a direct attack on the other systems as well, and let's face it.. you're original quote, didn't provide any type of technical info. other than a general statement, to rely on.. And if you had included or provided more detail in you're original quote.. This misunderstaning would have never taken place, to begin with.. Therefore I hope this provides a better understanding as to why I took you're original quote, in such a defensive manner.. I also agree with Ski's comments and would also like to see actual test data, which backs up the claim on your website: "Performance gains will quickly be sacrificed with metal components in the induction system."... Finally there's one last issue, concerning you're system, that I need to address.. Have you had any issues or compliants with you're plastic MAF de-forming ?? from what my understanding is.. I've heard that one of you're competitors was having issues with air filters falling off his plastic MAF housing, because the housing was not able to withstand engine bay heat and in addtion, not being able to withstand the weight and pressure of the filter, therefore causing the plastic housing to de-form.. and as a result, had to switch over from a plastic MAF housing, to a billet and metal type housing, in order to correct this problem, and I would like to know, if any of you're customers have also experienced this issue, and if so..what steps and actions do you plan to provide for your customers, who may also experience similar problems with you're system ?? Anyway, you're expert advice and thoughts would really be appreciated, concerning this issue.. and once again, i would like to say.. thanks for you're reply...:)
  12. My sincerest apologies to you sir for my misunderstanding. I am only a weekend warrior at the drags but I am also a big customer of mustang parts, both for my 5.0 and current 06 GT. I just wanted to say customers are always looking for the best vaule for the dollar, that is why the mustang is a great seller. As a business owner myself, I understand this very well. I just wanted to say that Demolet's system is well worth the money I spent and the gains I received. I do not wish to be part of any technical converations about plastic vs metal, since I am no expert on this, but I do understand the aspects of business. So, I will bow out and hope I didnt offend anyone with my opinions.
  13. Wait just a minute here :eek: Nobody is suggesting that you bow out of this forum alright,? especially myself.. and like you, I'm also a Mustang enthusiast and have been for over 30 years. In fact, I'm no different from anybody else who's looking for the best bang for their buck, However when it comes to my 05 GT..I also want the best quality CAI for my buck as well. and to be honest with you, I was originally going to choose the Tunable Induction kit, until I found out that JLT re-designed his intake tube, from a plastic MAF housing to a billet style, because there were problems with air filters falling off, thanks to the so-called superior (plastic) housing that became deformed, due to engine bay heat. And I'm sorry, but until I have real proof and am otherwise proven wrong..There is no way in hell that I'm going to spend my hard earned money on a CAI, that will only end up in the trash.. Therefore, what real advantage does plastic have over metal ?, if it can't even hold up to heat, to begin with.. Just for the record here, I'am by no means what you call a technical expert, but I do know how to use and apply good common sense, and if whenever in doubt about anything...I always ask questions, no matter how trivial they may be.. Anyway I wish you nothing but the best of luck with your system, and hope that you don't experience any of the same problems, that I listed above.. At this point, I'm still un-decided as to which CAI to purchase for my 05 GT. I'm leaning towards either the JLT II, MMR, or the C&L.. And BTW, I was never offended in anyway, by your opinions.. you just misunderstood my reply to J DeMolet's quote, concerning his claim, in which I took as a marketing statement and a direct attack on C&L and other metal systems, and the main purpose for my reply to his claims, was that I was not just looking out, for my best interests.. But was also looking after the best interests, of my fellow forum members, which BTW.. includes you as well..:)
  14. That's the exact reason why I chose the C&L aluminum intake.
  15. It's no problem addressing questions:

    Ski; there was no mention of any gouging, only obvserved flexabilities in profit margins.

    I don't say 'gouging' because other factors come into play. One huge one is monthly advertising expense.
    If a given company spends $5000. a month in MM & FF the retail prices of the system have this cost figured in. They're not gouging, they have this cost involved. Are the customers paying more due to ad expense? Of course.
    I don't want to get into ad wars with 'who can have the biggest, prettiest ad'. I'd rather spend on the best materials and hope that the customer would recognize a good value and pass the ad savings on to the customer.

    I can only speak of my own expieriences with regarding the plastic meter longevity question.
    I did not have any claims with the Pro-M plastic bullett meters I used to carry.
    The factory meters are plastic and if their warranty claims were such that it was costing them more with problems due to warpage than switching to another material they probably would have.
    The SCT big mouth meters are plastic and I'm unaware of issues with them regarding the plastic construction.
    Plastic stays cool with airflow, even 'at idle' airflow and I haven't had any problems with my plastic meters. My CNC progam allows a nice CORRECT NECK LENGTH for filter attachment just as the other companies meters.
    If you go back and read the shootout article closely you'll find a notation regarding 'neck length' . This will make a difference in filter retention.
    I have had NO warpage problems with the TB pipes or meters in the 05/06 systems. MD retained/installed their system in July and have related no problems, or with their customers.

    When I began carrying the metal meters it was no surprise that many inquiries wanted to know if they could get them in plastic. I've had the plastic and metal in my Mustang and the metal is noticably hotter after the motor gets hot and especially in the summer months. It attains a higher temperature than the rest of the plastic system. All I have to do is put my hand on the different parts of the system and feel which is hotter.

    Murillo noted, if you read the article on my site, that there was NO DIFFERENCE IN THE TUNE, with engine heat soak.

    Sometimes simple logic is what decisions are based on.

    I advertise that my system is very light weight. It has a weight advantage over the C&L. One forum member on AFM weighed the C&L @ 6 lbs. 14 oz.. My system weighs, I advertise under 5lbs., but the actual weight is less than 4 lbs.. My scale doesn't have ounces and shows just under 4 lbs.
    Will there be data showing that in a match run with my system against the C&L that the weight will be an advantage. No, there are too many other variables.
    Do we know that if every mod we do we go with a lighter weight part that the weight savings will add up to increased performance at the track? Yes.
    People should make their choices on what they believe is advantageous and all manufacturers will point out what they feel the different advantages are. A lot of variables with heat, weight, etc. won't show any differences on the dyno but may in everyday driving.
  16. Good point, but who are they, and how much do they spend on ads?

    The article proves my point that heat soak does not cause a metal intake to reduce engine performance to a greater degree than a plastic intake.
    If it did, then there would have been varying differences in the performance numbers between C&L intake and your intake for the varying heat soaks during the Murillo dyno runs. And according to the article that did not happen-
    "now the numbers are not that much of a difference but it was repeatable .. changeing the tunes back and forth with the cold airs always resulted in similar power changes regardles of how much heat soak the motor had.."

    The word feel , or any word with the same meaning, does not appear anywhere in your website's aggressive claim - "Performance gains will quickly be sacrificed with metal components in the induction system."

    Heat definitely will.

  19. Mine is injected molded ABS. The ABS is tough and the thickness @ the meter center is 1/4", then recessed for allowing the TB pipe/filter fitment.

    The back half of the meter that's in the TB pipe is a full 2" in length. This means half the meter is shielded/reinforced with the TB pipe but still 1/4" thickness @ sensor port. We also spray the whole meter with high heat paint for an extra covering. It's tough and will stay cool and the neck matches up with the filter neck width to not block the filter flow. The Green filter I had molded is a squared off neck, not rounded down like some other filters providing an exact squared off fit.

    Cost in relation to pricing would be a HUGE difference with not producing the meter myself. 90 % less cost to produce the meter myself which would have to be reflected in the retail price. ABS won't suffer warpage as long as there is no contact with any heat sources. With the shield supporting the whole system above the radiator hose and the meter another approx. 12" further away from any heat source it'll be fine. The poly shield will go to 240 degrees heat resistance and it incorporates a rubber molding around the meter. She's definately blanketed from heat and a non heat conductive material.

    Forgive me for repeating myself, but 12 PULLS !!! in the Murillo testing certainly indicates the affect engine heat soak can have on your tune, BUT DIDN'T with these materials. The meter/system tunes rock steady. The 95mm flow will provide adequate airflow for any future mods.