TrueStreetTim
04-03-2013, 05:22 PM
This ended up a bit long for sure! But grab a comfortable seat and press on!
I’ve been getting a lot of questions about CAI’s for the 5.0’s the past couple of weeks. Maybe it’s tax returns burning a hole? Maybe it’s the “flavor of the month”? So I found some free time and thought I’d take it upon myself to read as many forums and reviews as I could come across to get a feel for what folks felt about the bolt-on (outside of my own opinions). Regardless; with all the information, reviews, testing, and different brands available, many still wonder whether or not a CAI could even be an improvement over the OEM box. And if so, how much? The answer? Yes! But to what extent and is it really worth the price?
The common complaint that I’ve seen CAI’s getting is the manufactures “peak” increase vs. what folks are seeing on their own rides. Some are less than impressed. I feel the misconception here is that peak horsepower from one person may mean a different peak horsepower to another. Some, when referring to peak horsepower, feel it’s the end Dyno result of what the cars overall measured gain was at the tires. Others refer to it as the point along the entire rpm range that the car witnessed the largest gain (a different measurement all together).
I set off to gather my own research from top sources, outside of forums and other written text, to provide the most accurate data I could muster to aid in the understanding and decision to purchase the bolt-on or not. I wanted to know where the numbers were coming from and how they justified their gains Vs. stock. Keep in mind that each manufacturer tests their product in completely different atmospheres. The information below is based off my own experiences and the data I was able to gain through 1 on 1 conversation’s straight from the techs themselves. And therefore; my subsequent opinions based off those experiences and the information they provided. I used the 2011 GT as my example to each manufacturer to sell me on their product. Here’s what they had to offer and in no particular order:
AEM advertises an 8hp/10tq increase with “no tune required”. They recorded an overall increase vs. stock through roughly 60% of the range. They experienced their “peak gain” of 8hp at 5k rpm and 10tq at 3.4k rpm.
According to their tech; AEM tests with a closed hood using 2 mule cars stock from the lot and no tune. Next to JLT’s paint & fiber options, this is one of the slickest looking kits IMO (especially for you sterling cats) and is on par with most of the competition after tuning.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/AEM_zps09aa73e0.jpg
Airaid advertises an 11hp/11tq increase with “no tune required”. They recorded an 11hp “peak gain” @ 4.5k and 11tq @ 6300 with a steady improvement from almost 3.5k.
I was unfortunately unable to reach anyone who could tell me more of their testing and hands on experience behind the numbers. I was told pretty much what I could find via their website.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/Airaid2_zps6f4a1541.jpg
Roush, uh…yeah, Roush. Perhaps I was unfortunate enough to reach someone having a far worse day than I. But he was uninterested in going into detail with me to say the least. According to him they don’t publish numbers whatsoever due to atmospheric differences. I completely understand that aspect 100%! But when it came down to the end of the 120 second conversation, I was far from convinced and even less compelled to purchase what they had to offer me. It also doesn't help that, to me, its the least cosmetic of the bunch.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/Roush_zps1ccec9c5.jpg
K&N advertises a 20hp/26tq increase with “no tune required”. They recorded their 20hp “peak” at 5.4k and 26tq at 4.6k RPM.
K&N’s testing far outweighed others I had spoken with. They performed 5 pulls between 3 stock, and stock only, mules during closed hood testing. They then averaged the pulls between the highest and lowest numbers to come up with their results. After Dyno tests, they conduct real world drive testing over 2 days to ensure the integrity of their product. I also dig the fact their enclosed design is not only sharp looking, but is clearly functional by drawing air from a duct near the bottom similar to AEM. Though they do not share the same designer, AEM kits are also manufactured by K&N.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/KampN_zpsc37606d2.jpg
JLT advertises a 25-30hp increase with a “required tune”. Their recorded “peak gains” (on top of the tune) averaged 14hp/11tq through much of the scale.
JLT uses no metals in their design and offer some of the largest, most customizable, kits among the field. It had been some time since JLT’s testing from when the 5.0 first debuted, but they pointed me to youtube clips of testing to contribute to their numbers. They tested with stock vehicles, much like the rest, while making Dyno runs with a stock setup, then tuned, then CAI & tune to come to their net gains. Solid testing and vids conducted by JLT themselves to back it up. Something consumers crave!
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/JLT2_zps6a38572a.jpg
Steeda advertises a 38hp/40tq increase with a “required tune”. No info was available as to the “peak” areas for these numbers. And their results are widely based off of reported numbers by trusted installers across the nation.
Steeda uses a specially designed, curved mouth inside the filter housing that smooths incoming air into the sampling area. I was told they also believe that the larger the tube isn’t necessarily better as it still constricts down to the TB though they’ve since gone up in size to a 103mm.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/Steeda2_zpsafbaafbc.jpg
Injen advertises a 10hp/11tq increase over stock with “no tune required”. I was unfortunately unable to be told at what RPM.
Injen, in their words, “replicated” all fuel parameters through their patented MR technology to near stock while maximizing air flow. The approach towards testing was different from most but similar to JLT’s. They Dyno’d their stock donor in stock form. Installed the CAI and recorded their 10hp/11tq gains. The car then went through 2 days of software tuning in stock form. After that was 2 days of tuning with the CAI in place.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/Injen2_zps6e278b5b.jpg
C&L was a bit different in their approach to their marketing for CAI’s. They claim “the best no tune required” kit for the 5.0’s. They incorporated the ability to send a “same as stock” signal to the computer via “duplicating” fuel parameters which keeps the car from knowing anything had changed, (similar to Injen etc.) but nets a performance increase nonetheless. Whether they speak of their own MVT (modular venture tube), which other “no tune required” companies also use, is uncertain to me.
I was pumped full of numbers and testing that clearly backed C&L as having done the most research out there. But in the end, all testing was flow data alone (no dyno, mules etc.) and could only report what their customer shops were reporting. But I was given an 11hp gain from 4k RPM up to redline and an 18-20hp gain for the BOSS.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/CampL_zps4d889159.jpg
With the exception of Roush, all the companies I talked with were helpful and eager to sell their product and I had zero complaints. But throughout my conversations, K&N and Injen (surprisingly enough) drove a hard bargain and convinced me the most that I needed their product above all others. I, myself, am a K&N fan and almost feel bad saying that as Injen’s rep was brilliant at doing his job for his company. But in the end, K&N has been in the game longer than most and I can attest to their impeccable customer service first hand with my own K&N parts.
But if you’re a numbers guy, myself included, let’s see how things stack up! So if we take the “no tune required” numbers I was given and add a 15hp (on average) tune increase as a control, here’s what we’ve got:
AEM: +23
Airaid: +26
Roush: N/A
K&N: +35
JLT: 25-30 (tune required kit/no theoretical gains)
Steeda: 38 (tune required kit/no theoretical gains)
C&L: +26
Injen: +25
IMO, a 30hp increase is a seat of the pants difference! As a tuning shop we still absolutely recommend tuning any CAI installation no matter the brand to prevent any future lean conditions. K&N, though they produce a “no tune required” kit, feels a tune is not only a great addition to the kit but also safe practice. And who wouldn’t want a Dyno sheet of the improvement anyhow?! The CAI mod is definitely beneficial and especially for future mods as one compliments the other in many cases! But many require a tune to really wake up. So averaging roughly $350, and coupled with a programmer and a custom tune, CAI’s are clearly an advantageous HP mod and one of the best for the price! Thought I'd share.
I’ve been getting a lot of questions about CAI’s for the 5.0’s the past couple of weeks. Maybe it’s tax returns burning a hole? Maybe it’s the “flavor of the month”? So I found some free time and thought I’d take it upon myself to read as many forums and reviews as I could come across to get a feel for what folks felt about the bolt-on (outside of my own opinions). Regardless; with all the information, reviews, testing, and different brands available, many still wonder whether or not a CAI could even be an improvement over the OEM box. And if so, how much? The answer? Yes! But to what extent and is it really worth the price?
The common complaint that I’ve seen CAI’s getting is the manufactures “peak” increase vs. what folks are seeing on their own rides. Some are less than impressed. I feel the misconception here is that peak horsepower from one person may mean a different peak horsepower to another. Some, when referring to peak horsepower, feel it’s the end Dyno result of what the cars overall measured gain was at the tires. Others refer to it as the point along the entire rpm range that the car witnessed the largest gain (a different measurement all together).
I set off to gather my own research from top sources, outside of forums and other written text, to provide the most accurate data I could muster to aid in the understanding and decision to purchase the bolt-on or not. I wanted to know where the numbers were coming from and how they justified their gains Vs. stock. Keep in mind that each manufacturer tests their product in completely different atmospheres. The information below is based off my own experiences and the data I was able to gain through 1 on 1 conversation’s straight from the techs themselves. And therefore; my subsequent opinions based off those experiences and the information they provided. I used the 2011 GT as my example to each manufacturer to sell me on their product. Here’s what they had to offer and in no particular order:
AEM advertises an 8hp/10tq increase with “no tune required”. They recorded an overall increase vs. stock through roughly 60% of the range. They experienced their “peak gain” of 8hp at 5k rpm and 10tq at 3.4k rpm.
According to their tech; AEM tests with a closed hood using 2 mule cars stock from the lot and no tune. Next to JLT’s paint & fiber options, this is one of the slickest looking kits IMO (especially for you sterling cats) and is on par with most of the competition after tuning.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/AEM_zps09aa73e0.jpg
Airaid advertises an 11hp/11tq increase with “no tune required”. They recorded an 11hp “peak gain” @ 4.5k and 11tq @ 6300 with a steady improvement from almost 3.5k.
I was unfortunately unable to reach anyone who could tell me more of their testing and hands on experience behind the numbers. I was told pretty much what I could find via their website.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/Airaid2_zps6f4a1541.jpg
Roush, uh…yeah, Roush. Perhaps I was unfortunate enough to reach someone having a far worse day than I. But he was uninterested in going into detail with me to say the least. According to him they don’t publish numbers whatsoever due to atmospheric differences. I completely understand that aspect 100%! But when it came down to the end of the 120 second conversation, I was far from convinced and even less compelled to purchase what they had to offer me. It also doesn't help that, to me, its the least cosmetic of the bunch.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/Roush_zps1ccec9c5.jpg
K&N advertises a 20hp/26tq increase with “no tune required”. They recorded their 20hp “peak” at 5.4k and 26tq at 4.6k RPM.
K&N’s testing far outweighed others I had spoken with. They performed 5 pulls between 3 stock, and stock only, mules during closed hood testing. They then averaged the pulls between the highest and lowest numbers to come up with their results. After Dyno tests, they conduct real world drive testing over 2 days to ensure the integrity of their product. I also dig the fact their enclosed design is not only sharp looking, but is clearly functional by drawing air from a duct near the bottom similar to AEM. Though they do not share the same designer, AEM kits are also manufactured by K&N.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/KampN_zpsc37606d2.jpg
JLT advertises a 25-30hp increase with a “required tune”. Their recorded “peak gains” (on top of the tune) averaged 14hp/11tq through much of the scale.
JLT uses no metals in their design and offer some of the largest, most customizable, kits among the field. It had been some time since JLT’s testing from when the 5.0 first debuted, but they pointed me to youtube clips of testing to contribute to their numbers. They tested with stock vehicles, much like the rest, while making Dyno runs with a stock setup, then tuned, then CAI & tune to come to their net gains. Solid testing and vids conducted by JLT themselves to back it up. Something consumers crave!
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/JLT2_zps6a38572a.jpg
Steeda advertises a 38hp/40tq increase with a “required tune”. No info was available as to the “peak” areas for these numbers. And their results are widely based off of reported numbers by trusted installers across the nation.
Steeda uses a specially designed, curved mouth inside the filter housing that smooths incoming air into the sampling area. I was told they also believe that the larger the tube isn’t necessarily better as it still constricts down to the TB though they’ve since gone up in size to a 103mm.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/Steeda2_zpsafbaafbc.jpg
Injen advertises a 10hp/11tq increase over stock with “no tune required”. I was unfortunately unable to be told at what RPM.
Injen, in their words, “replicated” all fuel parameters through their patented MR technology to near stock while maximizing air flow. The approach towards testing was different from most but similar to JLT’s. They Dyno’d their stock donor in stock form. Installed the CAI and recorded their 10hp/11tq gains. The car then went through 2 days of software tuning in stock form. After that was 2 days of tuning with the CAI in place.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/Injen2_zps6e278b5b.jpg
C&L was a bit different in their approach to their marketing for CAI’s. They claim “the best no tune required” kit for the 5.0’s. They incorporated the ability to send a “same as stock” signal to the computer via “duplicating” fuel parameters which keeps the car from knowing anything had changed, (similar to Injen etc.) but nets a performance increase nonetheless. Whether they speak of their own MVT (modular venture tube), which other “no tune required” companies also use, is uncertain to me.
I was pumped full of numbers and testing that clearly backed C&L as having done the most research out there. But in the end, all testing was flow data alone (no dyno, mules etc.) and could only report what their customer shops were reporting. But I was given an 11hp gain from 4k RPM up to redline and an 18-20hp gain for the BOSS.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/manumition/CampL_zps4d889159.jpg
With the exception of Roush, all the companies I talked with were helpful and eager to sell their product and I had zero complaints. But throughout my conversations, K&N and Injen (surprisingly enough) drove a hard bargain and convinced me the most that I needed their product above all others. I, myself, am a K&N fan and almost feel bad saying that as Injen’s rep was brilliant at doing his job for his company. But in the end, K&N has been in the game longer than most and I can attest to their impeccable customer service first hand with my own K&N parts.
But if you’re a numbers guy, myself included, let’s see how things stack up! So if we take the “no tune required” numbers I was given and add a 15hp (on average) tune increase as a control, here’s what we’ve got:
AEM: +23
Airaid: +26
Roush: N/A
K&N: +35
JLT: 25-30 (tune required kit/no theoretical gains)
Steeda: 38 (tune required kit/no theoretical gains)
C&L: +26
Injen: +25
IMO, a 30hp increase is a seat of the pants difference! As a tuning shop we still absolutely recommend tuning any CAI installation no matter the brand to prevent any future lean conditions. K&N, though they produce a “no tune required” kit, feels a tune is not only a great addition to the kit but also safe practice. And who wouldn’t want a Dyno sheet of the improvement anyhow?! The CAI mod is definitely beneficial and especially for future mods as one compliments the other in many cases! But many require a tune to really wake up. So averaging roughly $350, and coupled with a programmer and a custom tune, CAI’s are clearly an advantageous HP mod and one of the best for the price! Thought I'd share.