Yep, the next bottleneck he has is the stock crankshaft. He would need to go to a 4" crank or a 4.125 to make the swap worth while.

 

Hey can I borrow your stroker crank Jeff, got some more testing to do.

 

i guess the k&n is not as good as they advertise.

 

I bought a used SLP claw for looks pretty much not expecting anything. I Think I will keep my stock set up and swap them out at the track once it's running again.

 

My quess is these tests were done with the hood up, if so all bets are off regarding under hood heat and location and air draw...

Still a good test regarding comparisons of restrictions

 

The results look all "Wong" to me.

 

that is correct

 

None of those are ram air so I don't see why it would matter.

 

Look out! Its the back from the dead thread.

 

Search functions been burning up this last week.

 

:o I didnt notice the date.. This thread is expired do you think I will get thread poisoning for posting?

 

If everyone makes a big deal about it, then yes there will be mods involved. IMO this thread hasn't expired, it still has relevant information. I don't think it's a big deal to post in old tech threads that still have good information. To some people it's a big big deal though.

856SPEED and vader86, why does it make a difference with the intakes tested that they have been dyno tested? I don't get it, they aren't ram air intakes.

856SPEED, in the other thread you said the air intake wasn't sufficient for your modest power level. You didn't respond to my question about evidence of this. Did you do some dyno or track testing between the stock air housing and an open filter???

 

I was just kidding. I joined this site for info and have also had a lot of fun on here. You guys are great.

 

First off Aardwolf, you are obviously much more aggressive than I am on debating this issue insisting I post "relevant numbers" to back up my claim.......are you that passionate about this topic? obviously the answer is yes.......so let me explain my personal situation to you.......

dyno tests (as the car sits stationary with a fan blowing in the front of radiator) will not duplicate actual highway speeds+on a moving vehicle, but that's what you have to do stop possible overheating on dyno runs......you cannot duplicate ram air effects on a dyno (minimal maybe)....now having said that, I had little change with my stock vs. TPIS racing air intake on the dyno.....the stock was 359.8 rwhp and the TPIS was 361.4 rwhp.......however on the track my mph was 1.4 higher (111.2mph from the stock air intake to 112.6 from the TPIS racing air intake).....the TPIS racing air intake has a much larger air passage and requires cutting of the fan shroud;the air filter when installed on this product is open (exposed with no cover) and it getting air from the front air dam forced right into it directly; more air as the speed of the vehicle increases; the air dam is pushing air into the filter/bigger volume intake and is getting a cold, "ram effect" charge at higher speeds.......is this product necessary?........probably not for most people, I agree, but something I wanted for my heavily modified engine......as far as my application, the stock intake did not make optimal power with the air my engine is wanting to take in.....don't care to debate this with you at any further lengths whether or not you agree or disagree......

 

So from that it looks like you were wrong about the stock air tubing being a restriction at your power level. I read your results as the ram air intake providing a gain while moving. Don't be so sensitive, I'm just trying to understand the power gain of these parts. I have almost the exact same combo you do, right down to a ram air intake.

 

I think one thing this whole thread proves is that the stock set up is MUCH better than most stock set ups on just about any car out there! That in itself I think is impressive! I kind of agree with the prev. poster that even though the dyno runs didn't yield much of any gains, you might see gains if you did 1/4 mile runs with each one... Or maybe not? Who knows...

 

Just to throw another parameter in (and certainly not to hijack), the MAF is a major restriction on the early C4s. Did you guys know about thsi? http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb....Z5Z5Z50000050F

Not cheap, but this could make a diff. depending on your setup. Understood not all claims are to be believed, but it does state 30% more flow than stock, and you tuning gurus may see this as an advantage if tuned properly

 

A few comments on my "back from the dead" thread...

Yes the hood was open on all tests. Would it make a difference if it were closed??? It might in an overall context ... but probably not between the systems tested as they all draw air from about the same location.

This was a static test of the internal flow potential of three different air intakes/filters. Ideas such as cold air or ram air were not a part of this test. Could those ideas work on the road? Sure... but I didn't test them here. What we found out was simply that the stock air intake and filter are not internally restrictive up to at least the 480rwhp level. In the real world (on the road with the hood closed) I suspect a properly designed aftermarket intake could have a significant performance advantage.

 

Just a note...I believe there are three different filter box styles on the C4, if not 4. The early L98 are quite thin where they pass over the radiator and have a smaller exit to accomodate the MAF sensor. A little later in the L98 (and maybe the same on LT1, hence the possible 4th design) the box is noticeably thicker (taller) over the radiator and has a much wider exit. The ZR-1 box tested here, IIRC, is bigger yet.

If you have an early L98 you may have trouble getting 450+hp through that airbox, it is different and smaller than the one tested here. This doesn't invalidate the results in any way, I'm just pointing out not all C4 airboxes are the same.

Anecdote time: CORKVETTE1 picked up .2 in the quarter mile with a 406 going from the stock 85 box to the larger, non ram-air box, by TPiS.

And yeah, never understood the old thread problem. Kind of stupid to start every discussion from the ground over and over. Plus, it's kind of funny when someone addresses an OP that hasn't posted in 4 years as in the "how low will it go thread"