The Honker cold air system doesn't require a shroud to direct air into the filter. The filter element is fit into the supplied filter base which mounts to the radiator shroud. The area in front of the filter element is open to a high pressure area that Chevrolet designed to provide air to the radiator for cooling.
Our engineers performed airflow and dyno testing, comparing the C6 Honker design to others. If other systems performed better, we would have made design changes so we wouldn't have an inferior product.

 

Our engineers performed airflow and dyno testing, comparing the C6 Honker design to others. If other systems performed better, we would have made design changes so we wouldn't have an inferior product.
i dont believe that. if you think yours is the best even if it isnt, you wouldnt change it because you think it is the best. and your engineers wouldnt admit someone elses is better after all the time the spent on yours. you think yours is great and i think VR is better

 

VR=Questionable fit and quality
Callaway=Superior fit and quality

 

You're entitled to your opinion. But at the end of the day, it's just that an opinion.

Because we're dealing with facts, not opinions, suggesting that the engineers wouldn't admit that their design is inferior because of the time they invested is suggesting that they would intentionally skew the test procedure or fabricate test results to make the numbers come out in their favor. Engineers that make up data don't last very long.

In product development, it's not a matter of "thinking" that one is "better than the other". Data has to support any design theory. Flow bench data, dyno test results and acceleration testing are the real determinants to indicate the differences between any two intake systems.

Our engineers "believed" that the increased restriction from the added bends in the intake duct required to locate the inlet at the front of the car, versus the Honker's inlet location at the radiator shroud, would result in reduced air flow. Until test data supported it, it was just opinion, a hypothesis. After testing, it became more than that.

When I wrote that our engineers would have modified the Honker design if they needed to, it was in the context of fright 88's question as to whether the Honker came with a shroud to direct air into the system's inlet. Sorry if it sounded like I was bashing any other intake's design.

 

Vararam is the ticket.

1. Yes, improved 1/4 mile time by .2. Not much until you realize that I also added over 100lbs of sound proofing.

2. Not unless it is responsible for something breaking.

3. Any car can be hydrolocked. The bottom of the Vararam opening is 9 inches off the ground and the top 14. Unless you cover the whole opening it is unlikely that it would occur. Last fall I drove or I should say hydroplaned 300mile in the worst rain I have ever seen. No prolems at all.

4. About an hour.

 

I have to agree with you, I have seen many a Engineer who suffer
from NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome.

We need a shootout of all the intakes, not on the dyno either, lets
see something like:

- Average of 3x runs at the track (ET and MPH) with same car
and just change of intake

Obviously there are other valid points that should be addressed:

- Water issues (bottom breathers would seem more prone)
- Foreign Object Ingestion (aka F-16 like Vacuum)
- Easy of maintenance (filter change)
- Build Quality (does it seal and keep a seal?)


It sure looks like Vararam has come up with the intake that makes the
most power when the car is moving.

I held off on the intake so far, but unless some good evidence arises
the VR is going on my car.

 

just some pics of the honker to back up it's factory looks. I did paint the lettering on mine red......which makes a big difference IMO. Should have come that way from callaway

 

I agree however dyno pulls would be good as well.

 

Are you working a CARB approval for the Hoonker and headers?

 

Doesn't anybody understand how useless a dyno run is on a CAI? If anyone tells you they picked up horsepower on a dyno, I'd question their integrity. Why? Think about how cars are dynod. The hood is opened, and a huge fan blows ambient air into the engine compartment. So a stock air intake will see the same ambient air temps as a "CAI".

How about the Vararam? Won't get any boost in air pressure sitting on a dyno, will you?

I admit that I don't believe a Vararam will give the hp that many people claim - the laws of physics just don't support the 30-50 hp claims I read. But I do give the proponents of the Vararam their due. They make their claims based upon 1/4 mile times.

I think the Vararam could have an effect on 1/4 times - actually, mostly the trap speed. But again, I have a hard time believing some of the claims. I'd want to see all of the data on the before and after 1/4 mile times to make more sense of it (density altitude, weather, 60' times etc.)

 

I agree with what you are saying. However I would think to cover all bases you would want dyno pulls as well. If you had 1/4 mile runs and dyno pulls for both stock and each CAI then you would cover all the bases I would think.

 

I can't argue with that.

 

the dyno pulls would be worthless. i pull 376 rwhp lots of people pull a lot higher yet i ran 11.62 so i must have more power dyno didnt show.

 

If you want HP added, I would ask the manufacturer to give you the dyno results on their product. If you don't race it, just about any cai is ok.

 

GM high performance magazine just tested the Vararam. They got .5 hp increase with the spacer, 2 hp with the vararam installed. Total of 2.5hp gained. Then they went to the track, ran 3 runs with the stock intake and 3 with the vararam. Stock intake was running 12.7@112 traps. Vararm installed was running 12.5@115 traps. They were let down with the dyno results but were amazed with the trap speed and ET improvements.

I'll probably go with either the Callaway or VR. But I also have the Top Flight front plate braket in the way, so much of the ram-air effect is gonna be negated with the VR.

Also another thing to think about, it's been proven a C6Z06 airbridge is the best flowing intake, the Callaway is much similar to that design then the VR is.

 

Vararam = 3/10ths reduction in ET and up to 3mph gain in trap speeds in the 1/4 mile.

With results like that it could be painted lime green with fuscia polka dots and be made out of styrofoam for all I care, the damn thing works apparently.

 

LS1LT1 -

If the claims and results I've seen pan out,
Bolt a Vararam on yours, Bone Stock you should go 11.9s@118+....

Then I'll buy one too

Howard

 

Working on CARB approval for 616 hp Callaway Corvette right now, then Honker, then headers.

 

the higher trap speeds were from mass air reading more air then adding more fuel then it retarded timing more mph. but the whole test is worthless because you need to drive 200 to 300 miles for the computer to learn, or re-tune after change which they didn't do

 

While flow bench testing and dyno tests are valuable to predict how products might perform, the bottom line is: how does the product actually perform in the real world? That's where the acceleration testing, or dragstrip results, become the ultimate way to compare this type of product. Especially considering that the performance of some of these systems are affected by vehicle speed.

Test methodology is also very important. The goal is to eliminate any conditions that would be different from one set of results to the other. For example in our intake system testing, we had the radiator shroud prepared in advance for the specific aftermarket systems, then blocked off for systems that didn't require it. We were able to change intake systems and make runs in around 15 minutes so ambient conditions could remain as constant as possible. The preparation also allowed us to stabilize and standardize coolant temperature, oil temperature, tire pressure, and other variables that would affect performance.

As another example of some of the testing that is performed, here are some pages of a report that describe some testing that Callaway performed to determine the air pressure increase as a function of speed, comparing the Honker C6/Z06 to the OEM Z06 system. It refers to the increased flow capabiltiy of the Honker over the stock piece. It also reported on the effort to quantify the "ram air effect" of locating the system inlet at the radiator shroud.