Craig, thanks for the pics! Wow, looks like a ***** to install! What do you do when you blow one of those clamps? Ouch. Well, I will need a clutch one of these days... sooner I think.

 

Ok you got your opinion. I want to get some data...how many have done just the fvd mod and blown a MAF? I know the answer...0. I guess I'm a ghost!
You got data to support your claim?

BTW, the current theories may include amount of air, but turbulence of the air flowing over the may be the culprit.

 

For those looking for an intake plenum contact me. I am making my own kit thats is similar to the FVD kits.

Email: dgreen78@yahoo.com

 

Craig,

Do you recall the ID of the Gemballa piping?

 

Good question ............ years ago (2000) Ruf engines always produced alittle more torque than motors that we built that had identical motor parts. To make a long story short we found that Ruf was using larger diameter tubing size and this was responsible for the added torque. We also discovered that carbon fiber or hose instead of aluminum kept the air cooler and also inproved power. Our answer was an enlarged cf intake. Shortly after this infomation became common knowledge and variations of Ruf's idea were on the market.

 

I can confirm that, we have never had a customer blow a MAF with the FVD intake plenum besides Zippy and its safe to say it was the V-flow that did that as its a proven issue (or was an issue?).
Regards,
Evan

 

It was explained to me that with the larger HP & Turbo's. The stock air
intake piping is like breathing thru a straw. The larger diam piping allows
turbo's to spool up quicker. I ordered the carbon fiber S-Car-Go unit
it includes larger air box junction. Great quality, but there is a trick to make
it fit with stock suspension. Most after market suspension have smaller diameter springs on coil overs making installation easier. I sent it back
and decided to go with Protomotive hard pipe set up.

 

During 2000, you were building 996TT engines with the same parts as used by Ruf??? Didn't you initially use RennTech to tune your 996TT? RennTech used the same parts as Ruf?

Moreover, while S-Car-Go was the first (and only) company that I am aware of to offer CF intake piping, several European tuners have been producing larger diameter intake piping for many years (since 2001 or 2002), including RS Tuning, Sportec and Gemballa. For example, I think the famous Gemballa GTR 750 EVO (the fastest 996TT at the time) used larger diameter piping back in 2002, and the 2001 GTR 600 may have as well. Thus, while S-Car-Go produced an interesting variation, it would be inaccurate to suggest that they were the first, or even the second following Ruf.

Craig

 

The straw analogy is right on point! A straw may suffice for K16s, but not for larger turbos that require more air than can be supplied by a straw.

I think you made a wise decision going with the Protomotive piping over the S-Car-Go unit. While some people are very satisfied with the S-Car-Go unit, I have heard of others (more than one) that had significant problems, including the unit cracking/splitting and CF splinters being sucked into the turbos. Chad insists that the problem does not reflect any design deficiency relating to the intake itself, but rather, was caused by other issues related to the installation, and he may be right, but I personally would select an intake that did not pose any such down stream risk of damage.

Craig

 

Ok. You didn't absorb the WHOLE picture. I didn't suggest the FVD piece caused the blown MAF.

It's pretty common knowledge at this point that the blown MAF issue is a function of too much air coming through the MAF housing 'unmanaged'. In other words, because the waffle was not there, the air flow was being focussed, not unlike a magnifying glass does with light, upon the MAF and causing voltage spikes.

The blown MAF issue is a combo of 3 concurring things: 1) Lots of air-flow (greater that what K16's can provide) produced by BIG turbos 2) A focussed beam of air (no waffle in the MAF housing) 3) An OEM MAF that starts to studder @ > 480HP.

The fact that the FVD intake increases airflow is a contributing factor to a blown MAF. BUT, that being said, if you used the FVD piece with K16's and a VFlow, I'm sure your MAF would be fine. K16's DON'T push enough air to pop a MAF - no matter what the configuration. GT28's on the other hand DO push enough air to pop a MAF.

I've been through all combinations and have found what works and what pops a MAF in miniutes. I believe I am the undisputed King of Blown MAFS! (that would look good in my sig.) That being said, I have installed my new Hitachi MAF, New Generation Evo VFLow intake and am expecting my ECU tomorrow from EVO with the new file flashed onto it. Time to get out the AX22!

The FVD intake is EXCELLANT. So good infact that it may be a contributor to an ailing MAF in a high HP application that does not have a "MAF Solution".

 

actually this is still a hypothesis (albeit a common hypothesis).

Unfortunately, You have no way to support this claim.
again not true I blew 2 MAFs with V-flow and no FVD intake plenum (K16s).

I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you. Again nothing to support this claim.

 

Ross, we are all entitled to our opinions. I have 8 blown MAFS that support mine.

 

How can you tell you blew the MAF ? I mean, what happens ?
I have complete Stage IV FVD with no issues...just the damn clutch.

 

The "Christmas Tree" trio of dash lights: ABS / PSM / CEL. At this point your MAF is garbage. Operating above 480 HP without a "MAF solution" will produce a 'sub-optimal' situation where your car is guessing at the air consumption and is more than likely tuned excessively rich to compensate for the uncertainty. MAF is still good, but trying to operate above its capacity.

 

MARKSKI, I am changing clutch in a couple weeks and I am still debating wherether I get the EVO IC $$$ on my Stage 4 TT (currently with OEM ICs, no GT2's).

Thus, in my case:

Is this EVO Turbo Inlet Ducts

or FVD' Air Intake Plenum better upgrade than the EVO IC???

THANKS!