New carbon fiber airbox release!!!!!!
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,134
From: Chicagoland
Rep Power: 123
Finally got the details on the testing:
Notes on testing:
Test results printed represent the average of at least 20 trials conducted in near identical conditions. When calculating averages, the two best and two worst scores are not counted. Trials that show a consistent gain or loss over the test period are re-tried until consistent results are achieved (the assumption being that changes in atmospheric or track were significant enough to skew the results over the test period).
As such the 11-15hp and 12-16lb/ft of torque gains are a function of consistent elapsed time drops and increased trap speeds observed at the drag strip. While we used a few extra sensors to measure air temp and inlet air velocity, these are not needed for calculating performance gains as the only variable we changed was the intake (we even weighed the car after each pass and added fuel to make sure the car weighed the same at the start of each run). Customers wishing to verify our results can do so by employing the method used above and comparing the before and after times and speeds. As explained below dyno testing is all but useless for intake design which explains why we do not use it in our development; its just the wrong tool for the job.
Why a dyno is not reliable for testing an intake.
The performance of a cold air intake is greatly influenced by the quantity and velocity of airflow around its inlet. Testing the effectiveness of an intake on a dyno has the main shortcoming that during a run on a dyno, the air available for the engine to breath has neither the volume nor speed that exists in real world driving conditions (over the same run period). Placing a large fan in front of a dyno fails to achieve two key requirements for a good test:
Why the ¼ mile is a good way to test.
Fixed distance & No corners to consider: The exact measured amount of a ¼ mile eliminates the varied distances involved in road courses (varying lines, braking points, etc.)
Not too long or short: A ¼ mile is distance that allows any car time to show its performance potential without being so long as to introduce too many test variables that can affect results.
Recognized standard: Customers can relate to the figures generated.
Understanding the costs of carbon fiber and why it is a good material
From time to time customers will question the cost of the Carbonio system compared to less expensive offerings in the market. The primary reason for the cost difference is in the process by which a carbon fiber component is produced. The making of a single intake is a labor intensive operation which occupies a great deal of manual labor and expensive materials.
Some points to consider:
-The raw material to make a single intake piece costs more than the completed production of an aluminum equivalent.
-Production time for a single piece is over 4 hours. This compares to approximately 20 seconds for a plastic part or 15 minutes for an aluminum part.
-Each Carbonio intake is baked in a pressurized autoclave oven for several hours. These autoclaves are mainly used in the aerospace industry and are very costly to own and operate.
Why is Carbon Fiber Used? What are its advantages?
Carbon fiber is used for a number of reasons
-The material has excellent thermal properties not offered by other materials. It allows to maintain a cold intake charge thereby maximizing power.
-Carbon is very light and strong compared to competing materials
-Complex shapes are easier to achieve therefore giving the designers many more design possibilities then would be otherwise possible.
-The visual impact of a well made carbon part has a strong wow factor for the customer making it a piece worthy of show.
When judging price it is important to compare apples to apples. Just like it is not fair to compare the price of a Toyota to that of a Porsche (they are both 'just' cars that get you from point A to B...LOL!!!!) it is not equal to compare an engineered full carbon fiber component to a plastic or plastic/carbon hybrid part.
Some notes on the X51 intake.
When we did our testing we had access to all available competitors including the X51 intake. In testing we concluded the following:
- Over extended driving, the air inlet temp of the X51 was consistently much higher than that of the Carbonio unit. The X51 holds a lot of heat and transfers it to the inlet air while the carbon unit does not. While part of the problem resides in the material and shape of the X51, the filter placement is optimized for reduced engine noise rather than full performance.
- The dual inlets of the X51 do not flow more air than the single one on the Carbonio unit. This is because Carbonio took advantage of inlet space that the X51 could not because of its filter placement. The plenum volume on the Carbonio is considerably larger than the X51 resulting in more cool exterior air being accessed by the inlet filter than in the X51.
- The X51 intake requires the cutting of the engine cover which takes away from the re-sale value of the car. The Carbonio unit installs in minutes and can be removed returning the car to totally OEM without any modification. The cars value is not affected, it is not damaged potentially causing problems with leasing companies, and the Carbonio unit can be sold to recover a good part of its initial cost; all things not possible with the X51.
Remember the X51 is an advantage over stock however it is still a production OEM part with the same compromises of performance to comfort inherent in all factory installed parts. The Carbonio unit before anything else is a performance part first. It uses the best materials and best shape without the cost/performance/comfort compromises the OEM need to deal with. The result is a component that yields the highest performance possible.
Notes on testing:
Test results printed represent the average of at least 20 trials conducted in near identical conditions. When calculating averages, the two best and two worst scores are not counted. Trials that show a consistent gain or loss over the test period are re-tried until consistent results are achieved (the assumption being that changes in atmospheric or track were significant enough to skew the results over the test period).
As such the 11-15hp and 12-16lb/ft of torque gains are a function of consistent elapsed time drops and increased trap speeds observed at the drag strip. While we used a few extra sensors to measure air temp and inlet air velocity, these are not needed for calculating performance gains as the only variable we changed was the intake (we even weighed the car after each pass and added fuel to make sure the car weighed the same at the start of each run). Customers wishing to verify our results can do so by employing the method used above and comparing the before and after times and speeds. As explained below dyno testing is all but useless for intake design which explains why we do not use it in our development; its just the wrong tool for the job.
Why a dyno is not reliable for testing an intake.
The performance of a cold air intake is greatly influenced by the quantity and velocity of airflow around its inlet. Testing the effectiveness of an intake on a dyno has the main shortcoming that during a run on a dyno, the air available for the engine to breath has neither the volume nor speed that exists in real world driving conditions (over the same run period). Placing a large fan in front of a dyno fails to achieve two key requirements for a good test:
- <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">A fan cannot replicate the quantity or velocity of air that enters the intake during a real world test run.
- A fan cannot accelerate its airflow at a rate that matches the increasing vehicle and engine speeds during an on track test.
Why the ¼ mile is a good way to test.
Fixed distance & No corners to consider: The exact measured amount of a ¼ mile eliminates the varied distances involved in road courses (varying lines, braking points, etc.)
Not too long or short: A ¼ mile is distance that allows any car time to show its performance potential without being so long as to introduce too many test variables that can affect results.
Recognized standard: Customers can relate to the figures generated.
Understanding the costs of carbon fiber and why it is a good material
From time to time customers will question the cost of the Carbonio system compared to less expensive offerings in the market. The primary reason for the cost difference is in the process by which a carbon fiber component is produced. The making of a single intake is a labor intensive operation which occupies a great deal of manual labor and expensive materials.
Some points to consider:
-The raw material to make a single intake piece costs more than the completed production of an aluminum equivalent.
-Production time for a single piece is over 4 hours. This compares to approximately 20 seconds for a plastic part or 15 minutes for an aluminum part.
-Each Carbonio intake is baked in a pressurized autoclave oven for several hours. These autoclaves are mainly used in the aerospace industry and are very costly to own and operate.
Why is Carbon Fiber Used? What are its advantages?
Carbon fiber is used for a number of reasons
-The material has excellent thermal properties not offered by other materials. It allows to maintain a cold intake charge thereby maximizing power.
-Carbon is very light and strong compared to competing materials
-Complex shapes are easier to achieve therefore giving the designers many more design possibilities then would be otherwise possible.
-The visual impact of a well made carbon part has a strong wow factor for the customer making it a piece worthy of show.
When judging price it is important to compare apples to apples. Just like it is not fair to compare the price of a Toyota to that of a Porsche (they are both 'just' cars that get you from point A to B...LOL!!!!) it is not equal to compare an engineered full carbon fiber component to a plastic or plastic/carbon hybrid part.
Some notes on the X51 intake.
When we did our testing we had access to all available competitors including the X51 intake. In testing we concluded the following:
- Over extended driving, the air inlet temp of the X51 was consistently much higher than that of the Carbonio unit. The X51 holds a lot of heat and transfers it to the inlet air while the carbon unit does not. While part of the problem resides in the material and shape of the X51, the filter placement is optimized for reduced engine noise rather than full performance.
- The dual inlets of the X51 do not flow more air than the single one on the Carbonio unit. This is because Carbonio took advantage of inlet space that the X51 could not because of its filter placement. The plenum volume on the Carbonio is considerably larger than the X51 resulting in more cool exterior air being accessed by the inlet filter than in the X51.
- The X51 intake requires the cutting of the engine cover which takes away from the re-sale value of the car. The Carbonio unit installs in minutes and can be removed returning the car to totally OEM without any modification. The cars value is not affected, it is not damaged potentially causing problems with leasing companies, and the Carbonio unit can be sold to recover a good part of its initial cost; all things not possible with the X51.
Remember the X51 is an advantage over stock however it is still a production OEM part with the same compromises of performance to comfort inherent in all factory installed parts. The Carbonio unit before anything else is a performance part first. It uses the best materials and best shape without the cost/performance/comfort compromises the OEM need to deal with. The result is a component that yields the highest performance possible.
You make more assumptions in your testing than you do sense.
Yeah, your test eliminates all the variables. Tire temperature and pressure, ambient temperature and pressure, coolant temperature, oil and lube temperature, wheel bearing temperature, sunny or cloudy, etc, etc. No quite a scientific study by anyones measure.
Inssignificant atmospheric changes? No such thing.
Like I said earlier..........Voooooodooooooooooooooooooo.
You make more assumptions in your testing than you do sense.
Yeah, your test eliminates all the variables. Tire temperature and pressure, ambient temperature and pressure, coolant temperature, oil and lube temperature, wheel bearing temperature, sunny or cloudy, etc, etc. No quite a scientific study by anyones measure.
Inssignificant atmospheric changes? No such thing.
Like I said earlier..........Voooooodooooooooooooooooooo.
Yeah, your test eliminates all the variables. Tire temperature and pressure, ambient temperature and pressure, coolant temperature, oil and lube temperature, wheel bearing temperature, sunny or cloudy, etc, etc. No quite a scientific study by anyones measure.
Inssignificant atmospheric changes? No such thing.
Like I said earlier..........Voooooodooooooooooooooooooo.
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what are the best testing methods. Your more than welcome to try the product out for 14 days with a restocking fee if you decide to return it. Then you can determine for yourself if the product stands by its stated performance.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,134
From: Chicagoland
Rep Power: 123
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what are the best testing methods. Your more than welcome to try the product out for 14 days with a restocking fee if you decide to return it. Then you can determine for yourself if the product stands by its stated performance.
Where is all this data and how did you calculate the hp and torque gains from the data? What was the measured intake temperature? Climate conditions? Trap speeds? Elapsed time? What was the ignition timing during each run? Etc?
You make all these silly claims trying to selll your product yet give absolutely no data or detailed method of testing. Seems to me you are not looking for credability or you can't share the testing method with us because it makes no sense.
BTW: Why do you sell intakes that claim gains proven on a dyno yet also claim that a dyno can not accurately measure intake changes?
Can we safely assume that you do not believe the power gains of all the other intakes you sell because their claims are based on dyno testing?
The testing methods are clearly stated in the post above it. The exact numbers recorded are not public information. All the info released to us has been posted in this thread. However, even if they chose to make the numbers public information, they simply would be scrutinized anyway just like when we stated the estimated HP and TQ numbers.
With GMP being in business just as long as if not longer than other sponsor and Carbonio's great reputation as one of the best intake manufacturers in the world, with that said the intake should speak for itself and should be trusted to perform.
Like I mentioned before. If you think this is all just a circus act or "voodoo", feel free to try it out for yourself. I promise you, this is not a gimmick. We barely are able to keep the VW and Audi intakes on the shelf which are exclusively sold through APR Tuned which happens to be one of the best and largest Vag tuners in the US, Canada, Germany, and Australia!
With GMP being in business just as long as if not longer than other sponsor and Carbonio's great reputation as one of the best intake manufacturers in the world, with that said the intake should speak for itself and should be trusted to perform.
Like I mentioned before. If you think this is all just a circus act or "voodoo", feel free to try it out for yourself. I promise you, this is not a gimmick. We barely are able to keep the VW and Audi intakes on the shelf which are exclusively sold through APR Tuned which happens to be one of the best and largest Vag tuners in the US, Canada, Germany, and Australia!
Where is all this data and how did you calculate the hp and torque gains from the data? What was the measured intake temperature? Climate conditions? Trap speeds? Elapsed time? What was the ignition timing during each run? Etc?
You make all these silly claims trying to selll your product yet give absolutely no data or detailed method of testing. Seems to me you are not looking for credability or you can't share the testing method with us because it makes no sense.
BTW: Why do you sell intakes that claim gains proven on a dyno yet also claim that a dyno can not accurately measure intake changes?
Can we safely assume that you do not believe the power gains of all the other intakes you sell because their claims are based on dyno testing?
You make all these silly claims trying to selll your product yet give absolutely no data or detailed method of testing. Seems to me you are not looking for credability or you can't share the testing method with us because it makes no sense.
BTW: Why do you sell intakes that claim gains proven on a dyno yet also claim that a dyno can not accurately measure intake changes?
Can we safely assume that you do not believe the power gains of all the other intakes you sell because their claims are based on dyno testing?
Just because we support Carbonio doesn't mean that we will not support anyone else's product. We pride ourselves in offering a wide range of products for our clients based on their needs. Some want carbon, some don't, some like the open filters of the fabspeed and others prefer just filters. We can go on and on like this on just replacement oem fitment filters alone like K&N and BMC! At the end of the day we like to be able to offer something for everyone base on their needs and their budget. I hope this answers your question about why we carry other products as well.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 139
From: VA
Rep Power: 25
I, for one, am happy with my stock intake and filter. I will say, however, that you have replied to everyone here in a very professional manner and I am impressed. I've seen too many threads like this come up in auto forums where it all falls apart (ie Hennessey) and a sponsor/big name in the car world completely loses flies off the chain.and loses credibility.
Don't have any opinions about the intake other than it looks pretty. As for Matthew/GMP, thumbs up to you sir!
Don't have any opinions about the intake other than it looks pretty. As for Matthew/GMP, thumbs up to you sir!
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 254
From: Columbus OH
Rep Power: 0
We waited 4 pages into this thread for data and got a book on what you had basically already told us instead.
I was really hoping to see at least trap speed differences, air intake charge temps, or SOMETHING in the form of data.
I was really hoping to see at least trap speed differences, air intake charge temps, or SOMETHING in the form of data.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,134
From: Chicagoland
Rep Power: 123
Some marketing people obviously think many of us are ignorant when it comes to performance claims. In this specific case, this “mysterious” testing technique is probably one of the most unscientific tests you could perform. Here are a few example of why the data (which we will never be provided with) could be wrong.
First of all, air temperature and pressure were almost certainly not the same during the 40 runs. Just slight changes in these climate conditions can mean a 10+hp change in engine performance. Bigger changes can translate into even bigger power gains/losses.
Without data we can make any assumptions we want. Let’s do this. The first 20 runs with the stock intake were done at noon time on a sunny day with air temperatures of 79F, pressure of 30.22 and dew pint of 60.1. Then the following day (or even later the same day), the climate figures were 72F, 30.56 inches Hg and a dew point of 55. The difference in the power produced by the same engine would be almost 3%. That means a 350 hp engine would produce almost 10 hp more the second day than the first day. This is without ANY changes in the engine or intake. Stephen’s claim that “the assumption being that changes in atmospheric or track were significant enough to skew the results over the test period” is just untrue. ALL changes in atmospheric conditions have significant effects on engine performance. Just a small change of 2/10’s in the barometric pressure will change the power produced by the engine by almost 1%.
The above alone should eliminate all credibility in the claims of power gains with the new intake. We haven’t even factored in the winds on the days of testing. Tail wind? Cross wind? Head wind? How about the temperature of the tires, oil and gear lube? All of which will improve performance as they increase. How about the driver? Were the shift points identical with precise, identical timing each and every run? How much gas was in the tank? Was there less gas weight during the tests with the new intake installed? Why were the 2 worse and 2 best times eliminated? Maybe the worse times for the new intake system were the last 2 because of heat soak?
Bottom line is, any vendor that wants to simply claim magical performance gains from a product and not provide the data used in testing is opening them to scrutiny. IMO, the intake is only BLING and any increase in airflow is the result of a less restrictive air filter which can also be accomplished with the stock intake.
BTW: I am bringing to market a new glass cleaner that when used properly will increase your car's performance by 10%. I cannot provide any data to back up my claim, but I am so confident it will work, you can buy a bottle and try it and if it doesn't perform as advertised, you can pay to ship it back and only be charged a small restocking fee of $75.
First of all, air temperature and pressure were almost certainly not the same during the 40 runs. Just slight changes in these climate conditions can mean a 10+hp change in engine performance. Bigger changes can translate into even bigger power gains/losses.
Without data we can make any assumptions we want. Let’s do this. The first 20 runs with the stock intake were done at noon time on a sunny day with air temperatures of 79F, pressure of 30.22 and dew pint of 60.1. Then the following day (or even later the same day), the climate figures were 72F, 30.56 inches Hg and a dew point of 55. The difference in the power produced by the same engine would be almost 3%. That means a 350 hp engine would produce almost 10 hp more the second day than the first day. This is without ANY changes in the engine or intake. Stephen’s claim that “the assumption being that changes in atmospheric or track were significant enough to skew the results over the test period” is just untrue. ALL changes in atmospheric conditions have significant effects on engine performance. Just a small change of 2/10’s in the barometric pressure will change the power produced by the engine by almost 1%.
The above alone should eliminate all credibility in the claims of power gains with the new intake. We haven’t even factored in the winds on the days of testing. Tail wind? Cross wind? Head wind? How about the temperature of the tires, oil and gear lube? All of which will improve performance as they increase. How about the driver? Were the shift points identical with precise, identical timing each and every run? How much gas was in the tank? Was there less gas weight during the tests with the new intake installed? Why were the 2 worse and 2 best times eliminated? Maybe the worse times for the new intake system were the last 2 because of heat soak?
Bottom line is, any vendor that wants to simply claim magical performance gains from a product and not provide the data used in testing is opening them to scrutiny. IMO, the intake is only BLING and any increase in airflow is the result of a less restrictive air filter which can also be accomplished with the stock intake.
BTW: I am bringing to market a new glass cleaner that when used properly will increase your car's performance by 10%. I cannot provide any data to back up my claim, but I am so confident it will work, you can buy a bottle and try it and if it doesn't perform as advertised, you can pay to ship it back and only be charged a small restocking fee of $75.
Last edited by 1999Porsche911; Dec 18, 2008 at 07:17 AM.
I, for one, am happy with my stock intake and filter. I will say, however, that you have replied to everyone here in a very professional manner and I am impressed. I've seen too many threads like this come up in auto forums where it all falls apart (ie Hennessey) and a sponsor/big name in the car world completely loses flies off the chain.and loses credibility.
Don't have any opinions about the intake other than it looks pretty. As for Matthew/GMP, thumbs up to you sir!
Don't have any opinions about the intake other than it looks pretty. As for Matthew/GMP, thumbs up to you sir!
Thank you for your comments, if I got upset over every negative comment made about my posts, I would need more than just two weeks paid vacation a year
The important thing here is that we are all after the same thing which good performance parts for your cars. What's sad is that everyone who has made a negative comment about this product has
1. never tried this product before
2. never tried any of carbonio's products before
3. if this was listed at $500 they would say wow this is so cheap it must be a piece of crap and since its listed over 1k they say its too expensive I rather have something cheaper that doesn't come close to the performance of this product.
I wish I could send one of to atleast 5 of you or so to try it out without a restocking fee so I could get your personal feed back and post it on here. Anyone can post numbers but I can't feel the car performing any different then I wouldn't buy it.
What I'm tryin to say is that if they posted their recorded data, there will always be someone out there that will say ahh well those numbers are lying there's no way those numers could be true. So its a catch 22, but by not posting the exact numbers of the recorded data they save them selves the headache by not having this turn into a big fiasco.
So please if you think this product doesn't work, try it out and then try the x-51. I also ask those if you think the x-51 is so much better, how can you be sure if you haven't purchased either one of them. I believe if you have purchased and used both products, I don't think you can make a valid decision on which product is better.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,240
From: NY & LA
Rep Power: 122
1999porsche can't try your product because of our superchargers (relocatation of intake)
but i have to say that is one good looking intake... it's a decent price too. the carbon fiber quality looks amazing
but i have to say that is one good looking intake... it's a decent price too. the carbon fiber quality looks amazing
Last edited by angldrkns9; Dec 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 254
From: Columbus OH
Rep Power: 0
I agree that I would like to see some data too but you have to see it from Carbonio's point of view, no one has bothered to try this product out or any of their other products yet you can sit here and say it doesn't work and the x-51 works better.
What I'm tryin to say is that if they posted their recorded data, there will always be someone out there that will say ahh well those numbers are lying there's no way those numers could be true. So its a catch 22, but by not posting the exact numbers of the recorded data they save them selves the headache by not having this turn into a big fiasco.
So please if you think this product doesn't work, try it out and then try the x-51. I also ask those if you think the x-51 is so much better, how can you be sure if you haven't purchased either one of them. I believe if you have purchased and used both products, I don't think you can make a valid decision on which product is better.
What I'm tryin to say is that if they posted their recorded data, there will always be someone out there that will say ahh well those numbers are lying there's no way those numers could be true. So its a catch 22, but by not posting the exact numbers of the recorded data they save them selves the headache by not having this turn into a big fiasco.
So please if you think this product doesn't work, try it out and then try the x-51. I also ask those if you think the x-51 is so much better, how can you be sure if you haven't purchased either one of them. I believe if you have purchased and used both products, I don't think you can make a valid decision on which product is better.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,134
From: Chicagoland
Rep Power: 123
I won't argue with you there. I never said it didn't work either. I was simply let down that there was nothing they could share data wise after all of the build-up, not even the Intake Air temp values. Again, I know the unit in my car heat soaks after a few minutes of hard driving at the track compared to the stock box. I've got the OBD II data to back it up which is why I'm trying to make improvements to the one i've got before I move to another or back to the stock box.
Turn on your engine compartment fan during track days and you will eliminate heat soak.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 254
From: Columbus OH
Rep Power: 0
The thought that crossed my mind there is...on the Aero cars that fan pushes air out into the same area that the car is taking in air as it's moving. I'm wondering if blowing hot air into a pressurized area is just pushing it out then immediatly pulling it back in through the intake snorkle anyhow.
I had big plans to test all of this and ran out of time to do it last season.