Cold Air Intake: Schnell V. Fabspeed
#61
12-26-2009, 02:13 PM
Search the forum for more info on this one - there is a ton of info on the debate. No point in starting it up again. In my opinion, Porsche engineered that airbox to eliminate perhaps a "natural" resonance at about 5k RPM. With the EVOMS intake you really hear the resonance, which makes a roar at that RPM. I think it's cool, but for the mass market, probably not desirable. HP gains, perhaps, but hard to tell.
#62
12-26-2009, 02:17 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Posts: 803
Rep Power: 59 
#63
12-26-2009, 03:47 PM
I recently installed the Fabspeed intake and the plenum. I can now catch rubber in the first 4 gears. In fact, thank god for the stabilty control or it would swap ends under hard acceleration.
#64
12-26-2009, 03:48 PM
JohnM, I would agree they probably make compromises for cost cutting reasons and other emission reasons, but to me and in my opinion, this piece of plastic tubing couldn't be one of them. I mean how much does it cost to make one smooth piece of tubing instead of a rippled one? Didn't Porsche see what people were doing in the aftermarket and just make them this way so they can charge for it? I can see they may add other cats or mufflers for sound or environmental crap, but this? I don't think that argument for this particular piece of equipment is valid. To each his/her own, but that fabspeed thing seems like marketing only. Especially, when you consider the variation in dyno results can be probably + or - some % on each run. This could easily account for any increase in HP for a particular run to me. I think if the sound is better and people like that sound, that's all we should expect to actually change with a smooth versus rippled 12 inch long piece of plastic, but that is just my new, inexperienced, but possibly more objective opinion as a newbie Porsche owner.
I was actually referring to the philosophy that I often hear, that Porsche would never do this/that because of the super-credentials of the engineers. I disagree with that philosophy to a rather large extent. Porsche is like any other company, and cuts corners wherever they can, so long as the results are within their acceptable range. There are lots of small inefficiencies that can add up in a design, and can produce a net result with the application of copious amounts of cash. As the saying goes, "you can have three facets of design: 'light', 'strong' and 'cheap'....pick 2! LOL! Very true words my friend!
So, take my words lightly, as I do not mean this as a disrespect to Porsche. It is rather just a bit of realism that Porsche make compromises like any other manufacturer
#65
12-26-2009, 08:51 PM
Don't neglect another factor - engineering the HP. The S must have more HP than the non-S. What if the S had almost as much HP as the GT3? Once they finalize the engine, they may tone down the final HP with a more restrictive exhaust or whatever. Witness the non S headers - they are less restrictive than the S headers. I think that's why there is some tuning benefit to be had with these cars. In comparison, the M3 motor is tweaked to the max. Exhaust and intake are worthless and ECU tuning adds very little.
I think most of the Fabspeed tube benefit is the increased resonation noise defeated by capping the resonator. Same resonation benefit from the EVOMS or the K&N. The others may actually get slightly colder air into the engine though - the main objective of a "cold air intake".
I think most of the Fabspeed tube benefit is the increased resonation noise defeated by capping the resonator. Same resonation benefit from the EVOMS or the K&N. The others may actually get slightly colder air into the engine though - the main objective of a "cold air intake".
#66
12-26-2009, 09:00 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Posts: 803
Rep Power: 59
I had an M3 before this car and I never ended up doing anything performance wise because of what you wrote. I'm too concerned with losing my warranty, so I probably won't touch anything but the cosmetic stuff. Thanks RyeM3.
#67
12-26-2009, 10:48 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Playa Del Rey, Ca
Posts: 1,725
Rep Power: 106 Don't neglect another factor - engineering the HP. The S must have more HP than the non-S. What if the S had almost as much HP as the GT3? Once they finalize the engine, they may tone down the final HP with a more restrictive exhaust or whatever. Witness the non S headers - they are less restrictive than the S headers. I think that's why there is some tuning benefit to be had with these cars. In comparison, the M3 motor is tweaked to the max. Exhaust and intake are worthless and ECU tuning adds very little.
I think most of the Fabspeed tube benefit is the increased resonation noise defeated by capping the resonator. Same resonation benefit from the EVOMS or the K&N. The others may actually get slightly colder air into the engine though - the main objective of a "cold air intake".
I think most of the Fabspeed tube benefit is the increased resonation noise defeated by capping the resonator. Same resonation benefit from the EVOMS or the K&N. The others may actually get slightly colder air into the engine though - the main objective of a "cold air intake".
This was with stock software...but I know this is a different subject.
Dave
#68
12-27-2009, 08:20 AM
JohnM, I would agree they probably make compromises for cost cutting reasons and other emission reasons, but to me and in my opinion, this piece of plastic tubing couldn't be one of them. I mean how much does it cost to make one smooth piece of tubing instead of a rippled one? Didn't Porsche see what people were doing in the aftermarket and just make them this way so they can charge for it? I can see they may add other cats or mufflers for sound or environmental crap, but this? I don't think that argument for this particular piece of equipment is valid. To each his/her own, but that fabspeed thing seems like marketing only. Especially, when you consider the variation in dyno results can be probably + or - some % on each run. This could easily account for any increase in HP for a particular run to me. I think if the sound is better and people like that sound, that's all we should expect to actually change with a smooth versus rippled 12 inch long piece of plastic, but that is just my new, inexperienced, but possibly more objective opinion as a newbie Porsche owner.
#69
12-27-2009, 08:58 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Natick, MA
Age: 50
Posts: 3,122
Rep Power: 161 Don't neglect another factor - engineering the HP. The S must have more HP than the non-S. What if the S had almost as much HP as the GT3? Once they finalize the engine, they may tone down the final HP with a more restrictive exhaust or whatever. Witness the non S headers - they are less restrictive than the S headers. I think that's why there is some tuning benefit to be had with these cars. In comparison, the M3 motor is tweaked to the max. Exhaust and intake are worthless and ECU tuning adds very little.
I think most of the Fabspeed tube benefit is the increased resonation noise defeated by capping the resonator. Same resonation benefit from the EVOMS or the K&N. The others may actually get slightly colder air into the engine though - the main objective of a "cold air intake".
I think most of the Fabspeed tube benefit is the increased resonation noise defeated by capping the resonator. Same resonation benefit from the EVOMS or the K&N. The others may actually get slightly colder air into the engine though - the main objective of a "cold air intake".
If budget is no issue I think it is a good mod to do, this part is superior to stock plenum in all aspects. Red intake pipe is not superior to original stock part in any aspect IMHO.
#70
12-27-2009, 04:14 PM
Rye, I gained 22rwhp from SS headers and 100cpi metallic cats on my E46 M3. The car went from 280rwhp to 302rwhp. Its known the Euro M3 made more hp due to the fact they moved the cats farther down stream from the headers and it reduced turbulence. The addition of 100cpi cats from the OEM US 550 cpi cats also had less of a parasitic loss.
This was with stock software...but I know this is a different subject.
Dave
This was with stock software...but I know this is a different subject.
Dave
#71
12-27-2009, 07:54 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Playa Del Rey, Ca
Posts: 1,725
Rep Power: 106 Interesting, that is a good experience. Do you know the stock HP of the Euro car? I thought they were very close. Aren't the 100 cpi cats not smog legal? Certainly possible with those cats. I always thought the Euro header shift was mainly a rasp reduction with very little if any HP gain. I researched it a bit and most people said very little gains were to be had. Anyway, a bit off topic. The 997 has more gains to be had, but those are limited as well, although they seem more beneficial than the costs associated with the nominal gains on an M3.
Dave
#72
12-27-2009, 08:55 PM
Those 100 cell cats are really light though. Anybody running 100 cell cats on a 997? I've only heard of 200 cell "sport" cats. I read a comment on the M3 board that the 100 cell cats are wicked loud too. Thing is, your car happened to dyno as high as a Euro car - the difference is so small. On a car with 300+ HP, 5-10 HP is really a rounding error.
#73
03-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Here are a few pictures of the BGB motorsports 997's at New Jersey Motorsports with our cold air kit's installed.
Also click here for the dyno graph of the cold air kit combined with a BMC filter on a 997 'S'.
Also click here for the dyno graph of the cold air kit combined with a BMC filter on a 997 'S'.
Is the foil some kind of aluminium tape? I guess it must be quite thin not to absorb the heat instead of reflecting the heat rays?
#74
10-19-2011, 03:38 PM
I just did a DIY version of the Fabspeed Cold Air Kit (Silicone Hose & Clamps $70 from Topspeed)
All I can say is, mine cost $70 and Fabspeed cost $225. Performance difference, no noticeable change...I have a Techart exhaust, no noticeable difference in sound...Looks, silicone hose looks much nicer. $225 for a silicone hose is outrageous. I am not knocking Fabspeed as a whole as I think they make some quality products, but they are way off on this one. What does make a difference is the BMC air filter
All I can say is, mine cost $70 and Fabspeed cost $225. Performance difference, no noticeable change...I have a Techart exhaust, no noticeable difference in sound...Looks, silicone hose looks much nicer. $225 for a silicone hose is outrageous. I am not knocking Fabspeed as a whole as I think they make some quality products, but they are way off on this one. What does make a difference is the BMC air filter
#75
01-30-2012, 07:13 PM
I just did a DIY version of the Fabspeed Cold Air Kit (Silicone Hose & Clamps $70 from Topspeed)
All I can say is, mine cost $70 and Fabspeed cost $225. Performance difference, no noticeable change...I have a Techart exhaust, no noticeable difference in sound...Looks, silicone hose looks much nicer. $225 for a silicone hose is outrageous. I am not knocking Fabspeed as a whole as I think they make some quality products, but they are way off on this one. What does make a difference is the BMC air filter
All I can say is, mine cost $70 and Fabspeed cost $225. Performance difference, no noticeable change...I have a Techart exhaust, no noticeable difference in sound...Looks, silicone hose looks much nicer. $225 for a silicone hose is outrageous. I am not knocking Fabspeed as a whole as I think they make some quality products, but they are way off on this one. What does make a difference is the BMC air filter