VWVortex.com - Real World Aftermarket Intake Differences : Stock vs. <insert name here>
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 83

    Thread: Real World Aftermarket Intake Differences : Stock vs. <insert name here>

    1. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 23rd, 2006
      Posts
      1,953
      Vehicles
      2012 Golf R
      08-15-2012 02:30 PM #1
      Has anyone done any logging of their aftermarket intake vs stock to see what the differences are? Dyno numbers would also work but I'm more interested in logs.

      Here's the quick and dirty I did for the Carbonio vs stock. All runs were within an hour of each other on the same day. Cliff notes are I saw around an additional 15 g/s difference using the Carbonio (filter and scoop). AIT was also around 1-3c cooler as well.

      Stock log:


      Carbonio Log:


      Quick graph showing the MAF g/s difference of stock vs Carbonio:



      I also tested the Carbonio without the scope, basically taking away the ram air effect it has and turning it in to a typical "hot air intake". Doing this resulted in a significant drop in g/s around 3000 rpms but was a steady 5-7 g/s less otherwise.

    2. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 23rd, 2006
      Posts
      1,953
      Vehicles
      2012 Golf R
      08-15-2012 02:36 PM #2
      Suppose I should mention that I have a stg2+ R with a APR TBE and APR HPFP.

    3. Member
      Join Date
      May 18th, 2003
      Location
      Buffalo, NY
      Posts
      4,623
      08-15-2012 02:51 PM #3
      I'm actually surprised there is an increase at all. The bottleneck is the engine cover/intake and not really the part that connects to the grill.

      Never the less its great to see an increase as that usually correlates to more power.

    4. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 23rd, 2006
      Posts
      1,953
      Vehicles
      2012 Golf R
      08-15-2012 03:16 PM #4
      Quote Originally Posted by Rdurty2 View Post
      I'm actually surprised there is an increase at all. The bottleneck is the engine cover/intake and not really the part that connects to the grill.

      Never the less its great to see an increase as that usually correlates to more power.
      I agree. Pressurizing the intake pre-filter I'm sure offsets some of the restriction that's there. Someone posted in another thread that 1 g/s "typically" translates to 0.8hp. Not sure how accurate that is.

    5. Member ecirwin's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 27th, 2009
      Location
      Lakewood, CO
      Posts
      2,290
      Vehicles
      '12 Golf R 2Dr Black
      08-15-2012 04:35 PM #5
      I don't really know anything about these logs, so excuse the dumb question. Where/how do you get these logs? Is it a Vagcom thing?
      2012 Golf R 2Dr Loaded DBP - Diesel Geek, Badgeless Grille & Fill, Delete R Badges, 42DD Downpipe, Autotech HPFP, UM Stg2, Huper Optik Tint, HPA Dogbone mount, Rebadge.com, BSH PR CAI, Twintercooler, LED Tails, TSW Interlaggos 19X8, CTS TOP & TP, Xpel Ultimate, DXD Stg2 Daily, USRT W/M

    6. Member
      Join Date
      May 18th, 2003
      Location
      Buffalo, NY
      Posts
      4,623
      08-15-2012 05:24 PM #6
      Yeah you need vagcom to record data like this

    7. Member ecirwin's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 27th, 2009
      Location
      Lakewood, CO
      Posts
      2,290
      Vehicles
      '12 Golf R 2Dr Black
      08-15-2012 05:36 PM #7
      Quote Originally Posted by Rdurty2 View Post
      Yeah you need vagcom to record data like this
      Do you have to be connected while the car is running, or do you get the data after the run? I have a friend that has Vagcom, so I was just wondering what it would take.
      2012 Golf R 2Dr Loaded DBP - Diesel Geek, Badgeless Grille & Fill, Delete R Badges, 42DD Downpipe, Autotech HPFP, UM Stg2, Huper Optik Tint, HPA Dogbone mount, Rebadge.com, BSH PR CAI, Twintercooler, LED Tails, TSW Interlaggos 19X8, CTS TOP & TP, Xpel Ultimate, DXD Stg2 Daily, USRT W/M

    8. Member sc0ttyb's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 11th, 2007
      Location
      PHX
      Posts
      685
      Vehicles
      2013 Ibis White TTRS
      08-15-2012 05:44 PM #8
      Quote Originally Posted by ecirwin View Post
      Do you have to be connected while the car is running, or do you get the data after the run? I have a friend that has Vagcom, so I was just wondering what it would take.
      Yup, while it's running.

    9. Member velocity196's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 19th, 2006
      Location
      Washington
      Posts
      5,511
      Vehicles
      2006 MK4 GTI, 2012 Golf R
      08-15-2012 08:44 PM #9
      Haha at first I was like HOLLY **** 259 g/s! Then I saw your stg2+ so that explains it. Looks good, its approx 1 hp per g/s so your in the neighborhood of 260hp

      I don't have logs but I gained approx 10 g/s on stg1 maestro file and CTS Turbo intake. IAT's are approx 14 to 18c.
      PTE5858 custom top mounted from ->Todd Cope's Horsepower Barn

    10. Member JRMGTI's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 10th, 2011
      Location
      Harrisburg, PA
      Posts
      489
      08-15-2012 08:55 PM #10
      Quote Originally Posted by Rdurty2 View Post
      I'm actually surprised there is an increase at all. The bottleneck is the engine cover/intake and not really the part that connects to the grill.

      Never the less its great to see an increase as that usually correlates to more power.
      Not true.. have you looked at the factory scoupe set up? it directs air right back out in the engine area. No pressure can be gained and this is why the car runs out of power up top.
      2012 VW Golf R Rising Blue 2-DR | APR Carbonio Intake | APR Stage 1 ECU | Clear Sidemarkers | R Mats | Blind Spot Mirrors | H&R Sport Springs | 19x8 TSW Nurburgring Wheels | 235/35/19 Michelin Pilot Super Sports | Gone.

      2012 Volvo S60 T-6 Electric Silver/Anthracite | Eibach Pro Kit Springs | Tint |

    11. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 23rd, 2006
      Posts
      1,953
      Vehicles
      2012 Golf R
      05-26-2013 11:29 AM #11
      Just a quick update. I've since added an EVOMs intake. The gains over the Carbonio weren't as drastic as I had thought they may be given others comments. Sorry for the resolution, or lack there of. Too many things being logged in different blocks. I plan to run another when I switch back to 93 octane.

      You'll notice that I now have the MAF dip most others do with APR tunes and aftermarket intakes that replace the engine cover. It's very noticeable. The car used to pull constantly from 2000 on where now you really feel power dip off around 3000 rpms. It'll be interesting to see how the new rev of tunes addresses this.

      Same hardware, fuel and octane as before with the exception of removing the Carbonio and adding the EVOMs:

    12. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 23rd, 2006
      Posts
      1,953
      Vehicles
      2012 Golf R
      05-26-2013 11:37 AM #12
      And just because I have it, the same hardware as the log above but running 100 octane on the 100 map.


    13. Former Advertiser
      Join Date
      Dec 27th, 2012
      Posts
      313
      05-26-2013 11:54 AM #13
      Because the fuel trims and ambient conditions vary for all of these runs, I wouldn't focus too much on g/s. I wouldn't bother trying to compare it from car to car to compare relative power.

      I would compare these intakes by N75 duty cycle and pressure level before and after the modification.

      Generally, the closer these trims are to perfect during the run, the higher the MAF values will show. The Carbonio will move a lot less air but show higher g/s than your average tubular style intake.

    14. Member JRMGTI's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 10th, 2011
      Location
      Harrisburg, PA
      Posts
      489
      05-26-2013 12:02 PM #14
      Quote Originally Posted by webcrawlr View Post
      And just because I have it, the same hardware as the log above but running 100 octane on the 100 map.

      Good info. Looks like 100 map is just more timing advance which is what I thought it would be.
      Also looking at your early post with APR's Carbonio v.s. Evoms I don't see any real gain and having that lose in power at 3K would be the reason I would just keep my Carbonio.
      Thanks again for the good info.
      Last edited by JRMGTI; 05-26-2013 at 12:07 PM.
      2012 VW Golf R Rising Blue 2-DR | APR Carbonio Intake | APR Stage 1 ECU | Clear Sidemarkers | R Mats | Blind Spot Mirrors | H&R Sport Springs | 19x8 TSW Nurburgring Wheels | 235/35/19 Michelin Pilot Super Sports | Gone.

      2012 Volvo S60 T-6 Electric Silver/Anthracite | Eibach Pro Kit Springs | Tint |

    15. 05-26-2013 12:09 PM #15
      Quote Originally Posted by JRMGTI View Post
      Good info. Looks like 100 map is just more timing advance which is what I thought it would be.
      Also looking at your early post with APR's Carbonio v.s. Evoms I don't see any real gain and having that lose in power at 3K would be the reason I would just keep my Carbonio.
      Thanks again for the good info.
      My car is now stage 1+ with carbonio intake and my buddy's car has everything the same except CTS intake. I will tell you from the butt dyno that there is a big gain.

      Reading Bronson's comment, g/s isn't too relative to compare performance.

    16. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 23rd, 2006
      Posts
      1,953
      Vehicles
      2012 Golf R
      05-26-2013 04:02 PM #16
      Quote Originally Posted by Bronson@APR View Post
      Because the fuel trims and ambient conditions vary for all of these runs, I wouldn't focus too much on g/s. I wouldn't bother trying to compare it from car to car to compare relative power.

      I would compare these intakes by N75 duty cycle and pressure level before and after the modification.

      Generally, the closer these trims are to perfect during the run, the higher the MAF values will show. The Carbonio will move a lot less air but show higher g/s than your average tubular style intake.
      Fair enough statement. I have tomorrow off. I'll log both intakes back to back on 93 and 100 tunes. I'll be using 100 octane fuel for the runs but from what I've read in previous APR posts that shouldn't make a difference in the 93 runs, correct?

    17. Member
      Join Date
      May 18th, 2003
      Location
      Buffalo, NY
      Posts
      4,623
      05-26-2013 06:00 PM #17
      Quote Originally Posted by webcrawlr View Post
      Fair enough statement. I have tomorrow off. I'll log both intakes back to back on 93 and 100 tunes. I'll be using 100 octane fuel for the runs but from what I've read in previous APR posts that shouldn't make a difference in the 93 runs, correct?
      Looking forward to your results.

    18. Member
      Join Date
      Mar 8th, 2000
      Location
      Scottsdale, AZ
      Posts
      9,812
      Vehicles
      2013 4dr RB .:R
      05-26-2013 09:51 PM #18
      Intake will be the first thing I get so I'm really trying to decide.

      I could use any advice. Also oiled vs dry. We should start a shared google doc?

      Also. The twin take - expensive.....not sure it's necessary unless going to stage 3?


      I'll admit my ignorance in viewing these charts though. I need some mechanics 101. It's been since my mk4 was new since I've modded anything.

      In the case of the R I see so much potential vs cost it's hard to leave it on the table.

      ---
      Again thanks for the patience as I play catch up and the willingness to share your knowledge
      Last edited by rockstar; 05-26-2013 at 11:32 PM.
      Please excuse the iTypos
      -------
      2013 RB .:R || faster stuff.

    19. Member Spinozaman's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 23rd, 2012
      Location
      US
      Posts
      2,301
      Vehicles
      2013 R gone, 2016 R DSG
      05-27-2013 08:12 AM #19
      Quote Originally Posted by rockstar View Post
      Intake will be the first thing I get so I'm really trying to decide.

      I could use any advice. Also oiled vs dry. We should start a shared google doc?

      Also. The twin take - expensive.....not sure it's necessary unless going to stage 3?


      I'll admit my ignorance in viewing these charts though. I need some mechanics 101. It's been since my mk4 was new since I've modded anything.

      In the case of the R I see so much potential vs cost it's hard to leave it on the table.

      ---
      Again thanks for the patience as I play catch up and the willingness to share your knowledge
      The twin-take still has unresolved fuel trim issues. Check out the epic fuel trim threads if you have a few hours. Search "aftermarket fuel trim".

      Get a VWR or evoms intake.

    20. Banned Tranzit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 3rd, 2013
      Posts
      861
      Vehicles
      Golf R, ALH Golf TDI
      05-27-2013 08:42 AM #20
      Quote Originally Posted by JRMGTI View Post
      Not true.. have you looked at the factory scoupe set up? it directs air right back out in the engine area. No pressure can be gained and this is why the car runs out of power up top.
      I think it is a better design than the canister (ima suck rain and air) style, because OEM 'sucks' air, regardless of how the 'direction' of air appears. I think the oem is made the way it is, in attempt to reduce rain water into the intake.i am often wrong so...?

    21. Member JRMGTI's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 10th, 2011
      Location
      Harrisburg, PA
      Posts
      489
      05-27-2013 12:35 PM #21
      Quote Originally Posted by Tranzit View Post
      I think it is a better design than the canister (ima suck rain and air) style, because OEM 'sucks' air, regardless of how the 'direction' of air appears. I think the oem is made the way it is, in attempt to reduce rain water into the intake.i am often wrong so...?
      I can agree rain water making it into the intake also I'm thinking to "suck" warm engine air for faster cold start is why VW did it this way.
      2012 VW Golf R Rising Blue 2-DR | APR Carbonio Intake | APR Stage 1 ECU | Clear Sidemarkers | R Mats | Blind Spot Mirrors | H&R Sport Springs | 19x8 TSW Nurburgring Wheels | 235/35/19 Michelin Pilot Super Sports | Gone.

      2012 Volvo S60 T-6 Electric Silver/Anthracite | Eibach Pro Kit Springs | Tint |

    22. Banned Tranzit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 3rd, 2013
      Posts
      861
      Vehicles
      Golf R, ALH Golf TDI
      05-27-2013 12:43 PM #22
      Quote Originally Posted by JRMGTI View Post
      I can agree rain water making it into the intake also I'm thinking to "suck" warm engine air for faster cold start is why VW did it this way.
      When the car is in motion, it will be sucking in colder air rushing toward it.

    23. Member
      Join Date
      Jul 20th, 2012
      Location
      Bethlehem, PA
      Posts
      1,920
      Vehicles
      2012 DBP 2dr Golf R
      05-27-2013 12:58 PM #23
      Very interesting. I'm inspired to run some logs soon
      __________________
      APR 2+ | APR RSC TBE | APR HPFP | APR IC | Unitronic CAI | HPA SS | F&R VWR Sways | RSR Clutch | OEM Tinted R LED Tails |

      Dude's "Build"

    24. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 23rd, 2006
      Posts
      1,953
      Vehicles
      2012 Golf R
      05-27-2013 08:39 PM #24
      OK, did logging of the stock intake, the Carbonio and the EVOMs on both 93 and 100. All logs were done withing 90 minutes of each other and the ambient only changed 1 degree in that time. Fuel trim varied between 0.0 and 0.8 for most the logs with one coming it at 1.0 or 1.2. I'm going to send the logs to Spinozaman so he can do what he does as I've got some family issues to address. I can say peak MAF, if that's an indicator you wanted to use, increased about equally going from stock to Carbonio and from Carbonio to EVOMs. If I recall it was around 10-12 g/s respectively.

      After swapping them around it was clear how bad the stock intake was at stage 2+ on the butt dyno. The Carbonio was a lot better but the butt could tell the difference between it and the EVOMs, which gave it the most pleasure. So for now the EVOMs stays and I'm hoping APR can do something with their tune to get that massive MAF dip around 3000 RPMs to go away.

      Oh, this car hauls on 100 octane.


      Quote Originally Posted by Tranzit View Post
      I think it is a better design than the canister (ima suck rain and air) style, because OEM 'sucks' air, regardless of how the 'direction' of air appears. I think the oem is made the way it is, in attempt to reduce rain water into the intake.i am often wrong so...?
      There's no doubt at a stop your IATs rise faster with an open filter compared to a canister. The water issue is what steered me to the EVOMs over the CTS as the filter wasn't directly in front of the opening.

      Here's what mine looked like today after driving 30 minutes in drizzle. Nothing to worry about I'm sure but there's definitely water coming in.

    25. Member Time for a GTI's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 25th, 2006
      Location
      NH
      Posts
      10,014
      Vehicles
      '12 Golf R
      05-27-2013 09:37 PM #25
      Good read. Thanks for sharing the data.
      Quote Originally Posted by @McMike View Post
      We can not be trusted.

    For advertising information click HERE

    Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •