Installed V-Flow Intake, Now in Limp Mode.
 

Well after doing what I thought was some research regarding the evoms V-Flow intake I took the plunge. I installed it yesterday and took the car for a test drive. It started out in limp mode which I have never been in before with the car. Then I turned off the engine, restarted the car and it started running normally. I took it for a 5 minute test drive and called it a day. Started the car this morning and it was in limp mode restarted the car and it is still in limp mode.

My definition of limp mode as I understand it is the car only boosts at 50% and maxes out at .5 Bar.

My mods: GIAC ECU, F6 plugs, Aftermarket DV's, and just added V-Flow Intake.

Besides removing the the Intake any other thoughts on what the problem could be? Do I need to disconnect the battery or something to reset system?

When you say limp mod...I assume you mean you threw some codes (ABS/PCM or CEL). What are the codes. You can clear some codes by disconnecting the battery, but ceratin types of codes can not be cleared or will come back if the cause isn't resolved. There have been many discussions as you are aware regarding the filters and oil etc., All I know is that when I ran the V-flow in my set-up at my altitude I blew MAFs (ABS/PCM CEL)...with it removed...no more problems.

No codes yet. All I can say is that the boost usually goes to 1.0 consistantly. After installing the Intake and it went to only 0.5 Bar. After I restarted the car it went back to 1.0 Bar. Then this morning it only went to .5 bar restarted the car and it is still at .5 bar.

I didnt know you could go into limp mode without throwing codes and lights and whatever?! sorry to here that shane, that's why I have stayed away from "the box" for now.

Not really sure if it is limp mode or not. All I know is the car won't go beyond .5 Bars of boost. It may not be full limp mode but it is definitely not erect. :icon501:

Tried disconnecting the battery for 15 minutes. Still won't go beyond .5 bar. Maybe something got disconnected during the insall process. Anybody have any suggestions ???

I know this sounds obvious, but the MAF is connected properly, correct? Kevin

How long have your plugs been in? I had the same problem after I changed the intake but it turned out to be plugs. Since I changed the plugs the car boosts to 1.1 bar with the evo intake.

Answer 1
I know this sounds obvious, but the MAF is connected properly, correct? Yep. I disconnected the cable then plugged it back in a few time now.

Answer 2
How long have your plugs been in? I had the same problem after I changed the intake but it turned out to be plugs. Since I changed the plugs the car boosts to 1.1 bar with the evo intake. I just had brand new plugs installed a couple of weeks ago. I used the Bosch F6 plugs.

Below are the directions I followed to install the kit. All the work is done on the left side of the engine. So it is possible that I disconnected something by mistake while working on the car. If anybody wants to look through the install directions then make a guess at what could have gone wrong feel free.

http://evoms.com/WebSiteUsers/evoadm...20w%20pics.pdf

I would stilll hook up a code reader. Any leaks (did you hit a hose by accident?)

As suggested, take it to a dealer and have them hook up a PST2 (or PIWIS).

Well I took the whole thing out stared at the engine for a while and put it back on. Still only hitting .5 bars. When I get home I'm going to put the stock intake back in and see if it works. If it still doesn't work then I am off to the dealer. If it does work then I am going to return it.

I will let you all know how it goes.

Before putting the stock air box back in I disconnected the battery one more time. The car ran normally for about 5 - 10 minutes then when back into limp mode. No engine lights at all. But boost went from 1.0 Bar back to a max of .5 or .6 Bar. Going to put the stock box back in and see how that works for a while. Updates to follow.

Waiting for my car to cool down before I work on it. The check engine light has now officially come on. The last 3 times I started the car it ran fine for about 5 minutes then went back to limp mode. The last time the check engine light came on. When it is running normally with the intake it runs very strong and the boost goes from 0 to 1.0 bar almost instantly and easily hits 1.1 bar. This Intake makes a huge difference on my car I just wish I could get my damn car to run with it.

I want to keep updating the thread so when somebody in the future has a problem they will have all the details.

Have you checked for loose hoses?

Put the stock intake back in and the car runs fine now. I drove it for 30 minutes without going into limp mode. Prior to this I could never get the car to last more than 5 minutes before going into limp mode. While removing the intake I checked everything to make sure it was tight iand nstalled correctly. I was really hoping something was installed wrong but nothing was. I have now removed the intake at least 3 times checking and double checking everything. There really isn't much you can do wrong when installing the intake.

Time to throw in the towel and return the thing. That was a huge waste of time and now I have a check engine light that I need to get cleared. Guess you all know how I'm going to vote on the poll I created ( EVO Intake Issues !?!?).

By the way anybody know which fuse to pull to refresh the ECU and clear the check engine light?

There are some CEL's which can/will clear after 3-5 normal 'drive cycles'.
There are others that will require a PST2/PIWIS in order to be reset.
5 minute job at the dealer, and you might be interested in knowing the exact code(s) that are present and attributed to the intake modification.

You might consider investing a few hundred dollars in Durametric software. I have it and can read and clear codes myself. It is an invaluable tool in the tuning processs. It will data log as well as read out ECU info like type 1 and 2 ignitions(over revs), engine hours and other neat info, Worth a look. Kevin

Kevin,
please advise what exact hardware/software do we need to accomplish this?

Marty

Marty, here you go http://www.durametric.com/ For the money, I am totally satisfied. It will even clear the deaded airbag code when doing seat changes, Ask me how I know. When Kevin and I were tuning the final 1.25+ bar file, I would keep it in the car incase of a TB shutdown, which never happened, but could be cleared in a parking lot. During the turbo breakin in my garage i used it to monitor oil temps as well. Good luck, Kevin

Have had similar problems... (the car had V-Flow on too...)
No ABS/PSM lights but it went to limp mode (0.5 bars).
After changing MAF, plugs and DV's the problem was found...there was a leak in a boost hose.

So far, the only thing I get out of your experience is that either - #1, there are some variables in your set up that are causing the problem with the V-Flow installed, or #2, there is some single underlying problem that's still there but not triggered by the OEM air box.

There are just too many V-Flows installed on ECU modded/unmodded cars - that are running without any problems - to assign the fault to the intake. If the V-Flow was the sole problem, then *none* of these cars would be running normally.

I agree with Dock. I suspect something else is wrong.

it's just a coincidence. docs gone over this many times.

Ya, I did my homework read all the threads and decided to give it a chance. Unfortunatly my car does not like the intake :crying: This really blows because there was a really big difference in performance when it was working on my car.

yah, you'll get over it. more to life than evo intakes.

Your case is a great example why the poll thread doesn't provide potential V-Flow buyers with any good information. It's not realistic to assign "problems" to the V-Flow when the root cause(s) have never been nailed down.

it's the cars fault.

I'm going to take my car to the dealer and have them check everything for hose leaks next week. Since switching back to the stock box and driving the car many times I've had no issues.

No, there are too many failures for this to be considered a reliable product.

Very seldom (ever?) does any product that has passed some testing prior to introduction have a 100% failure rate. The inventor tries it on a car or two, then a potential distributor may do the same thing. But the testing pool was statistically too small.

Look at the Ford Exploder issues. Not every car flipped over and killed its occupants......but enough did for it to become a huge issue. This is the same thing......other than the loss of life differences......but I'm hearing of several V-flow owners who killed themselves on the side of the road after seeing the CEL for the bizillionth time.....sad really :crying:

Dock, would you agree that perhaps the Vflow isnt the root cause, but perhaps a catalyst for underlying issues? It isnt a complicated swap and yes a hose or elec connection could be bumped, but the fact that simply removing the Vflow has returned the car to normal tells me two things are at work here: 1 The Vflow is at fault, 2: the Vflow has caused an underlyingissue to arise. Either case the Vfow is the issue. I would think given the equal number of happy Vflow customers, #2 is likely the issue. Kevin

I'm taking my car to the dealer Monday to get it checked out. So my question to all of you is this. What parts or hoses specifically should I make sure they check for leaks?

Well of course I would agree..it's one of the things I said in a previous post here in this thread.

You don't have the data to support this.

Your statement quoted here is like saying because some people are allergic to penicillin, penicillin is not a reliable product.

Due to some preexisting condition(s), some cars are allergic to the V-Flow. As far as I know, these preexisting conditions have yet to be nailed down.

I would guess that our MAF units are not all alike, and some work better than
others. Maybe some have wider abilities to handle more flow than others,
and weaker ones cause CELs with the increased flow. I would tend to doubt
that a leak would blossom with the V-Flow but have no effect with the stock box.
The air box is pre-boost, not post-boost, so any effect on the high pressure
air hoses would be subtle, nothing that would cause a drop from 1 bar to .5.
That has to be the limp-mode.
MHO,
Joe

Honestly, is the minimal benefit worth the risk? What true numbers are there to validate the use of this product. Unproven claims by the manufacturer? What is the best performance enhancement that you will receive by installing this product? 5 hp, maybe 10? And that is far from being an established fact. I really don't see the point of spending 700 dollars for a possible problem with little, or in most cases, no benefit. Marketing mumbo jumbo IMHO. Porsche knew what they were doing when they built their airbox. Ask any reputable tuner/racer, they will tell you the truth.

Dynos showing a 15-20 wheel horsepower increase for tuned Turbos.

They sure did...they restricted airflow.

Dock, your reputation and opinion on this forum is highly respected. I too look to you on occasion for guidance, but where is a dyno showing that? I've got a feeling they were provided by the manufacturer. TPC just had a guy remove an EVO airbox and a Fabspeed exhaust and return it after the Dyno showed no increase in hp, just noise. I saw it with my own two eyes.

If airflow has been increased, lets measure the amount of air going in before and after the installation. 15 to 20 hp at the wheel? I guess then that the x50 package is a joke, since a new airbox can virtually do the same as bigger turbos and a remap. The x51 has a completely new exhaust system, a twin airbox with matching decklid, new cylinder heads, and a new ECU for 20 to 25 horses.

Sorry, I don't believe it. Call me a sceptic, but there was a response to a letter to the editor in the last Excellence magazine discussing this same topic. I tend to believe the editor. He wrote, "I find it hard to believe you can get 23 horsepower from an intake change alone." I also don't believe in UFO's, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot or instant diets by taking a pill, but some people will swear to it. What can I say, I'm a doubting Thomas. :rolleyes:

The numbers I used are what I remember from IA's post here regarding actual dyno results they recorded. I also recall that those numbers were achieved on "tuned" Turbos, and that the results achieved on non-modified (ECU) Turbos was less.

What else would you use besides dyno results to confirm the increases?

Airflow meter. Trap speed is usually the only and true indicator of horsepower. I don't think that an alleged gain of only 20 horses would have an impact on trap speed. So you really could not use that measurement. You and I know that dynos can be manipulated. Pulls on different days, different cars, temperature manipulation. I am just leery of an alleged horsepower gain claimed by the vendor standing to gain from selling his product. How about an independent test, by a respected tuner. RUF, Manthey, 9ff, using an airflow meter. Lets see the difference in air density or flow between the stock and the modified box. Just looking for an unbiased study with real life results.

Didn't Todd provide air flow data when he first posted (over on 6speed I believe) about the V-Flow?

And not an engine dyno?

BTW, Trap speed is also dependent on many variables.

It seems that real world data on many products for our vehicles are lacking hard, unbiased testing. I am hardly a conspiracy theorist, but would a vendor post a dyno sheet that showed little or no power increase? It is not in their interest to do so. I agree 100% with 9eleven when he cited the X50 and X51 powr kits as an example of how difficult and expensive it is even for the manufacturer to conjure up 20-30 hp. Granted they are bound by emissions and regulatory issues when they modify a car, but they are in this to make a profit. If they could graba quick 20+ hp with a relatively cheap airbox it would have been done by now. I still have a hard time reconciling vehicles that run well, but have the Vflow bring underlying 'Issues" to the fore front. Just some random thoughts. :eek: Kevin G

I haven't seen those results, and they are not publicized on their website. Evo is far from what I call an indenpendent source, they are the manufacturer. I'll have to disagree with you on trap speed. I can run my car 10 times and the trap speed will vary only a mile or two per hour. I've seen engine dyno's fluctuate 20 to 50 horsepower, plus or minus.

Listen Dock, I'm not trying to cast aspersions here. I'm sure some people really believe these claims. Some people believe that humans are causing global warming, maybe we are. I just believe that there really isn't enough independent evidence to support a 5, 10, or 20 horsepower claim, but that is just me.

And it's different for other vehicles?

Difficult? Come on, Porsche could have released the 997 Turbo with another 50 horsepower with nothing but some easy ECU programming...zeros and ones stuff. They could modify exhausts, air boxes too. Their issue is not the engineering, it's marketing.

it's the marketings fault.

Sure you are.

Dock, if a magic 50+hp was what they were looking for perhaps they should have called GIAC. Kevin

Why would you imply that? If I doubt a claim on a modification from a manufacturer with no independent evidence, I'm a bad guy? I guess it's my loss if I don't install it on my car. I'll just have to take the chance of losing all of that alleged easy horsepower.

But, before I install anything on my 100 plus thousand dollar car, I will excercise due dilligence or else shame on me. BTW, where are those dyno and airflow results? I haven't been able to find them on any of the websites claiming their additional HP for this product.

No, it's not and that's the point. They should all be held to a standard regarding horsepower claims. Before they can claim the increase, there should be an independent verification. Otherwise there is no difference between automotive tuners and infomercials.

How many people believe that nitrogen in your tires will do all it claims to do? Would you spend the money to put it in your tires? But there are people out there that will swear by it. I just saw a news story claiming how great it is for gas mileage, tire wear, you name it.

Clearly they could up with extra hp as you say, but for 695$? The whole point is if they could come up with the extra hp as you say, why engineer a kit with new turbos, IC and programming? Just get the Vflow. Dock, I am genuinely happy that you have a VFlow and are happy with it . Your car, your money, your choice. As for it being different for other vehicles... well it is. Next time you are at a Borders or Barnes and Noble, flip thru any of the GM, Ford or Mopar mags and they do dyno tests on specific parts every issue... heads , cams , intake , superchargers and exhausts. They take the dyno data and back it up at the track as well. Kevin

So do I.

Stephen posted his same day dyno results here when he announced the availability of the V-Flow from IA.

If you're in the process of doing due diligence, I suggest (if you haven't already done so) you contact Stephen and Todd to get specific information from them. I believe Todd states on his web site that he did flow measurements when designing the V-Flow. Stephen probably still has the dynos from the A/B testing he did on the dyno.

Because for one thing, it would be admitting that the tuners were right - something I don't think Porsche wants to get into.

So you're telling me that they see a 15 hp increase on the dyno translating to measurable track time differences that can unequivocally be related to the increase in horsepower?

So are you suggesting a law for this?

Dock, I did not know that you installed the V-flow on your car. Please don't take my remarks as an insult. Just a little healthy scepticism. I'm glad it works for you and you feel you've gotten your moneys worth. But again, a dyno by the manufacturer is not very independent.

As I said, if it does produce the horsepower as claimed, it will be my loss. I can give you just as many tuners, professional race car drivers, and race mechanics on Rolex series teams, that will provide you will real world evidence that they have seen absolutely no gain from many products claiming power gains. I'm sure if they could gain 20 horse here and 20 horse there to assist them during a race, they would be all over it.

Dock, where did I say "unequivocally" related to anything. The point I am trying to make is when was the last time a mag or other entity that didnt produce the product do a test on it. I am going to bow out of this thread because it is clear to me this is a sore spot for you and I do not want hard feelings with a single person on this or any other board. Once again, I am truly happy that you are satisfied with your purchase. Have a good night. Kevin

Ouch, another law? I don't think that's the answer. I am drowning in law. Maybe pressure from consumers to show us independent results before making a purchase. Do you think some of these items claiming these horsepower gains would be available if there was an agency responsible for verifying their claims? I wonder.

Suit yourself, but this topic is so far from a "sore spot" for me that it isn't even funny.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I asked in terms of "unequivocally" because for the data (the magazine track testing) you cited to be accurate, it has to be measurable to the extent that all the other variables that could effect the outcome have been eliminated.

You know Dock, while I am waiting for your response. I assume the Vflow data you cite has been " accurate to the extent that all the other variables that could effect outcome have been eliminated ". Correct? Kevin

Yes - after due diligence (reviewing data), a year later and +9000 miles of use - it still hasn't presented any problems at all. My personal assessment is it also improves throttle response, and in my opinion it would be worth it just for that.

I am honestly glad that your V-flow has given you and continues to give you a positive experience. If you ever come up to Maryland for a visit, send me a PM, we can meet for a beer. :biggulp:

No problem. You said..."They take the dyno data and back it up at the track as well." Why would this statement be relevant if the data they reported had no accuracy? Independent testing without accuracy offers no net gain in product information.

Thanks, the offer stands here as well if you get to Atlanta.

I agree completely, they should all be held to an accuracy standard. Otherwise there should be fine print. "These horsepower/torque increases have not been independently verified, your performance gain may vary." What do you think?

Well...I probably should stay out of this, but being a statistician I am quite amused by some of the posts. I actually believe that there are some interactions between the V-flow (and perhaps other non-stock intakes) and our cars performance. By interaction I mean that the V-flow is not in itself the sole causal factor, but in combination with some other factors (like environmental, altitude or other mods). I certainly do not have a large data set as I have just one Turbo (n=1), but I know that the V-flow did not work for me....3 blown MAFs, ABS/PCM & CEL..removed it and no more problems.

Dock, you and I can drive the same car at the track and post significantly different times. Would either of them not be accurate? Any test on a track has far too many variables to be definitive. I take any data from a magazine as a guide only. The fact they are testing is the benefit to the prospective buyer. Kevin

Purely coincidence your car performs better without the Vflow :burnout: Kevin

No, and I haven't claimed it to be.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Performing an A/B dyno where the only hardware change is the product in question, provides one of the best methods for determining power gains while eliminating many variables. It provides a way to measure pretty small power differences. On the other hand, track testing not only has many variables that can not be controlled, it also fails to measure the small differences the dyno can.

Of course, one has to believe the dyno's mechanics/software, and operator...even if you're present for the test.

As long as it isn't a law, no problem.

Got to go...working tomorrow, and will be away from the computer until Sunday afternoon. I'll check back then...

Perhaps we are starting to agree! I think given a relatively modest gain.. +-20 hp, would it be unreasonable to expect that dyno conditions cannot be controlled to give a highly accurate reading.For example, If you do a performance run with the product and then do a baseline. The heat soak alone will cause several HP or more to be lost. It this accurate? Yes, one would have to put a lot of faith in the operator and the software especially given their vested interest in seeing the product succeed. There is no easy answer to this. Just for the record, I had a GIAC stage 2 and was 100 percent satisfied with their product. When I chose to move up to larger turbos their products did not suit my goals. Kevin

Years ago I bought into the "ram air" intake pitch - spent over $1K on a Gruppe M intake for my 993tt, the product was claiming +15hp and the company seemed high tech and credible click on 993GT2 to see it:

http://www.gruppemeurope.com/frc_porsche1.html#

I was quite happy with my extra power until a year later in the process of an upgrade session the RS Tuning engine dyno revealed that the magic intake actually LOST 10hp - suffice to say I am back to stock with a BMC panel.

To be fair I told this story when the EVO V Flow came out there was a technical explanation given for why the V Flow works etc.... but I've never seen an independant engine dyno test and non of the racers in Europe use them - so I guess you make your own mind up :)

So if you get one of these EVO intakes and a set of EVO intercoolers you can gain about 50BHP for 3.5k USD.. What were Porsche engineers thinking?

I am sure they pay money to force tuners not to publish independent engine dyno data. because they would be embarassed for not knowing how to weld those couple of pipes.

BTW TB993TT, European race teams suck.

None of the racers in Europe use them, :icon501:

And where is YOUR data? Yeah, exactly :nono:

Some cars are allergic? Doesn't that mean failure? As a former Quality Control Engineer, I can tell you there are times when the root cause cannot be determined....and rather than risk reputation and warranty expenditures we had to scrap products.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you obviously have a hard-on for this high risk, low reward (15 hp?) product.

Compare the failure record against other add-on products.....how many ECUs are damaged by flashes....how many transmissions are damaged from short shift kits....how many clutches are damaged by light flywheels? Few, any?

It is clear that a 996TT intake system cannot use this product in a statistically significant number of cases, so why take a chance buying it?

Hell, show me an American Team that uses it. Rolex series, Lemans, Speed GT. If they did, imagine the free advertisement. I'm sure if one race team placed a sticker on the side of their race car, for example, EVO V-Flow or K&N Power Kit, that would speak volumes and give their product some credibility. But there is not one race team that I know of that utilizes any of these so called air box power kits. Including after market DV's. Here is another company making air intake horsepower claims for domestic cars. A relative bargain for 229.99 to 279.99 depending on your vehicle. Are you a believer?

http://www.framboost.com/boostdetails.cfm

Once upon a time good ol' " I show Weisach how it is done " Todd Z had a company called Zuks or something similar and of course developed one of those magic hp potion in form of a airbox which, if I am not mistaken, was called the , never short of dramatic names , "Powerflow".

So, one customer bought this incredible device to unleash all the hp in his car because dumb Porsche are only into marketing, they have fired all their engineers.

Funny thing, this wonder of the world airbox did not deliver as promised and the upset customer contacted Excellence which agreed to do a independent dyno test with Todd Z present.

Again, when the moment of truth arrived, to the surprise of all, no gains and I forgot if there were any losses. So Todd said the ECU has to adept and let's drive it . So they drove, tested it, drove again, tested , drove some more, tested and finnally ran out of time with zero gains on the dyno.................but Todd kept saying we need to drive some more for the ECU to adept............

Then Zuks disappeared and EVO rose from the ashes and voila, here we have the V- FLOW, notice the dramatic name again, still outhinking those lame Porsche marketeers what a true "inhaler" can do to press you in your seat.

I think that original 993 airbox lost power the whole range. He replaced them with a new airbox. Still no gains?

Shane - if I may migrate temporarily from the EVO bashing bitches and get back to your issue...

You say you're hitting 1.1 bar almost instantly. I think you may be hitting the 1.3 bar throttle body shut down. I had this happen on my GT640 kit. I had this installed early on in it's release, before the bypass was implemented. I first got the TB shutdown on the 640 kit immediately after adding the VFlow and FDV Intake plenum. The increased airflow allowed the turbos to spool too high and WHAM. 0.5 bad. Same as you, it would come usually go after shut down... untill I did a high load pull. I also considered you didn't get the intake tube fully pushed into the OEM plenum rubber piece, but since you reinstalled the VFlow several times, this is probably not the case.

Mike

It's hard to say "Yea, exactly" when I haven't had a chance to reply.

My data? -there are too many cars running perfectly fine with them installed.

There are perscription drugs that I've tried that did not work for me. Does this mean that those particular drugs are unreliable?

Based on your comment quoted here, you need much more practice with your clairvoince.

Right, and if Stephen/Todd did a baseline dyno, then installed the component and ran another dyno without a cool down, then the actual power increase would be *higher* than claimed.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I don't personally care if people believe the V-Flow dyno data...that's an individuals personal decision. The V-Flow installed on my Turbo has been 100% reliable, and the improved throttle response alone has been worth the price. If the V-Flow had caused problems because of it's synergistic effect with some underlying engine issue(s), I would have just sent it back and requested a full refund - not a big deal with me at all.

Dock, interesting analogy with the prescription drugs. I wonder how the FDA would feel about a product that makes half the people who take it feel wonderful, but the other half is incapacitated from using it. Your analogy missed the larger point. You have tried prescriptions that did not work, but did no other harm. I am sure if those prescriptions put you out of commission your outlook on the product may change. Again, glad you are happy with the product. Perhaps the scope of this thread should be changed. Maybe we should not discuss the fact it causes CEL's on many cars, but how it actually performs on those vehicles it doesn't. :icon107: Kevin

I don't know.

What I do know is that the drug I was prescribed just caused a minor side effect (the human equivalent of a CEL, and/or half boost) - there was no "incapacitation" about it.

If, by your FDA question, you are implying that there is enough data available to assign a 50% "incapacitation" rate for those cars with the V-Flow, I think you're really stretching it.

Guys, I think the whole dynamics of the intake/maf/airflow, and the communication with the ECU...is quite complex. When we play with the components of this system, we risk disrupting it for the potential reward of an increase in...power/response/etc. There are times when the combination of components and other factors such as environemntal conditions works out just right. There are times when it doesn't. I think its great that tuners are constantly experimenting (although I could propose some better DOE techniques) and pushing the envelope and sometimes even coming up with a product for production. This is a difficult task. We users should be cognizant of the fact that published claims (dynos et. al.,) are a form of advertising and are certainly not fact. We users should always recognize the risks we take...and therefore be prepared to get results are not what were claimed. We are also pushing the envelope. Enough of my rant...carry on.

I thought that the original Excellence test was done on a tip, which at the time few (if any) knew would go into limp mode on a 2WD dyno that didn’t allow the front wheels to spin - which is why it lost power. Later, Excellence retested the PowerFlow on a 6 speed 996 and it made power. As I remember, Bruce (from Excellence) printed this information in a later issue of Excellence.

Here is a base versus V-Flow dyno...

http://i10.tinypic.com/2ynkzlj.jpg

Dock, if you think routine MAF failures, PSM/ABS faults, CEL's and reduced boost is a " minor " side effect , I guess I will stipulate that it is a judgement call for the vehicle's owner.
As for the 50% quote, I was working in the parameters of this thread and the poster's previous poll which is currently at 56% with probs, 44% without. Now before you start typing away claiming it is hardly scientific or a large enough data pool ... I agree, but that is what this thread is based on. Half are happy , half are not. I was curious why you did not respond to Jean's comments? Do you actually think Porsche is afraid of the tuners? Also,if it is such easy HP Porsche left on the table why no motorsports use? OK, you have a dyno sheet... I am a believer. Kevin

Where did you get that dyno sheet? I could not find any dyno sheet on their website. Performed by whom? What type of dyno? In what type of enviroment? Which pull was done first? What was the time lapse between pulls? What type of car was used? Was it the same car for both pulls? Was the car that was used modified? Why are the torque numbers read at a higher rpm for the additional 15 ft/lbs of torque? A lot of room for discrepencies and manipulation.

My misadventure with the V flow cost me plenty. In the end I took the V flow out, and went back to the stock box and paper filter....no problems since....When you add up the dollars I spent trying to fix (MAF's, install charges, scan's, shipping, etc) and the mental toll of going to Laguna Seca (a rare opportunity) with a misfiring car...the cost was very high.....It is the one product that really clouds Evo's image...I think they should pull it off the market for their own good, if not to avoid all the BS that owners have to go through.

And there's the problem. The poll is titled "Did you have any issues with the V-Flow intake" but people voted based on what? An actual problem caused specifically by the V-Flow? That's what we can't nail down...what's causing the problem on those cars with the V-Flow. There have been 28 votes, and from what I can determine, only 9 posted to say something about their vote. None of these guys were able to say what the real cause of their problem was.

From Stephen at IA...call him if you want to do some due diligence.

Dock ,the question was were there any issues with the Vflow!!!!! Those who put it in and said yes, had issues. That was the question. People voted based on ..... drum roll, please..... The VFlow!!!! The problem was the Vflow, directly or indirectly. Kevin

it's the polls fault, oh yeah, almost forgot the drugs too.

Dock, lay of the sarcasm. I have been very considerate discussing this topic. I've kept it civil, try doing the same. I have already conducted due dilligence. That's why it's not on my car. I don't need to call him. For every guy you find that I should call about how great it is, I'll find 5 professional drivers/mechanics that say it isn't and it does not deliver any of the claimed hp as advertised.

Once again, why would I call the manufacturer that stands to gain by selling the product? Here is another dyno showing just a 6 hp gain straight from the EVO website. Just for the record, I don't know what kind of car it was, conditions, or any other variable that may have manipulated the figures. Which is it 5, 15 or 20 hp? Or does it depend on the variables that I cited earlier? These alleged numbers are on a modified car with headers. 700 bucks for an alleged 6 horsepower and possible CEL/MAF problems? To each his own, it's a free market.

[QUOTE=KPG]

Not knowing the "directly" or "indirectly" part is what skews the information.

What would be nice to know is what components (and in terms of OEM components their part numbers in case there have been different releases of that part) that if installed on a Turbo with the V-Flow, might cause the car to run abnormally.

No sarcasm about it. I'm being considerate and civil about the dyno...I don't have all of the information you asked for, and if I did I don't know that I'd be motivated to look it all up and type it out here...just easier for you to to the leg work (diligence). You asked for dyno results in a previous post, and I supplied one.

Try not to be so sensitive...

If you don't want a V-Flow then so be it - I couldn't care less if you have one or not. Are you trying to talk others into not buying one too?

Ever notice the different results of polls when the questions are worded differently?

[QUOTE=Dock]Agreed.

You posted the dyno, I didn't. I think if you post information, or lack of it, you should have the bare minimun information regarding that dyno pull or preface the post alerting the reader that the dyno is just that, a dyno with no other information to verify it's results. No, as I said it's a free market. I responded to you in an earlier post that I am honestly happy that you have, and continue to have, a postive experience with the V-flow. But I feel, as others do on this forum, that the product has issues. Can we agree on that?

I agree.

The MAF question is just the kind of thing that would be good to know - have there been changes made by Porsche over the years that are not reflected in different part numbers being assigned, or maybe there isn't enough quality control by Porsche to produce consistent equally performing units?

Agree that the V-Flow has issues when used with what other components, either OEM or aftermarket, installed in the car? If it turns out that not all OEM MAF units meet the ECU's requirements 100% of the time, say it's just because of a quality control issue with the MAF, would the problems with the V-Flow installed on a car with one of the substandard MAF units be attributed to the V-Flow, or the substandard MAF?

O.K. Dock, I give up. It's Porsche substandard engineering. You win. :rolleyes:

Do you think Porsche has a problem with the RMS on the 996 and 986/987?

Apples and oranges. The RMS issue wasn't induced.

You missed the point...the RMS issue is engineering/quality control, and it's related to my MAF question.

I gave you what I consider to be the "bare minimum information".

No, you missed the point. The MAF problem regarding the V-flow, in many cases was created and/or related to the introduction of the V-flow. The RMS issue was not the result of any aftermarket product.

Whatever, that was as bare as it gets. I think you like to argue for the sake of argument, without ever making a point. For example, by just taking a single line from my post and replying with an opinion. Great in debating class, not very good when it comes to facts. Dock, enjoy your V-flow. The football game is coming on. Good night.

A quick review...

-You asked me if I agreed with you that the V-Flow had issues.

-I posed a question that included this..."say it's just because of a quality control issue with the MAF".

-You said you "give up" (which has not been true), and implied that the V-Flow issue was because of... " Porsche substandard engineering" (with regard to the MAF)...to me it was somewhat sarcastic, or a "yea right" reply.

-I replied by asking you about the RMS problems with two Porsche models, because the crux of my questions is to show that Porsche does not build perfectly performing cars. They had either poor engineering and/or poor quality control with regard to the RMS. If this is true, and I believe it is, then it stands to reason that they could also have similar engineering/quality control problems with the MAF. If Porsche has produced MAF units with varying quality, and it could be shown that the V-Flow causes problems when use with the substandard units, then the V-Flow is not the problem...its the substandard MAF that is the problem.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Show me that the V-Flow did not work when properly installed on a Turbo that had all OEM parts, with those OEM parts built to and performing up to Porsche's original specifications, and I'll say the V-Flow has problems. Until then...we don't know.

Then you think wrong.

Oh, and there's another single line quote...but then again, words mean things, and the quote above is the only thing I want to reply to right now. How is that a problem?

There are alot of "if's" in your reply. I don't have any personal knowledge of a MAF just going out like an RMS. I haven't seen any evidence or discussions on this or any other related forum, nor have I seen it occur around some pretty respected professionals and their cars. I think what it really boils down to is this, I personally don't believe that it delivers any additional horsepower regardless of any possible MAF/CEL issues. I base this on personal observations and recommendations by racing professionals who live or die by their cars and knowledge. So, I wouldn't buy one based on that information and my personal belief. My, "You win Dock." was a sarcastic response. My apologies for any miscommunication.

The MAF/CEL issue cannot be compared to the RMS issue. Yes, Porsche isn't perfect. I don't know of any car manufacturer that is, but as far as complaints for new vehicles, Porsche just took the number 1 spot away from Lexus, having the least amount of complaints per vehicle. I am in no way a cheerleader for Porsche, they can and have built some cars that I wouldn't touch. I would only and have only, purchased Gt models, but the MAF/CEL issues have been, in certain cases, directly related to aftermarket products.

I noticed you didn't address my "unofficial" EVO dyno. It show's only a maximum 6 hp gain, which is an almost unmeasurable number on any dyno. That's why I wouldn't buy it. The mechanical issues are a sidebar.

Your method of debate would be objected to in a formal setting. You have to argue and respond to the entire response. The pick and choose/opinion response doesn't rebut the original topic/argument. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe it does not deliver any additonal hp, you do. Geez, I usually get paid to argue like this Dock.

What's there to reply to? I didn't say I believed the V-Flow delivered the same performance increases in all applications.

The entire response does not have to be replied to when the response has a specific stand alone sentence, or single concept, that presents a discussion topic. I ask questions because your answers will lead to a conclusion that I'm trying to make. Besides, Rennlist is not the place to waste unnecessary bandwidth and/or one's time replying in a debate/legal method. If you can't follow the flow when concise replies/questions are presented, there is nothing I can do to help you.

Yes, and they in many cases represent the unknowns.

There was no miscommunication, I just decided not to reply to it. I thought the "I quit" remark was a better point to respond to.

Sure it can.

And this is information totally unrelated to the RMS/MAF engineering/quality control discussion.

Judging from this statement, you have now resorted to insults and condescension. That's when I feel it's time to move on. You have a very loose definition of concise replies.

Once again Dock, you skirted the issue and picked a particular sentence that you felt you could respond to without a challenge, since your reply was an opinion.

Your responses are not supported by any argument. They are just opinions. "Sure you can?" That's a concise response to a point? That's the best you can do? Really Dock, not to sound condescending, but you're out of your league. And based on some of your non-sensical responses, you may have some reading comprehension issues. Argue the point, don't just make unsupported opinions. You are right about one thing, this is a waste of bandwith in which I will not longer spend another second of my valuable time. Take care.

I argue that there might be more to the V-Flow "issue" than the V-Flow itself, and offer why I think this is so. At this time there is not enough hard evidence to support anything *other* than an argument that more evidence is required before a conclusion can be reached. In a non-legal environment, arguments are used to persuade others to adopt an opinion or a course of action (research in this case). And without specific facts, reasoning is used to decide the the best path to take. In the V-Flow case, we don't have sufficient information available to assign failure to the V-Flow alone.

Yes, "Sure you can" is a valid response based on the fact that I did so in a previous post. Why go over it all again?

That is your opinion. In my opnion, based on my research and experience, it does not give you any additional hp at any level. As far as the MAF/CEL issue IMHO, there are some unresolved issues that I would not risk since the product does not deliver any benefit for the risk. No, it is not a valid response. Your orignal comparison was flawed. I responded to your RMS/MAF comparison with a concise answer. Your response to that was, "Sure you can." Once again, based on your responses, or lack thereof, your reading comprehension skills are highly suspect.

Try reading post #110 again.

No, I suggest you read the entire thread again. Brush up on your reading comprehension skills. The point has been made at nauseum, you seem to be the only one unwilling or unable to understand it.

OK, you've been over this a few times...you don't want a V-Flow...so be it. Why do you feel the need to tell me/the Forum again?

How does reading the entire thread again offer any additional information about a specific (RMS versus MAF) that was first brought up in post #104??

The dyno sheet is from my dyno. We used an employee’s car I had that was bone stock. This was the only vehicle we had at the time to test that was stock. It was an 02 with less than 10Kmiles on it.

It is a Mustang 500SE dyno.

Yes, the pulls were done the same in all the runs. We ran 5 minute intervals until the base lines overlapped with the base for that run. The program prints the numbers on the sheet at max RPM. Which is why the number change. All runs were done in 4th which is closest to 1:1.

Don’t read this the wrong way but I don’t mess around when it comes to dynos. I have watched to many people jabbed in the eye by living from one dyno to the other. We tested these back to back in the course of a day. It was not a 5 minute swap and test setup. We spend a lot of time watching the PST2 to make sure that each run falls in the last runs parameters such as intake temps, oil/coolant temps and even the engine bay temp. I use a forward fan that moves about 60MPH of wind an engine fan and two high capacity blower fans in the ducts forward facing for the intercooler.

I reran these test several times. I did not believe them. I ultimately ran a unit in my car. I have not tested the intake at any other level or with any other mod. The design of the airbox is really nothing new. Porsche uses something similar in the GT3 cup car in light of the venture. As far as a MAF, I do not believe they run one. I is MAP based. Most of the lower HP cars meaning under the 650 mark have not shown a lot of issues unless the MAF was failing to begin with. Early production showed oil was a problem which introduced a new filter design. Later the high HP kits on some cars caused issue with the MAF, not related to the box and was present albeit less with the stock box setup. . Again, not all cars show the issue at all, some can’t get around it.

Hope this helps answer your questions.

John,
In all fairness you discovered your issue existed even after the box was removed and was not related to the V-flow.

My Intake Update:

I called the place I purchased the intake from Friday to return it. They said they would have to get back to me in about an hour. Well Monday has now rolled around and no phone call. So I called vividracing again and told the guy on the phone that I wanted to return the intake since it doesn't work correctly on my car. He asked if I installed it and I said yes. He then said I can't return it because it's been used. I explained that the product does not work as advertised, causes my car to go into limp mode, and that I will need to get a full refund. The guy then said his systems are down and he will have to give me a call back later. I then reminded him that last time I called somebody told me they would call me back later and never did. I asked when I would get a call back and he said he was not sure.

If these guys think they are going to try to stiff me for this intake then they are sadly mistaken.

The product is going back. I spoke to Dan at Vividracing who is also a member of the forum. He was very helpful and didn't give me any grief about returning the product. Vividracing no longer sells evo products so maybe that's a clue as to how well these intakes work.

Did you ask him why they don't sell EVO products any longer?

I asked but I really didn't get an answer. I'm sure 50% of the people that bought one of these have a pretty good idea why :evilgrin:

Without information from the company you bought the V-Flow from, I think it's very presumptuous of you to say that.

Shane... you have been busy on the forum. We will look at the intake once it is back here. Our systems have been down all day so sorry for the delay. I was under the impression that the intake was installed, car turned on, and Engine Codes thrown. If in fact the intake is used and not working or performing, this is a warranty issue with EVOMS on the product. Before you ship it back, I would HIGHLY suggest shipping it to them or call them for warranty. We cannot credit in full a used product or a product that does not "perform" to expectations. We dont make it. If it is in transit to us, I will take a look at it and go from there.

We dont sell EVO cause we have different business goals. That is all. At the end of the day it is there product and they need to warranty it. You got one of those deals of hey, we dont sell this stuff and I have 1 more new in box, here it is at $200 off MSRP...

Of course the product is used. I had to use it to find out that it didn't work. This is not a warratny issue. The intake will probably work if you put it in another car since the success rate of the product is 50%. My opinion is that no evo intake installed in my car will work.

I spoke to you on the phone and told you exactly what happened and you can also see from this thread that I did everything that I could to make this work. I also spoke to Mike at Evoms and all he said was to check the connections. I called him back and said it still didn't work. He said I must have a leak someplace that was the end of the troubleshooting on his end. Well I am done testing this piece of SH1T on my car. I will not put this or any Evo product on my car ever again. I put the stock box back in and not only did it work again but the check engine light turned off. I am sending the intake back to you and expecting a full refund less shipping costs. Anything other than that is unacceptable.

yeah, suck it up and eat it.

Wow, rough crowd :mad:

Now we know.

Dan,

Unlike Doc I am not here to argue with everybody. I just want a refund and honestly think I should get one. I already shipped it out this afternoon after talking with you so shipping it to Evoms is not an option. I used the product for justs enough time to see if it would work. It's in the same condition as I got it in. I shipped it back in the orignal packaging as requested. You have been very helpful during the whole process and I appreciate the huge discount you gave me. Please see what you can do to help me out on this return. This has been painful enough already.

Know what? Speak for yourself. "We" don't know anything regarding what, "We have different business goals," may mean. Are you now clairvoyant?

We know what their answer is.

I'm not sure if you understand the meaning of "we" although it doesn't suprise me. Why don't you dazzle us wth your inside knowledge then? "We" all await your information with baited breath.

"We" = those that have read vividracing's answer.

This thread should be closed...

As I said previously, you have a poor comprehension of words and/or their definitions. Obviously, you have interpreted an answer supplied by Vividracing citing their change in business goals as having a hidden meaning. I've asked you to enlighten us. You are implying that there is more to this than meets the eye. Tell us what the real answer is or refrain from making one line hidden assertions.

No, you've missed the point entirely.

I have not attempted to interpreted their answer, I have only said that we know what their answer is.

Hey Dock, take some advice. Quit now while you still have a shred of class. You are only embarrassing yourself with these senseless answers. The only person you are outsmarting is yourself. Really, you're not as smart as you think.

Show me where I've posted here that I believe that vividracing's answer contained "hidden meanings", or where I've posted that there is more to their answer than meets the eye?

I asked shane if he asked vividracing why they stopped selling EVO products. He said he did not get an answer. When vividracing provided their answer here, I said now we know...meaning now we know their answer. There is noting more to it than that on my end.

If you happen to not believe vividracing's answer, I suggest you take that up with them, not me.

This has gone from pointless and petty to down-right ugly.

We are done here - let's move on.

Marc