New carbon fiber airbox release!!!!!! and group buy!
12-19-2008, 10:48 AM
#46
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
My bottom line X-51 is pretty...this other stuff looks UGLY and belongs in a Toyota not a Porsche.
No...change my mind, Toyota, may be too good for it, belongs in a YUGO. Now lets quit the crap about my product is better because its 100% carbon blablabla. When you open the hood do you want that snake looking thing looking at you...or do you want that beautiful X-51? Frankly, people who have to write pages about their product to prove a point tells me that the product itself is not good enough to sell itself. A good product doesn't need all this snake oil pep talk..IMHO.
Does a gorgeous woman have to tell you how pretty she is....hell, NO! All she needs to do
is walk by and the rest is history.
abe
No...change my mind, Toyota, may be too good for it, belongs in a YUGO. Now lets quit the crap about my product is better because its 100% carbon blablabla. When you open the hood do you want that snake looking thing looking at you...or do you want that beautiful X-51? Frankly, people who have to write pages about their product to prove a point tells me that the product itself is not good enough to sell itself. A good product doesn't need all this snake oil pep talk..IMHO.
Does a gorgeous woman have to tell you how pretty she is....hell, NO! All she needs to do
is walk by and the rest is history.
abe
Thanks for letting us know what you think
12-19-2008, 11:13 AM
#47
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
The conjecture that airbox power improvements cannot be measured on a chassis dyno, but need to be determined at the track, has been brought up before. I remember seeing it in some propaganda about the $3500 Champion airbox that was never very specific. I don't think that they ever actually posted any real numbers or test methodology.
How exactly was this done here? There must be a mathematical formula that depends on some combination of car weight, ET, trap speed and/or drag coefficient. I think that the drag racers often use something like this to estimate power. What formula was used here and what were the parameters? Before/after? If the claimed power gains were quantified from actual track testing, the numbers must be available.
As far as the X-51 airbox is concerned, I have never seen any information about its power gains, whether on the dyno or at the track. Do you have any of this data from your testing? Was your claimed improvement a comparison to the stock system or X-51? The write-up also stated that "all available systems" were tested. To my knowledge, this includes Evo, Fabspeed and K&N. Their results?
How exactly was this done here? There must be a mathematical formula that depends on some combination of car weight, ET, trap speed and/or drag coefficient. I think that the drag racers often use something like this to estimate power. What formula was used here and what were the parameters? Before/after? If the claimed power gains were quantified from actual track testing, the numbers must be available.
As far as the X-51 airbox is concerned, I have never seen any information about its power gains, whether on the dyno or at the track. Do you have any of this data from your testing? Was your claimed improvement a comparison to the stock system or X-51? The write-up also stated that "all available systems" were tested. To my knowledge, this includes Evo, Fabspeed and K&N. Their results?
The 3500 werks intake your talking about is for the 997TT. This a nice looking intake. We did one of these over the summer.
I'm not saying that the Carbonio is better than the X51, I'm just stating that its not 100% carbon and the Carbonio PERFORMS better according to Carbonio's testing. Carbonio has been in business for a very long time and has been making quality carbon fiber intakes for a very long time!
IMHO the x51 is an oem 997TT replica wrapped in carbon and with modifications to your car, you can install it in your 997.
Carbonio's reasons for witholding the exact data numbers are (and I happen to agree) this. If we had posted their numbers and equations, everyone that has already scrutinized this product (without even trying it out) would just do the same thing and say they are bogus and that there is no way those numbers could be correct or those calculations don't make sense. What's stated above in the testing notes is how carbonio likes to tests their intakes. You can either agree or disagree with their methods.
I also think that if this kit was selling for same or less than the X51 the people that said it was too expensive before would could it a cheap POS.
If your in love with the x51 then i strongly suggest you buy it. It's a nice looking intake, but if you want something that's 100% carbon, performs and fits better, and more or less would like to try something new, then try this Carbonio product. If your disappointed in anyway I will take it back.
This is not a sales pitch, just a firm believer of giving something a chance to prove itself before judging it.
12-19-2008, 12:16 PM
#48
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I would like to revise my estimate on the number of units you will sell due to Rennlist posting to.....none. Too costly and WTF would you put this on your engine for anyway? Good luck and happy Holidays Matt at GMP.
12-19-2008, 12:23 PM
#49
Burning Brakes
The conjecture that airbox power improvements cannot be measured on a chassis dyno, but need to be determined at the track, has been brought up before. I remember seeing it in some propaganda about the $3500 Champion airbox that was never very specific. I don't think that they ever actually posted any real numbers or test methodology.
How exactly was this done here? There must be a mathematical formula that depends on some combination of car weight, ET, trap speed and/or drag coefficient. I think that the drag racers often use something like this to estimate power. What formula was used here and what were the parameters? Before/after? If the claimed power gains were quantified from actual track testing, the numbers must be available.
As far as the X-51 airbox is concerned, I have never seen any information about its power gains, whether on the dyno or at the track. Do you have any of this data from your testing? Was your claimed improvement a comparison to the stock system or X-51? The write-up also stated that "all available systems" were tested. To my knowledge, this includes Evo, Fabspeed and K&N. Their results?
How exactly was this done here? There must be a mathematical formula that depends on some combination of car weight, ET, trap speed and/or drag coefficient. I think that the drag racers often use something like this to estimate power. What formula was used here and what were the parameters? Before/after? If the claimed power gains were quantified from actual track testing, the numbers must be available.
As far as the X-51 airbox is concerned, I have never seen any information about its power gains, whether on the dyno or at the track. Do you have any of this data from your testing? Was your claimed improvement a comparison to the stock system or X-51? The write-up also stated that "all available systems" were tested. To my knowledge, this includes Evo, Fabspeed and K&N. Their results?
1) different weather conditions between the multiple 1/4 runs.
2) different reaction times between the runs.
3) different drivers??
4) different cars.
Simply quoting a change in 1/4 times without a lot of other information is useless. I'm no drag racer so I'm sure a professional could easily coax much better times out of my car on any given day. Throw in some temperature and humidity differences and your data is worthless.
12-19-2008, 04:50 PM
#51
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Panama City Beach, Florida
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
A Champion $3500 carbon fiber airbox, in conjunction with a Tubi muffler, has been used for the 997S. The shop that does my modifications and service has done one of these. One may very well be available for the turbo, but certainly can be had for a normally aspirated motor. Contact Champion if you don't believe me. No actual claims for specific improvements for this package, that I have ever seen.
Why are you withholding test results that supposedly were done? Specify the methodology of the testing and analysis. How are we to evaluate any of this if you refuse to provide the information? Some of us, myself included, are technically proficient and can understand the calculations.
You have a parallel thread about this product on the 6 speed 997 forum,which is beginning to being hammered about the same issues.
Substantiate your advertising with facts. Bore us with the details. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, request the moderators that the thread be terminated.
Why are you withholding test results that supposedly were done? Specify the methodology of the testing and analysis. How are we to evaluate any of this if you refuse to provide the information? Some of us, myself included, are technically proficient and can understand the calculations.
You have a parallel thread about this product on the 6 speed 997 forum,which is beginning to being hammered about the same issues.
Substantiate your advertising with facts. Bore us with the details. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, request the moderators that the thread be terminated.
12-19-2008, 05:05 PM
#52
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
First things first,
GMP IS NOT WITH HOLDING ANY INFORMATION! ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE FROM CARBONIO IS IN THIS POST. THE TESTING NOTES ARE WORD FOR WORD FROM AN EMAIL RECEIVED FROM CARBONIO. PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY. I HAVE CLEARLY STATED ALREADY WHY THEY REFUSE TO SUBMIT THE EXACT NUMBERS. I WILL MOVE THE TESTING NOTES TO THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS POST. I HOPE THIS HELPS.
In the TESTING NOTES they tell you how they tested the intake and came up with their numbers and which variables they considered.
GMP IS NOT WITH HOLDING ANY INFORMATION! ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE FROM CARBONIO IS IN THIS POST. THE TESTING NOTES ARE WORD FOR WORD FROM AN EMAIL RECEIVED FROM CARBONIO. PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY. I HAVE CLEARLY STATED ALREADY WHY THEY REFUSE TO SUBMIT THE EXACT NUMBERS. I WILL MOVE THE TESTING NOTES TO THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS POST. I HOPE THIS HELPS.
In the TESTING NOTES they tell you how they tested the intake and came up with their numbers and which variables they considered.
12-19-2008, 05:10 PM
#53
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
If you have anymore questions feel free to keep them coming. Also this is supposed to be a post for something for sale and an open discussion so lets keep this professional. I am here to help in anyway I can. If anymore information is released by carbonio, ya'll will be the first to know.
12-19-2008, 05:38 PM
#54
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
Exactly... and how did you address issues like:
1) different weather conditions between the multiple 1/4 runs.
2) different reaction times between the runs.
3) different drivers??
4) different cars.
Simply quoting a change in 1/4 times without a lot of other information is useless. I'm no drag racer so I'm sure a professional could easily coax much better times out of my car on any given day. Throw in some temperature and humidity differences and your data is worthless.
1) different weather conditions between the multiple 1/4 runs.
2) different reaction times between the runs.
3) different drivers??
4) different cars.
Simply quoting a change in 1/4 times without a lot of other information is useless. I'm no drag racer so I'm sure a professional could easily coax much better times out of my car on any given day. Throw in some temperature and humidity differences and your data is worthless.
Im not sure if I have said this before in this thread or not, but this is Carbonio's preferred testing method. I'm sure it has its pros and cons as every testing method does (i.e. dyno's and road courses)
Please also remember this is just an intake. An intake can only do so much. The projected and estimated power increases are just that. Estimated. Because of the change in temperature and other variables like tires and oil temps. It's not claiming almost 30hp like fabspeed does, it's not a supercharger kit or a turbo kit, its just an intake and nothing more so please keep this in mind. Its main purpose is to provide better and cooler air flow, made of hte best materials, quicken throttle response and add a little power to your seat.
12-19-2008, 06:31 PM
#55
Burning Brakes
If I were the vender I would end any further posting and say "thank you for everyones input, if you have any further questions be free to pm" and end it.
imho
abe
imho
abe
Last edited by abe; 12-20-2008 at 01:24 AM.
12-19-2008, 07:26 PM
#57
Race Director
GMP-Matthew, your post count is at least climbing! 
12-19-2008, 10:04 PM
#58
If you have anymore questions feel free to keep them coming. Also this is supposed to be a post for something for sale and an open discussion so lets keep this professional. I am here to help in anyway I can. If anymore information is released by carbonio, ya'll will be the first to know.
a) stock
b) X51
c) carbonio
Do 3 pulls each, and do them all on the same day, on the same dyno. Put a video on youtube. Demonstrate the virtue of your product, and you will sell dozens of overpriced intakes.
12-20-2008, 12:27 AM
#60
Poseur
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
- 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.
Where was the air inlet temperature measured?
Where on the X51 airbox was its temperature recorded and where on your unit was it measured? Is that an apple to apple comparison or spots chosen for a particular reason?
How do you measure air flow quantity? Where are your sensors placed?
- 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.
Where was the air inlet temperature measured?
Where on the X51 airbox was its temperature recorded and where on your unit was it measured? Is that an apple to apple comparison or spots chosen for a particular reason?
How do you measure air flow quantity? Where are your sensors placed?