2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[GoCougs]

O yea, there is nothing that can be done short of re-engineering the entire engine to get anything more than the incredibly aggressive tune Mopar sent that 318 out with.............

Everything in the induction and exhaust system was optimal, as were the cam profile & compression....

130HP out of 318 cubic inches... it's a miracle these things lasted any appreciable distance w/o needing a laboratory rebuild.....

Sure, at that time, that was about as optimal as that engine would get given the constraints. Putting an open-element air filter (akin to a modern CAI) would do nothing and a custom advance curve'd distributor to run on premium (akin to a modern tune) would add very little - LOL, certainly not 10%.

You guys are simply rain dancing. Sure if you're modifying the engine's ability to pump air (cams, heads, etc.) and operation of the engine a higher capacity air filter system and tune would be required. But as standalone entities on a stock engine? Nah.

[SVT666]

MM&FF compared different CAI kits with and without tuners in 2006 on the 4.6L Mustang GT.  The best being the WMS kit with tuner.  They skipped the dyno entirely and just ran the 1/4 mile instead.  The car was a stock 2006 Mustang GT with an automatic to take the driver out of the equation.

Stock = 13.858 @ 97.28 mph (Density Altitude = 1,435 ft)
WMS CAI and SCT Tune = 13.694 @ 98.48 mph (Density Altitude = 2,366 ft)

With almost 1000 ft. increase in Density Altitude and warmer air temps (first run in the morning, WMS run in the afternoon), the 1/4 mile time dropped by almost 2/10ths of a second.  

[GoCougs]

Try to grasp the concept that the CAI is allowing more CFM through the engine. The stock airbox and inlet tube is a restriction. Had you simply upgraded your Dodge truck from a 2 barrel and stock intake to a 4 barrel and the Performer intake, you would realize a noticeable gain. Not as much as with the cam included but a gain nonetheless. In my case, the throttle body is not the restriction.

And YOU try to grasp why Ford would botch the design. How easy would it for Ford to design a less restrictive CAI sans the fancy looking materials? LOL - easy as pie (zero extra work and zero extra cost). Your assertion fails philosophically before it fails technically.

And your analogy is false. Again, only upgrading the carb and manifold does not increase air flow. It only increases the CAPACITY for air flow. Without either/or upgraded heads or cam putting a 4bbl on an 2bb stock engine will result in virtually zero increase in power and give you nothing but a boggy POS.

Nope, that wasn't me.

Meh, it was someone here. I think it was SVT666. It was a classic example of the many ways chassis dynos suck for small % comparisons.

[sportyaccordy]

And your analogy is false. Again, only upgrading the carb and manifold does not increase air flow.

You don't think an intake manifold's design or parameters have anything to do with power output or pumping losses?

I suppose systems like Porsche's Varioram and other multi stage intake manifolds were all just made for fun........

[GoCougs]

I don't know how to get this through to you. Multiple same day dyno tests show more power. The cars go faster. If you can't equate that with more power, then I'm through trying to teach you. 

Again, your measurement tools are poor. Using drag racing to measure a tenth or two or a chassis dyno to pick up 5-10% is simply rain dancing; thus it is I who are teaching YOU.

If and until someone shows me Ford's explanation OR a proper (standalone engine) dyno test, you'll never convince me. Engineering fundamentals and basic business sense are not rewritten by poor measurement tools and advertising.

I

[SVT666]

Hey Cobra.  Didn't you know that the fact the car ran the 1/4 mile faster with a CAI and a tune than it did stock is not proof of anything?  Cougs wins again.

[GoCougs]

You don't think an intake manifold's design or parameters have anything to do with power output or pumping losses?

I suppose systems like Porsche's Varioram and other multi stage intake manifolds were all just made for fun........

That's okay sporty, I don't mind being the rock upon which you break yourself.

In that specific example Cobra93 gave, no, adding a 4bbl carb + manifold to a stock 2bbl engine will result in virtually zero power increase. Those elements can restrict air flow certainly but they don't magically cram more air into the engine.

As to variable intake manifolds, think that might be used in conjunction with VVT/L technology? (Answer: yes.) Effectively what you're getting is different intake manifolds to match different cams.

[Cobra93]

Okay. I really don't know why I inexplicably love the Camaro so much. Perhaps it's related to my severe penile inadequacy. I only know that if I ever achieve the level of personal success that will afford me the ability to buy one, I'll get the V6 version. I'm simply not man enough to handle the V8.

We understand, Cougs. I think everyone on the forum has pretty much figured that out by now.

[GoCougs]

Sorry Cougs, you have nothing to teach me. You've clearly proven that you know nothing about engines and even less about performance. Now go have fun in the rarefied performance atmosphere of Grandma's Accord.

Ha, ha. You walked in to a wall of self-pwage asserting a 4bbl swap on a stock 2bbl motor will give appreciably more power - pretty much anyone whose played around with old-school Detroit iron knows not to do that.

It's funny this phenomenon of guys who can build 'em, drive 'em, or buy 'em, have this entitlement that this is automatic license to the knowledge of how things actually work. That you three continually attack rather than talk facts, data or knowledge, is implicit membership into this dubious club.

[SVT666]

Ha, ha. You walked in to a wall of self-pwage asserting a 4bbl swap on a stock 2bbl motor will give appreciably more power - pretty much anyone whose played around with old-school Detroit iron knows not to do that.

It's funny this phenomenon of guys who can build 'em, drive 'em, or buy 'em, have this entitlement that this is automatic license to the knowledge of how things actually work. That you three continually attack rather than talk facts, data or knowledge, is implicit membership into this dubious club.

Actually, I think I've posted facts, data, and actual knowledge....unlike you.  You have done nothing but say, "You're wrong because I say so".

[GoCougs]

Actually, I think I've posted facts, data, and actual knowledge....unlike you.  You have done nothing but say, "You're wrong because I say so".

Actually, you've posted is mostly some experience and regurgitation of sales bites. For example, the assertion a 4" pipe flows 4x more than a 2" pipe for compressible fluid flow (i.e., atmo air) is simply not true. Just think about it. It's also not relevant.

And again, Ford spent hundreds of millions $$$ to develop the 5.0, but they leave a bunch HP on the table and lose some MPG because they somehow botch the cheapo plastic CAI? Forget the technical discussion, attack the philosophical premise; I don't see how you can rationalize it.

[sportyaccordy]

That's okay sporty, I don't mind being the rock upon which you break yourself.

In that specific example Cobra93 gave, no, adding a 4bbl carb + manifold to a stock 2bbl engine will result in virtually zero power increase. Those elements can restrict air flow certainly but they don't magically cram more air into the engine.

Well maybe in the specific example that might not be the case, but the assertion that

The assertion that a CAI adds power to a stock motor is insanity.

is insanity, given the abundance of unbiased evidence that shows otherwise. The idea that stock intakes, which are compromised greatly to minimize noise, are the ideal intake designs for making power, is ridiculous. Not to mention you contradicted yourself hilariously when citing the CAI on the Mustang Bullitt or w/e as a source of the added power over the standard Mustang. So I'm not even sure what your point is.

As to variable intake manifolds, think that might be used in conjunction with VVT/L technology? (Answer: yes.) Effectively what you're getting is different intake manifolds to match different cams.

There are plenty of engines w/no VVT/L technology that benefitted greatly from 2 or more stage intake manifolds. Some notable examples:

- Toyota's 4AGE (long before VVT/L even existed)
- Air cooled Porsche engines (Varioram)
- Yamaha SHO V6 & V8
- Nissan VQ30DEK (VIM being the main factor for the 30HP jump over the DE as proved by various builds and unbiased dynos)
- Various non VTEC B, F, H & J series Honda engines

The list goes on and on.

Bottom line being, engine peripherals (from the intake filter to the muffler) have measurable impacts on power output, and OEM manufacturers have to make compromises on said peripherals for cost, noise, emissions, fuel economy and other factors that work counter to producing the most power possible- even for the Coyote 5.0- that leaves room for the aftermarket to shift the bias towards power, noise & response for those willing to pay for it. This should be a below rudimentary concept to grasp for an engineer so close to the design processes behind the kinds of parts that go into powertrains, and someone who considers himself a car enthusiast....

[GoCougs]

  You're hilarious. I've been in the engine business since you were in diapers. For a living, I've designed, built and dynoed engine combinations for everything from street rods to sprint cars. I was the top engine salesman at one of the preeminent race engine builders in the country. I've been selling engines in my own business for over ten years now. I've forgotten more about engines than you ever knew. What, exactly, are your credentials? For the life of me, I can't understand why you can't grasp the concept that an intake or exhaust restriction will limit output. Do you not remember the '99 Cobra exhaust issue? Your position seems to be that the OEM could never leave room for improvement over the stock combination. This has always been false and most likely always will be. As SVT666 said, you've produced nothing to support your position.

If you've got all this knowledge and experience why do you attack? Such a thing greatly detracts from any point you try to make. And I still don't know how to place the 4bbl upgrade assertion - anyone with your knowledge knows that would result in little if any power increase on something like a stock 2bbl 318 and would result in a boggy POS.

Sure those elements will restrict flow and result in a loss of power and RPM, IF they are designed for such a thing. Exhaust has caveats for needed restriction (primarily noise) but then again an infinitely free flowing exhaust is bad too - you need some measure of back pressure for a street driven car (i.e., a car driven at anything less than WOT) to maintain low-end torque. CAI not so much.

Again, show me an engine dyno graph and Ford's reasoning for purposefully restricting the CAI in such a manner, and I'll reverse my position. Until then, I remain utterly unconvinced.

[sportyaccordy]

Exhaust has caveats for needed restriction (primarily noise) but then again an infinitely free flowing exhaust is bad too - you need some measure of back pressure for a street driven car (i.e., a car driven at anything less than WOT) to maintain low-end torque. CAI not so much.

Again, show me an engine dyno graph and Ford's reasoning for purposefully restricting the CAI in such a manner, and I'll reverse my position. Until then, I remain utterly unconvinced.

This post is classic Cougs. I think this might be the new signature.

Classic elements.

- Citing the exhaust backpressure myth, long proven false over and over again
- Making a claim, and then placing the burden of proof on people who called him out on its ridiculousness
- The incredible specificity of the requirements of the truth- basically only accepting a notarized letter from Bill Ford himself explaining why he purposely sabotaged the Mustang intake design, despite all the evidence and sound reasoning explaining why an OEM intake might not be the most efficient design for max power

Lord help you if you are this obtuse in real life; I hope you are just having fun trolling as this is hard to believe.

[SVT666]

Even if a Ford engineer came on here and posted the reasoning, you would tell him he is wrong.

[GoCougs]

Well maybe in the specific example that might not be the case, but the assertion that
is insanity, given the abundance of unbiased evidence that shows otherwise. The idea that stock intakes, which are compromised greatly to minimize noise, are the ideal intake designs for making power, is ridiculous. Not to mention you contradicted yourself hilariously when citing the CAI on the Mustang Bullitt or w/e as a source of the added power over the standard Mustang. So I'm not even sure what your point is.
There are plenty of engines w/no VVT/L technology that benefitted greatly from 2 or more stage intake manifolds. Some notable examples:

- Toyota's 4AGE (long before VVT/L even existed)
- Air cooled Porsche engines (Varioram)
- Yamaha SHO V6 & V8
- Nissan VQ30DEK (VIM being the main factor for the 30HP jump over the DE as proved by various builds and unbiased dynos)
- Various non VTEC B, F, H & J series Honda engines

The list goes on and on.

Bottom line being, engine peripherals (from the intake filter to the muffler) have measurable impacts on power output, and OEM manufacturers have to make compromises on said peripherals for cost, noise, emissions, fuel economy and other factors that work counter to producing the most power possible- even for the Coyote 5.0- that leaves room for the aftermarket to shift the bias towards power, noise & response for those willing to pay for it. This should be a below rudimentary concept to grasp for an engineer so close to the design processes behind the kinds of parts that go into powertrains, and someone who considers himself a car enthusiast....

I quoted the CAI on the Bullitt because that is what Ford said they did to the car.    The power bump via the GT came from the tune to run on premium and the louder exhaust.

Sure there were variable intake, but all those engines were peaky and not nearly as tractable as (VVT/L) high RPM engines of today. Plus, those mostly had to do with velocity + mixing and not absolute flow.

This continued assertion that Ford is leaving room for its aftermarket by purposefully hamstringing the 5.0 by botching the CAI is absolutely ludicrous.

[sportyaccordy]

This continued assertion that Ford is leaving room for its aftermarket by purposefully hamstringing the 5.0 by botching the CAI is absolutely ludicrous.

I don't think anyone asserted that that was the primary driver or even a conscious factor of the design. But because of all the regulatory compromises Ford had to make when they designed the intake, in the context of absolute power/flow/response, there were definitely improvements to be made that the aftermarket has capitalized on. Same with the ECU tune, exhaust, cams and every other power making part of the car.

[GoCougs]

This post is classic Cougs. I think this might be the new signature.

Classic elements.

- Citing the exhaust backpressure myth, long proven false over and over again
- Making a claim, and then placing the burden of proof on people who called him out on its ridiculousness
- The incredible specificity of the requirements of the truth- basically only accepting a notarized letter from Bill Ford himself explaining why he purposely sabotaged the Mustang intake design, despite all the evidence and sound reasoning explaining why an OEM intake might not be the most efficient design for max power

Lord help you if you are this obtuse in real life; I hope you are just having fun trolling as this is hard to believe.

Nah, that you continually attack shows that you know the inherent weakness of your position (in your case, an almost complete dearth of hands-on experience).

Try driving a car with an open header(s). Low-end power is greatly diminished. You NEED some measure of back pressue to properly scavenge exhaust to maintain streetability.

The burden of proof falls solely on the claimant. I challenged both the measurement method and the rationalization. I also provide and avenue for recompense - a proper validation (engine dyno test) and specific reasoning from Ford (not your "sound" reasoning).

[sportyaccordy]

Nah, that you continually attack shows that you know the inherent weakness of your position (in your case, an almost complete dearth of hands-on experience).

Try driving a car with an open header(s). Low-end power is greatly diminished. You NEED some measure of back pressue to properly scavenge exhaust to maintain streetability.

The burden of proof falls solely on the claimant. I challenged both the measurement method and the rationalization. I also provide and avenue for recompense - a proper validation (engine dyno test) and specific reasoning from Ford (not your "sound" reasoning).

I'm seriously holding back laughter now.

In one keystroke, this guy cites the butt dyno as valid, and then says a chassis dyno is invalid.

And I definitely have more "real world experience" building cars than you do; especially modern cars. I'd love to see your automotive resume. It appears all you've done is change an air filter. Here's an anecdote. When I changed the exhaust on my Maxima (as I did on nearly every car I owned if it didn't already come with a non-stock exhaust), I went with 2.5" crush bent piping from the collector back. My butt dyno (since you've accepted them as valid proof of power gains/losses) indicated a very noticeable gain in low end torque, due entirely to the lowered back pressure of the high flowing exhaust. Point being, yes, going to the extreme of no exhaust at all will be a detriment to drivability (if not for the fumes alone), but back pressure in and of itself is not a net plus (as you never fail to remind us when turbochargers are discussed), nor is there any linearity between it and low end torque.

[GoCougs]

It has nothing to do with a "butt dyno." The engine effectively runs flat if not just about stalls at lower RPM if you run just a straight header. Google myriad information about it, and if you ever get a chance, as I have, try it. Then you'll realize I am 100% correct. But beyond that it seems you guys are more interested in attacking and insulting. Meh, no offense but I'm confident in my knowledge and experience to be better than this.

[SVT666]

It has nothing to do with a "butt dyno." The engine effectively runs flat if not just about stalls at lower RPM if you run just a straight header. Google myriad information about it, and if you ever get a chance, as I have, try it. Then you'll realize I am 100% correct. But beyond that it seems you guys are more interested in attacking and insulting. Meh, no offense but I'm confident in my knowledge and experience to be better than this.

No, you're an arrogant fool who doesn't think he has to back up his POV but everyone else has to.  I trust Cobra93 over you any day of the week.  Engines are his business.  That's what he does.  I believe 1/4 mile times from the same car, same day, different mods over you.  I believe back to back dyno results over you.

[MrH]

Sporty, the fact you just called exhaust back pressure a myth completely blew any sort of credibility you had.  Come on, there's no way you truly believe that.

[giant_mtb]

Sporty, the fact you just called exhaust back pressure a myth completely blew any sort of credibility you had.  Come on, there's no way you truly believe that.

He didn't call it a myth:

"I went with 2.5" crush bent piping from the collector back. My butt dyno (since you've accepted them as valid proof of power gains/losses) indicated a very noticeable gain in low end torque, due entirely to the lowered back pressure of the high flowing exhaust. Point being, yes, going to the extreme of no exhaust at all will be a detriment to drivability..."

[MrH]

This post is classic Cougs. I think this might be the new signature.

Classic elements.

- Citing the exhaust backpressure myth, long proven false over and over again
- Making a claim, and then placing the burden of proof on people who called him out on its ridiculousness
- The incredible specificity of the requirements of the truth- basically only accepting a notarized letter from Bill Ford himself explaining why he purposely sabotaged the Mustang intake design, despite all the evidence and sound reasoning explaining why an OEM intake might not be the most efficient design for max power

Lord help you if you are this obtuse in real life; I hope you are just having fun trolling as this is hard to believe.

[giant_mtb]

Oh.  Didn't read that far back.

He seems to have contradicted himself, indeed.

[the Teuton]

This is why I gave up on technical debates that go over my head a long, long time ago. Now if anyone wants to discuss piezo injectors, I'd be down for that.

[Mustangfan2003]

Man Cougs doesn't go down without a fight. 

[SVT666]

Man Cougs doesn't go down without a fight. 

No, and he will claim victory even after being defeated.

[the Teuton]

No, and he will claim victory even after being defeated.

Sorta like Psilos. I'd like to see those two meet sometime.

[GoCougs]

Man Cougs doesn't go down without a fight.  

It's the stuff of the Intertubes.

But seriously, I'm correct here. There's no way an automaker is killing a bunch of hp and MPG because of a botched air filter system.

I've never seen any viable technical explanation whatsoever, and actually see a lot of incredibly wrong things said.