The manufactures knows the exact weight of the wheels. It's part of the process of getting the wheels DOT approved. They purposely hide it because they know that once you find out the weight, you will not buy the wheels.

Yes, but the the internal structure of the factory air box is more convoluted than simply having a filter leading into straight pipe. That is where the limitations of the stock intakes are found even with new filters come from and that is why I believe that they can't produce the same power gains as a set of long tube intakes.

Thus, I am calling them out. I am hoping other potential buyers will do the same.

I agree 100% with the theory -- but I have yet to see clear evidence of it. Actually, I was surprised to see the panel filters plus smooth tubes making approximately equal gains.

Also, you keep making reference to the longer tubes as if the tubing length itself (rather than where it pulls air) is important -- it might be, but longer tubes tend to move peak torque down not up. Does that appear to occur with the longer tube intakes? Do they mainly gain in the midrange?

Again, I am looking for clear empirical evidence of performance differences -- how hard would it be to test?

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Do you honestly expect manufacturers to do back to back comparisons against competitors parts? You seem more focused on proving all of us Gen3 owners wrong with your k&n drop ins, find someone local and have at it, post up the results.

where are these links of K&N making equal gains ? I have seen numerous G3 dynos.. I have yet to see a single dyno of K&N making 7-8 whp on any car site that I have ever looked at. 350zs did tend to make similar power with stock intakes compared to JWT short ram and same with 370z short ram intakes. But the LT intakes (more a year or so ago ) had dynos popping up with power being made repeatedly... most of it is way up top but power is made... G3 , AEM, and Injen

Here is a link to a dyno, that was the very first thread that popped up when I google searched... made 20 WHP , yes 20 WHP

http://www.the370z.com/intake-exhaus...pressions.html - from RCZ ( repuatable forum member )

and here is one from Semtex, another repuatable forum member who had HFC and Berk CBE + 14.8 WHP

http://www.the370z.com/intake-exhaus...eview-etc.html


ummm, i think that argument should be over :tup:

Go back and look at my dyno thread. Between the K&N and smooth intake tubes I picked up easily in the 10 -12 range total.

I've also seen dynos where the change from G3's is less than 10 whp. Then there's at least one member who gained a whopping 12 whp just from the smooth intake tubes (part of this, is that the first breather mod always seems to make a little extra than the same mod would added later).

In any case, it's not the raw values that matter, it's the % improvement from baseline that matters.

Anyway -- this is why I'd like to see a back to back comparison, same car, same dyno.

If you feel there's no question, and I'm just off base, then don't worry about what I have to say on the matter.


Sure, why not? Why is the burden of proof on the consumer? Why bother to show gains over stock?

I am not the first person who has made the case for the OEM airbox+high flow filters+ smooth tubes -- I'm just going on data.

Anway, I am completely confident that your intake performs better than a SRI and better than the OEM airbox with a paper element. I have no interest in making you feel bad about your purchase.

What I don't want to see are people shelling out over $500 bucks for something that may not be worth it.

But you are right -- in the end, they can decide for themselves. I'm just putting this out there as food for thought.

Anyway, I've said my peace. If no one agrees or cares, so be it -- I'll shut up :rolleyes:

It's not that I don't agree on some level. It would certainly be nice if manufacturers only put out the best products that showed pros and cons against competitors products, but its completely unrealistic, there would be no market.

Regarding the specific comparison we were discussing, g3 vs panels, burden of proof does not apply here. Stillen does not claim to be better than any specific competitors parts, they claim an increase in power over stock. Which is proven. Thats all any part manufacturers do. Why should they be required to prove that their part is better than anyone else's? What happens when a new intake comes out? Is stillen now obligated to do a comparison against EVERY intake that competes with their product? You mentioned "at least compare it to drop ins" but why only drop in filters, where do we draw the line and who decides it?

In the end, it's up to the consumers to decide, as it was and always will be.

No of course not -- I would just like to see clear evidence of how much better the pod does than the panel.

Hell, even K&N won't do that -- and they actually sell both types :p

Of course they're not required, just like wheel salesmen aren't required to post weights -- it's an open request (if challenge sounds too unecessarily aggressive) to the aftermarket to go the extra mile.

Sorry to hammer away once more at the horse's corpse, but just wanted to clarify something regarding K&N panel+smooth intake tubes vs. CAI.

I just went and reviwed 6 different dyno threads, and the average gain from baseline with the CAI was about 5.33%.

I would estimate (based on what few dynos we have) that K&N+smooth tubes will net about 3.5-4% gain.

So what does the extra 1.83% to 1.33% gain in power mean?

Well, on a 275 whp car, it's 4-5 whp.

Thus, the CAI's should net about 4-5 more whp than the high flow panel filter+smooth tube set up.

Is that worth more than double the price ($200 vs $500+)? That's up to the consumer to decide I suppose...

So....

If you are on a budget and want very good bang for the buck -- K&N+smooth intake tubes should get you within a few whp of the pricier CAI.

For the few extra whp, if you have the cash or can get a really good deal on a set, the CAI will slightly (by ~1.5%) outdo the OEM set up with high flow filter and nicer tubes.

:tiphat:

P.S.
All of these are on untuned Z's... it is quite possible that the difference will be less or greater once tuning is brought into play.

However, considering the high degree of convergence for top numbers on fully bolted-on tuned Z's, my guess is that the two set-ups will be closer in gains once tuned, not further away, but it is an empirical question for which more data is needed...

EDIT: I've recently seen evidence of gains closer to 6-8 on the average -- that's quite a bit better than I had found based on other dynos.

So... bang for the buck, the winner is still the tubes plus high flow panels, but IMHO, if you can grab a set of the G3's on sale (say, < $350) it's definitely worth it. Still a bit pricey for the gains at retail, IMO (nearly $500!), but worth it if you can find a set at a good price :tiphat:

I'll see if I can eventualy track down a set for myself, and will share clear back to back runs to better resolve the issue... assuming I can find one on sale... :p

This thread is fairly hilarious - its like the lazymans approach to car modding. Like you should be able to walk into a McDonalds and see everything you wanted to know about every part all nicely laid out for you on a buffet table to choose from.

With your previous post, you've spoken the obvious that everyone already knew - the price/value relationship will generally be drastically inverted the more power gains you have. Of course, this is related to similar parts (you cant compare the value of a 100WHP gain from juice to the cost of 100HP from a supercharger...).

You are not entitled to have all the information you want, simply because you have cash. Sometimes, its even like comparing apples to apples, and its all preference.

Tell you what...how about companies do exactly what you want on one condition: they do it on the same day that every single car/motor from a manufacturer is IDENTICAL to each other, down to the tenth of a horsepower. Enough that whatever mod you do will give the EXACT SAME RESULT on another car. And that is yet another reason why they dont advertise numbers - your results will vary. You even said it yourself - "on average", "should net", "should get you within a few whp". Can you guarantee? No.

Who said anything about entitlement?

This is a request.

Average (or maybe modal) gains are more telling, provided you have enough data points, than extreme outliers (the gain "up to" argument). That doesn't make the information useless. Every car is not all that different -- it's the same motor with only one of two drivetrains (and limited evidence of any loss differences between them).

The biggest variable factors will be type of dynamometer and correction factor. I have a feeling miles of break-in may play a role too. Anyway, that's why I look at (and talk about) % changes rather than raw values -- it's much more consistent.

What's hilarious is the degree of outrage this thread has inspired by consumers... you guys should demand more info not less.

Ironically, the food info analogy is fairly apt: Yeah, I do like knowing the calorie, fat, protien, carb, etc content of the food I eat.

Why is that a bad thing?

Having more info enables you to make smarter choices about what suits your needs, no?

Does that spoil the magic and the mystery for you or something? :icon17:

Are you saying that every hamburger at McDonalds has the exact same caloric count? Or do you think that, for the most part, its "up to" that many calories?

More information never hurts, but you can only realistically demand so much from a company, not to mention if they start throwing numbers around that is just asking for some kind of lawsuits potentially...

Now that you mention it, I have no idea how much variance there is food labeling -- hmm.

Anyway, I'm not demanding anything. No company is even obligated to provide a single dyno to demonstrate the potential gains from its product -- it's entirely a matter of marketing.

In other words, because consumers have "demanded" (requested? Challenged?) additional information, many manufacturers of aftermarket parts provide before and after dynos.

If a new intake comes out, I think it would be interesting to see a three way comparison with paper, high flow, and their new set-up -- that's all I'm saying (hint -- a company is in the process of making one, and the design is promising).

Who knows if anyone will bother to take my challenge/respond to my request -- but if they did, it would be more compelling than providing nothing or simply showing that the new product outperforms a bone stock set-up.

For example, AEM provides comparison data (or at least they used to) for their dry flow filter vs paper vs other high flow competitor products, so what I am asking isn't really all that outrageous.

Likewise, I'd like it if more wheel distributors would provide the weights.

Again, just a request :tiphat:

Honestly, I'm not sure what fired me up enough to make this thread -- but it's generated some interesting discussion :D

The food thing was something I ask myself all the time at the chow hall lol. They post nutritional facts, but in the end, I just have to accept that its an approximation, and I cant expect to know the SPECIFICS for each meal I have.