Yeah, this intercooler is exactly what the car needed to keep the temps down.

I'll have to see if I can get a log of the IAT's vs ambient temps for solid written proof to show everyone, but watching my scanner running live-data feed through the OBD port, they are nearly identical at all times (or at least all times that I can look down to check without running into anything )

I'm surprised more people aren't jumping on the MAF housing too though? Maybe because it necessitates a tune immediately to rescale for the larger housing and increased airflow?

It really is a great piece and the bellmouth/velocity stack is really sweet. When I was putting it on with Devin he actually stopped to call one of his guys over to check out the design because of how the velocity stack is set up with the humongous filter wrapped all the way around feeding air from every angle.

 

Is there an actual difference in power between the the way crbd does the intake with the bell mouth vs just having a filter strapped to the end of a pipe like most other intakes

 

I can't speak for all intakes, but coming from the EvoX MAF to the CBRD pipe, there was a huge increase in airflow. The problem with my comparison is that I increased the MAF size while adding in the velocity stack/bellmouth design, so there is an extra variable that makes for an imperfect comparison.

While my peak numbers aren't much greater due to the underwhelming size of the stock turbo, as I've mentioned before, the area under the curve has increased dramatically due to the greater airflow volume. Whether this is completely due to the increased MAF size I cannot say for certain, but the velocity stack design is not something that is new and untested, otherwise it would not be used as often as it is. By increasing the rate of airflow, along with it's volume, that's where you'll see the greatest results and that's what this CBRD piece is designed to do.

The most fair comparison would be to swap the UR MAF tube directly with the CBRD tube and see what differences are made, but unfortunately this is something I personally am unable to do at this time.

 

To sum-up, intakes shouldn't be bought for peak numbers. The benefit of intakes is mainly in the better spool and shapes of the power curves - not where those curves peak

anyway, good work on the car so far!

 

Are you certain that these MAF housings are not actually the same item? Other than a different filter, there certainly seems to be a very similar appearance...

 

Very different designs

The UR tube is just a straight-through design, similar to the EvoX MAF tube, but with a larger diameter:


The CBRD tube has the velocity stack/bellmouth housing where the filter attaches at the end of it:

 

Thanks for sharing the clear information about the MAF!

Now with your close up pictures I can see the huge difference in design to the UR MAF. That MAF from CBRD is really quite interesting.

In your previous comment about the "velocity stack" I could not really visualize that design.

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and that is really quite appropriate here. Very cool! Thanks again

 

cant imagine if you upgrade to CBRD rad turbo, it s gona be a beast!!

 

Just to add a bit of clarification, and warning as well:

If you are planning on going this route, please make sure you have a competent tuner and are doing plenty of logging to make sure you get everything dialed in right. Allow me to explain.

The only explanation I can think of, personally, as to why this car is able to make the power that it does is that this velocity stack setup is capable of gulping down extremely large amounts of air. While this is a great thing when looking at tuning numbers, it becomes a bit touchy when it comes to dialing in the MAF settings.

I'm not going to go into detail because I don't want to give a whole lot away, since it would be Devin's place to give out the complete details and not me, but long story short: We've had to rescale the MAF a few times to get it all right and then go back to tweak the final tune at wot after dialing in because instead of the typical scaling for a 3" MAF, we are looking at percentages close to what would be needed for a 3.5" setup. This is why I say logging and adjusting repeatedly with a knowlegdeable tuner is going to be crucial.

I'm sure it's possible that the velocity stack is creating inlet turbulence or other movement that the MAF cannot account for, which is why we needed to richen up the car to get it to run right; but considering the numbers that the car put down, I think the better explanation (and the one that everyone really wants to hear anyway) is just that the design of this MAF housing/velocity stack is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing, and then some, by gobbling down as much air as it can get.

I hate to be such a fanboi about things when it comes to performance parts and personal impressions because the "butt-dyno" is so imperfect, but the car still continues to put a smile on my face whenever I go wot. Everything is just super smooth and unnecessarily fast, lol.

As long as the weather holds out, I'll be going to the track next Sunday for some real, solid results for you all using the exact same setup as my 12.79 run with the only changes being the CBRD goodies and the re-tune. I honestly expect very good things.

 

Chi-Town, do you mind sharing a picture of your engine as it is right now? Are your current numbers what's on your signature?
Thanks!

 

Yeah, I've been meaning to clean it up a little and get a full-bay shot. Tomorrow for sure.

And yes, the sig. has the most recent hp/tq numbers but the 1/4 mile time is from the old setup.

 

Well, so much for "tomorrow for sure", lol. Better late than never, I guess...

Tried to keep it kind-of "stockish" looking. If you don't count the huge cone filter:


My daughter saw me trying to take pictures so she asked if she could take some and this is actually a really cool angle that she got, imo:

 

looks nice man, bet that filter is nice and loud

wonder if cbrd has any intentions on making a non "SRI" intake that moves the filter up by the headlight, with an ams style mini battery setup or better yet sticking the mini bat by the ECU

i'm just not a fan of having the BPV pipe running all the way back to the inlet pipe, when you could just attached it after the filter and eliminate extra piping in the engine bay

 

I think that was maybe a plan for the future, but Chad would have to answer that for sure; it would be a great compliment to the PERRIN turbo-inlet that he was trying to get made as well...

I've been looking into making my own setup for getting more air back to that filter for now, including a small battery and some custom duct work, but would love to try out a longer version of my current setup if CBRD ends up making one. My bpv tube is actually a hard-pipe that matches the Nisei UICP quite nicely so I'm ok with how that is for now.

 

Where you get that hard bpv pipe? Custom made?