VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
Re: Does anybody have the Autotech cold air intake that came out not too long ago? (JSK)

They are not out yet I heard. But, if they are like the mk4 CAI's that they make, it will be awsome.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,223 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Re: Does anybody have the Autotech cold air intake that came out not too long ago? (bigred35)

I saw an add in eurotuner saying "new" so I assumed they just came out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Re: Does anybody have the Autotech cold air intake that came out not too long ago? (JSK)

Autoech does show the new intake for the mk3 vr6 on their website ($199). I wonder how this compares to the turn2 CAI??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
Re: Does anybody have the Autotech cold air intake that came out not too long ago? (Icon_MS4)

I have the 2.0 kit now. It is nice! It is probably the most complete kit out there. I sold my Eurosport for this one cause I dynoed with the eurosport and only made 1 hp with it and this one made more than 5 at the wheels. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,204 Posts
For less than half the price you could go to Pep Boys, buy a generic cold air setup for a Honda Civic, remove the airbox, connect it to the other side of the MAF, relocate the charcoal canister and run the pipe down into the fenderwell. It will look and work just as good, but much easier on the bank.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
727 Posts
Re: (8v o'Fury)

Not true but close. The kit we provide is a little bit more complete than what was previously described. It is dyno proven to make 3 more hp than it's competitors. Here are a couple pics: (preproduction pic)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,204 Posts
So let me get this straight... $199 for 5 hp and 4 lb. ft. torque??
or is this dyno chart a comparison against a car with a competitors kit already installed
what were the mods to the car at the time of the baseline test, cause if i'm not mistaken, an 8v only has double-digit whp numbers from the factory??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Re: (8v o'Fury)

How much more power does the Autotech CAI kit produce vs a swissed airbox?
And, is the HP/$ gain of this product worth considering if numbers are close
Meaning:
say you gain a measly 2whp with a swissed airbox, and blew $45 to do it
Where as now you have another $155 which can easily be spent on a cam/chip combo from TT - Proven time after time to show gains >5whp
And please, do not say, "it will help with other gains". All things being equal, does it show substantial gains over similar mods with a swissed box, or hell, the OEM Airbox/K&N Panel you once used to market for $45
===============
Autotech Sport Tuning Catalog Volume 10:
Page B-9:
"Sport Tuning Tip: Airboxes are our friends"
You've probably noticed that we at Autotech dont't offer any cone filters designed to remove the airbox on Volkswagens. Why Not?
1) They're loud. Conversely, the factory airbox acts as an intake noise muffler
2) They draw in hot air. The factory went through a lot fof trouble to make sure that your car draws only cool air from outside the engine compartment into the airbox . Hot intake air robs you of power. A cone filter pulling in hot engine compartment air can defeat the purpose of adding a cone filter in the first place!
3) They're not waterproof. In fact, they're cotton. and we known how cotton acts as a sponge, right? Well, what's going to protect your engine from ingesting water thrown into the engine bay during rain, or just during a splash through a puddle? Not a cone filter.
Enter Summer of 2004:
1) You no longer feel this as a needed quality I presume?
2) Aparantly you've fixed this by sticking the filter towards the ground, yet....
3) You've completely made point #2 worthless again by pointing out your own flaw.
And hopefully you do not give the same answer to #3 as Exklusive Motorsports gave when questioned about that on their kit, "Well, you can purchase a bypass valve seperatly from an entirely different company" - which presumably, you no longer need to warranty anything as the item purchased from you [autotech] has been modified. Not to mention the cost of having this product work, "safely" has increased beyond advertised price.
Autotech.com:
"Increase the airflow on your Mk3 or Mk 4 Golf or Jetta! The factory airbox has been found to be re- strictive, robbing precious horsepower and stifling the engine's intake note under acceleration."
Well hell, which is it? Are you renigging on what was stated in the printed catalog for the past x years? Even in the catalog you say, "Yep, it's restrictive, thats why we sell K&N panels, which are less restrictive." So now the question arises, how much less restrictive is an additional 3 feet of tubing, and a K&N cone filter, vs a K&N panel filter? Oh and again, Point #1 as seen in Autotech Catalog Volume 10.
"Significant horsepower and torque is gained, as is a throaty intake growl when putting the hammer down!" - Autotech.com 2004
Significant verses what? An OEM Panel Filter, or the K&N Panel filters you once (still) sold. According to the dyno it says stock.
"They're loud. Conversely, the factory airbox acts as an intake noise muffler" - Autotech Catalog Volume 10, written to have a negative point of why Autotech doesn't sell CAI's.
How does loud and throaty differ? Because in 2003, they were loud, but in 2004, they're throaty.
The dyno chart:
Back to back dyno runs on my car have consistantly shown varying results, sometimes as much as 10whp. You show charts #1 and #5, where and 2-4? There is no way to accuratly dyno a mod like this, it's impossible without doing extensive dyno testing (10+ runs with each product). You would need to build a pool of data and then compair results. While taking into account heatsoak and other factors that will change things. Gains of 4whp are just not substantial. "every little bit counts", I'd be more than willing to show my old dyno charts which have crazy swings in numbers +/- 10 whp/tq - with nothing changing on the car, simply different days, or different runs (back to back, or later in the day). Also, for what its worth, when my car was N/A I actually gained power as the car heated up, meaning, my later runs made more power then the first one, or "Dynorun.001"
My take is you are meerly jumping on this great CAI Bandwagon in an attempt to rake in more profits for a product that people will buy because no one is willing to do testing and compairison results verses something that works "good enough" and costs one hell of a lot less. Hell, you have to admit, you guys even sold it back in the day and bashed the CAI. So why the change of attitude?
Shame on you Autotech.
Simple fact, until sufficient data is provided, this entire CAI concept is utterly worthless. I think before anyone should come here claiming gains of "5whp" that testing should be done. What does this testing include? 1 stock car, 3 setups and about 10 dyno pulls per setup to generate an average.
Setup 1: OEM Airbox with Paper Filter
Setup 2: OEM "Swiss" Airbox with K&N Panel Filter
Setup 3: [Company Name] CAI Kit
Each setup should have intake temperatures measured at a point just before the throttle body, as well as a CFM reading from behind the MAF. The testing should be done on days with similar Temperature, Humidity and Barometric Pressure, on the same dyno.
I do not see this happening anytime in the near future.



Modified by PGDubbin at 9:49 PM 9-15-2004
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
508 Posts
Re: Does anybody have the Autotech cold air intake that came out not too long ago? (JSK)

I think you should just go with the K&N panel. When Techtonics starts selling CAI, then it's time to buy one. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,924 Posts
Re: (PGDubbin)

Quote, originally posted by PGDubbin »

Shame on you Autotech.



LOL!!! My thoughts exactly. I remeber reading all of that crap; now they're slingin' CAIs!


Modified by BlueGTIguy at 9:02 PM 9-15-2004
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,165 Posts
Re: (BlueGTIguy)

"CAIs are the work of the devil incarnate, unless, of course, we happen to sell them..."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,924 Posts
Re: (PGDubbin)

Quote, originally posted by PGDubbin »

Each setup should have intake temperatures measured at a point just before the throttle body, as well as a CFM reading from behind the MAF. The testing should be done on days with similar Temperature, Humidity and Barometric Pressure, on the same dyno.

Why not measure after the throttle body? Such a point would more accurately approximate what's happening inside the combustion chamber, no? I don't know if it really matters, though: Suppose the readings are different (before tb vs. after tb; latter being warmer) even if the intake charge is being heated up, starting with cooler air is always a good thing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
727 Posts
Re: (BlueGTIguy)

The car is my personal car and had more than 1/2 hour break between runs. The car is stock to the bone other than a new stock head. It has 135,000 miles with dead even compression across the board. No chip. Intakes make power it looks like. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Any other questions can be directed to me personally.


Modified by [email protected] at 9:25 AM 9-16-2004
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,165 Posts
Re: ([email protected])

Sean, while Steve seemed to burst out of the gates about the CAIs, there does appear to be a need for open dialogue regarding Autotech's fairly sudden about-face on their long-standing position on CAIs.
Also, some more details about the dyno testing would be helpful to those on the fence about different intake systems.
Personally, I've always had reservations about the repeatability and consistency of dynos. My personal stance comes from a background in testing. I'm often frustrated to constantly see the use of a single run as an "absolute". One dyno run does not a statistic make.
I've seen no official mention anywhere in Dynojet's website regarding the repeatability of their numbers, with other web sources stating anywhere from 0.5% to nearly 6%.
It's difficult to establish confident results when the variability of the test may very well be greater than the number trying to be measured.
Your input would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Re: ([email protected])

Sean,
I appreciate the responce, however it still didn't answer any questions. If you like, feel free to send an email to [email protected] as that is my personal email account.
As Don pointed out however, this is an open forum and I believe as consumers we should get a very good reason as to why you guys jumped on board the CAI bandwagon after 10 volumes (presumably 10 years) you [Autotech], have said "CAI's are worthless".
Perhaps it would be more beneficial to have someone from Autotech Marketing answer this question - I am unsure what your Job Position is. And still, I feel they should answer it publically. I would be willing to have a conversation with them in private, via e-mail, but I will certainly not hesitate to post that email here.
Edit:
As for "burst out of the gates" as Don put it. I've had a pent up hostility towards the idea of CAI's. After seeing designs for them and knowing wholesale costs on all the parts required. It just strikes me as a rediculous product to make a profit on, and might I add, one hell of a profit margin at that.


Modified by PGDubbin at 8:36 PM 9-16-2004
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,204 Posts
Re: ([email protected])

Quote, originally posted by [email protected] »
The car is stock to the bone other than a new stock head. It has 135,000 miles with dead even compression across the board. No chip.
Modified by [email protected] at 9:25 AM 9-16-2004

How is 104 whp possible with a bone stock car when factory crank hp is 115???
Also, ur saying the CAI only makes 5 whp over a stock airbox setup???
IIO not worth $199 when U could get a chip for half that price and make more power http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
727 Posts
Re: (8v o'Fury)

First and foremost, 5 over stock is amazing when you consider that I replaced a Cool-Flo that had a whopping 1.1 hp net. Chips are not going to net most people 5hp or more. Most would be happy to see 4hp. Point- I provided legit numbers that show a increase.
Secondly, we have had a change of managment in our R&D dept. This means that more products will be tried and tested. The CAI made Hp, so it came to be. I know we will never be able to convince every VW owner that a CAI works. But, we don't want to. CAI's aren't for everybody! (at least that's what our 20+ years in business tells us!)
Have a good day



Modified by [email protected] at 8:37 AM 9-20-2004
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,165 Posts
Re: ([email protected])

Quote, originally posted by [email protected] »
First and foremost, 5 over stock is amazing when you consider that I replaced a Cool-Flo that had a whopping 1.1 hp net. Chips are not going to net most people 5hp or more. Most would be happy to see 4hp. Point- I provided legit numbers that show a increase.

Interesting.
I must say, though, that most people seem more satisfied with the effects of a chip than with CAI, if opinions in the `tex are considered representative of the enthusiast community.
Also, again, I'm not convinced of the repeatability of dynos unless more extensive testing is done to establish a smaller statistical variability.
For example, you stated a gain of 1.1 hp with a Cool Flo. 1.1 hp? AFAIC, that's statistically insignificant and well within the variability of the test.
Some more background on the dyno testing, methodology, dyno calibration, and establishment of baseline runs would be appreciated.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
Re: ([email protected])

Guys,
Sean brought this to my attention and since I have been employed at Autotech for over 11 years (and wrote a portion of the catalog as well as mag ads, flyers, etc), I believe that I am qualified to answer some of the questions that have been presented. First and foremost, the statements in our catalog that were written many, many years ago represented panel filters vs. the original CONE FILTERS, long before true CAI's even existed. Some of you are simply twisting around what we were/are saying and comparing apples to oranges. We haven't changed our opinion, the original cone air filter products didn't work than, and they don't work now. Those weren't true CAI's. More on that below...
1) Yes, in my opinion, the original cone filters were loud than and the more recent CAI set-ups are loud now. While the intake noise attracts a great many purchasers (regardless of whether it makes significant power or not), it is not for everyone and for me personally I would not have a cone filter of any sort on my personal car. I guess I have just gotten old.

That said, many people like to have the race-car like sound and that makes it a valid purchase for many people. There is nothing wrong with that and shouldn't preclude us or any other manufacturer from selling this type of product. Selling a product because it makes X horsepower when it really doesn't is a different issue.
2) Getting back to my original paragraph, when this excerpt from our catalog was initially written, CAI's did not exist. The only options were a panel filter with a gutted/modified airbox (which we instructed people how to do on their own) or the P-Flow, Cool-Flo, Q-Flow, etc. type cone filters with a simple mounting bracket that replaced the airbox. This is what we were competing with at the time and comparing the K&N panel filter replacement to. These cone filter products were hyped to make power (check all of the old ads) and apparently did so on the individual manufacturers dynos, but we bought one from the above companies for our in-house 95 Jetta VR6 and put them on an independent dyno and they made no change when the motor was cold and lost 4-5 horsepower when the motor was warm/hot. All the filter was doing was ingesting the hot air from the engine. Obviously, people must have been complaining that they couldn't duplicate the manufacturers claims because it was soon after that these companies made "heat shields" in a desperate attempt to correct the problem. This "update" didn't really work either, although it did allow the manufacturer to charge more for adding in the heat shield and helped with the marketing aspect. These early cone filter products cost very little to mass produce, the newer true CAI style has alot more individual product and manufacturing costs involved.
Due to these reasons, even though our competitor's were probably selling their cone filters 100-1 over our simple K&N replacement filter, we stuck to our guns and never produced a cone filter/bracket/heat shield set-up. If we were strictly in it for the money as some speculate, we sure as hell gave up a ton of profit by not offering this type of product, right? We were selling a $45 panel filter and giving a FREE tip on how to gut your stock airbox that actually made some decent power and looked stock versus a $150-$200 cone filter product that actually lost power in the real world. In reality, it cost the same to produce these cone filter products as it cost us to purchase the panel filter from K&N. In hindsight, we should have produced our own version, because there was/is a significant market for these type of products other than for making horsepower and we did lose alot of potential profit over the product cycle.
So if they didn't make any power, why did people buy them? Because they sounded cool to people and they looked racey when the engine hood was up. Those are valid reasons to purchase it in my opinon and in fact we told people who questioned us that they were great for those two reasons. Just don't purchase them on the premise that you were going to actually make power because the only horsepower they made was psychological. With the noise they made though, you would think that this "upgrade" made 50 horsepower.

When a few of the companies debuted the CAI concept (borrowed from the Asian import market BTW) for Volkswagens, needless to say we were again skeptical. Again, we went out and purchased CAI's for Mk 4 1.8T's and VR6's from a few different companies and went back to the dyno to see what happened. We were surprised that these products did make some power and more importantly didn't seem to lose power. Now there was a product that filled a need for all 3 different types of consumers: power, sound and aesthetics.
3) Our philosophy has never wavered as to the durability of the cone filter. Yes, they are not waterproof. We have never claimed that they are, have we? Yes, you do run the risk of ingesting water with the filter mounted down low so common sense should prevail. I would suggest removing the CAI during winter driving and inclement weather. I don't see how we have "made point #2 worthless again by pointing out your own flaw"

Again, the CAI is not for everyone. Many people are perfectly happy removing their stock filter for a K&N replacement filter. I don't believe they make a performance difference with a stock, unmodified (i.e. gutted) airbox, but in my experience it is purchased for the fact that you never have to replace it but just clean and reoil it from time to time. It flows more air than the paper filter, and every little bit helps...
I guess now I'll address the further points made by PGDubbin:
I think that it's already been established that the factory airbox is restrictive (we've admitted to that, right?) and that it is possible to free up some additional power, albeit relatively small. Our dyno tests for both our Mk4 and Mk3 CAI products were done versus a stock filter and airbox. As I have stated previously, a simple K&N filter swap will probably do nothing for performance. Could there be a performance gain with a K&N panel filter and a modified airbox? Maybe. But we haven't tested in this configuration so I can't give a definitive answer and thus won't even speculate.
I can tell you that on a Mk4 1.8T we consistently gained 8 rwhp with our CAI over the stock configuration. This does not mean that each and every vehicle or model type will make 8 rwhp, some may make a little more, some a little less. There are a whole host of other factors that can contribute to peak horsepower numbers. Isn't it more credible though when you test on an independent dyno where the operator has no vested interest in the outcome versus a product manufacturers own dyno where there is an interest? As a horsepower seeker/consumer in the 3.2L Porsche 911 Carrera market, this is by far more credible to me when comparing horsepower claims by product manufacturers on their own, in-house dyno.
Loud vs. Throaty? Ketchup vs. Catsup? I can ask 100 different people how to describe the sound of a CAI and get a 100 different answers. When selling a product (Marketing 101), you want to describe the product you are selling in a positive manner. If you were selling this product, which word would you use to describe the sound in a positive light? A car enthusiast may say "throaty" and an 80 year old woman may say "loud". Who is your target customer? If you guys have a better suggestion to describe the sound, I'm all ears (no pun intended).
Merely jumping on the CAI bandwagon? You bet! While the gains are not overly substantial, the gains are in fact real and thus to us justifies making this type of product. Remember, not every CAI consumer cares about how much power they are making. Aesthetics and sound are also important factors. We are a business and the whole point of being in business is to make a profit so you can stay in business. This is a product that appeals to a wide variety of people that purchase for different reasons. Why should we not have a small slice of the pie??? I can tell you that if this product actually lost horsepower, it would not have been sold.
Is the horsepower per dollar spent on a CAI worth it? That is something that each individual consumer has to weigh. An old saying in the performance industry is that "the first 20 horspower are free and each additional is expensive". There are other products out there that offer more "bang for the buck" but there are also customers out there willing to spend extra for relatively small horsepower gains. When you factor in other purchasing criteria such as aesthetics, sound, and product quality, it usually seals the deal.
One more thought: we have spent a considerable amount of time and money developing our CAI's for the Mk4 and now the Mk3 markets. I take offense to the people who state that they can make these at Home Depot for next to nothing. Maybe you can, but you know what? It will look like it as well. Don't compare home brewed concoctions with the kits that are sold by ourselves and other credible manufacturers. They MAY make the same power, but you're not going to win any style points. Also, our CAI's are undergoing CARB exemption status, try passing a visual smog test with a homemade version if testing is done in your area.
I hope that I have been to sufficiently address most of these points. Ideas and products change and evolve over time, and a company such as Autotech should always continue to evolve as well.
Finally, I guess our catalog must be doing its job, as obviously every word and sentence is being scrutinized under a microscope.

Regards,
Ralph Hollack
Autotech Sport Tuning Corp.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top