AFE Stage II perf data

...and this is not a request for data, but I have actual objective data to share.

For some history, I am not a believer in any measurable performance gains from the air intakes on an NA engine. See the link below for my first experiment:

http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/2nd-gen-tacomas/96963-different-take-air-intake.html

But I do like to play around when the price and time is right. Awhile back I'd acquired a 2 month old TRD catback and a bed mat for $200. Installed the catback and didn't like it (droned at mid-rpm's and no measurable perf gains), so off it came, and sold for a profit.

To that end I found an AFE Stage II Si Pro-Dry intake on eBay for $192 shipped. It was a new, open-box intake so I thought what the hell. Turns out that the intake was missing the TB-to-intake tube coupler, but a trip to Auto-Zone fixed that, then the seller refunded me $25, so final price was $175.







Now on to the data. I have a G-Tech Pro (older model) that I use whenever I can to assess any upgrades made. It's worked well for me in the past, actually removed an air intake from my last truck based on GTech data. I made several 1/4 mile runs with my RamAir setup (see link), the stock setup, and the AFE. I then averaged 3 runs per setup and the results are:

• Stock: 15.6 sec avg
• AirRam: 15.65 sec avg
• AFE: 15.45 sec avg

I am very surprised at the results above. Another interesting fact was that the individual run results for the AFE were much more consistent (within .15) than the stock/AirRam setups. I haven't seen a dyno that justifies a tenth+ 1/4 time advantage for the AFE, but I have seen results on other trucks where dyno and 1/4 times don't necessarily correlate. Also, since I was not an intake believer, I don't think that I've "tainted" the results.

Since I just installed it, I can't speak to my own milage results, I'll need to report back on that one. But if milage does go down, or I decide that the noise (seems to burble at around 2.5-3k) is not worth the tenth or so, then I may take it off.

As for the noise, what I notice is; idle-2.5k, not much difference; 2.5k-3.5k, burble noise; 3.5k up, "intake growl".

12-Oct UPDATE:



I bought a URD CAI a few weeks ago and installed last week. I just got back from making a few 1/4 runs and the URD CAI has about the same times as the TRD. Do note that the weather between the URD run and the others was probably about 10 degrees warmer with a bit more of a crosswind for the URD. From the weather diffs, the URD may be a bit quicker due to the weather differences.

• URD: 15.45 sec avg

The URD times were also very consistent between runs (+/- .07 sec) like the TRD. Only other thing different that I noticed was that with the URD I had some wheel spin off the line, which I have not had with any of the other setups. That wheelspin lost some time, but I suspect it wasn't significant since it was a short 1st gear spin.

For the intake noise, I much prefer the URD intake over the TRD. The TRD had an annoying "burble" noise just off idle which totally annoyed me and caused me to go back to stock a while back. The URD actually stays mostly stock sounding (a bit louder in the cab, but not much), then after 3.5k at WOT I think the URD is actually a bit louder then the TRD.

Right now, I think the URD is going to stay. I still have a MAF Cali waiting to be installed and I'll probably post whatever results I have following that install.

[May-2014 update]

Finally ran a few numbers with the URD CAI and the Maf Cali.

o URD CAI + Maf Cali = 15.45

So the end time for the cai and the cai/maf were the same, but I had much more launch wheel spin then before. Enough that my 60' and 0-60 times were slower then the cai alone. It made it up on the high end though with the same time and higher end speed.

Next step is an intake manifold spacer waiting to go in.

 

Stock and AirRam were done within 20 minutes of each other. AFE was done 90 minutes later, temp was 10 degrees warmer and wind was the same as the stock/airram runs (run was to the east, crosswind from south). I would have expected weather to _adversely_ affect the AFE (warmer temp).

Understand your point, but I made the runs within as short a time as possible to minimize any weather effects. Weather was not changing significantly (nice sunny day), just warming up some, so I don't think there was enough to justify the AFE's better numbers.

Edit: I also have the barometric pressure XGuage on my ScanGauge and the difference between the runs was insignificant.

 

There is more to an intake than horsepower / torque numbers. Maybe the AFE gives better throttle response?

 

Was your truck more warmed up before the last run than the other runs? Engine temps and all parameters the same on all runs (obviously besides the ambient temp difference?

 

Yes, warmed up fully according to scangauge, the place I made the runs was about 5 miles from my house.

 

nice to see some actual real world results

 

I updated the OP with URD CAI data....

 

Updated the OP with URD CAI plus the MafCali.

 

Going to need to put you in here http://www.xr-underground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10725

and here http://www.xr-underground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30022

 

nice test.

 

Not much into dynos, so I do what I do.

 

The 40-90 acceleration test is also a good method. Since it removes a lot of possible driver skill differences and wheel spin (in most cases).

 

Someone gets it. Dyno numbers dont show the whole picture and are not always an indicator of real world results. (Example - you could run an alum drive shaft, upgrade torque convertor and see a higher HP readout with no change to the engine, or add a set of underdrive pulleys and see no change in HP but faster times)

intakes improve airflow over the stock system - period.

 

Good idea, but my G-tech can't do that.

 

Don't need a G-tech for those tests. Not saying that you need to do a 40-90, just that if you were to, you just film the acceleration and then time the video. By taking an average of multiple times. Easy enough.