surely you've done your own testing and dynos to back up a product you sell and not just go on here say of a different vendor..Please tell me this isn't the case and that you have all the data to post for review before you ask anyone of us for our $$..

 

+1

Definitely poor marketing strategy on their part.

Two wrongs don't make a right. But this vendor is implying it's okay to claim those numbers because XXX company did so. Why don't you do your own testing and post your real numbers? I'd rather buy from someone honest with less gains, than someone dishonest with supposedly better gains.

 

The GMP carbon fiber airbox is certainly an attractive component. The Porsche engine box is somewhat plain, compared to many high end cars, because the motor itself cannot be seen. This part dresses it up considerably. If someone is willing to spend $1000 for aftermarket mirrors or exhaust tips, $1470 here is not out of line. The $3500 Champion CF unit is wildly overpriced, although beautiful. I don't see anything wrong about buying this for its bling value.

As far as power is concerned, 5 rear wheel horsepower is probably what any of the aftermarket airboxes can produce. An independant before & after dyno test would be cheap to do and might answer some of the inevitable (and relentless) naysayers.

 

I, too, have nothing wrong with buying for it's "bling" factor either. I just don't like it when they give us all this BS about claimed HP when there's nothing to prove it. If it only gives 5hp, then that's fine. Just don't claim it produces 11-15hp because another aftermarket company claims their product does so.

 

all those who love k&n filters raise their oily hands

 

X-51 looks and works the best!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I love that x51 look... but hate the fact I need to cut my hood

 

Looks and functions a lot like the 997.2 stocker....

 

Too much cutting and modding for me. When modding my car, it has to be bolt on. Not cutting, trimming or relocating with this unit. And its not plastic like the X-51, 100% carbon as all their intakes are, from vw,audi, bmw, mercedes.

 

Notes on testing:

Test results printed represent the average of at least 20 trials conducted in near identical conditions. When calculating averages, the two best and two worst scores are not counted. Trials that show a consistent gain or loss over the test period are re-tried until consistent results are achieved (the assumption being that changes in atmospheric or track were significant enough to skew the results over the test period).

As such the 11-15hp and 12-16lb/ft of torque gains are a function of consistent elapsed time drops and increased trap speeds observed at the drag strip. While we used a few extra sensors to measure air temp and inlet air velocity, these are not needed for calculating performance gains as the only variable we changed was the intake (we even weighed the car after each pass and added fuel to make sure the car weighed the same at the start of each run). Customers wishing to verify our results can do so by employing the method used above and comparing the before and after times and speeds. As explained below dyno testing is all but useless for intake design which explains why we do not use it in our development; its just the wrong tool for the job.

Why a dyno is not reliable for testing an intake.

The performance of a cold air intake is greatly influenced by the quantity and velocity of airflow around its inlet. Testing the effectiveness of an intake on a dyno has the main shortcoming that during a run on a dyno, the air available for the engine to breath has neither the volume nor speed that exists in real world driving conditions (over the same run period). Placing a large fan in front of a dyno fails to achieve two key requirements for a good test:

• [*]

This is particularly important on a Porsche whose inlet is on the backside of the car. As such airflow over the entire vehicle needs to be considered not just over the front as in other applications.


Why the ¼ mile is a good way to test.

Fixed distance & No corners to consider: The exact measured amount of a ¼ mile eliminates the varied distances involved in road courses (varying lines, braking points, etc.)

Not too long or short: A ¼ mile is distance that allows any car time to show its performance potential without being so long as to introduce too many test variables that can affect results.

Recognized standard: Customers can relate to the figures generated.



Understanding the costs of carbon fiber and why it is a good material


From time to time customers will question the cost of the Carbonio system compared to less expensive offerings in the market. The primary reason for the cost difference is in the process by which a carbon fiber component is produced. The making of a single intake is a labor intensive operation which occupies a great deal of manual labor and expensive materials.

Some points to consider:

-The raw material to make a single intake piece costs more than the completed production of an aluminum equivalent.

-Production time for a single piece is over 4 hours. This compares to approximately 20 seconds for a plastic part or 15 minutes for an aluminum part.

-Each Carbonio intake is baked in a pressurized autoclave oven for several hours. These autoclaves are mainly used in the aerospace industry and are very costly to own and operate.

Why is Carbon Fiber Used? What are its advantages?

Carbon fiber is used for a number of reasons

-The material has excellent thermal properties not offered by other materials. It allows to maintain a cold intake charge thereby maximizing power.

-Carbon is very light and strong compared to competing materials

-Complex shapes are easier to achieve therefore giving the designers many more design possibilities then would be otherwise possible.

-The visual impact of a well made carbon part has a strong wow factor for the customer making it a piece worthy of show.

When judging price it is important to compare apples to apples. Just like it is not fair to compare the price of a Toyota to that of a Porsche (they are both 'just' cars that get you from point A to B...LOL!!!!) it is not equal to compare an engineered full carbon fiber component to a plastic or plastic/carbon hybrid part.


Some notes on the X51 intake.

When we did our testing we had access to all available competitors including the X51 intake. In testing we concluded the following:

- Over extended driving, the air inlet temp of the X51 was consistently much higher than that of the Carbonio unit. The X51 holds a lot of heat and transfers it to the inlet air while the carbon unit does not. While part of the problem resides in the material and shape of the X51, the filter placement is optimized for reduced engine noise rather than full performance.
- The dual inlets of the X51 do not flow more air than the single one on the Carbonio unit. This is because Carbonio took advantage of inlet space that the X51 could not because of its filter placement. The plenum volume on the Carbonio is considerably larger than the X51 resulting in more cool exterior air being accessed by the inlet filter than in the X51.
- The X51 intake requires the cutting of the engine cover which takes away from the re-sale value of the car. The Carbonio unit installs in minutes and can be removed returning the car to totally OEM without any modification. The cars value is not affected, it is not damaged potentially causing problems with leasing companies, and the Carbonio unit can be sold to recover a good part of its initial cost; all things not possible with the X51.

Remember the X51 is an advantage over stock however it is still a production OEM part with the same compromises of performance to comfort inherent in all factory installed parts. The Carbonio unit before anything else is a performance part first. It uses the best materials and best shape without the cost/performance/comfort compromises the OEM need to deal with. The result is a component that yields the highest performance possible.

 

Can you please post the before and after elapsed 1/4 mile times and trap speeds (or did I just miss them in your post)?

Thanks.

 

Andre5,

I would love to give you those times, I think those would an important tool to help sell this product because it would really help the customer make a well informed decision before buying. Unfortunately they have not given me this information.

 

Dude... it's great that you sponsor this board but come on....

You posted this same drivel on another site. You have no dyno #'s to back your claims. You have no ET's to back your calculated gains. You have snake oil and horse manure.

The X-51 is plastic and not carbon fiber. So the hell what? It works. It's a properly designed piece that you can buy from any Porsche dealer and it actually makes power.

Your kit is a more expensive, much hyped, unknown.

 

Without actual, real world and documented numbers for increased performance, however they may be determined, this thread will turn into a bloodbath damning this product as a high cost product that provides little to nothing in the way of power improvements. A statement that you have not been given this information will earn you a firestorm of negative and punishing comments from the naysayers.

If this testing you say has actually been done, why not publish the results? If you won't do this, be prepared for controversy.

 

Carbon fiber is faster than plastic. This is a fact and requires no further documentation. Res Ipsa Loquitor, dudes