[CamOnlyJabroni]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

No surprise since the MAF sample tube diameter was unchanged vs the BG.

The BG is smaller at the sensor. This is 5” all the way.

[ZLRob]

Originally Posted by Dynamical

This right here. I wanna start seeing Dyno tests with hoods closed

Yep. I've been saying it for a while now. All these Dyno queens are cool and all, but close the hood and let's see where they really pan out. I don't buy these inflated gains from intakes like the RFBG. I still run the OE intake and am seeing 800+ on every run so what in reality are you actually gaining from running oversized intakes that require MAF rescaling and such?

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by CamOnlyJabroni

The BG is smaller at the sensor. This is 5” all the way.

The BG is 5” at the sensor (4.9+”). I just measured it with my calipers when I unboxed the JLT.

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by ZLRob

Yep. I've been saying it for a while now. All these Dyno queens are cool and all, but close the hood and let's see where they really pan out. I don't buy these inflated gains from intakes like the RFBG. I still run the OE intake and am seeing 800+ on every run so what in reality are you actually gaining from running oversized intakes that require MAF rescaling and such?

Trap speed works nicely….

[ZLRob]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

Trap speed works nicely….

Better traps with the RFBG?

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by ZLRob

Better traps with the RFBG?

Great question, hopefully guys who did that mod and race their cars will chime in. Wish I could help but I went right from OEM to BG when I did my first Whipple back in 2019 so I don’t have the data you’re looking for. But if the BG is worth power it should show up on the time slip.

[Dynamical]

Originally Posted by ZLRob

Yep. I've been saying it for a while now. All these Dyno queens are cool and all, but close the hood and let's see where they really pan out. I don't buy these inflated gains from intakes like the RFBG. I still run the OE intake and am seeing 800+ on every run so what in reality are you actually gaining from running oversized intakes that require MAF rescaling and such?

Lost power



https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=616278

Lost power



There is another vid out there where it lost power hood open vs closed but I can't find it.

[KingLT1]

I would suspect the RF would lose power with the hood closed on the dyno but that doesn't mean much because the car is stationary. There is no air being forced through the grill. Stick your hand out the window at 50, then 100mph and tell me if a dyno pull can simulate that? And yes, the RF was tested at the track back to back by Pray performance back in the day. Rotofab was 1-2 tenths quicker and 1.5mph faster in the 1/4 on a NA SS with bolt-ons. On a PD blower car it would make even more difference. That doesn't mean you can't make power with the stock air box, but you can make more if you reduce the restriction.

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

I would suspect the RF would lose power with the hood closed on the dyno but that doesn't mean much because the car is stationary. There is no air being forced through the grill. Stick your hand out the window at 50, then 100mph and tell me if a dyno pull can simulate that? And yes, the RF was tested at the track back to back by Pray performance back in the day. Rotofab was 1-2 tenths quicker and 1.5mph faster in the 1/4 on a NA SS with bolt-ons. On a PD blower car it would make even more difference. That doesn't mean you can't make power with the stock air box, but you can make more if you reduce the restriction.

Well said!

[radz28]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

I would suspect the RF would lose power with the hood closed on the dyno but that doesn't mean much because the car is stationary. There is no air being forced through the grill. Stick your hand out the window at 50, then 100mph and tell me if a dyno pull can simulate that? And yes, the RF was tested at the track back to back by Pray performance back in the day. Rotofab was 1-2 tenths quicker and 1.5mph faster in the 1/4 on a NA SS with bolt-ons. On a PD blower car it would make even more difference. That doesn't mean you can't make power with the stock air box, but you can make more if you reduce the restriction.

Wasn't there talk of an issue for the non-BG (because you could compensate with the required tune for the BG), back in the day, that there was a chance of torque limits, possibly, being encroached upon from the additional airflow from the RF? I thought I remembered reading that when they first came out. Where the ECM would, almost, "learn down" or something...

I don't know that the video, above, had enough information in it between the testing. I'd like to know what the MATs were, what the timing was, any ambient condition comparisons between runs, but didn't see much of that represented.

I'm probably missing something (or a lot). There could be a lot of context that was unaccounted for. For example - @ 03:48, a data screenshot is presented as evidence that the RF was losing power (773.01 vs 734.65). There were many parameters that weren't comparable, as far as I can tell. RPM, SPEED, OUTSIDE AIR TEMP. Maybe I'm just not used to this format, but I could imagine there would be a difference in the calculated HP from this test. Once a change is made to the hardware, these calculations could be thrown out of spec'. MAT is a calculated channel (if I recall), and is it possible that the MAT calculation could change, when swapping from a stock 1.7 to a 2650/3.0, because so many of the differences these blowers have in terms of efficiency and cooling? Is this all relative? Was that test example relative? Again - I could be missing a lot... I'm skeptical the OEM air box is superior, but I don't have data, so it's only an opinion. It isn't like the sealed opening is that big, nor that it's directly exposed to fresh air. Air has to pass the snow deflector, change directions a couple times, change shape a few times, and then go through a small flat filter.

I'm all for learning though.

[RobZL1]

All I know is PD blowers want to suck in air at a crazy rate at the kind of horsepower we are making. Even more so at the Jason Leiva level, so much so that he removed his fender liner and headlight.

If you think about it, the engine needs many cubic feet of air every second at high horsepower levels. The first restriction is getting air into the area of the intake tube, as Chuck just noted. Creating more passageways to get air to that area should be job #1.

The second restriction is the filter. More filter surface area will be better here.

Third is the tube itself, both in terms of diameter and bends. It needs to be big and it needs to have a smooth bend (or it needs CFD design so that the flow evens out).

So if it's me, I'm going to work on things in that order. Free up the path into the intake tube, starting with the path from outside the car to under the hood so you can make 20+ cubic feet per second of air available to the filter/intake tube in the first place.

And there is no way a high horsepower car is going to make more power on the street or track through the stock airbox than either the rotofab or the JLT.

[Patriot Motorsports USA]

Originally Posted by RobZL1

All I know is PD blowers want to suck in air at a crazy rate at the kind of horsepower we are making. Even more so at the Jason Leiva level, so much so that he removed his fender liner and headlight.

If you think about it, the engine needs many cubic feet of air every second at high horsepower levels. The first restriction is getting air into the area of the intake tube, as Chuck just noted. Creating more passageways to get air to that area should be job #1.

The second restriction is the filter. More filter surface area will be better here.

Third is the tube itself, both in terms of diameter and bends. It needs to be big and it needs to have a smooth bend (or it needs CFD design so that the flow evens out).

So if it's me, I'm going to work on things in that order. Free up the path into the intake tube, starting with the path from outside the car to under the hood so you can make 20+ cubic feet per second of air available to the filter/intake tube in the first place.

And there is no way a high horsepower car is going to make more power on the street or track through the stock airbox than either the rotofab or the JLT.

Dead on the Nail... and for the most part, street & drag racing will show positive results going ALL IN FOR BIG! when the usual limit is 1/4-mile. However, where Scott and I are both obtaining data is on Road Course tracks where the front end pressure and accelerating on a 1-mile straightaway at Road Atlanta will reach speeds exceeding 165mph. There are many factors here that will never show on a dyno, and when everything we are doing is to maximize airflow through the radiators, eliminate airflow under the car, reduce front end lift, create downforce both via mechanical and ventilation... an unsealed open element airbox works against allowing the SC to get all the air it can. Having the bottom of the RotoFab open to the fender was allowing massive brake temps to be ingested to the airbox as I could see the IATs climb significantly in the turn 10A braking area where I am slowing from 165mph to 50-60mph in 200ft or less, then having to feather the throttle over the blind hill under the bridge at 11 before charging downhill to the front straight which is 4400-feet, just under a mile. Let's not forget the talent it takes to put the power down coming out of the off-camber, over-the-hill turn-5 to turn-6 at just over a 1/4-mile run!! Imagine all the calibration changes happening just from air temps during a 20-30 minute session.

This is one of the biggest reasons I removed the RotoFab, next to the amount of debris that was being ingested by the airbox from the fender area. Even taping it off was of no use to keep stones out. Another fundamental reason I chose the JLT is the packaging with both intake tubes for a non-tuned install and with a tuned install... this one-price benefit of both parts is HUGE when purchasing parts that will stay relevant for future upgrades. The final decision in my purchase was that it's impact plastic housing does not absorb radiant heat and can easily be adjusted to seal to the hood with the rain-guard removed for the ultimate in reduced front end lift during high speed pulls.

I have run for the better part of two years with the BabyRF and I also saw torque gains with the RFBG, but the throttle control was horrendous! So I went back to the BabyRF.

Like many, my car is all apart as I am developing new parts for the ZLE platform to remove the front flat-mounted Aux cooler so I can keep airflow from leaving the grill area, ducted under the car and increasing lift at high speeds. SO... time will tell when I can go to the dyno to tune this intake and head to the track to wrap up the results.

[Booher]

Has anyone fully installed this intake? I cant close my hood and I believe its because of the intake. I've taken off all hood scoop brackets and it barely closes, but with the stock black bracket in, it won't close. Intake box is fully seated, any thoughts? Is it supposed to be higher than the supercharger? I did some researching and others have had this issue as well.

[calypso50kid]

anyone know if this will match up with a 2650 with a 120mm tb vs the factory 1750?