BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
M2 Technical Topics > N55 Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust / Bolt-ons / Tuning > My thoughts on every single intake available.

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-12-2019, 12:21 PM   #67
Mosely
Lieutenant
Mosely's Avatar
593
Rep
450
Posts

Drives: '18 M2 | '20 X5 | '07 E92
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamus View Post
I have had my Turner in now for almost a month. Love all the sound and the looks. When I open the hood everybody just turns and looks... easy install and no CEL... cant beat it for the price.
Turner is an oiled filter right? That was the only thing holding me back right now.
__________________
IG Photo Gallery:
instagram.com/dr_m2sko/

Appreciate 0
      09-15-2019, 08:30 PM   #68
Jcab
Enlisted Member
Jcab's Avatar
30
Rep
43
Posts

Drives: M2
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Vegas

iTrader: (0)

Hey guys so I decided to go with the turner intake.

1. It looks good

2. It sounds great

I couldn't be happier with this intake I would definitely recommend if you are looking for more turbo noise. I don't feel any performance upgrade, however I wasn't looking for that.
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 2
JTO245246.50
      09-20-2019, 07:08 PM   #69
18EM2
Public Last Class
18EM2's Avatar
United_States
97
Rep
244
Posts

Drives: 2018 M2 DCT LBB
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 BMW M2  [0.00]
Any heat soak issues with an open element?
__________________
2018 M2 LLB DCT DP Custom Exhaust
2018 Accord Sport Platinum White Pearl
2013 Mini Cooper S Hardtop Pepper White
2006 M Roadster
Appreciate 0
      09-23-2019, 03:57 AM   #70
Jcab
Enlisted Member
Jcab's Avatar
30
Rep
43
Posts

Drives: M2
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Vegas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18EM2 View Post
Any heat soak issues with an open element?
So I don't have facts as I did not dyno the car before and after the installation of the intake. I personally feel that the car feels the same. Literally it just sounds completely better with it on. I drove probably about 150 miles already and I haven't had any issues.
Appreciate 1
      02-11-2020, 03:35 PM   #71
VisualEcho
Banned
VisualEcho's Avatar
United_States
6626
Rep
4,145
Posts

Drives: '18 M2 6MT
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Missouri

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2018 BMW M2  [10.00]
Really considering this Turner intake for the additional sound, but I'm worried about the oiled filter, and the warranty. Anyone had any more issues with them?
Appreciate 0
      02-11-2020, 04:03 PM   #72
M Fifty
Banned
844
Rep
1,962
Posts

Drives: M2 & 330CI
Join Date: May 2018
Location: The Interweb

iTrader: (0)

Do any of these manufacturers publish a maximum fording depth for their products compared to stock? There's been 'some' flooding recently and I'm concerned that I will no longer be able to watch the bow wave go past the door handles as I drive to work.

True Story: The JLTV Programme Manager pointed out that the best way for the driver of a Humvee to determine if they were getting close to maximum fording depth was how close the water in the vehicle was to their neck...
Appreciate 0
      02-11-2020, 04:19 PM   #73
Anthony1s
Banned
756
Rep
2,149
Posts

Drives: 2018 Mineral Grey M2
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Pennsylvania

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by VisualEcho View Post
Really considering this Turner intake for the additional sound, but I'm worried about the oiled filter, and the warranty. Anyone had any more issues with them?
I made a post about oiled filters a year or two ago showing actual scientific research by scientists that oiled filters are completely fine for cars with MAFs, let more clean air pass through to the engine, and do a better job at filtering than dry paper filters. Then people replied saying things like "That's all marketing to sell more oiled filters" Instead of arguing and disproving the scientific research. Or replied with "but my buddy got a CEL after using an intake with an oiled filter" while completely ignoring that people get the same CEL on intakes with paper filters.

I don't have the links to the studies on me. I'm sure you can google them to find them (that's how I got them). But I still stand by that oiled filters are the better filter. And I've run oiled filters since 2013 with no issues. Even the times I've cleaned the filters and applied way too much oil before reinstalling them. Though you shouldn't over oil the filter just because less air will be able to pass through it. (air cannot pass through oil) not because it will damage the MAF.
Appreciate 1
fleetfoot115.50
      02-11-2020, 04:26 PM   #74
Anthony1s
Banned
756
Rep
2,149
Posts

Drives: 2018 Mineral Grey M2
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Pennsylvania

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Fifty View Post
Do any of these manufacturers publish a maximum fording depth for their products compared to stock? There's been 'some' flooding recently and I'm concerned that I will no longer be able to watch the bow wave go past the door handles as I drive to work.

True Story: The JLTV Programme Manager pointed out that the best way for the driver of a Humvee to determine if they were getting close to maximum fording depth was how close the water in the vehicle was to their neck...
Yea, mfgs need to get on the ball with their testing before selling to consumers. I had to independently drop test each intake to decide which I wanted to put on my car.

Also, I never finished the testing but I'm able to open 15 Chrome tabs on my eventuri intake compared to 7 on the OEM before experiencing severe lag.
Appreciate 0
      05-04-2020, 12:07 AM   #75
Jcab
Enlisted Member
Jcab's Avatar
30
Rep
43
Posts

Drives: M2
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Vegas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by VisualEcho View Post
Really considering this Turner intake for the additional sound, but I'm worried about the oiled filter, and the warranty. Anyone had any more issues with them?
Hey man kinda a late reply, but I've had my turner for about 5-10k miles and I have not had one problem, no check engine light or anything. It's probably time for a new filter because my filter is now grey instead of blue lol. Love how the turbo sounds now, I recommend it for sure.
Appreciate 1
VisualEcho6625.50
      05-04-2020, 08:54 AM   #76
cecaa850
Captain
United_States
259
Rep
699
Posts

Drives: 2018 M2
Join Date: May 2018
Location: South East TX.

iTrader: (0)

https://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html
Appreciate 0
      05-05-2020, 10:35 AM   #77
widetyres
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
279
Rep
488
Posts

Drives: M3 E92 DCT, 2012
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1s View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisualEcho View Post
Really considering this Turner intake for the additional sound, but I'm worried about the oiled filter, and the warranty. Anyone had any more issues with them?
I made a post about oiled filters a year or two ago showing actual scientific research by scientists that oiled filters are completely fine for cars with MAFs, let more clean air pass through to the engine, and do a better job at filtering than dry paper filters. Then people replied saying things like "That's all marketing to sell more oiled filters" Instead of arguing and disproving the scientific research. Or replied with "but my buddy got a CEL after using an intake with an oiled filter" while completely ignoring that people get the same CEL on intakes with paper filters.

I don't have the links to the studies on me. I'm sure you can google them to find them (that's how I got them). But I still stand by that oiled filters are the better filter. And I've run oiled filters since 2013 with no issues. Even the times I've cleaned the filters and applied way too much oil before reinstalling them. Though you shouldn't over oil the filter just because less air will be able to pass through it. (air cannot pass through oil) not because it will damage the MAF.
The whole maf oil corruption thing is based on vag cars which are/were highly sensitive to it.
Some of the manufacturers of drop in filters (Eg pipercross) do not oil their filters for vag cars but do oil the exact same media for most others (Eg bmws).
Appreciate 0
      05-05-2020, 12:59 PM   #78
eeyang92
Captain
319
Rep
660
Posts

Drives: LBB M2 LCI 6MT
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcab View Post
Hey man kinda a late reply, but I've had my turner for about 5-10k miles and I have not had one problem, no check engine light or anything. It's probably time for a new filter because my filter is now grey instead of blue lol. Love how the turbo sounds now, I recommend it for sure.
The filter is washable, and you can purchase the aFe cleaning/oil kit for like $18 (posted in the turner intake thread: https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=37)
Appreciate 0
      11-12-2020, 05:17 PM   #79
Mosely
Lieutenant
Mosely's Avatar
593
Rep
450
Posts

Drives: '18 M2 | '20 X5 | '07 E92
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (1)

Installed and put together a write-up/DIY on the ArmaSpeed intake for anyone debating between these.

https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...4#post26902654

__________________
IG Photo Gallery:
instagram.com/dr_m2sko/

Appreciate 1
mtoosexy723.00
      11-12-2020, 05:31 PM   #80
AmuroRay
Brigadier General
AmuroRay's Avatar
2165
Rep
4,073
Posts

Drives: M235i
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Florida

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18EM2 View Post
Any heat soak issues with an open element?
Not from what I have seen, which is counter intuitive to what I had believed to be true.
Appreciate 0
      03-26-2021, 11:56 PM   #81
jmkn04
Registered
0
Rep
3
Posts

Drives: 2017 M2
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Sydney

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1s View Post
These aren't the responses I thought I'd get lol
I'm with you Anthony, not sure why all the -ne responses.

After reading this thread some months ago, it prompted me to do some research and go hunting for a suitable CAI - I decided on the Injen.

I thought I would take this opportunity to do a bit of an experiment, collect some stats before/after and see what kind of improvements I would get with the Injen CAI.

So, here they are. 0-100 results - 2017 M2 F87
Before install:
Day 1, approx. 25C: 3 runs, best time: 4.51
Day 2, approx. 25C: 3 runs, best time: 4.47

With Injen CAI installed (no other mods):
Day 3, 27C: 2 runs, best time: 3.61 (other was 3.68)

The power increase is really noticeable - much more than I expected.

bootmod3 stage 1 planned in coming weeks - will do next set of runs after that for more comparisons.

Thanks Anthony for starting this thread.
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 0
      04-02-2021, 03:00 PM   #82
Sundinisagod
Second Lieutenant
106
Rep
200
Posts

Drives: 2018 BMW M2
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkn04 View Post
I'm with you Anthony, not sure why all the -ne responses.

After reading this thread some months ago, it prompted me to do some research and go hunting for a suitable CAI - I decided on the Injen.

I thought I would take this opportunity to do a bit of an experiment, collect some stats before/after and see what kind of improvements I would get with the Injen CAI.

So, here they are. 0-100 results - 2017 M2 F87
Before install:
Day 1, approx. 25C: 3 runs, best time: 4.51
Day 2, approx. 25C: 3 runs, best time: 4.47

With Injen CAI installed (no other mods):
Day 3, 27C: 2 runs, best time: 3.61 (other was 3.68)

The power increase is really noticeable - much more than I expected.

bootmod3 stage 1 planned in coming weeks - will do next set of runs after that for more comparisons.

Thanks Anthony for starting this thread.
With all due respect, I find it hard to believe a 300 dollar aftermarket product is going to shave 9/10ths of a second on a 0-100. I would have been impressed enough with 1/10th of second improvement, especially on a product category generally acknowledged to have virtually no horsepower increase. For that sort of performance improvement, I’d expect a Bootmode stage 2 tune with associated bolt ons.
Appreciate 0
      04-05-2021, 10:44 AM   #83
Tes
Private First Class
108
Rep
129
Posts

Drives: 2018 BMW M2
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Alberta

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 BMW M2  [0.00]
After reading this thread and some other write ups decided to go with the CTS intake. It was on sale bought it for about 360 CAD with free shipping. Installation was easy, the only challenge being trying to not to drop any bolts down the engine bay as bolting up the heat shield was awkward. Like another thread mentioned, the only down side to the CTS kit is that the cover used for the wiring can't go back on (Although I'm going to play around with it I think I can maybe modify it a bit to make it fit). The fitment is very good, I didn't run into any issues bolting the thing on. Sound is absolutely fantastic, I should've done this as the first mod lol. No CEL either and I don't expect to get one from other member's experiences.

The only note I had is that the main CTS intake pipe had a layer of dirt/dust on the inside. It was easy to clean that off and I think most people on this forum would check for cleanliness before installation especially for intake parts. Just a reminder, and I did email CTS to maybe have a note on the installation manual to check. Other than that very solid product would recommend 100%.
Appreciate 1
      04-05-2021, 06:57 PM   #84
F87source
Major General
F87source's Avatar
No_Country
7178
Rep
7,342
Posts

Drives: Bmw M2
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: .

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tes View Post
After reading this thread and some other write ups decided to go with the CTS intake. It was on sale bought it for about 360 CAD with free shipping. Installation was easy, the only challenge being trying to not to drop any bolts down the engine bay as bolting up the heat shield was awkward. Like another thread mentioned, the only down side to the CTS kit is that the cover used for the wiring can't go back on (Although I'm going to play around with it I think I can maybe modify it a bit to make it fit). The fitment is very good, I didn't run into any issues bolting the thing on. Sound is absolutely fantastic, I should've done this as the first mod lol. No CEL either and I don't expect to get one from other member's experiences.

The only note I had is that the main CTS intake pipe had a layer of dirt/dust on the inside. It was easy to clean that off and I think most people on this forum would check for cleanliness before installation especially for intake parts. Just a reminder, and I did email CTS to maybe have a note on the installation manual to check. Other than that very solid product would recommend 100%.
was there powder coating over spray on the inside of the intake pipe?
__________________
Click on the link below to see a compiled list of every review I have ever written:
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...2#post30368242
Appreciate 0
      04-05-2021, 11:16 PM   #85
Sundinisagod
Second Lieutenant
106
Rep
200
Posts

Drives: 2018 BMW M2
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tes View Post
After reading this thread and some other write ups decided to go with the CTS intake. It was on sale bought it for about 360 CAD with free shipping. Installation was easy, the only challenge being trying to not to drop any bolts down the engine bay as bolting up the heat shield was awkward. Like another thread mentioned, the only down side to the CTS kit is that the cover used for the wiring can't go back on (Although I'm going to play around with it I think I can maybe modify it a bit to make it fit). The fitment is very good, I didn't run into any issues bolting the thing on. Sound is absolutely fantastic, I should've done this as the first mod lol. No CEL either and I don't expect to get one from other member's experiences.

The only note I had is that the main CTS intake pipe had a layer of dirt/dust on the inside. It was easy to clean that off and I think most people on this forum would check for cleanliness before installation especially for intake parts. Just a reminder, and I did email CTS to maybe have a note on the installation manual to check. Other than that very solid product would recommend 100%.
Did you notice any difference with throttle response?
Appreciate 0
      04-06-2021, 02:29 PM   #86
AmuroRay
Brigadier General
AmuroRay's Avatar
2165
Rep
4,073
Posts

Drives: M235i
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Florida

iTrader: (0)

Dinan vs CTS vs Stock

Someone already did a VERY indepth test on a few of these intakes.

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1765289

Quote:
Originally Posted by @thejeremyman9 View Post
This post is a detailed comparison and review of three different intakes, with supporting data. The intakes tested are as follows:
  1. OEM intake, AFE Pro Dry S drop-in filter, MPPK airbox bottom (my custom one, but for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as MPPK, see photos)
  2. Dinan carbon fiber intake with the same MPPK airbox bottom (uses its own filter)
  3. CTS Turbo intake, which does not use any airbox bottom and uses its own filter

In all 3 cases, I did not use an air scoop behind the front grill and the screen/grate remained in place. Additionally, the list of relevant mods/info on the car are as follows:
  • 2015 335i 8AT RWD, 46k miles
  • OEM plugs 0.030 gap, only a few k on them
  • MHD stage 2+ E20 map running E30 (flashed 6+ months ago)
  • XHP Stage 3
  • Fabspeed catted DP
  • VRSF 5’’ IC+CP+TIC, custom larger Orings, CP is heat wrapped with gold reflective wrap
  • MST v2 inlet

The stock setup and Dinan were done on the same tank of gas. I had to refuel before the CTS logs but it was from the same station with the same precise target mix. Ambient conditions varied slightly as noted below. The OEM intake configuration has been installed for some time, however I still collected 3 baseline logs the day before installing the Dinan. I then installed the Dinan and drove two 50 mile round trips for a total of about 100 miles after the intake install before doing the Dinan logs (should allow plenty of adaptation period). I then installed the CTS turbo and did a bit more, maybe 150 miles. All 4th gear logs were done on exactly the same stretch of road. The 1-4 logs were a little bit of an afterthought so done in the same general area but not the same road.

One thing I would highlight going into this with respect to my mods is the inlet (applies to all intakes tested), and airbox bottom (for the OEM intake baseline and the Dinan test, CTS doesn’t use it). I feel as though there is a good chance results would be different with a stock inlet and stock airbox setup. My reasoning is that the stock inlet is a major choke point in the intake system, as noted by tangible improvements in throttle response described in the first post linked below in inlet thread and corresponding decreases in WGDC. So, adding an intake with stock inlet very likely will not provide the same benefit as adding an intake with an upgraded inlet, if the stock inlet is still the point of maximum resistance in the intake system even with an added intake. Based on everything I have done myself and seen/heard from other people, I would still strongly recommend installing an inlet before even considering doing an intake (unless you purely want intake noise and no performance), and my #1 inlet choice is MSTv2 even on stock turbo. You can read more in the inlet thread. But the key to this test is how these intakes perform with an upgraded inlet already installed, and for a stock turbo OTS load-based tune application.

The other thing I would note in terms of expected HP gains is that I am running MHD. Given that I am already meeting boost and load targets, one would not expect HP gains from the intakes. Therefore, the key questions here are, can I make the same HP easier and/or is throttle response improved, which would be reflected in things like lower WGDC, faster spool, etc, with the same tune and target boost/load. An additional question is, does the intake have any adverse effects (MAF, fuel trims, idle, cold start, etc).

Baseline with MPPK and AFE Pro Dry S drop-in filter:

I have already written about my experience with this setup as compared to stock inlet and stock airbox, then MSTv2 inlet with stock airbox, then MSTv2 inlet with MPPK airbox. See this post in the aftermarket inlet on stock turbo thread, which I recommend reading as a preface to the rest of this thread: https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...&postcount=173

(I also have some other posts starting on page 7: https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1656337&page=7)

The logs for the three 4th gear pulls with this setup taken right before installing the Dinan are here (used in analysis below): https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/3...38-39-40-41-42

(These are not my cleanest logs in terms of timing, its possible my station switched to winter blend [usually starts Sept 15 and I have not tested since then], so I need to test the ethanol content again, but all intakes were tested with gas from this same station as the same mix ratio)

I neglected to do a 1-4 log right before removing the intake but I had one from a little while back with no changes to the car since then (hardware nor software), and that is here:

https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/2...&data=4-5-7-21

In summary this is an awesome setup. The throttle response is extremely good with the MSTv2 and MPPK box with drop in filter and stock intake, and of course since you are running stock intake, your MAF readings are stable and read as they should, you have no concerns about rough idle or cold start, CEL, etc. I don’t have much more to add from the inlet post linked above, so read there for more info. The car drives awesome with this setup and if I was not offered the CTS intake for a discount to do this test, and already given the dinan intake for free to test (thanks Ozy – TAG), I would have zero interest in doing this test as it was hard to imagine a better setup.

Dinan Carbon Fiber Intake with MPPK Airbox Bottom:

The thing you notice right away about the Dinan as compared to OEM is that the intake tube is round the entire way, the filter setup is different (circular with a flow-through face), and the intake tube is larger than OEM (at least in some areas, inlet side is roughly the same, see photos with measurements). It uses the same airbox bottom, which is another key attribute, because if there are any gains to be had with this setup it is purely because of the differences noted above, which in turn would mean that the airbox bottom is not the point of restriction on the stock setup.

3x 4th gear logs used in analysis below: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/3...&data=4-5-7-21
1-4 log with Dinan: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/1...&data=4-5-7-21

Now onto the results for the Dinan…

MAF:

Going into this test the main concern with the Dinan is the effect it of has been shown to have on MAF readings – MAF readings lower than they should be, and somewhat erratic readings that bounce around rather than being a smooth continuously increasing curve. I originally suspected this could be due to the fact that the Dinan mounts the MAF in a circular tube with a larger cross section and different shape than stock (in other words, the MAF doesn’t ‘meter’ as much of the total air entering the engine, some ‘goes around’ the MAF). However, to my surprise, my MAF readings were basically identical on the stock and Dinan setups (see graph below)… Recall this is literally the same intake Ozy ran on his car before shipping it to me, and he is running the same inlet and air box (although he has ‘real’ MPPK), etc. The only difference is that he is running BM3, as were all the other people that seemed to have MAF issues with the Dinan. It’s not clear to me from the BM3 logs what the time resolution is, but its about 0.12 seconds in MHD. If the BM3 has a higher resolution that could explain why the readings are a bit more erratic, but would not explain why the values themselves are lower. Yes, MHD uses different units (g/s instead of lb/min), but converting between the two, my MAF values are in line with “correct” readings people see with BM3, with a peak around 45 lb/min. I find it unlikely MHD tune changes the actual adaptation logic for MAF, although not impossible… I have no obvious explanation why the Dinan seems to read correctly on my car. If anyone with MHD has the Dinan intake, please post a log… or anyone else with Dinan at all for that matter, we need a larger sample size than the few with Dinan running BM3.

View post on imgur.com


You can see more examples of the odd MAF readings from the Dinan in the Dinan intake thread: https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1486248&page=2

WGDC:

Quantitatively, WGDC is probably the key parameter here to see if the intakes are flowing better than my baseline setup or in any way eliminating a restriction and improving airflow (this, and subjective drivability improvements). Interestingly, the logs show that the Dinan actually has slightly higher WGDC than the baseline setup… In the image below I also left on the two logs I had after first installing the baseline setup a few months ago (red dashed line), which showed the lowest WGDC. Note the scale – we are talking about small changes, but still surprising the Dinan consistently showed higher WGDC. In some sense this would imply the Dinan intake setup (tube + filter combo since the MPPK bottom is the same) doesn’t flow quite as well as the baseline setup since everything else was the same… but its hard to see how that can be true. Ambient pressure was 14.66 with the Dinan compared to 14.74 but were talking about only about 0.5% difference there. I think the main conclusion here is that the Dinan did not improve WGDC – it was about the same or slightly worse.

View post on imgur.com


IATs:

IATs are a little tricky due to changes in ambient temps. I basically looked at IATs in two ways: delta T above ambient with cruise control (CC) at ~75MPH on the highway (car fully warm after driving 15+ minutes), and then in the 4th gear pulls. With the stock configuration my IATs were 88F with 77F ambient with CC on. If I gently accelerated to get some air flowing my IATs would drop to 82F with 77F ambient, so they were +5 degrees over ambient, which is typically as close as I can get them. Note that my CP is heat wrapped with the design engineering gold reflective wrap; I was not able to get my IATs this close to ambient before that.

IATs throughout the 4th gear pulls are as shown in the logs and graph below. Note the other factor is whether or not I was at a stoplight before the pull, which is why some logs start higher. The key thing is the shape and if IATs drop then remain flat or slightly increase.

As far as the Dinan goes, I there was essentially no impact on IATs compared to baseline setup at highway speed and when doing 4th gear pulls, which is expected because it uses the same airbox bottom (closed intake) and the carbon fiber tube is roughly the same as the OEM plastic as transferring heat to intake air, and all of this is pre-IC anyways. At steady state it showed +11 degrees over ambient with CC on at 75 mph on the highway, and I could get them down to +5 over ambient with some light acceleration. 4th gear pulls show a similar shape with slightly higher starting temp when I had to sit at a light before the pull.

View post on imgur.com


STFTs (and LTFTs):

The STFTs are a bit interesting. Given that MAF readings, torque, and load are all basically the same as baseline (shown below), one would expect STFTs to be the same as well… but I would say there is a statistically significant difference with the Dinan showing more negative corrections than the baseline setup. Baseline is around -2 to -5%, Dinan around -10 to -15%. This is surprising because this would imply there is less air than the DME expects, so it is pulling fuel to compensate, but as mentioned above the main indicators of air are the same between the Dinan and baseline…

To further complicate things, LTFTs are around -4% with the baseline setup and +5% with the Dinan… so the Dinan is more negative in STFTs but more positive in LTFTs? A real head scratcher. Again, this is after over 100 miles of driving under various conditions including highway and pulls so I would say the car is fully adapted. I think its possible that the Dinan reads low (in terms of MAF, relative to how much air is actually going into the engine) at light throttle/cruise, leading to positive LTFTs, but can’t really explain the more negative STFTs during the pulls because MAF is basically exactly the same as baseline setup. I think the only conclusion here is that the Dinan is affecting the amount of fuel compensation the DME needs to do in one way or another (Remember this is the same tank of gas as baseline). I don’t think that’s necessarily an ‘issue’ though.

View post on imgur.com


Throttle Response and Drivability:

This is where it gets a bit subjective. The main thing I noticed is that the power delivery was more ‘peaky’ and it would surge all at once. This happened in both comfort mode and sport/sport+ mode. And its not that it felt faster, it just felt like it was more on/off, at least compared to the previous setup. I would highlight that these changes are relatively minor – they are certainly noticeable, but in a sense you need to be paying attention. It’s also entirely possible these differences are exacerbated by the inlet and tune, and on a stock or MPPK car running less boost/power, the differences might be not noticeable at all. I also noticed some weird behavior once or twice when I hit the gas hard in 1st and had to abruptly let off then go on throttle again (like a big delay when I reapplied throttle), but not clear if that’s an artifact of the intake. Overall, I would summarize by saying the Dinan changed the throttle response but it didn’t really improve it, and for some the drivability would be considered worse.

Sound:

The MPPK bottom and MST inlet add a decent amount of sound over the OEM inlet and closed box. The inlet adds more turbo ‘suction’ noise (mostly just hear more just air flowing, not the spool noise you hear through the exhaust on decel for example) and the MPPK bottom increases DV dump sound (‘whoosh’). Adding the Dinan on top of that basically further increased both of these a bit more – more suction noise and more whoosh from the DV dump. I wouldn’t necessarily call it good or bad, just louder in both respects by maybe 25%, good or bad depends on your preference. It wasn’t a crazy change since the airbox is still closed. No change in exhaust note I could notice (I have OEM exhaust with resonator delete and fabspeed catted DP so its pretty modest unless you are next to a wall or in a parking structure). If you want a loud intake, the Dinan (or I think a closed box in general) is probably not the best choice.

CTS Turbo Intake:

The CTS turbo intake is of course significantly different than the previous two setups because it uses an open air filter under hood as compared to a closed box. Another notable design difference is the MAF housing, whereby they have tried to mimic the shape of stock rather than being completely round, although as you can see in the photos below its certainly not completely stock-like, but rather falls somewhere between stock and the Dinan (where the MAF is just in a round tube). Purely from a design perspective one would expect that the CTS turbo has the greatest/easiest flow potential – its basically a straight shot through the filter and to the inlet and turbo. Air doesn’t like turning, especially sharp angles. From a flow perspective minimizing the amount of turns the air has to make will reduce pressure drop and turbulence, especially high angle turns. In the stock airbox configuration, the air basically has to turn 90 degrees, from traveling ‘up’ (after entering airbox bottom) to traveling ‘left’ into the intake tube/MAF. In the dinan this is is similar but reduced slightly since there is no ‘mouth’ on the intake tube and the air can flow diagonally into the filter and MAF area/tube. With the CTS, especially since its the cone filter with a flow-through top, some air can come straight into the MAF, and it doesn’t need to travel any odd path into the airbox, either. Having said all that we are talking about a turbo car and not a NA car (the latter where intake pressure drop is way more important since you only have vacuum created by piston stroke pulling in air), and so long as you are not maxing out your turbo this is probably a minor point, which is essentially why we see little gain from intakes, especially on a stock turbo/OTS map (load-based) scenario.

1-4 CTS log: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/1...38-39-40-41-42
3x 4th gear CTS logs: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/3...&data=4-5-7-21

Enough theory, let’s move onto results…

MAF:

The MAF data for the CTS is more or less exactly the same as the other two intakes. It looks like there could be slightly more air flow in the mid RPM range, but I am not sure it’s statistically significant. The shape of the curve is also essentially the same. I don’t think there’s much more to add there; all setups seem to flow the amount of air needed to meet the load and boost targets of the tune.

WGDC:

I honestly had high hopes here for the CTS. I was thinking if anything, the design has to allow airflow with a little less resistance than the others, at least on paper. I think the results fall within the noise and realistically any changes between the intakes are marginal and influenced by atmospheric conditions (although these were similar between all logs across the intakes). I think the red dotted lines make this point, as they are on the same setup as the purple lines, just taken a few months earlier. The main conclusion is that my hardware/tune setup isn’t demanding enough air to cause the baseline setup (or any of the intakes for that matter) to be a restriction. Maybe at the 500+ HP level there would be a more significant difference.

IATs:

I did the same tests as the Dinan and baseline setup: CC at 75 mph with the car fully hot/heat soaked on the highway, slight acceleration after that to see how they dropped, then the 4th gear pulls when I got to my logging road. Everything was basically the same as the others. +11 degrees F over ambient with CC, dropping down to around +5 with some acceleration. In the datalogs and graph above, the IATs are lower, but that’s because it was around 5-6 degrees F cooler than with the Dinan (and the Dinan was 1-2F cooler than with baseline). So as you can see, if you take out that difference, the lines would essentially look exactly the same because they all follow the same shape. Part of me still thinks that in a long-term situation (like autocross or track), sucking in hotter air from the engine bay may lead to IC heat soak sooner, but hard to say how significant that would be and it would be difficult to demonstrate due to other variables. But at least in this type of situation, the IC can handle any changes in pre-IC intake air temps. I also think that running the air scoop with the CTS would actually help, increasing the amount of ambient temperature air relative to air from the engine bay, but I did not use that in my testing. This is one of the few intakes I would run it with, though.

STFTs (and LTFTs):

The STFTs show the most statistically significant differences between intakes, and they are also the hardest to explain given that other parameters like MAF, boost, and load look more or less exactly the same. Additionally, the CTS logs were taken on a different tank of gas, and although I was targeting exactly the same mix from the same gas station down to 0.01 gallon, and refueled only a week or so apart, it’s possible there was some variability there. Nonetheless looking at STFTs and LTFTs together tells and interesting story opposite to Dinan. That is, the CTS showed positive STFTs in the mid range while Dinan showed the most negative. At the same time, the CTS showed the most negative LTFTs (about -7%) and the Dinan the most positive LTFTs (around +6%). Baseline setup LTFTs are around -4%. Based on all of this data I think the main thing to say is that the fuel trims with the CTS are more similar to stock than the Dinan. Part of me wants to believe this is due to the MAF housing design on the CTS, but at the same time the MAF data is nearly identical across all the intakes… Also, it’s also hard to say the CTS is flowing more air, which is why STFTs are positive, when MAF readings are the same. Note, I did exactly the same driving loop of 50 miles before doing the 4th gear pulls on each setup (including the same highway, same surface streets, and exactly the same section of road for the pulls), so I would expect that would more or less eliminate differences in fuel trims due to driving conditions (and there were additional adaptation miles before this loop with a minimum of 100 miles on each setup before the logs). Ambient pressure was very close between all logs, and temperatures were about 68-69F with CTS, 74-75F with Dinan, and 76-77F with baseline.

Throttle Response and Drivability:

I would summarize the drivability and throttle response as very similar to the baseline setup, which is a good thing. Its honestly hard to say if there is any difference in D/comfort or S/Sport+ - when you hit the gas the car does what you expect, which was not always the case with the Dinan it seemed. The one situation I did seem to notice a difference was a part throttle acceleration in 8th gear D/comfort, like passing on the highway (i.e., low RPM, high load situation). When you hit the gas enough to build boost but not downshift it seemed like the car was more eager to build boost and accelerate. The complicating factor is that I was running the Dinan right before this, so while it definitely seemed better than that, its hard to say if it was better than the baseline. Not much else to say here. The car drove as expected, performed as it should without hiccups, with a potentially marginal improvement over other setups.

Sound:

I’ll start by saying, as far as intakes go, the CTS is LOUD. If the Dinan is 25% louder than baseline, the CTS is 200% louder than baseline. The air suction noise is audible the moment you start to build any amount of boost, whereas you wouldn’t really hear it until say, 10psi (round numbers) of boost on baseline setup and Dinan. And when you do hear it, its loud. The same goes for the DV dump. With the baseline and even the Dinan, you don’t really hear the dump just driving around – you really need to get on it and dump quite a bit of boost to hear it clearly. However with the CTS, you hear the dump basically all the time, with any amount of boost. Even if you are just accelerating moderately from a stoplight in D/comfort, you need a whoosh between every single shift if you have built boost. That was basically nonexistent with the other 2 setups. If you are driving next to a wall or something, its even louder. I don’t want to say its obnoxious because maybe some people want that, but its borderline. In a way I feel like it makes the car… not necessarily “ricey” but less BMW-like. I daily drove a ‘91 3000GT VR-4 from 2007-2018 (which I still have and drive), and this intake makes it sound way more like a 90s era turbo car than a modern luxury/performance sedan. Its far from subtle. I can’t imagine why you would want a VTA DV if you are running this setup because any more DV dump sound would be unnecessary. Unlike the other two setups, the intake and DV noise is very noticeable even inside the car with the windows up. The one noise that did seem to be a little annoying at times was if you give a bit of throttle in 8th gear on the highway then let off gently it almost sounded like a quiet and long ‘sigh’ from the DV dump (this is with windows up). In summary I would say if you want sound… look no further. As with the others, I didn’t notice any change in exhaust note.

Part of me wants to build upon the included heat shield and make a top and potentially other side piece for it so that it’s a little more of a shroud than just a side shield, but we’ll see how I feel after driving with this intake for a little while and if I even want to keep it. I suspect that could reduce noise a little and potentially improve intake air temps (at the intake).

Virtual Dyno Results (all intakes):

I would say all of these results are basically within the noise and not statistically significant from one another. As I alluded to in the beginning, I am running a load-based tune, so was not expecting to net a significant HP increase from adding the intake, which is why analysis of the other parameters is more enlightening than the VD results. There is also variability in timing between the pulls, so the differences between the runs could be explained by a couple degrees of timing difference between pulls.

View post on imgur.com


Torque and Load (all intakes):

Looking at the torque and load in the logs as a proxy for HP/TQ, the results are consistent with the VD results, where all intakes are more or less the same. Since I am already meeting load targets, this is expected. Variations in logged torque could also be due to slight differences in timing. Not much else to add here. CTS turbo could be slightly higher, but some of the logs had better timing than the other intake logs.

View post on imgur.com


View post on imgur.com



Cold Start/Idle (all intakes):

I was not able to tell any difference in cold start, idle, etc, with any of these intake setups. This included the first cold start after installing each intake, even without resetting adaptations. I also did not get any CEL. Not much else to add here; none of them seemed to have any adverse effects.

Video:

I took a few videos on cold start of each intake and then some of 4th gear pulls and revs. I can edit them together if people really want to see, but they are underwhelming really. I saw basically zero changes in cold start between all the intakes, no changes in idle, etc. Even true on the 1st start after install. The GoPro didn’t seem to pickup much difference in the intake sounds on pulls because the runs because wind noise is overpowering with the windows down. So there isn’t much to gain from these videos I don’t think.

Acceleration from 1-4 gear pull (all intakes)

Im not a fan of launching my car a whole lot (although its fun), so I only collected one 1-4 gear pull from each setup. These were all on different tanks of gas and different sections of road (although basically all sea level area) so you can take the results with a grain of salt. I am included one graph of speed vs time below and it basically shows they are all the same, with the CTS perhaps slightly better to 100mph, but that could be within the variability of good timing vs bad timing and slightly cooler temps for CTS log. Realistically I would need a dragy and do 3 runs of each to have better data, but that’s outside the scope of what I can do right now. VD results are another proxy for HP and acceleration and are consistent with the fact that you’re not going to be knocking seconds off your 0-60 or probably even ¼ mile times with these intakes. I did dig into the logs themselves a bit and nothing really jumped out at me.

View post on imgur.com


Conclusion:

So now that you have read a wall of text and looked at some lines on a graph, what’s the take home message here? Is an intake worth the money? Should you buy one? What am I going to do? Well, im going to run with the CTS for a little while and see how I like the noise over time. Potentially build a little more of a shield for heat and noise and go from there. In terms of what you should do, I would say an intake is the most subjective mod as each one is a bit different in what it offers and what effect it has, and its not like a DP where you bolt on for an immediate power gain, so the answer is not obvious… unless you definitely want more noise, then yes, buy an open air filter intake. Is it worth the money? Up to you if you want to pay for the sound. For performance on a setup similar to mine, I would say no, its not worth the money. I would reiterate what I opened with – get an inlet before you get an intake if you want a tangible improvement in performance/drivability. Honestly, aside from the noise, IMO an intake should be on the bottom of your mod list (same for exhaust, but again comes down to preference)… IC+CP+DP and tune, then XHP and inlet, then decide where you want to go from there as power mods dramatically increase in terms of $/HP (HPFP, meth, turbo upgrade, custom tune, etc). You may find your money better spend on handling, LSD, brakes, tires, etc, depending on your setup and use for the car. The changes between the different intakes in terms of looking at the data and subjective changes in drivability and performance are all very marginal, which demonstrates that the baseline setup is more than adequate on a setup similar to mine. I emphasize this because its entirely possible that someone with an upgraded turbo (and supporting fueling, for example) demanding a lot more air and making more power might actually see a more statistically significant gain from an intake like the CTS. But that is an analysis for another day…

Link to album with all graphs:
View post on imgur.com


Link to full album of photos with measurements:
View post on imgur.com


(I just realized I might be missing measurements of the Dinan, but the photos show its basically the same as CTS, just slightly larger on filter side).
__________________
Mods: Yes.
Appreciate 1
      04-07-2021, 07:26 AM   #87
3t3p
Major
New Zealand
453
Rep
1,389
Posts

Drives: M2
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NZ

iTrader: (0)

Interesting the guy who for his oil analysed with afe drop in dry filter found high silicates. I've considered this filter before but it seems again that the stock box filters well and can't be drastically beaten. You get better filtration and no fitment or MAF issues.

Noise isn't the best I suppose.depends what you like. Turbo whoosh is fun .
Appreciate 0
      04-08-2021, 10:34 PM   #88
jmkn04
Registered
0
Rep
3
Posts

Drives: 2017 M2
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Sydney

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundinisagod View Post
With all due respect, I find it hard to believe a 300 dollar aftermarket product is going to shave 9/10ths of a second on a 0-100. I would have been impressed enough with 1/10th of second improvement, especially on a product category generally acknowledged to have virtually no horsepower increase. For that sort of performance improvement, I’d expect a Bootmode stage 2 tune with associated bolt ons.
Had you told me you got those numbers, I would have called BS too. I can't explain it. I thought maybe the OBD2 Adapter was playing up, or maybe I had stuffed up the CAI installation... can't seem to find an issue with either. Just seems the F87 and Injen are a nice match... I've installed CAI on other cars and although I have noticed (small) power increases - nothing like this on my M2 - awesome!
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 PM.




m2
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST