SLP cold air intake.

[cvette98pacecar]

Has there been any studies on the SLP cold air intake? Is it worth $300.00

[Blue Flame Restorations]

I've got one I'll sell you after I get my stainless air box.

[cvette98pacecar]

Originally Posted by Blue Flame Restorations

I've got one I'll sell you after I get my stainless air box.

I have one of the stainless coming for the Purple car, this is for the Ruby car.

[Paul Workman]

As I recall, the total surface area of the three cone filters was a little more than the stock or even the flat K&N. Theoretically, that would be advantageous, I suppose. But, sorry...No data for comparison.

P.

[PhillipsLT5]

Locobob did a comparison, looked like 1 to 3 hp gain with the claw if I remember correctly

[Locobob]

Here is the old post from the CF. Results for peak HP were within margin of error but notice the average HP and Torque numbers show a small gain.


Today myself and forum member/dyno owner TJ Wong set out to find the truth regarding C4 air intakes. We dyno tested 3 different air intakes on my Lingenfelter 368cid LT5. Tested today were: stock with paper element, stock with K&N element and a cut lid, and finally SLP's "claw" tri-cone filter design. All dyno pulls were made with starting coolant temps at 195 degrees F. Here are the results.

Stock with paper, two identical pulls: 477rwhp. Avg. peak HP 477

Stock with K&N and cut lid, three pulls: 471, 475, 480rwhp. Avg. peak HP 475.3

SLP tri-cone "claw", three pulls: 477, 478, 481rwhp. Avg. peak HP 478.7

It would appear that the naysayers are mostly correct about C4 air intakes, not much to be gained here. Both Tom and I were rather suprised with the results. We had expected to see some small but visible gains with the cut-lid and SLP, instead we got a bunch of tests with peak numbers being basically the same or well within normal dyno pull to pull variation. The SLP unit does seem to have a small advantage over the others but suprisingly it's in mid range power not peak (see dyno graph average power #'s).

[Johnny5]

Figures. The stock intake is already a cold air intake. Waste of $$$$ for SLP although it looks cool

[KFoster]

I have the SLP. Came on the car. I like it, but no flow numbers on it or comparison to anything else. I prefer conical filters to flat myself, but usually use them on blown applications.

[ghlkal]

Mine had the claw on it when I bought it. I doubt I would pay $300 for it based on performance, but it does look cool.

[XfireZ51]

Originally Posted by Locobob

Here is the old post from the CF. Results for peak HP were within margin of error but notice the average HP and Torque numbers show a small gain.


Today myself and forum member/dyno owner TJ Wong set out to find the truth regarding C4 air intakes. We dyno tested 3 different air intakes on my Lingenfelter 368cid LT5. Tested today were: stock with paper element, stock with K&N element and a cut lid, and finally SLP's "claw" tri-cone filter design. All dyno pulls were made with starting coolant temps at 195 degrees F. Here are the results.

Stock with paper, two identical pulls: 477rwhp. Avg. peak HP 477

Stock with K&N and cut lid, three pulls: 471, 475, 480rwhp. Avg. peak HP 475.3

SLP tri-cone "claw", three pulls: 477, 478, 481rwhp. Avg. peak HP 478.7

It would appear that the naysayers are mostly correct about C4 air intakes, not much to be gained here. Both Tom and I were rather suprised with the results. We had expected to see some small but visible gains with the cut-lid and SLP, instead we got a bunch of tests with peak numbers being basically the same or well within normal dyno pull to pull variation. The SLP unit does seem to have a small advantage over the others but suprisingly it's in mid range power not peak (see dyno graph average power #'s).

Bob,

It would be interesting to see if anything changes regarding the AFR with these.