The New APR Open Intake System is Here!

[IanCH]

Flow Bench and Power Testing

Chart 1 on the Left, Chart 2 on the right.

Honestly you are being so disingenuous with these posts you are just giving more rope... Normally I don't have a problem with your posts but this is 100% a major exception to that.

First - Lets fix your charts. They are not conforming to good data representation practices and are as we call them in the real world, lies. I've re-made them for you to show them in a truthful manner

Chart 1:

Problems -

1. Your chart makes it look like the stock airbox has no flow because you start the x axis at 500
2. There is no scenario where a airbox alone has air flowing through it - it must be connected to the intake scoop and the turbo inlet pipe and the receiving geometry of the turbo.
3. Flow rates have no meaning without temperatures associated with those flow rates.

Conclusion: This chart is absolutely meaningless, its like testing the max speed of a wheel and tire rolling down the highway.

Chart 2 :

Not problems: This is the only graph that even comes close to depicting a real world scenario on a level playing field.

Problems -

1. Your chart makes it look like the gains of your system are great! they are not. You stat the axis again at a laughably high number (270)
   1. Visually your "APR Open Airbox" looks like it flows 600% more than the stock airbox, it does not.
2. You show 2 other scenarios with modified parts of the intake that don't show the stock airbox with those modifications. Putting data on the same graph using different test methods is a big no-no! You could easily have rigged up your added parts to the "airbox" to the stock intake as well.
3. What was a 59% increase in flow for the open is now a mere 9% increase. Just more evidence that chart one is utter crap.

Conclusion: This chart is extremely misrepresenting data to make it appear that the APR intake is much better compared to the stock intake than it actually is.

______________________________________

Edit and one more thing: The actual chart 2 shows a less than 2% increase in flow between the APR closed airbox and the stock intake with a paper filter. WOW! I bet that a snow grate removal and drop in oiled filter (like the ones employed in APR intakes) would show the stock airbox actually outperforming the closed APR design. I really feel sorry for anyone who paid money for that intake.

 

[Arin@APR]

I think the data is very clear. It shows what the airbox alone does, which is what many people compare. However, the airbox alone is not the main choke point of the system. It's also able to physically flow more than the turbo itself, which is only around 400 CFM @ 28in H2O. This is why I share more data and show each step of our full systems. One should consider the full picture, which is something I note in the information above. The often forgotten and often labeled "pointless parts" which are the rear pipe and the turbo inlet pipe, add to the system and amplify the gains by reducing restrictions. In fact, on some systems (I'm looking at you 2.5T EA855 EVO) it's the first step you should take! Here's the data:

275 CFM @ 28 in H2O - Stock
317 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Closed Full System (15% gain)
345 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Open Full System (25% gain)

 

[Navi]

Tough crowd

 

[Ezekiel81923]

I think the data is very clear. It shows what the airbox alone does, which is what many people compare. However, the airbox alone is not the main choke point of the system. It's also able to physically flow more than the turbo itself, which is only around 400 CFM. This is why I share more data and show each step of our full systems. One should consider the full picture, which is something I note in the information above. The often forgotten and often labeled "pointless parts" which are the rear pipe and the turbo inlet pipe, add to the system and amplify the gains by reducing restrictions. In fact, on some systems (I'm looking at you 2.5T EA855 EVO) it's the first step you should take! Here's the data:

275 CFM @ 28 in H2O - Stock
317 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Closed Full System (15% gain)
345 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Open Full System (25% gain)

So you see the issue then?

You introduce a new "open intake" and to advertise it (here and on your website) you show flow characteristics for a "full intake system."

However, ONLY the open intake ($400) is not represented in the flow charts. I think this is why you got @IanCH all riled up. To achieve that airflow gain over stock you need a $165 inlet pipe and the worlds most expensive 90deg elbow for $155. Suddenly that $400 open intake system is $720.

I'm completely ignoring the fact that anyone running your catch can who might want to run this needs to buy a new one in order to do so based on your comments here and on FB. Because you couldn't or wouldn't engineer one that works with it. Fortunately for all, you'll have a revision they can buy at full price to save the day. Nothing like an $1,150 intake upgrade.

I don't normally like to put down anyone that is genuinely trying to advance a platform but your responses have lead me to believe either a) someone didn't give you all the ammo you need to promote this or b) you're not actually trying to advance the platform anymore.

 

[Ostateballer]

Honestly you are being so disingenuous with these posts you are just giving more rope... Normally I don't have a problem with your posts but this is 100% a major exception to that.

First - Lets fix your charts. They are not conforming to good data representation practices and are as we call them in the real world, lies. I've re-made them for you to show them in a truthful manner

Chart 1:

View attachment 188772

Problems -

1. Your chart makes it look like the stock airbox has no flow because you start the x axis at 500
2. There is no scenario where a airbox alone has air flowing through it - it must be connected to the intake scoop and the turbo inlet pipe and the receiving geometry of the turbo.
3. Flow rates have no meaning without temperatures associated with those flow rates.

Conclusion: This chart is absolutely meaningless, its like testing the max speed of a wheel and tire rolling down the highway.

Chart 2 :

View attachment 188773
Not problems: This is the only graph that even comes close to depicting a real world scenario on a level playing field.

Problems -

1. Your chart makes it look like the gains of your system are great! they are not. You stat the axis again at a laughably high number (270)
   1. Visually your "APR Open Airbox" looks like it flows 600% more than the stock airbox, it does not.
2. You show 2 other scenarios with modified parts of the intake that don't show the stock airbox with those modifications. Putting data on the same graph using different test methods is a big no-no! You could easily have rigged up your added parts to the "airbox" to the stock intake as well.
3. What was a 59% increase in flow for the open is now a mere 9% increase. Just more evidence that chart one is utter crap.

Conclusion: This chart is extremely misrepresenting data to make it appear that the APR intake is much better compared to the stock intake than it actually is.

______________________________________

Edit and one more thing: The actual chart 2 shows a less than 2% increase in flow between the APR closed airbox and the stock intake with a paper filter. WOW! I bet that a snow grate removal and drop in oiled filter (like the ones employed in APR intakes) would show the stock airbox actually outperforming the closed APR design. I really feel sorry for anyone who paid money for that intake.

Mic drop

 

[bentin]

Hey, I kind of want some APR forged wheels, let's not screw this up with too much dog piling!

 

[JC_451]

^
Don't worry advertising is extremely effective on most people. The way people question things here is not indicative of how the populace at large behaves.

 

[IanCH]

I think the data is very clear. [It's very unclear, I just showed you why, exactly]

It shows what the airbox alone does [It's completely and totally irrelevant, like a stat showing how fast a car is with no driver or interior], which is what many people compare [Is this the same "many people" that Drumpf talks about?]. However, the airbox alone is not the main choke point of the system [That's why we tried to pretend like it was by showing you airbox only "data"]. It's also able to physically flow more than the turbo itself, which is only around 400 CFM [right because this platform is known for only having one turbo that everyone uses!]. This is why I share more [totally misrepresented] data and show each step of our full systems. One should consider the full picture, which is something I note in the information above. The often forgotten and often labeled "pointless parts" which are the rear pipe and the turbo inlet pipe [these parts are only forgotten by the marketing literature you use to sell the intake "airbox" alone], add to the system and amplify the gains by reducing restrictions. [In fact, the only thing that actually matters when achieving intake performance is a non-paper filter, a larger/smoother pipe and a turbo inlet]

In fact, on some systems (I'm looking at you 2.5T EA855 EVO) it's the first step you should take! Here's the data:

275 CFM @ 28 in H2O - Stock
317 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Closed Full System (15% gain)
345 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Open Full System (25% gain)
[Stock airbox with a $60 panel filter, a silicone tube, and a TIP - about the same as the best one here for literally 1/3 the price with no downsides other than less engine bay jewelry]

Let me make this post clearer for you. See edits above

 

[billbadass]

I think the data is very clear. It shows what the airbox alone does, which is what many people compare. However, the airbox alone is not the main choke point of the system. It's also able to physically flow more than the turbo itself, which is only around 400 CFM. This is why I share more data and show each step of our full systems. One should consider the full picture, which is something I note in the information above. The often forgotten and often labeled "pointless parts" which are the rear pipe and the turbo inlet pipe, add to the system and amplify the gains by reducing restrictions. In fact, on some systems (I'm looking at you 2.5T EA855 EVO) it's the first step you should take! Here's the data:

275 CFM @ 28 in H2O - Stock
317 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Closed Full System (15% gain)
345 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Open Full System (25% gain)

interesting the open system flows that much more than the closed one, thanks for sharing this data, super interesting

 

[billbadass]

i think a simply dyno test video on youtube showing the dyno run with the hood closed with stock and then APR open intake would be all that's needed, kind of hard to argue with that imo

 

[GTI_Owner]

I think the data is very clear. It shows what the airbox alone does, which is what many people compare. However, the airbox alone is not the main choke point of the system. It's also able to physically flow more than the turbo itself, which is only around 400 CFM. This is why I share more data and show each step of our full systems. One should consider the full picture, which is something I note in the information above. The often forgotten and often labeled "pointless parts" which are the rear pipe and the turbo inlet pipe, add to the system and amplify the gains by reducing restrictions. In fact, on some systems (I'm looking at you 2.5T EA855 EVO) it's the first step you should take! Here's the data:

275 CFM @ 28 in H2O - Stock
317 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Closed Full System (15% gain)
345 CFM @ 28 in H2O - APR Open Full System (25% gain)

What turbocharger are you referring to? 400 CFM is about the airflow needed to support 18 psi @ 6000 rpm.

 

[IanCH]

They will never dyno the open intake with the hood closed. It will show a loss in power lol.

And as you have seen here, if the results dont match the narrative they will skew them to do so.

APR would NEVER show a panel drop in, smooth pipe and TIP against their very expensive intake - because they know exactly what would happen (it's already shown on mygolmk7 and through real world results)

 

[riceburner]

FWIW we had one of the first intakes on the market. We had the first MK7 in the USA in 2013. (We imported it from europe before it was released). We sell multiple thousands of them each year. I doubt this will be the last intake we offer for this platform. It's popular. We like options because our customers like options.

Edit: Here's a public post I made bout it in April of 2014. There may be earlier posts, but I'm tired of scrolling. I shot this one when I was in Germany:

https://www.facebook.com/APRMotorsport/photos/a.129211480355/10151965516455356

Oh, i agree, just giving you guys crap. Sorry haha. I know the carbonio for the mk6 and your cf intake for the 7 were somewhere among the first

 

[Keehs360]

Tough crowd

yeah man.....

 

[Loopy]

yeah man.....

I think a lot of the "experts" will end up eating their words. So weird how they like to rabidly attack anything APR. I think the silent majority appreciate APR's solid engineering. Arin must have a triple layer flame proof suit.