Background:
Two weeks ago I made a post pointing out the lack of substantiation EQT provides in support of their claims for the Blaze Performance intake.
The post generated some feedback on a different topic, speculating that I have disregarded “real-world” data for the Blaze intake that has been presented to me.
In this post, I’m going to review one of the two cases where information supplied by other people, related to the Blaze intake performance, was brought to my attention. I will make a follow-on post to discuss the second case.
Case 1:
After posting results that showed the Blaze ATOM V2 and Racingline R600, using a generic turbo inlet elbow and adapter simulating a hybrid turbo, performed similarly on the flow bench, Brett Harrison presented me with some information that he believed showed a different result.
This information was also sent to Blaze Performance:
Note: Based on the information Brett supplied to the business they decided to pass along the information via their Facebook page to the public.
Somebody asked Brett about the results he believed showed the Blaze ATOM V2 outflowing the Racingline R600 by greater than 50%:
A 50% greater airflow would be a tremendous increase based on previous measurements I have made with a number of aftermarket intakes.
I asked Brett if he would provide details about the vehicle setups being compared.
Concerns I have after learning this information.
The original claim portrayed the comparison as one between the Racingline R600 intake and the Blaze ATOM V2.
The Racingline air filter is not utilized, instead using an MST Performance filter.
A Racingline turbo inlet elbow is not being used, instead, a CTS Performance turbo inlet elbow is being used.
Apparently, the Racingline R600 airbox enclosure is the only part of the Racingline intake that is part of this comparison.
The Blaze ATOM intake is being used with a “custom turbo inlet“, not the Blaze Performance turbo inlet flange.
The most significant part of the intake affecting airflow, the turbo inlet pipe/flange, has been replaced on the Blaze intake with a “custom part“.
Opinion:
Portraying this comparison as a test between the Racingline R600 and Blaze ATOM V2 intake is misleading due to the replacement of named vendor’s parts with components from different vendors or “custom parts“.
Data Analysis:
Brett provided me with the data files that were used to support the claim of a 50% or greater increase in airflow from the Blaze ATOM V2 intake.
Jumping out immediately is the 30 degF difference between the Intake Air Temperatures to the disadvantage for the Racingline intake.
The temperature difference alone is likely to produce a difference in performance. Another concern is the temperature values. The IAT in excess of 100 degF during the R600 run might be high enough to lead the ECU to make adjustments for the high IAT.
The data log includes Air Mass data, though the lack of a Mass Airflow Sensor on the Mk7 GTI/Golf R means this is likely a calculated value. The Air Mass values recorded do not support the conclusion that one intake flows more than the other.
The maximum difference between boost pressures is ~ 3 psi which would correspond to approximately 5% greater airflow.
Conclusion:
The intake configurations deviate from what I consider a commonly understood meaning of what R600 versus ATOM V2 would entail.
A large difference was observed in data logs for the conditions under which the data was recorded.
On the basis of these observations, I previously concluded that this “real world” data is low-quality for the purpose of making a performance comparison between the Racingline R600 and Blaze ATOM V2 intakes.
Claims made by enthusiasts and tuners that this “real-world” data has been disregarded are unfounded.