Over the weekend I came across this video created by Diego Arias on the topic of his experience with the Blaze Performance intake.
Of interest to me was that some tests I have performed were claimed to be unreliable by Diego in the comments section.
In particular, some of the tests I’ve conducted using intakes, inlet elbows, and intercoolers were all described by Diego as BS.
Diego’s explanation for why testing airflow through a part with a flow bench is BS is because on the vehicle there are “various conditions” (which presumably cause the pressure drop through the part to change significantly enough to make correlation impossible between the different environments. This will be examined further.)
Diego claims I have been called out “many times on many parts” such as intake, inlet, and intercooler where “road driving and data logs contradict his (my) results“. (This implies that there is an abundance of quality data contradicting the measurements made using the flow bench).
In a departure from my past method of going through the claims and evaluating for evidence, I am going to utilize the comments section of this post to discuss these claims with Diego and review his data.
I have invited Diego to substantiate the claims he is making with empirical evidence, which the data logs he references should accomplish.
These claims are:
- Bench flow tests are BS
- Flow bench measures are uncorrelated with pressure drop on a vehicle operating on a road
- Air flow indicator measurements recorded for intakes on an operating vehicle have been shown to be uncorrelated with flow bench generated measurements
- Air flow indicator measurements recorded for inlets on an operating vehicle have been shown to be uncorrelated with flow bench generated measurements
- Pressure drop measurements recorded for intercoolers on an operating vehicle have been shown to be uncorrelated with flow bench generated measurements
Links to evidence:
TBD – As evidence is provided this section will be filled out.
Note: A hypothetical argument is not a substitute for evidence.
Claim #1, Evidence #1 – Short description of the link destination
Claim #2, Evidence #1 – Short description of the link destination
Claim #3, Evidence #1 – Short description of the link destination
Claim #4, Evidence #1 – Short description of the link destination
Claim #5, Evidence #1 – Short description of the link destination
It’s been five days since the post went up and I informed Diego he could join the discussion but there’s been no sign of him. I assume he won’t be responding.
I’ve made a follow-up post with some information related to his claims.
The point about the significance of replacing a stock-optimized Turbo Inlet Elbow with a hybrid-optimized elbow when using a hybrid-turbo might be clear from this comparison:
Note about the comments section:
Guidelines for posting comments are found here
- Blaze ATOM V1 Flow Test
- Blaze Turbo Inlet Hose Flow Test
- Blaze ATOM V2 and R600 Filter Flow Test
- Blaze Turbo Flange Insert Test
- Blaze Intake Parts Test Summary Table
- Blaze Intake “Real World” Data Review – 1
- Blaze Intake “Real World” Data Review – 2a
- Blaze Intake “Real World” Data Review – 2b
- Blaze Intake “Real World” Data Review – 3
- Optimizing intakes for hybrid turbos
- Bigger intake common sense
- Flow testing vs operating pressure drop (IC) – 1
- Flow testing vs operating pressure drop (IC) – 2
- Flow testing vs Acceleration time (Intake)
10 thoughts on “Fact Check – YouTuber Claims about Intake Testing”
I don’t understand how he can claim the tests are BS when you have real world data that correlates with the bench tests. For example, internal bench flow rates for intercoolers is clearly linked to actual measured pressure drop in real world use. I think highlighting more experiments where bench tests correlate with real world data (and where they don’t) would be a useful endeavor. Just my 2 cents.
My theory is that he, and some others I’ve come across, are repeating what they have read elsewhere. In each “real world” case once the details about the parts were provided, so that an appropriate test case could be compared with, the results were in agreement.
Jeff I greatly appreciate all the work you do. You do your best to work with clear metrics and consistent testing environment so that products can be compared.
There will always be critics when their pet product doesn’t fair well in their tests. They seem to only offer hand waving.
Thank you, Bill!
The Blaze intake has measured similarly to other aftermarket intakes, and for a hybrid turbo owner presents a nice package since the turbo flange is optimized for that size turbo. I agree that “talk” of there being significantly different results from others has not yet led to any facts.
Have you received any sort of data from users of these intakes via logs or dynos? If there are multiple people seeing differences over other systems wouldnt that mean that there is a gain to have in flow? Your bench testing is great with many things but aren’t there other factors in place besides one type of test? Seems it would make more sense to test these products in different fields while operating the vehicle. Again great work.
Hey Dale, I did receive a data log that Brett Harrison recorded, which is the subject of the “Real World” Data Review-1 link up in the references. After getting details from Brett I found he was using a CTS TIP, which is best used with a stock size turbo. I also reviewed a data log from Neil in the “Real World” Data Review-3 link above. Neil changed from an MST v1 TIP (sized for a stock turbo) to the Blaze intake. I did not see the data log that Mason recorded (EQT’s “tester”) but his description of his setup indicated he too changed from a stock size TIP to the Blaze intake. All of them said/showed improvements, but that is consistent with what I have measured.
A stock TIP with a hybrid turbo is not a good match and significantly drops airflow even through a good intake. One test I did with the Blaze intake was to install their stock turbo adapter insert in their flange while using my hybrid turbo adapter, that dropped airflow from 490 to 456 CFM. Each of the people I’ve checked with changed from a stock size TIP to the Blaze hybrid flange.
Looking through Diego’s (Youtuber) list of parts he shows that he previously used CTS and MST v1 TIPs. The improvement he saw, if it was a 5% decrease in wgdc, is consistent with increasing the flow rate by ~10% by swapping out a stock size TIP for a the hybrid optimized inlet elbow, or flange in the case of Blaze.
DBV2 is the only conventional TIP I am aware of that maximizes the ID of the outlet to fully support a hybrid turbo with 56 mm compressor inlet.
Jeff, I agree he shouldn’t have called all your testing bs because that’s not true at all but if he and others have seen benefits from that intake system specifically then it shouldn’t be discredited. There are so many different ways to do testing and bench flow testing is just one method. It seems a bit harsh to make a full post on someone for a silly YouTube comment. I feel we’re a bit too old to get in our feels for everyone who doesn’t agree. Not everyone will agree with you and it’s possible to get different results using other methods. I have watched some of his videos and he seems to be a humble guy who just likes to have fun with his cars and that’s what this is about. My personal recommendation would be to contact EQT and other tuning companies directly and ask them for customer data logs. Create a file of data logs and compare and contrast them from the previous setups those owners were running. Maybe it will justify your data or maybe it’ll differ. If anyone has before and after dyno days comparing and contrasting this intake as well get that data too. It’s a fairly new intake that has created some buzz and I’m sure if there isn’t sufficient enough data now there will be in the near future. As a community we should come together and find ways to create more info and data. Going back and forth just tears down the community. You both add value to the community in different ways. Your website is great for many different data points on a vast amount of aftermarket parts and his channel helps many in installs and finding the potential in their car and the journey to get there and to just have fun. Just my 2 cents on this.
Nick, this post topic isn’t the Blaze intake performance, it’s the claim by Diego that the testing I have done is BS and should not be believed. According to Diego, there have been results obtained by others that contradict my findings.
From what I have seen, the testing I did with the Blaze intake correlates with the improvements people are getting with their hybrid turbos. I found there were improvements with optimized components, and the improvements correlate with the improvements people have reported with their cars. I discussed some of that in the other comments.
It’s so strange that this has caused so much drama in the community. There simply is a lack of undestanding in this particular case as to what your testing has shown and that the gains from the Blaze were simply the result of using a larger hybrid-optimized turbo inlet. Any of the popular intakes (RS600 in this care I believe) hooked to a larger TIP for the hybrid would show similar gains over a stock TIP. The “real world” results folks are seeing actually do work along side your flow bench testing. It’s a disagreement over semantics…the Blaze intake does flow more….on a hybrid turbo with the adapter vs. the same intake without the adapter.
Yes, the test I did of this going between the stock size MST TIP to DBV2 showed each “intake” had a significant increase in airflow with the DBV2 TIP if the hybrid turbo adapter was used.