XF and XJ Supercharged engine intake?
#22
I thought I saw on their website it was advertised around $300..
I personally think it's mediocre, there's too much silicone... It has a barely noticeable aluminum tube on the driver side, 6"-7" piece on the passenger side, the y-pipe that is also barely noticeable and then just silicone tubing.. Why not just make the entire bend from aluminum and just use silicon couplers verse tubing... but that's just my opinion
The following users liked this post:
WRXtranceformed (01-10-2015)
#23
Well my TCP intake is on it's way and COST what they quote on their website...and was FAR less than $700.00.
The following users liked this post:
WRXtranceformed (01-10-2015)
#24
I thought I saw on their website it was advertised around $300..
I personally think it's mediocre, there's too much silicone... It has a barely noticeable aluminum tube on the driver side, 6"-7" piece on the passenger side, the y-pipe that is also barely noticeable and then just silicone tubing.. Why not just make the entire bend from aluminum and just use silicon couplers verse tubing... but that's just my opinion
#25
I thought I saw on their website it was advertised around $300..
I personally think it's mediocre, there's too much silicone... It has a barely noticeable aluminum tube on the driver side, 6"-7" piece on the passenger side, the y-pipe that is also barely noticeable and then just silicone tubing.. Why not just make the entire bend from aluminum and just use silicon couplers verse tubing... but that's just my opinion
I personally think it's mediocre, there's too much silicone... It has a barely noticeable aluminum tube on the driver side, 6"-7" piece on the passenger side, the y-pipe that is also barely noticeable and then just silicone tubing.. Why not just make the entire bend from aluminum and just use silicon couplers verse tubing... but that's just my opinion
From everything I've read and heard about intakes, the worst material for intake tubing is metal, especially knowing that our engine bay temperatures promote heat soak. The plastic takes longer to heat up and cools down quicker so maybe it's the same with the silicone and that's why they used a disproportionate amount compared to the aluminum.
#26
From everything I've read and heard about intakes, the worst material for intake tubing is metal, especially knowing that our engine bay temperatures promote heat soak. The plastic takes longer to heat up and cools down quicker so maybe it's the same with the silicone and that's why they used a disproportionate amount compared to the aluminum.
The following users liked this post:
Blackcoog (01-12-2015)
#27
From everything I've read and heard about intakes, the worst material for intake tubing is metal, especially knowing that our engine bay temperatures promote heat soak. The plastic takes longer to heat up and cools down quicker so maybe it's the same with the silicone and that's why they used a disproportionate amount compared to the aluminum.
Making the intercooler more efficient or at the very least figuring out how to insulate the cold lines of the intercooler would probably gain us something or as mentioned before swapping out to a better cooling system for the intercooler would definitely help. Unfortunately we have no room to do that in the engine bay short of throwing it in the trunk i am not sure where else it would go.
Insulating the entire intake only helped minimize heat soak of the intake when idle it did nothing for the IATs while driving.
The following users liked this post:
amustafa32 (01-10-2015)
#28
Here is real data, I took the TCP intake off, put stock on and just came back from a cruise and the Intake temp stayed around 97 and under boost it dropped, then coming off throttle it would go up. But pretty steady at 97. So I parked and it reached 104. This was with stock intake.
Next day I installed the TCP aluminum intake and followed the same procedure. The car when on steady throttle stayed around 91, which is 6 degrees better than the stock intake and when parked, it sat at 100 vs 104 with stock.
This could all be due to the weather, temps are in the 50's. So in cooler weather the aluminum TCP wins this battle. I will be very curious when the weather here reaches 100 degrees if the outcome is the same.
Stock TCP
Next day I installed the TCP aluminum intake and followed the same procedure. The car when on steady throttle stayed around 91, which is 6 degrees better than the stock intake and when parked, it sat at 100 vs 104 with stock.
This could all be due to the weather, temps are in the 50's. So in cooler weather the aluminum TCP wins this battle. I will be very curious when the weather here reaches 100 degrees if the outcome is the same.
Stock TCP
#29
Even if it held more heat, it's not going to effect HP especially at WOT. It'll only heat theair minimally if your in stop & go traffic. Plastic or aluminum it's nothing that will increase/decrease performance on this car with where the intake is. I ran an aluminum intake on a twin turbo vehicle, winter/summer here in PHX and I could put my hand on the aluminum piping right after a drive and it was not hot. On this car unless you relocate it somehow I feel it's just what's more appealing to the eye. The main benefit of any aftermarket intake for XFR is the fact that it will be true 3" verse the stock and getting rid of the resonators for better sound a better flow. For a boosted vehicle, aluminum in my opinion is also a safer route to go. If the silicone acted better than aluminum, why not just make the whole thing from silicone? I know this debate can go on for century's so it is what is
Last edited by Bigg Will; 01-10-2015 at 02:22 PM.
#30
Here is real data, I took the TCP intake off, put stock on and just came back from a cruise and the Intake temp stayed around 97 and under boost it dropped, then coming off throttle it would go up. But pretty steady at 97. So I parked and it reached 104. This was with stock intake.
Next day I installed the TCP aluminum intake and followed the same procedure. The car when on steady throttle stayed around 91, which is 6 degrees better than the stock intake and when parked, it sat at 100 vs 104 with stock.
This could all be due to the weather, temps are in the 50's. So in cooler weather the aluminum TCP wins this battle. I will be very curious when the weather here reaches 100 degrees if the outcome is the same.
Stock TCP
Next day I installed the TCP aluminum intake and followed the same procedure. The car when on steady throttle stayed around 91, which is 6 degrees better than the stock intake and when parked, it sat at 100 vs 104 with stock.
This could all be due to the weather, temps are in the 50's. So in cooler weather the aluminum TCP wins this battle. I will be very curious when the weather here reaches 100 degrees if the outcome is the same.
Stock TCP
Now I'm thinking I should get a TCP intake because it won't hurt temps and it will sound and look better :-)
#31
I agree that for "boost" Aluminum is the way to go, but there is no boost going through the intake tract of the AJ133, only air under vacuum. And at this point unless you do your own hi flo intake in aluminum, or the $700 Fluid Motor Union one off, TCP ($300) and factory($380) are the only options. And since I'm upgrading from factory???..LOL
#32
#33
I built a custom intake pretty much the same as the TCP one - I noticed big differences but agree that the metal piping is an issue in this engine bay. I wrapped it in metal heat wrap which made a difference but without that you couldn't touch the metal pipe after a run because it was so hot! Looking at alternatives, possibly plastic piping?
The following users liked this post:
2010 Kyanite XFR (01-12-2015)
#34
Yes, don't know how reliable it is, but showed 25 HP/ 30 TQ and 2psi more vac. Can't say I got more boost cause it stayed at 11psi as the max. As far as the HP and TQ its reading from the ECU so that would translate to much less rear wheel numbers.
Last edited by chXFS; 01-11-2015 at 09:37 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by chXFS:
2010 Kyanite XFR (01-12-2015),
MarylandJag (01-13-2015)
#36
Will, when you say the car loves it what do you mean? Throttle response? Revs quicker? Pulls better at certain rpm?
Taking off the resonators from the stock intake should increase the intake noise and supercharger whine, but was curious whether you hear it more at all rpm levels and throttle positions or is it just more pronounced at WOT?
Taking off the resonators from the stock intake should increase the intake noise and supercharger whine, but was curious whether you hear it more at all rpm levels and throttle positions or is it just more pronounced at WOT?
Last edited by 2010 Kyanite XFR; 01-25-2015 at 08:03 PM.
#37
#38
The stock 5L Supercharged XF intake layout is much different than the Range Rovers so the TCP intake would not fit. The XF stock intake Y's down into one throttle body and it appears that the Range Rover has two separate throttle bodies. Email them for more info and they might be able to put one together for you.
Last edited by Blackcoog; 01-26-2015 at 08:31 AM.
#39
#40
Will, when you say the car loves it what do you mean? Throttle response? Revs quicker? Pulls better at certain rpm?
Taking off the resonators from the stock intake should increase the intake noise and supercharger whine, but was curious whether you hear it more at all rpm levels and throttle positions or is it just more pronounced at WOT?
Taking off the resonators from the stock intake should increase the intake noise and supercharger whine, but was curious whether you hear it more at all rpm levels and throttle positions or is it just more pronounced at WOT?
We now have a viable replacement for the stock intake, that cost less and flows better than stock and is READY TO BE INSTALLED out the box.
My stock intake is now the backup.
Stock
My TCP
The following 4 users liked this post by Bigg Will:
2010 Kyanite XFR (01-27-2015),
panels (02-04-2015),
Reaxions (10-27-2015),
WRXtranceformed (01-27-2015)