Advertisement

Roush vs Injen Evolution CAI

Roush or Injen Evolution CAI


  • Total voters
    49

ghostang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Posts
47
Reaction score
12
Location
VA
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT, 2017 Ecoboost
Vehicle Showcase
1
I'm looking at adding a cold air intake to my 2018 Mustang GT. I prefer to add a closed filter box vs an open filter box to avoid high intake air temperatures. Anyone have any real world experience with the Roush or Injen Evolution CAI?
 

ghostang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Posts
47
Reaction score
12
Location
VA
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT, 2017 Ecoboost
Vehicle Showcase
1
JLT gets my vote.
Thanks Bluemustang. I looked at the JLT, but I was looking for a closed filter box CAI to keep the IAT down on idle. Do you have any heat soak issues with the JLT at idle?
 

Bluemustang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2015
Posts
3,337
Reaction score
1,536
Location
Maryland
First Name
Ryan
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang Base GT
Thanks Bluemustang. I looked at the JLT, but I was looking for a closed filter box CAI to keep the IAT down on idle. Do you have any heat soak issues with the JLT at idle?
Not really now - after putting in the Velossa tech ram air inlet. Less than the Roush 18 CAI I can tell you that for damn certain. Not even close in that regard, the IAT w/the Roush intake is very high idling. It drops very fast though, as do many of the others once you start moving. The only thing I can think is when the Roush box does heat up, there's really no place for it to go. The Velossa tech piece made a huge difference though in the IAT. And the flow at least on my 15 car was not close, the JLT wins.
 

ghostang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Posts
47
Reaction score
12
Location
VA
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT, 2017 Ecoboost
Vehicle Showcase
1
Not really now - after putting in the Velossa tech ram air inlet. Less than the Roush 18 CAI I can tell you that for damn certain. Not even close in that regard, the IAT w/the Roush intake is very high idling. It drops very fast though, as do many of the others once you start moving. The only thing I can think is when the Roush box does heat up, there's really no place for it to go. The Velossa tech piece made a huge difference though in the IAT. And the flow at least on my 15 car was not close, the JLT wins.
Thanks for sharing your experience! I hadn't thought about adding a Velossa tech ram air inlet.
 

Myshelby3425

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Posts
2,146
Reaction score
508
Location
Miami
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT
Thanks Bluemustang. I looked at the JLT, but I was looking for a closed filter box CAI to keep the IAT down on idle. Do you have any heat soak issues with the JLT at idle?
i had the velossatech with my JLT. It did nothing to help IATs at idle. Velossatech only helps when up to speed. JLT IATs for me were in the 140-160 at idle in the summer. Swapped to the Steeda box and I barely hit 100.
 

Bluemustang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2015
Posts
3,337
Reaction score
1,536
Location
Maryland
First Name
Ryan
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang Base GT
i had the velossatech with my JLT. It did nothing to help IATs at idle. Velossatech only helps when up to speed. JLT IATs for me were in the 140-160 at idle in the summer. Swapped to the Steeda box and I barely hit 100.
Just curious, yours is a 15-17 or 18-19 car?
 

SAY WHAT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Posts
204
Reaction score
101
Location
Maryland
First Name
Tim
Vehicle(s)
2016 mustang Gt
i had the velossatech with my JLT. It did nothing to help IATs at idle. Velossatech only helps when up to speed. JLT IATs for me were in the 140-160 at idle in the summer. Swapped to the Steeda box and I barely hit 100.
Where do you live? Me and blue mustang live in the same area, we have done multiple tests and comparisons with the jlt and roush cold air with closed lid. The Roush is only slightly better if not the same as the jlt at idle temps, any car will heat soak to 160+ if you let it idle long enough. You are trading a lot of flow for the closed lid box. We both have the velossatech installed on our cars. I would take blue mustangs experience to heart hes been through 3 cold air intakes for the sake of testing.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement


TRPCANA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2019
Posts
141
Reaction score
99
Location
Florida
Vehicle(s)
2020 mustang GT
It has been proven several times over that on NA applications "cai" is a waste of time and money. Lethal Performance did testing with their 2018 A10 car project goldmember and proved all gains are in the tune actually. From E85 and tune they put down 459rwhp, then added the JLT and retuned and picked up 2rwhp. Both Lund and PBD also recommend keeping the stock box for NA applications as well. Another note to add if you want the Flex tune, steeda's sealed box design is not compatible with the tune, they claim the car will run but it has erratic idle and rpm issues due to MAF placement, plenty of posts on it if you want to search. I personally ran the steeda and had quality control problems with the box and returned it, i was not the only one. JLT and PMAS pick up next to nothing on a dyno and add high IAT's, and true the number one counter argument is that at speed the IATs drop however 150+ degree IATs in a staging lane or at the start of a dig cant be good for max timing on a launch IMO. And lastly, velossatech is mostly snake oil, no one on here can reliably prove that they picked up anything and ive been watching this part for over a year. Several tuners ive spoken with actually mention that velossa decreases performance slightly because it disrupts the flow of air to the filter by changing the tunnel design that ford specifically put in place. There is some data that it does reduce IAT slightly due to not taking in hot air from the radiator but stock box IATs are low enough where its not worth the price tag IMO. Good luck but id do some more research into the truth behind the "cai". Now if you have a blower or plan to get one then there is some gains to be had with an open element filter, obvious reasons of course.
 

Mikepol2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Posts
733
Reaction score
392
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
First Name
Mike
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT, 2015 Chevy Silverado 6.2L, 1997 Cobra (Sold), 1999 Cobra (Sold), 2003 Cobra (Sold)
Anybody have more data or reviews on the Injen Evolution or Holley Intech? Curious to see if anyone has disproved their HP / torque gain claims. Holley published a dyno chart that shows only minimal 2018+ peak HP and torque gains, but does show +22 torque around 2600 rpm, right where the car needs it. The gains on 2015-2017's are predictably better.

Holley Intech 2015-17 CAI dyno.jpg
Holley Intech 2018+ CAI dyno.jpg
 
Last edited:

KellTrac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2019
Posts
180
Reaction score
161
Location
Florida
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT
It has been proven several times over that on NA applications "cai" is a waste of time and money. Lethal Performance did testing with their 2018 A10 car project goldmember and proved all gains are in the tune actually. From E85 and tune they put down 459rwhp, then added the JLT and retuned and picked up 2rwhp. Both Lund and PBD also recommend keeping the stock box for NA applications as well. Another note to add if you want the Flex tune, steeda's sealed box design is not compatible with the tune, they claim the car will run but it has erratic idle and rpm issues due to MAF placement, plenty of posts on it if you want to search. I personally ran the steeda and had quality control problems with the box and returned it, i was not the only one. JLT and PMAS pick up next to nothing on a dyno and add high IAT's, and true the number one counter argument is that at speed the IATs drop however 150+ degree IATs in a staging lane or at the start of a dig cant be good for max timing on a launch IMO. And lastly, velossatech is mostly snake oil, no one on here can reliably prove that they picked up anything and ive been watching this part for over a year. Several tuners ive spoken with actually mention that velossa decreases performance slightly because it disrupts the flow of air to the filter by changing the tunnel design that ford specifically put in place. There is some data that it does reduce IAT slightly due to not taking in hot air from the radiator but stock box IATs are low enough where its not worth the price tag IMO. Good luck but id do some more research into the truth behind the "cai". Now if you have a blower or plan to get one then there is some gains to be had with an open element filter, obvious reasons of course.
You make some very valid points.

But, once you open the car up and start heading towards max effort in NA form, the car/combo with the aftermarket intake will win everytime when it comes to acceleration. I have tested this many times over and would 100% run stock stuff if I didn't see gains on my cars with JLT.
 

Zelek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Posts
2,752
Reaction score
1,435
Location
Austin, TX
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
2017 Mustang GT Premium PP, 2018 Honda Accord Touring 2.0T
You make some very valid points.

But, once you open the car up and start heading towards max effort in NA form, the car/combo with the aftermarket intake will win everytime when it comes to acceleration. I have tested this many times over and would 100% run stock stuff if I didn't see gains on my cars with JLT.
My 18 JLT causes my car to die at stoplights occasionally. Not sure what's going on with it, but it could be the tune. Connections are all good with it. You having any heatsoak issues in Florida even at the strip?
 

DroptopMN

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Posts
12
Reaction score
9
Location
Minnesota
First Name
Carson
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT
Anybody have more data or reviews on the Injen Evolution or Holley Intech? Curious to see if anyone has disproved their HP / torque gain claims. Holley published a dyno chart that shows only minimal 2018+ peak HP and torque gains, but does show +22 torque around 2600 rpm, right where the car needs it. The gains on 2015-2017's are predictably better.

Holley Intech 2015-17 CAI dyno.jpg
Holley Intech 2018+ CAI dyno.jpg
Ive got the Holley Injen in my 15 and noticed immediate improvements with the on board track timers. still hasn't been tuned or made the dyno. id say it made a definite difference for my car
 

Mikepol2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Posts
733
Reaction score
392
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
First Name
Mike
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT, 2015 Chevy Silverado 6.2L, 1997 Cobra (Sold), 1999 Cobra (Sold), 2003 Cobra (Sold)
FWIW I got Injen to send me the dyno chart for the EVO9201 kit for 2015-17's, here it is. They didn't have one for 2018+. But based on comparing the Injen and Holley dyno charts for 2015-17s, and the fact that I found one for $305 with free shipping, I bought an Injen EVO9202. Not due to arrive for a couple weeks but will post impressions.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Advertisement




Advertisement




 
Advertisement
Top