I think this is a little funny what do you think?

[Ghostrider2]

I checked out Mopar muscle today where the tested a new RT challenger
They ran the car stock down the 1/8 mile track and got.
2.419 60 foot
79.15mph
9.61 ET
the next day the installed a K&N CAI and got
2.103 60 foot
81.75MPH
8.95ET
They raved about the extra HP and check out the increase in MPH.
They also mentioned that the track prep was way better than the day they ran stock set up but track prep would not get them almost a half sec off there ET.
I guess that if it really worked that well I would say throw a cat back on there and shave another 1/2 sec off and throw one of those's tornato's in thier and some Zmax in the tank and soon all the performance shops will close because everyone is running 6 sec cars with a bolt on.
I did find a link to the artical on line and it seems a little more detailed than in the magazine I have not read the on line version yet because I'm to busy flying off the handle here.
So what do folks think, Did K&N pay them to much to demo the CAI or do these guys really think it made that much of a differance.
I think they where spinning the tire's to much the first time out.

[fnkychkn]

i find it hard to believe that a cold air intake would shave 3/10 of a second off a 60' time. off a 1/4 mile, maybe, but not 60'.

[PHEEN]

K&N is always full of it, granted I have there short ram intake, they are good, just not as good as they say they are.

[FactoryD]

Their driver was obviously a better one (or just get the feel for the car if it was the same one) for the second run. That and the better track prep explain it IMO.

[Frankyoz]

Arent K&N's CAI good for like 50 rwhp and 75ft tq, thats why I got one lol

[stevesrt8]

this is why mag results get dissed.

Look at the trap speed. That's affected the least by driver error.

Huge plus in the 60 led to most of the et improvement. And it's still pitiful!