# Who Installed Non-OEM Intake for TTS?



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

I see on UK TT forum a Gruppe M carbon fiber intake and that Neuspeed has a P-flo for the TTS (less stylish design) but, what other options are available for the TTS in the USofA? Is Carbonio planning an intake for the TTS? Anyone have other advice?


----------



## TheSandeman (Jan 12, 2011)

LongviewTx said:


> I see on UK TT forum a Gruppe M carbon fiber intake and that Neuspeed has a P-flo for the TTS (less stylish design) but, what other options are available for the TTS in the USofA? Is Carbonio planning an intake for the TTS? Anyone have other advice?


i wish we had the option of the carbon fiber intake, unfortunately GruppeM's $900 CF intake is our only choice. i say our bc 3.2 and TTS share intake designs. theres a vtda intake, evoms and vf engineering. i would check iModTTS's build thread as he has a great write up in regards to sheild and intake install :thumbup:


----------



## TheSandeman (Jan 12, 2011)

TheSandeman said:


> i wish we had the option of the carbon fiber intake, unfortunately GruppeM's $900 CF intake is our only choice. i say our bc 3.2 and TTS share intake designs. theres a vtda intake, evoms and vf engineering. i would check iModTTS's build thread as he has a great write up in regards to sheild and intake install :thumbup:


forgot, im going to experiment with the 2.0T intake from carbonio, Raceland has their version, its more or less the exact replica minus the real CF, for $100 new, hopefully a cheap used one comes up and itll fit with minimal or no trimming... ill keep you updated


----------



## iMod.:R (Nov 14, 2005)

Hey LVT, I am now using the EVOMS V-Flow intake as is Alva. I go over that and 3 other new products in Webisode 9 which will be up with in the month as I got to get through the last 4 of these webisodes that should have been done in December!


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

For the "anxious to make a selection people" (me), do you have a pic (no need for a video) and is the product commercially available?


----------



## sr_erick (Mar 17, 2008)

I'm sure you've all see this one before.


----------



## NeverOEM (Dec 17, 2007)

one of these days Bruce, I'm going to have to trek on over to Longview so we can take some shots


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

NeverOEM said:


> one of these days Bruce, I'm going to have to trek on over to Longview so we can take some shots


 Or possibly at Helen at the Southern Worthersee "function".


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

sr_erick said:


> I'm sure you've all see this one before.


 Actually I had missed it or forgotten that both you and Jason used this item. Good look, very nice. Would you recommend this as an improvement over stock with the APR Stage 1 reflash. In other words, with my reflash (all ready performed), will I really enhance performance? 

Do you have any preceived draw backs to use of an straight filter design? 

Thanks for your input.


----------



## iMod.:R (Nov 14, 2005)

LongviewTx said:


> Actually I had missed it or forgotten that both you and Jason used this item. Good look, very nice. Would you recommend this as an improvement over stock with the APR Stage 1 reflash. In other words, with my reflash (all ready performed), will I really enhance performance?
> 
> Do you have any preceived draw backs to use of an straight filter design?
> 
> Thanks for your input.


 @Erick: it looks good man I don't think I ever saw this pic. 

@ LVT: The AEM intake is from an A3 that I had to modify using the intercooler hoses from a Semi truck. So its a very good intake, but it isn't plug and play. The EVOMS that myself and Alva are running is the same kit as for the 3.2 TT/R32 and I don't have an installed pic, but below is what it all looked like before it went in. Install was roughly an hour and most of that was disassembling the OEM airbox and its related fittings. 









BTW, this is the silk Persian rug that my car bought for itself online. It has hairdressers taste in decor.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

iModTTS said:


> BTW, this is the silk Persian rug that my car bought for itself online. It has hairdressers taste in decor.


 I assume that the rug normal resides on the garage floor where she sleeps, no? 

Thhanks for the further input on intakes. You have helped me to make the decision. I believe that I'll go with the Neuspeed product due to completeness of design for specific installation the the TTS. I'll post some pics following it's addition. 

Regards to all.


----------



## qtroCUB (Mar 22, 2005)

*I have an EvoMS 3.2 intake installed also... worked out great...*










Here is an install write up... 
http://forums.quattroworld.com/tt2/msgs/8738.phtml


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

Wow, that looks very nice. Complete surronding of heat deflection. Blue accent looks great too.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

We are hoping to develop something soon! Stay tuned! :thumbup:


----------



## DrDomm (Feb 16, 2003)

What's the benefit to these intakes? Sound? Performance?...any proof?


----------



## NeverOEM (Dec 17, 2007)

airflow; more air = more powah


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

Manufacturers tend to claim anywhere from 5 to 15 HP gains in the higher RPM ranges (exceeding 3000 RPM or so). Claims are for sure proportinate to manufacture's scruples.


----------



## kendoist4162 (Mar 15, 2010)

*This is the Neuspeed p-flo on my 2009 TT - car is black, of course...*




























And, yes, I know the MAF should be turned 90 deg right....:thumbup:


----------



## robokn (Aug 26, 2008)

I have the EVOMS CAI and have had it on the car for about two years awesome piece of kit 
and the sound coupled with the mighty V6 makes for a very nice sounding TT


----------



## DrDomm (Feb 16, 2003)

NeverOEM said:


> airflow; more air = more powah


 True, but that implies that the stock setup is _significantly_ more restrictive. Maybe it is. I don't know. 

Also, I think these are more effective on normally aspirated engines, like yours. 

Still, if it's easy to install, isn't too expensive, and has any performance advantage or sounds better, I might try it.


----------



## Stevelev (Mar 4, 2004)

Not sure about the TTS but its been proven that the OEM intake is more than adequate on other Audis and aftermarket provided no performance improvement. Had a Carbonio on my S4 (installed by previous owner) and the only benefit it provided me was $250. in my jeans after selling it and swapping back to an OEM


----------



## kendoist4162 (Mar 15, 2010)

Stevelev said:


> Not sure about the TTS but its been proven that the OEM intake is more than adequate on other Audis and aftermarket provided no performance improvement. Had a Carbonio on my S4 (installed by previous owner) and the only benefit it provided me was $250. in my jeans after selling it and swapping back to an OEM


 Not to be too contrarian, but having taken my OEM intake out, I am pretty confident in saying it is restrictive. The "entry" box is attached directly to the front grill limiting the entry of air. By removing just that, air volume is increased. More, and thus cooler, air is never a bad thing for an engine whether normally aspirated or not. Just by looking at the OEM intake anyone can see that here are multiple, unneeded kinks in the flow path. Switching to an aftermarket intake is a no brainer in IMHO. ( jus' sayin'...


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

LongviewTx said:


> Manufacturers tend to claim anywhere from 5 to 15 HP gains in the higher RPM ranges (exceeding 3000 RPM or so). Claims are for sure proportinate to manufacture's scruples.





Stevelev said:


> Not sure about the TTS but its been proven that the OEM intake is more than adequate on other Audis and aftermarket provided no performance improvement. Had a Carbonio on my S4 (installed by previous owner) and the only benefit it provided me was $250. in my jeans after selling it and swapping back to an OEM


 This simply isn't true. 

On a bone stock engine with stock ECU programming, there are often virtually no measurable gains from an intake. The airflow demand of the engine and it's tuning is probably not exceeding the ability of the stock airbox and filter to supply adequate airflow. 

Once you chip the car, however, and in some cases are making nearly if not double the stock boost pressure output, and start adding other modifications that increase the airflow demands of the engine, you will need an intake that can support more airflow, plain and simple. The stock intake a paper element filter are designed to suit a stock engine. They will absolutely become a bottleneck once you start undertaking tuning modifications.


----------



## Stevelev (Mar 4, 2004)

kendoist4162 said:


> Not to be too contrarian, but having taken my OEM intake out, I am pretty confident in saying it is restrictive. The "entry" box is attached directly to the front grill limiting the entry of air. By removing just that, air volume is increased. More, and thus cooler, air is never a bad thing for an engine whether normally aspirated or not. Just by looking at the OEM intake anyone can see that here are multiple, unneeded kinks in the flow path. Switching to an aftermarket intake is a no brainer in IMHO. ( jus' sayin'...





[email protected] said:


> ... Once you chip the car, however, and in some cases are making nearly if not double the stock boost pressure output, and start adding other modifications that increase the airflow demands of the engine, you will need an intake that can support more airflow, plain and simple. The stock intake a paper element filter are designed to suit a stock engine. They will absolutely become a bottleneck once you start undertaking tuning modifications.


 
Looks like I need to add another mod to the wish list ... :banghead:


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

What about my part of the post is "simply not true"? 

I have seen on numerous sites claims in this range (i.e 5 - 15 HP Inc). So I repeated what I have seen as the claimed benefit. I also stated that these gains are typically above a certain threshold where air flow restriction from a stock intake does become limiting. 

I, as a consumer, would love to see a baseline dyno pull, then one with only the intake as a variable (if chipped then it's inclusive of each pull). That would be a great selling point allowing the potential customer to have confidence that the expenditure would be worthwhile. 

I rarely have see dyno data to support HP claims. BUT, I have also always belived that some gain (5-8 HP) was probably legitamite. I'm just say'n. Com'on Man!


----------



## TheSandeman (Jan 12, 2011)

> What about my part of the post is "simply not true"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 There are dyno sheets out there reflecting the gains of the intakes from each manufacturer, APR being the first one that comes to mind. obviously they aren't independent/third party dynos and are numbers from the crank, making them less convincing from a consumer point of view. 

S4 owners, time after time, claim that the stock intakes are a great design from factory meaning that the aftermarket options don't provided added benefits over the stock. Eventhough there are tons that claim this, for some reason I can't completely agree with them as I don't think companies would risk damaging their reputations in a multi-billion dollar industry with a unproven product. But then the PES Supercharger, or should I say POS LOL, is out there, I don't want to get started on that.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

Would you please post the Neuspeed P-flo for the TTS. I can't find it on their website. They say 5-8 HP gain, but I'd like to see the dyno. Thanks.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

LongviewTx said:


> What about my part of the post is "simply not true"?
> 
> I have seen on numerous sites claims in this range (i.e 5 - 15 HP Inc). So I repeated what I have seen as the claimed benefit. I also stated that these gains are typically above a certain threshold where air flow restriction from a stock intake does become limiting.
> 
> ...


 You said that claims are proportionate to manufacturers scruples, clearly implying that you think hp claims from intakes are falsified in order to aggrandance the perception of the product in question. I have completely unaltered dyno data suggesting otherwise, albeit not from a TT-S specifically just yet, but from a similar application, which disproves your theory about the scruples of those who produce products for these cars. I can't speak for other manufacturers, but in defense of ourselves, we have never made up hp figures that we quote for any product. 

This dyno chart is from a Stage 2+ Audi A3 FSI, with a high pressure fuel pump upgrade as well as an upgraded wastegate producing 25 PSI on a K03 turbo. 

Dyno tests were conducted back to back on the same car on the same day, with the only changes being swapping out the stock airbox, and two different versions of intakes we offer. 

The dip in power and torque between 3500 and 4000 rpm was from resetting the adaptation of the ECU between each run. The curve smoothed out after the car had time to adapt.


----------



## kendoist4162 (Mar 15, 2010)

So, basically, everything I have been feeling in my hands, feet and butt when I drive after flipping my intake can be seen in numbers.... :thumbup: ( difference in car and engine in my mind is moot)


----------



## DrDomm (Feb 16, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> The dip in power and torque between 3500 and 4000 rpm was from resetting the adaptation of the ECU between each run. The curve smoothed out after the car had time to adapt.


 Not to be an ass, but why didn't you post the "smoothed out" curve? 

Otherwise, pretty impressive. Can't wait to see your TTS product.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

DrDomm said:


> Not to be an ass, but why didn't you post the "smoothed out" curve?
> 
> Otherwise, pretty impressive. Can't wait to see your TTS product.


 Because the dyno reflecting the smoothed curve was done at a later date and would only show one of the intakes rather than all 3, so it would not be representative of the purpose of the test. We also felt that this graph was a better indicator of the actual results of the hardware changes alone, without the influence of other variables that different users may see in different parts of the country like different ambient temps, different octane fuels, and other things which would result in unique ECU adaptation for each car. 

It is also not a pretty graph, and actually does show losses in certain areas, which can indeed be explained by variables not directly related to the hardware, but which we did not alter nor hide for the sake of marketing.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

[email protected] said:


> You said that claims are proportionate to manufacturers scruples, clearly implying that you think hp claims from intakes are falsified in order to aggrandance the perception of the product in question.


 I appologize. Howver, I think you missed the wink emotioncon implying a wee bit of humor/sarcasim. The wee bit of a joke was that scruples and HP claims are proportinate. It was humor man. Nobody ever apprciates my jokes. 

Heck, I started the thread because *I am looking to buy this product for my car now*. If I thought they were bogus I would not even be looking. I had one on my '04 R32 and '00 GTI VR6. 

Lastly, I will now forgo purchaing the Neuspeed product until such time as your company's CAI is available. It's the only way I will be able to make it up to you. But, don't take too long, I am anxious for more HP/Torque.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

LongviewTx said:


> I appologize. Howver, I think you missed the wink emotioncon implying a wee bit of humor/sarcasim. The wee bit of a joke was that scruples and HP claims are proportinate. It was humor man. Nobody ever apprciates my jokes.
> 
> Heck, I started the thread because *I am looking to buy this product for my car now*. If I thought they were bogus I would not even be looking. I had one on my '04 R32 and '00 GTI VR6.
> 
> Lastly, I will now forgo purchaing the Neuspeed product until such time as your company's CAI is available. It's the only way I will be able to make it up to you. But, don't take too long, I am anxious for more HP/Torque.


 I definitely took note of the implied sarcasm, and what you said is definitely true in some instances, so in my response, I only meant to clarify that it's not always the case. Sorry for seeming to single you out.  

We're hoping to get our own TT-S here soon, so the intake development should start shortly thereafter.


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I definitely took note of the implied sarcasm, and what you said is definitely true in some instances, so in my response, I only meant to clarify that it's not always the case. Sorry for seeming to single you out.
> 
> We're hoping to get our own TT-S here soon, so the intake development should start shortly thereafter.


Hate to resuface an old thread, but Mike, did you all ever develop the TTS intake? Don't see anything on the Forge website.


----------



## Jman5000 (Nov 8, 1999)

octalon7 said:


> Hate to resuface an old thread, but Mike, did you all ever develop the TTS intake? Don't see anything on the Forge website.


 I spoke to someone at the Forge tent at SoWo. Maybe mike. Word was a prototype tt/s-line/s intake was being test fitted to a car at SoWo with a goal for a waterfest rollout. ...and to check in around waterfest show time to possibly get a look/buy one. A single large element was the design v something like their twin take setup


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

Jman5000 said:


> I spoke to someone at the Forge tent at SoWo. Maybe mike. Word was a prototype tt/s-line/s intake was being test fitted to a car at SoWo with a goal for a waterfest rollout. ...and to check in around waterfest show time to possibly get a look/buy one. A single large element was the design v something like their twin take setup


 Oh cool, thanks for the info. I ended up ordering the EvoMS intake this weekend, but will keep an eye out for this model, see what luck Forge has with it.


----------



## thez19 (May 22, 2008)

Pictures and opinions on the Evoms??


----------



## Jman5000 (Nov 8, 1999)

thez19 said:


> Pictures and opinions on the Evoms??


 And pics of what "adaptations" you had to make to the intake to make it work...please!?!


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

Jman5000 said:


> And pics of what "adaptations" you had to make to the intake to make it work...please!?!


 Just ordered the other day, hasn't shipped yet, but I thought I read the install for the TTS is straight forward?


----------



## Jman5000 (Nov 8, 1999)

octalon7 said:


> Just ordered the other day, hasn't shipped yet, but I thought I read the install for the TTS is straight forward?


 On my TT S-Line, intake area by the hood/grill looks like this 









...is the area around the "front" of the modified intake the same on this TTS? 










I can't tell if that is just one less piece or if the TTS ducting is different.


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

Not sure, but the stock intake/airbox on the TTS isn't the same as your s-line.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

octalon7 said:


> Hate to resuface an old thread, but Mike, did you all ever develop the TTS intake? Don't see anything on the Forge website.





Jman5000 said:


> I spoke to someone at the Forge tent at SoWo. Maybe mike. Word was a prototype tt/s-line/s intake was being test fitted to a car at SoWo with a goal for a waterfest rollout. ...and to check in around waterfest show time to possibly get a look/buy one. A single large element was the design v something like their twin take setup


 The prototype setup that we made for our TTS project car was recently sent back to the UK to be readied for production. 

We will be doing the final test fitment to our TTS any day now, and production will begin shortly thereafter. 

It is very similar to our Mk5 R32 intake, however, it is specific and completely unique to the TTS, with the filter canister being the only shared component. 










There is a teaser on our Facebook page here:


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> The prototype setup that we made for our TTS project car was recently sent back to the UK to be readied for production.
> 
> We will be doing the final test fitment to our TTS any day now, and production will begin shortly thereafter.
> 
> It is very similar to our Mk5 R32 intake, however, it is specific and completely unique to the TTS, with the filter canister being the only shared component.


 Ahh, very cool. Guess I jumped the gun too early. Will be interested to hear what sort of gains you all made.


----------



## thez19 (May 22, 2008)

Hate to say it but that almost looks too rediculous and "overdone" to be just an intake for this car :what: 

I mean do intakes really have to be this huge crazy big deal and look like something that belongs on a buggati in order to make a difference? You just need smooth and open airflow with a good quality filter that sits in some kind of a heat shield, and the forge piece just looks like alot more than is necessary. I mean, if its price was in line with the evoms and p-flow intake than i could maybe see giving it a try, otherwise just dont think itd be necessary. Sorry, just my overall opinion, ive been through several FI german cars over the years as well as several completely different intake options and what I said above usually seems to be the case. Simpler is just fine as long as the quality is there.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

We will provide dyno test results as soon as the product is launched. 

On the R32, which is an NA application, where power gains are much more difficult to extract, we dyno tested 10 peak WHEEL horsepower. Call it over-engineered, but it works. 

On the TTS, which is forced induction, you would be hard pressed to realize gains from ANY intake on a stock tune and at stock boost levels. Once you tune the vehicle, however, and are producing more boost, that is when the stock intake will become a bottleneck to flow and an intake will realize gains. 

If you just want an open filter that sits in the engine bay and draws in warm air from within the bay, fine, go with whatever option fills that need, but we have been using these style of carbon filter canisters in all of our intake kits as of late, and they are realizing great gains, primarily because they are actually completely sealed to the OEM front intlet duct, so they are only going to see cooler ambient air from outside the vehicle.


----------



## Jman5000 (Nov 8, 1999)

Mike will this work on a TT w/the "standard" TFSI intake for the TT?


----------



## Jman5000 (Nov 8, 1999)

octalon7 said:


> Not sure, but the stock intake/airbox on the TTS isn't the same as your s-line.


 It looks like the 2 duct pieces off the bumper are the same, but I did some image searching and it does appear the box is different. 

But if the boxes are out, I guess the only other variable would maybe be MAF diameter?


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

Jman5000 said:


> It looks like the 2 duct pieces off the bumper are the same, but I did some image searching and it does appear the box is different.
> 
> But if the boxes are out, I guess the only other variable would maybe be MAF diameter?


 Couple pics of a stock TTS engine bay (hopefully they stay up, trouble with my fotki today)


----------



## robokn (Aug 26, 2008)

That is my orange TT-S, I can assure you the car breaths alot better with the intake not sure on numbers as I am going to Stage 2 maybe 2+. 

I also have the twintercooler and scorpion exhaust, DV and Silicon hoses 

I am such a fan of Forge there customer service is second to NONE and they won't develop a product UNLESS their is a benefit the Tdi TT has no real products as the gain are minimal so a waste of the customers hard earned cash. 

My engine bay slowly getting there,


----------



## Jman5000 (Nov 8, 1999)

It appears that the Forge piece deletes all factory "to the airbox" ducting, which means...maybe?...this'll work w/regular TT's? 

Any Forge people going to be at Wuste?


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

robokn said:


> That is my orange TT-S, I can assure you the car breaths alot better with the intake not sure on numbers as I am going to Stage 2 maybe 2+.
> 
> I also have the twintercooler and scorpion exhaust, DV and Silicon hoses
> 
> ...


 Looks like a very nice piece. Maybe I should have waited. 

Received my EvoMS in the mail yesterday. Seems like a nice product (I haven't seen the Neuspeed in person, but by pictures this one looks nicer, IMO). Wasn't expecting to have to put together as much as I did. The instructions they put in the box are for the 3.2...and frankly, while it might be a simple install, the instructions are not that refined. I thought I also read that the TTS version had slight modifications to the 3.2 version, but I don't know how to tell. I guess I will find out when I try to install it in the car.


----------



## lcrcr (Jun 10, 2005)

I see that the Forge UK site is offering an intake that looks like the one discussed here. Will it be offered in the US?


----------



## arm1tage (Apr 14, 2010)

The Forge intake looks like a great design and I will probably pick one up when available.

But for the TTS, at a certain point the turbo becomes the limiting factor. If your intake is getting the coolest air it can with the least restriction, the next bottleneck is the amount of air the turbo can ingest. I put the biggest cone filter that would fit w/ velocity stack inside the stock air box (ala EVOMS) and got max MAF readings of 304g/s. But with my LTFT at -7% it is really only 283g/s. With the stock airbag and aFe dry panel filter max was 275g/s w/ LTFT at 0.


----------



## MaXius (May 20, 2009)

octalon7 said:


> Received my EvoMS in the mail yesterday. Seems like a nice product (I haven't seen the Neuspeed in person, but by pictures this one looks nicer, IMO). Wasn't expecting to have to put together as much as I did. The instructions they put in the box are for the 3.2...and frankly, while it might be a simple install, the instructions are not that refined. I thought I also read that the TTS version had slight modifications to the 3.2 version, but I don't know how to tell. I guess I will find out when I try to install it in the car.


Wow, they included instructions in yours?

Make sure the box doesn't rub on anything beside, or below where you fit it.. and careful when you loosen your spring clips on the piping too.


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

MaXius said:


> Wow, they included instructions in yours?
> 
> Make sure the box doesn't rub on anything beside, or below where you fit it.. and careful when you loosen your spring clips on the piping too.


I had a tough time calling them that, but yeah there were some poorly written instructions in the box for the 3.2.

You speaking from experience regarding the rubbing?


----------



## SKNKWRX (Sep 27, 1999)

MaXius said:


> Wow, they included instructions in yours?


Bingo...got no instructions and support from EVOMS was a joke. They kept sending me the stuff for a MKI TT. I figured it out but the product is fairly crappy.


----------



## MaXius (May 20, 2009)

octalon7 said:


> I had a tough time calling them that, but yeah there were some poorly written instructions in the box for the 3.2.
> 
> You speaking from experience regarding the rubbing?


Nah, couldn't even get mine to fit. (Long story) The European engine bay is slightly different, and they refused to modify the design unless my supplier committed to buying 000's of em.

My customer service experience (if you can call it that) was a joke too, and my supplier now no longer sells Evoms tunes either, probably due, again, to service/support issues.

Most of the rubbing issues I read about were on the Mk5 VW's, but engine is the same...
Mostly on pipes running underneath the box, radiator hoses, and wiring from the engine fuse box.


----------



## kerbellh (Apr 20, 2009)

*AWE Tuning CAI TTS*

Here is some pics of my custom made AWE CAI. Enjoy 

link:http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## awdpwr11 (Dec 4, 2012)

Any videos? Im intersted in hearing how loud the intake is... Im hoping is quieter than an open filter intake system (neuspeed p-flo, etc). 



octalon7 said:


> Looks like a very nice piece. Maybe I should have waited.
> 
> Received my EvoMS in the mail yesterday. Seems like a nice product (I haven't seen the Neuspeed in person, but by pictures this one looks nicer, IMO). Wasn't expecting to have to put together as much as I did. The instructions they put in the box are for the 3.2...and frankly, while it might be a simple install, the instructions are not that refined. I thought I also read that the TTS version had slight modifications to the 3.2 version, but I don't know how to tell. I guess I will find out when I try to install it in the car.


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

awdpwr11 said:


> Any videos? Im intersted in hearing how loud the intake is... Im hoping is quieter than an open filter intake system (neuspeed p-flo, etc).


 No videos. It's still an open element, just more "boxed in" than the p-flo. It seems to be only a little loud on cold start in the garage, other than that, it's not loud IMHO.


----------



## awdpwr11 (Dec 4, 2012)

any updates on the intake for 2011 TTS? Price? Expected availability? 



Forge US said:


> We will provide dyno test results as soon as the product is launched.
> 
> On the R32, which is an NA application, where power gains are much more difficult to extract, we dyno tested 10 peak WHEEL horsepower. Call it over-engineered, but it works.
> 
> ...


----------

