Gotcha OverKill.
Who has a Cold Air Intake installed? Opinions?
- Thread starter xBa380
- Start date
- Status
If you want to install a cold air intake do it, they do improve power and fuel economy to an extent (on some engines, or if tuned). Just be careful of deep water and look into a quality bypass valve for just in case the filter gets submerged. Also I have heard about the bypass valves getting sucked into the intake manifold under high vacuum (I.E. WOT), this was an AEM model that did this although it was years ago that this was a problem- they may have fixed it by now (I hope).
Now as for short ram intakes, seriously don't bother. They will rob you of power and economy because they are sucking air in exclusively from inside the hot engine bay. Pointless. If you are leaning towards a short ram intake just keep your stock intake system or look into building some kind of forced induction system instead.
Now as for short ram intakes, seriously don't bother. They will rob you of power and economy because they are sucking air in exclusively from inside the hot engine bay. Pointless. If you are leaning towards a short ram intake just keep your stock intake system or look into building some kind of forced induction system instead.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: xBa380
In terms of the AEM intake, 10+ HP and 10ft/lbs torque increase. Independent dyno results before/after install... (And then they did more modifications and did dyno's after each as well, the CAI increased the most by far. Headers, exhaust, etc... Only increased 1-2hp).
They always start the graph at around 4k rpm. You'll lose power below 3k rpm, where I spend most of my time. That, and the poorer filtration, are why I haven't changed my intake.
In terms of the AEM intake, 10+ HP and 10ft/lbs torque increase. Independent dyno results before/after install... (And then they did more modifications and did dyno's after each as well, the CAI increased the most by far. Headers, exhaust, etc... Only increased 1-2hp).
They always start the graph at around 4k rpm. You'll lose power below 3k rpm, where I spend most of my time. That, and the poorer filtration, are why I haven't changed my intake.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
You'll lose power below 3k rpm, where I spend most of my time.
Yeah, you and your big Mazda engine, with power under 3k RPM
You'll lose power below 3k rpm, where I spend most of my time.
Yeah, you and your big Mazda engine, with power under 3k RPM
Originally Posted By: xBa380
In terms of the AEM intake, 10+ HP and 10ft/lbs torque increase. Independent dyno results before/after install... (And then they did more modifications and did dyno's after each as well, the CAI increased the most by far. Headers, exhaust, etc... Only increased 1-2hp).
I have not owned a normally-aspirated car for over 25 years, so I do not know a thing about improving horsepower by switching to a cold-air intake.
But having owned both turbocharged gasoline and diesel engines, I know that a CAI does practically nothing unless the engine is already highly modified. The turbo can pull as much air as it wants through the OE airbox -- only after you've switched to a much bigger turbo, and intercooler, and exhaust system, and a remap that can take advantage of these components, might it make even a tiny bit of sense to upgrade the intake system.
In terms of the AEM intake, 10+ HP and 10ft/lbs torque increase. Independent dyno results before/after install... (And then they did more modifications and did dyno's after each as well, the CAI increased the most by far. Headers, exhaust, etc... Only increased 1-2hp).
I have not owned a normally-aspirated car for over 25 years, so I do not know a thing about improving horsepower by switching to a cold-air intake.
But having owned both turbocharged gasoline and diesel engines, I know that a CAI does practically nothing unless the engine is already highly modified. The turbo can pull as much air as it wants through the OE airbox -- only after you've switched to a much bigger turbo, and intercooler, and exhaust system, and a remap that can take advantage of these components, might it make even a tiny bit of sense to upgrade the intake system.
Got the CAI installed today:
The filter sits pretty high (midway up the front fender) and it pretty secluded from any water. Slight rain mist *may* hit it, but low chance of any water reaching it. Puddle would have to be above 1ft deep to even have a chance. Im gonna find exact measurements tomorrow though and see if I can rig any more "protection" for the filter under the car, but I doubt I will need any
The filter sits pretty high (midway up the front fender) and it pretty secluded from any water. Slight rain mist *may* hit it, but low chance of any water reaching it. Puddle would have to be above 1ft deep to even have a chance. Im gonna find exact measurements tomorrow though and see if I can rig any more "protection" for the filter under the car, but I doubt I will need any
Originally Posted By: xBa380
Got the CAI installed today:
The filter sits pretty high (midway up the front fender) and it pretty secluded from any water. Slight rain mist *may* hit it, but low chance of any water reaching it. Puddle would have to be above 1ft deep to even have a chance. Im gonna find exact measurements tomorrow though and see if I can rig any more "protection" for the filter under the car, but I doubt I will need any
not sure if that really works, since all the metal pipe will be very hot after you run some time. I run my homemade CAI using PVC hose, and during hot weather, the ECM still reports 10-15 centigrade hotter than ambient temperature
Got the CAI installed today:
The filter sits pretty high (midway up the front fender) and it pretty secluded from any water. Slight rain mist *may* hit it, but low chance of any water reaching it. Puddle would have to be above 1ft deep to even have a chance. Im gonna find exact measurements tomorrow though and see if I can rig any more "protection" for the filter under the car, but I doubt I will need any
not sure if that really works, since all the metal pipe will be very hot after you run some time. I run my homemade CAI using PVC hose, and during hot weather, the ECM still reports 10-15 centigrade hotter than ambient temperature
Last edited:
I say go for it.
I'm running the AEM SRI on my 2006 Mazda6i. The gains are about 12 HP @ the wheels. Tested it vs. the AEM CAI at the strip and the SRI averaged out to about .3 sec faster. The SRI runs were done after the CAI runs so the the heat soak effect should have been in full effect for the SRI and it still did better.
The SRI is so easy to install and makes cleaning the filter a snap. If only Amsoil made a filter that would fit my intake.
I'm running the AEM SRI on my 2006 Mazda6i. The gains are about 12 HP @ the wheels. Tested it vs. the AEM CAI at the strip and the SRI averaged out to about .3 sec faster. The SRI runs were done after the CAI runs so the the heat soak effect should have been in full effect for the SRI and it still did better.
The SRI is so easy to install and makes cleaning the filter a snap. If only Amsoil made a filter that would fit my intake.
Well atleast the pipe is away from the exhaust manifold and the filter isn't behind the radiator. I think a shiney metal pipe is a poor heat exchanger anyways, maybe not as "bad" as a plastic pipe but at full throttle there will be alot of air moving quickly through it. I imagine your intake temp drops at full throttle too.
Ian
Ian
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Injector size changing, or forced induction are other obvious reasons to require tuning.
I had a massive CAI and full exhaust on my '87 GT. Converted it to MAF when I did heads/cam/intake because it was necessary. If I had left the stock HO cam, or had gone with a cam that had an SD-friendly profile, I would not have had to convert it.
SD is more adaptive than many give it credit for.
I agree! Back in 1994 when I had a Paxton supercharger installed on my 87 Mustang GT, I decided to stick with the original speed density system, despite many many people telling me that the car wouldn't run properly. I figured it had to run properly because Paxton was making kits for the 86-88 5.0s, before Ford switched to mass air in 1989. So if those cars ran good back then, so would mine. I was right! My car ran like a dream, in fact it ran better than any other stock motor/supercharged car that I knew about. It's best ET was 12.16 at 112mph on slicks. The car was pretty light (2965 pounds on a 1/4 tank of gas) but that engine was completely untouched: stock cam, stock heads, stock intake, stock throttle body, it had never been taken apart once. Later on a lot of people changed their tune about recommending I switch to mass air, and a few people even suggested that if I did switch I'd probably lose some power on that setup!
Injector size changing, or forced induction are other obvious reasons to require tuning.
I had a massive CAI and full exhaust on my '87 GT. Converted it to MAF when I did heads/cam/intake because it was necessary. If I had left the stock HO cam, or had gone with a cam that had an SD-friendly profile, I would not have had to convert it.
SD is more adaptive than many give it credit for.
I agree! Back in 1994 when I had a Paxton supercharger installed on my 87 Mustang GT, I decided to stick with the original speed density system, despite many many people telling me that the car wouldn't run properly. I figured it had to run properly because Paxton was making kits for the 86-88 5.0s, before Ford switched to mass air in 1989. So if those cars ran good back then, so would mine. I was right! My car ran like a dream, in fact it ran better than any other stock motor/supercharged car that I knew about. It's best ET was 12.16 at 112mph on slicks. The car was pretty light (2965 pounds on a 1/4 tank of gas) but that engine was completely untouched: stock cam, stock heads, stock intake, stock throttle body, it had never been taken apart once. Later on a lot of people changed their tune about recommending I switch to mass air, and a few people even suggested that if I did switch I'd probably lose some power on that setup!
Originally Posted By: xBa380
Sounds great, appreciate all the information! I can hope in my case I can increase my mileage by at least 1mpg, but I am not expecting anything to be honest.
If anything, MPG will stay the same or go down, not up, on your stock motor. I did the opposite, a WAI, and did see an increase in my 1st Gen xB, just over 1 MPG.
Cold air has more O2 by volume as compared to warm air, so you can stuff more fuel into the cylinder while maintaining the proper air/fuel ratio. Thats one reason why the go-fast people like it.
The warmer air from your engine compartment is better for fuel economy because is has less oxygen molecules than a cold air charge. This increases your fuel efficency by decreasing the amount of fuel the computer puts into the cylinders. But decreases your horsepower.
Computers will sense the amount of O2 and add the right amount of fuel to it.
Sounds great, appreciate all the information! I can hope in my case I can increase my mileage by at least 1mpg, but I am not expecting anything to be honest.
If anything, MPG will stay the same or go down, not up, on your stock motor. I did the opposite, a WAI, and did see an increase in my 1st Gen xB, just over 1 MPG.
Cold air has more O2 by volume as compared to warm air, so you can stuff more fuel into the cylinder while maintaining the proper air/fuel ratio. Thats one reason why the go-fast people like it.
The warmer air from your engine compartment is better for fuel economy because is has less oxygen molecules than a cold air charge. This increases your fuel efficency by decreasing the amount of fuel the computer puts into the cylinders. But decreases your horsepower.
Computers will sense the amount of O2 and add the right amount of fuel to it.
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, if you drive it the exact same let's say, since the O2 will have more "power", won't the ECU run at slightly less RPM to maintain the same driving speed/habit? I don't see my mileage getting better, but I don't see it hurting it either, it will just "offer" me more horsepower when I need it.
Also, I took notes of various RPM before I put the CAI in, and at idle, it seemed to have dropped a little bit. Nothing significant, maybe 20-30rpm (estimating from needle). At 65mph it seems to be a hair lower as well, but nothing dramatic. This makes sense though, as the engine needs less air since it is more dense, so it will run with a *little* less rpm.
We will see!
Also, I took notes of various RPM before I put the CAI in, and at idle, it seemed to have dropped a little bit. Nothing significant, maybe 20-30rpm (estimating from needle). At 65mph it seems to be a hair lower as well, but nothing dramatic. This makes sense though, as the engine needs less air since it is more dense, so it will run with a *little* less rpm.
We will see!
You can achieve the same results by stepping/not stepping on the gas pedal as much. The throttle plate controls how much air goes through the intake. If you need more air, step on the gas more. If you want less air, don't step on the gas as much. No need to spend money on an intake IMO.
All I know is, from the time I have had it installed, my MPG is now displaying 34 (32 or 33 realistically) on my tank thus far, that is amazing for the 2.4L xB engine. I am sure it will come down a little with some mixed driving, but so far, LOVE the intake. Feels great, additional power across whole RPM range (especially up high), and the no negative effect on mileage.
- Status
