poorcollegeboy

if you're trying to achieve a venturi effect, i think you're going to need a little more tubing than the space under your hood to the intake allows. the most important thing about a venturi effect (if i remember correctly) is the length of the middle section. it's also more effective if it was straight. without the proper length and shape, you might add more turbulence than you already have in a uniform tube.

Str8ridin

Swinging back to the Heat Shield idea, here is an intersting design that will be made for 96+ Nissan Maxima's soon.

http://www.weapon-r.com/airbox.html

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

that may not look too bad...

ptatohed

iTrader: (12)

That's nice. How do you know they are making one for the Max.? And why only '96+ and not '95? I doubt they are going to make one for the Supercharger though, huh? (

victor

iTrader: (1)

looks like a nice setup that will give the best of both the CAI and the pops.

Shannon and Ian

iTrader: (1)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ivolley
The complaint by some CAI owners that @ higher speeds the long intake tube affects top end? If I had an automatic there is no doubt about it I would get a CAI. As far as the increase of temp @ idiling I believe a manual transmission can launch above any minuscule hp loss and as stated earlier by dmbmaxima88 by 40mph the temps are nearly the same. I do admit I am concerned about the performance of my car this summer in the GA heat, I have not driven with this set up in the extreme heat/humidity that we get. As far as the vented hood, what if you could manually control fan to help circulate air into the engine bay while idiling.

Quote:

Originally posted by JAIMECBR900

I used to THINK this too but I realized there were a couple of factors that affected the top end. I own a NX2000 and there was no airflow to the filter as the Sentra SE-R had. When I replaced my front bumper cover and removed the factory foglamp components I had a nice flow of air to the filter. I also find that in colder climates my CAi doesn't seem as effective (I am talking about temps under 45°) but when outside temps rise and engine temps rise as well the CAi makes the car pull like a bat outta hell. There is a post about resonance tuning I am going to pull up for you guys.

BTW, my car is on the cover of the http://www.nissanperformancemag.com this month.

Shannon and Ian

iTrader: (1)

I got this from a guy named Naji Dahi from the Sentra mailing list and the SR20DEforum.com. Enjoy!

Place Racing Cold Air Intake
One of the best ways to improve the horsepower of an engine is to facilitate the flow of air into the engine and the exhaust emissions out of the engine. The Place Racing Cold Air Intake (CAI) improves air intake in three ways.

First, the pop charger or the K&N filter is installed outside of the engine compartment in the driver's side fender well and protected from splashing and dust by the plastic inner fender liner over the left front tire. Air is picked up from outside the engine compartment. This air can be up to 50 degrees cooler than air picked up in the engine compartment.

Second, the mandrel bent tubing of the CAI significantly improves the flow of air into the engine over the stock intake. The stock intake piping changes in diameter at several junctures causing turbulent air flow. The CAI reduces turbulent air flow since its diameter is a constant 3-inch from the throttle body all the way to the inner fender and the filter.Third, testing on a dynometer has shown that increased pipe length on a CAI causes an increase in horse power produced. This has to do with resonance.

But what is resonance? Simply put When the intake valve opens, air is drawn into the cylinder by its downward movement. When the intake valve closes, the air in the intake is still moving forward towards the valves. It runs up against the closed valve and creates an area of high pressure. This high pressure is then redirected as a wave back up the intake tract away from the engine. When the pressure wave reaches the open end of the intake tract, it reflect back down the tract towards the engine. Now if this wave approaches the valves as they are open, it will help flow more air into the cylinder. The valve closes and the process repeats. This process results in increased volumetric efficiency (more air passing through the engine)...and therefore, more power.

Cold air, the less restrictive piping of the CAI, and the resonance effect combine to produce an extra 8-10 horsepower on the dynometer.

On the left is a picture of the new cold air intake (CAI) that was installed on my SE-R by Place Racing. Gone is the old black air box, the black rubber tube from the throttle body to the MAF sensor, and the diameter restrictive plastic pipe that exits the filter box. There is much more room in the engine bay. The CAI is composed of two pipes the primary that goes from the throttle body to the MAF and the secondary from the MAF to the filter mounted in the wheel well cover. You can either install the primary, the secondary and the filter or the primary with the filter only. When both are installed the reference is to a dry CAI or full stack intake. When the primary and the filter are installed the reference is to a wet or short stack intake. During heavy rain you must take off the secondary and install the filter directly on the MAF in the engine bay.

One day I needed to take my car to the dealer. So I had to dismantle the CAI and install the stock air box. I noticed that the throttle cable, which passes underneath the primary CAI pipe, is rubbing on the underbody of that pipe. The cable was being degraded. What I did is clear in the picture to the left. I wrapped the throttle cable with tape and then hung it above the primary tube by a wire tie attached to the STB. This solved the problem and the throttle cable does touch the primary tube anymore. I advise all those who have a CAI to check on their throttle cable and do this simple fix. The fix spoils the looks of the engine bay but it is better than having to replace your throttle cable.

Installation

Anachronism

For the sake of space I will not quote your entire post... I believe this wave effect you (or the person who made the post) are talking about happens in the intake runners. I don't think the wave effect could spread into the intake tube, for one thing you would have six different waves at the same time.

The rest of the post could be ad material for Place Racing, Many knowledgeable people on this board have debated the CAI vs. pop to death, yet no one has done a head to head on a dyno on the same car. The CAI main advantage (other than cold air) is the air in the tube has some momentum and at lower RPMs this helps ram the air into the throttle body. At higher RPMs the long tubing and bends in the tubing create enough resistance/turbulence to cause a power loss compared to a Pop or short ram intake. Perhaps on a smaller engine that does not draw in the same volume of air as the Maxima's V6 this high end turbulance would not be as noticable.

electricman

Temperature makes a difference! That's why high performance diesel turbocharged engines use innercoolers(some times called an aftercooler). Lower the intake air temp and the first thing you have done is increase the desity of the air. Fuel temp. is also critical. In a diesel engine, power is lost when the pre-injected fuel temp is in excess of 90 degrees F. I don't know the critical temp for gasoline but I'm sure it's relatively close. When you lower intake air temp more fuel will get into the cyl. and more hp is produced.

The tests performed need to have the same sampling points and vaccume readings should be compared. I'm in Houston and we don't get many 32 degree days. I would like to get a set of readings with 95 degree ambient. When the air temp is measured in the mid 90's the temperature 18" above an assfault road is 20 to 30 degees higher. Think about where the intake is located!

I've been thinking about installing a CAI, but am concerned about getting water in the intake. I may make one out of fiberglass tubing used in marine exhaust systems. This will keep the air in the tube from a\bsorbing engine heat.

Which system is best always depends on your local environment and what you want to accomplish.

BippuBenji

iTrader: (4)

All I can say is, I went from the stock intake to a JWT Pop-Charger setup, to a PR CAI upper pipe/JWT pop-charger setup (Frankencar Style), to a PR CAI, and back to the PR CAI upper ppe/JWT setup feeling this was best for my car because I happened to have the best top end gains with this setup, especially over the PR CAI. I truly regret cutting the 3.5" hole and installing the PR CAI, my top ends were no where to be found compared to the setup just before that (upperpipe/pop setup). According to track slips, and I guess you can say butt dynos, I'm assuming that longer tubing does well for low end but its just a little too restrictive on the volume of air needed to take in where like the above posts have already said, the shorter tubes help benefit intake volume which reulsts in better top end. All in all, I believe that no matter how hot or cold the air is. At the top end, air is air when it is really needed, it doesn't matter too much as long as the volume of air is available. This is at least speaking from my point of view on my Maxima. I can assure you that CAI's work best when the factory fog lights are not installed (4th gens.) giving the filter on the CAI's more air to suck in, but I happen to have fog lights so I really needed to remove my CAI and go back to the upper pipe/pop-charger setup.

Shannon and Ian

iTrader: (1)

If you go to the www.se-r.net and check the mailing list archives or the http://www.sr20deforum.com you will see I came to the same conclusion you did about the Cai.......until...............

I sold my POP and used the K&N supplied with the CAi. Also when I swapped front bumper covers my foglight was relocated and believe me the top end came back.

The B13 Sentra SE-R guys used to swear by them but I wanted to know why when I thought it sucked on the top end. M NX didn't have a route for air to the filter.
Try the CAi w/o the POP and see if there is a difference. Also remove rthe foglight for "testing purposes" and tall me what you think then.

MarcGXE95

Is it fact or theory!

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

Well the fact is that your car can aspirate water with the stock intake if the water gets deep enough. It's not a problem that only occurs with CAI's. There are devices like the AEM bypass valve to help prevent that. My question is why would you want a CAI, I have seen Dyno results that show and prove to me that CAI are not a functional intake for a Maxima. The results were better than a stock intake but less than a POP charger by alomst 7FWHP and 10 lbs of torque.

Anachronism

Have you seen dynos done on the same car with a CAI and a Pop? Care to post them? Speedtrip did head to head dynos and there was a difference of 9 HP in favor of the hybred, but there was no significant difference until 5600 RPM and this was with the variable intake manifold.

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

yeah I"ll see if we can't get them up. We went with speedtrip to get his dyno done. The arches are pretty similar to speedtrips base line but the CAI peaked at like 4500 rpms and the POP peaked at 5200. I'll talk to steve to see if he'll scan them.

JAIMECBR900

You guys have to remember one thing: At the dyno, at least here and I would hope for your car's sake there too, the operator puts a big fan in front of the car WITH the hood open while the dyno run is done. My point is that by doing so it takes one of the drawbacks, in my opinion, of the Pop; taking in hot air. When the operator opens the hood and puts that big fan in front of it, he is in fact bypassing the pops shortcoming and putting on an uneven playing field. I say this because noone runs their car on the street w/the hood open. The CAI is still tucked inside the fender and the fan has no added positive effect and therefore is at a disadvantage when compared to a pop having a fan blow across it. If you want to convince or make your point, you should do the same car, same day, and hoods closed run. That type of dyno would be more accurate comparison of real world situations that people encounter. Either that or to level the playing field, you should atleast remove the foglight during the runs to see if force feeding the CAI will give the same effects as force feeding the POP.

I honestly think this issue will be debated on forever. I also think that people in search for a magic pill answer to performance will hold on to anything they deem reputable. We all have to be honest to ourselves and admit two things: 1. Any modification to the intake, will all other things being equal, is going to be beneficial. 2. All testing for comparison should be done on a level playing field and in real world situations in order for the true best one to win.

I'm going to get off my soap box by saying this; Why are people trying to re-invent the wheel? Pure physics and common knowledge dictate w/o any doubt that in order to obtain more performance from a car's engine we have to do several things in conjuction with each other. One of the biggest is to get the engine to ingest the most amount of the densest air possible during the intake stroke;period. It's been the same idea since the invention of the internal combustion engine. By re-inventing the wheel, I am referring to the fact that if you notice and look around at the cars that are making the real horsepower numbers (i.e. race cars), you don't see many trying to take their intake air from the inside near the engine. You always see some type of scoop, piping, or any other contraption imaginable to retrieve the intake air from the OUTSIDE. Why is that? Probably because you don't have to work twice as hard to overcome the drawbacks of intaking hot air and can move on to work on other aspects of the race car. And further think about this, on these race cars another physics law comes into play; aerodynamics. Don't you think that a car W/O a scoop or any other contraption designed to bring the cooler air in is MORE or could be made more aerodynamic? But race teams still opt to use the things on their race cars; Why do you think that is?

I'm sure people are going to strongly disagree with me and that is fine. I'm just trying to make people think outside the box.

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

Originally posted by JAIMECBR900
You guys have to remember one thing: At the dyno, at least here and I would hope for your car's sake there too, the operator puts a big fan in front of the car WITH the hood open while the dyno run is done. My point is that by doing so it takes one of the drawbacks, in my opinion, of the Pop; taking in hot air. When the operator opens the hood and puts that big fan in front of it, he is in fact bypassing the pops shortcoming and putting on an uneven playing field. I say this because noone runs their car on the street w/the hood open. The CAI is still tucked inside the fender and the fan has no added positive effect and therefore is at a disadvantage when compared to a pop having a fan blow across it. If you want to convince or make your point, you should do the same car, same day, and hoods closed run. That type of dyno would be more accurate comparison of real world situations that people encounter. Either that or to level the playing field, you should atleast remove the foglight during the runs to see if force feeding the CAI will give the same effects as force feeding the POP.
In my case it we tested a CAI that isn't positioned behind the the fender but openly underneath the car. With a fan blowing on it. The first run was with the POP charger in it and the second with the CAI. After taking those 2 Dyno runs we did marry them up with another cars Dyno and noticed extremely similar archs and spikes. It wasn't like we tested a maxima and a taurus. This is fare to do since a PR or WSP or UDD CAI is interchangeable from one car to the next as long as they are on the same engine type.

I honestly think this issue will be debated on forever. I also think that people in search for a magic pill answer to performance will hold on to anything they deem reputable. We all have to be honest to ourselves and admit two things: 1. Any modification to the intake, will all other things being equal, is going to be beneficial. 2. All testing for comparison should be done on a level playing field and in real world situations in order for the true best one to win.

I'm going to get off my soap box by saying this; Why are people trying to re-invent the wheel? Pure physics and common knowledge dictate w/o any doubt that in order to obtain more performance from a car's engine we have to do several things in conjuction with each other. One of the biggest is to get the engine to ingest the most amount of the densest air possible during the intake stroke;period. It's been the same idea since the invention of the internal combustion engine. By re-inventing the wheel, I am referring to the fact that if you notice and look around at the cars that are making the real horsepower numbers (i.e. race cars), you don't see many trying to take their intake air from the inside near the engine. You always see some type of scoop, piping, or any other contraption imaginable to retrieve the intake air from the OUTSIDE. Why is that? Probably because you don't have to work twice as hard to overcome the drawbacks of intaking hot air and can move on to work on other aspects of the race car. And further think about this, on these race cars another physics law comes into play; aerodynamics. Don't you think that a car W/O a scoop or any other contraption designed to bring the cooler air in is MORE or could be made more aerodynamic? But race teams still opt to use the things on their race cars; Why do you think that is?
I think we are working with what we have to work with. We don't have the luxury of a design team to cater to our performance needs. We have a car with a predetermined design, we aren't redesigning the wheel we are taking that wooden wheel and are trying to make it out of rubber-per say.

I'm sure people are going to strongly disagree with me and that is fine. I'm just trying to make people think outside the box.
I don't think anyone is going to flame you for your post, rather the length of your post. you make very valid points, and it is no mysteri to anyone in design of these CAI that the Dyno does not do it justice. But till we have a dyno that will simulate blow by air inductions and measure vacuum levels and turbulance. The dyno is what we have to work with. Now the actual results will vary when all of these factors that occur on the street are applied. I think there is a performance ratio involved. On a maxima a CAI improved performance by 10%, but the POP inproved it by 17%. Your physics will have told you its easier for your car to injest more dense air through a short fat straw than a long thin one.

Again, we have so many parameters that we have to work around. If you don't like the progress, get your own chalkboard and help out.

Louie

JAIMECBR900

I have yet to see a dyno result that has all the "fair" parameters taken care of. Some may have tried in different cars, which is totally wrong. Some may have tried in same cars but at different times which is just as equally wrong. As I mentioned, the reason for my skepticism is because noone has address the "street" issue. In a bubble in a lab somewhere, possibly yes it will work. On the street, where all of us drive, there is no air blowing across a pop until the car reaches speed and even then it has to cool off the already hot air under the hood before you see any gains. Noone has ever thought or even put on the table the possibility that the reason why everyone sees gains only on the top end with a pop maybe due not to the length of the tube issue but due to the fact that it takes some time for the ingested air to cool down to a temp where it is beneficial.

BTW, both intake tubes are the same diameter. I think you were trying to tell me to think about length in your straw analogy. Again, You made my point visible twice. Why can't we use the assumptions made by race car teams with bottomless pockets who have done all the R&D already and adapt it to our cars; none of those cars use "pop" type of intakes, they all use some kind of adapted CAI. Second, you state that the dyno will not give the CAI justice; I agree. Until someone takes the same car, the same day, does a side by side comparo, and does it replicating "real world" conditions; you will not have a reputable dyno to convince me.

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

Not to sound like an a$$ but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I put the results of what tests I've done and let you make your own decisions. 2 cars that run almost identical Dyno graphs are good enough comparison, we are not curing cancer.
Your race car ananology is a bit 7th gradeish, you seem to forget that these million dollar vehicles would be tore up on a daily driving routine that our cars go through. Most of these race cars have intaks in scoops as you mentioned and I'm sure we can find some kind of drag racing funny car scoop for you car as well. Not to mention that we use filters and many race cars do not. I did read that some of the GT use them, but the PPM rating is baiscally like putting a window screen over the intake manifold. Most F1 engines are used once and scrapped for parts, I'm sure your engine doesn't have this short life line.
I know that both intakes are the same diameter, I've designed one-but you are not accepting the fact that it is harder for you to breath through a 28inch snorkle than it is for you to breath through your own mouth.
I know that cooler air is more beneficial, in our cars do we really benefit from this rather than easy breathing? I don't believe so. In a track application, I saw that my consistant 14.8's with a pop charger dropped to 15.1's using a CAI. I understand and weigh the fact that there are human errors involved in a 1/4 mile run. Perhapse with a blower a CAI become functional again because of the mechanical forced induction-I don't know but when I T/C I'll look into it.

JAIMECBR900

I'm not trying to get you to convince me on anything. I've made my choice and am happy with it. The "convincing" part refers to the validity of the thesis that one is overwhelmingly better than the other. Once again, you are not looking past the obvious in the race car analogy. I only used it to show that even though they spend millions in R&D and have substantially more track miles than you or I, they too (for the most part) opt to go with some kind of CAI as opposed to the simpler and more aerodynamic route of some kind of POP. If they tear down engines or have no suspensions for daily driving, is not the point. My only point is that don't you think that if there was a performance advantage to something that is relatively simpler to design and easier to shoe-horn under a hood or bodywork; wouldn't they use it? Also, I don't know if you have tried it or not but it's just as hard to breathe thru a long snorkel as is a shorter one; they are both snorkels and thereby restrict as opposed to no snorkel. Just because the Pop or Hybrid are shorter don't make them any less a snorkel. Neither is letting the engine breathe "open mouth" freely otherwise we would just have a TB w/o anything in front of it.

Look you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. It has been the same issue since this subject first surfaced. I am just taking the results at the very beginning of this thread and interpreting them as the CAI has an advantage in "real world" situations due to lower air temps over a longer range of time. I have never said that HAI, Hybrids, Pops are not good. I am just saying that they have a disadvantage until you start to flow cooler air thru them which (in temps) the CAI always flows cooler air from the start to the finish. The non CAI's may have an advantage at the top end performance due to: A. Their shorter intake tube and thereby having a little less restriction. or, B. At sustained speed, they end up with a "ram" effect due to them not having a fender blocking the intake air. This is just my opinion though.

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

I'm not trying to get you to convince me on anything. I've made my choice and am happy with it. The "convincing" part refers to the validity of the thesis that one is overwhelmingly better than the other. Once again, you are not looking past the obvious in the race car analogy. I only used it to show that even though they spend millions in R&D and have substantially more track miles than you or I, they too (for the most part) opt to go with some kind of CAI as opposed to the simpler and more aerodynamic route of some kind of POP.
I guess i'm not looking past the obvious, because the car itself is designed for optimal engine performance with least amount of wind resistance. If that is your point then we agree.
If they tear down engines or have no suspensions for daily driving, is not the point. My only point is that don't you think that if there was a performance advantage to something that is relatively simpler to design and easier to shoe-horn under a hood or bodywork; wouldn't they use it?
I know that cars such as porsche "shoe horn" air from under the car into its intake. These like other premier performance cars are designed (as you mentioned) with these aspects in mind. Judging from our engine placement that this wasn't a conisderation when our cars were desgined.
Also, I don't know if you have tried it or not but it's just as hard to breathe thru a long snorkel as is a shorter one; they are both snorkels and thereby restrict as opposed to no snorkel.
Well its easy for our cars to breath through its stock airbox when its at idle, but not so easy at 6500 rpms. Its easy for you to aspirate one breath because you are only taking in approximately 1 quart of air each breath. Lets focus here for a second-your car consumes almost 3 quarts per revolution now times that by 6500 revolutions pers minute. Can you still say that a short tube is going to be as restrictive as a long one? You can't because you will have to breath harder and suck harder to pass as much air through the longer tube.
Just because the Pop or Hybrid are shorter don't make them any less a snorkel. Neither is letting the engine breathe "open mouth" freely otherwise we would just have a TB w/o anything in front of it.

Look you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. It has been the same issue since this subject first surfaced. I am just taking the results at the very beginning of this thread and interpreting them as the CAI has an advantage in "real world" situations due to lower air temps over a longer range of time. I have never said that HAI, Hybrids, Pops are not good. I am just saying that they have a disadvantage until you start to flow cooler air thru them which (in temps) the CAI always flows cooler air from the start to the finish. The non CAI's may have an advantage at the top end performance due to: A. Their shorter intake tube and thereby having a little less restriction. or, B. At sustained speed, they end up with a "ram" effect due to them not having a fender blocking the intake air. This is just my opinion though.
Ok I agree to disagree, but I just thought about a way for you to prove me wrong. We can apply a vacuum gauge to your intake (CAI?) then let you drive one pass at the track, then do a POP intake for the same pass. This removes operator error at the track and applies real world application. This will also give some insight as to which intake is more restrictive. Since we all agree that a less restrictive intake will fuel our cars better this will give validity to my thesis, or prove me wrong. If you care to meet some place I'll meet you there with a vacuum gauge and we can hook this up. Trust me when I helped design a CAI I wanted more than anything to have it be a blessing to our cars. And I guess it is compared to a stock air box but I can't support that theory after seeing a car do 2 consecutive runs with a POP then a CAI and have it loose HP with the CAI.

JAIMECBR900

Ok, I follow what you are saying and you make a valid point in the vaccum scenario.

My question is this though; If you have an engine which opens the intake valves for the same duration of time during a cycle (true unless the car has aftermarket cams) and you have basically a fixed amount of air coming in (whether we have a long or short tube the amount of air the engine will aspirate is mostly dependent on the amount available i.e. what air is ready in front of the intake valve) and the density of that "charge" to create X amt of HP. I think you agree with me on this, so far. Well if so, I feel the density of the amount of fixed air is going to make a bigger difference than the amount. You know what I mean? If the engine takes in X amount of air with each stroke (regardless of CAI or HAI) then that really becomes a fixed variable (unless you are talking about forced induction which then multiplies the formula) and the other variable is density.

Density is mainly determined by temp and content. For all intent and purposes your air contains just as much oxygen and mine. That is why I'm thinking that temp when related to air density is going to net more than pure volume since all "regular" intakes are basically stagnant until aspirated by the engine (again w/the exception of forced induction) and when aspirated by the engine it only aspirates as much as the intake valve/stroke allows in our engines. Do you follow what I'm saying?

If I am incorrect about something I've said; Please let me know because all this is the reason for my conclusions. This is just how I've understood our stuff to work, so I'm serious please correct me if I'm wrong.

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

I agree so far. But want to add that I don't believe our car to have anything but vacuum in our intake manifolds or abouve our valves. So I'm not sure about the charge you refer too.

JAIMECBR900

I'm just referring to amount of air going into the cylinder in one stroke. Just lack of better term.

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

ok, I'm following.

Shannon and Ian

iTrader: (1)

You Maxima guys are just as bad as the Sentra guys. Anyone here know Mike Jez? Just curious. This debate of WAI vs CAi is all over the different messageboards. As far as hydrolock? I assume on a Maxima you have even a less of a chance than on the NX2000 like I do. I have both cars and with the higher center of gravity the Maxima whas less of a chance to hydrolock unless you drive directly thru the Mississippi.

Neuhowse

So what you're saying is that the best performance upgrade to get is the CAI?

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

Well thats what we are debating.

JAIMECBR900

What is hydrolock?

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

sucking in water to your engine and blowing your pushrods through your oil pan... I think that sums up hydro-(water) lock-(Fuqued)

JAIMECBR900

Gotcha. Shannon, if sucking in water worries you, all you have to do is get an AEM bypass valve and put in just before the Air flow meter.

Str8ridin

Some folks may be worrying about the possibility of water getting sucked up into through your CAI and ultimately into the engine, causing horrific damage. These are usually the same people who worry that the Year 2000 bug will cause their coffee maker to suddenly emit powerful radiation which will cause them to grow two extra arms in unpleasant locations. The possibility of both exists, but I think you see my point. The key is to not drive into any puddles, streams, rivers, swimming pools, etc. I have heard of folks seizing their motor with cold air setups... and it usually involves them driving into running water 16" deep or something equally brilliant. So, as long as you use your head, you'll be fine

JAIMECBR900

Amen, preach on....

Dave B

Until I start reading about bolt-on NA 5 speeds 4th gens hitting consistent 95+mph trap speeds with CAIs, I'll stick with my hybrid/POP. Almost all (if not all) the quickest 5 speeds are running hybrid/POPs. I'd say on average the POP/hybrid equipped Max will be about 2mph faster and .1 quicker on average with most gains showing towards the 1/8 mile or about 75mph. As for autos, I don't know, I don't own one.

Heat is the only issue concerning the hybrid/POP. This can EASILY be overcome by building your own heatshield, leaving in the stock intake piping and lower airbox, running OSCAI piping to the stock intake snorkel, etc. My hybrid intake never gets hot unless I idle for a long time in 70+ degree weather. Once up to speed, there's no heat problems.

REMEMBER!!! Once the intake manifold heatsoaks, it doesn't matter what crack pipe you have hooked up to your motor. You're going to be slow regardless. These high compression and knock sensitive motors don't like heat.



Dave

Jime

iTrader: (10)

Just an observation from reading all this and a little track experience. I have found with the CAI that the power does seem to drop at higher RPM, I have also noticed that I have a bit tooo much wheelspin on the bottom end. So, I have switched back to hybrid in hopes of loosing a bit on the bottom and gaining a bit on the top. Not sure how this theory will work but I am going to try it this Sunday. Also it doesn't take too much to switch back and forth, ie 30 mins or less so its easy to compare at the track.
Interesting thread, good info.
Jim

SLC I30t

iTrader: (1)

Sounds interesting, I would be affraid of something that is -that cold(dry ice) sitting next to or attached in anyway somethng that to my engine that is 2-300 degrees hotter than it. I guess it would be something to think about while your in the staging lanes.

Shannon and Ian

iTrader: (1)

Then you have to worry about Turbulance in the MAF. Ever wonder why AEM intakes on cars w/o MAF's have a Bypass valve and cars with a MAF don't?

maxichic

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Str8ridin


Interesting, you're implying that the tube for the CAI can actually get hot and transfer that heat to the air passing through and yield higher temperatures, possibly more at idle. Good point. I wish I had a CAI to actually test it on! [/QUOTE


hey nice job, i learned so much
keep up the good work

JAIMECBR900

That's probably because of fitament issues. The bypass valve does absolutely nothing when it's not "activated" by ingesting big amounts of water. There was an article about this in SCC about a year ago in which they rigged up an NSX and put it's intake both in plain air and then inside a fish tank to see if the valve worked. It did. It only "activates" or starts to do anything when the filter is submerged and thereby starts to try and suck water up the intake much like you would a straw. Just like a straw, if you ever noticed that when the straw is cracked or broken in the middle, nothing comes up; same idea. The valve just sits there much like the rubber connector that I took out. I don't think it causes any more turbulance than it.

-MaxPayne-

iTrader: (2)

Obviously it has been concluded that the CAI defenitley has it's highest gavins in the low end. Would a Y-Pipe teamed with the CAI produce greater overall numbers than a y and a pop? I belive IANSW or someone else who was running an MEVI dynoed with a CAI and then with a hybrid. He found that while running both the hybrid and the MEVI the car was running too rich. Wouldn't the prime solution for a n/a be MEVI, Y-Pipe, and CAI?

-Payne-