• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

CAI

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrc_03_gt
  • Start date Start date Jul 5, 2004

jrc_03_gt

New Member
Jan 1, 2004
786
3
0
Jul 5, 2004
#1
  • Jul 5, 2004
  • #1
I have heard people say it is not worth the $$ for a 99 and up gt. Do you guys agree? How is the seat of the pants feeling after the install? Do you even notice it? Any loss in torque down in the low end? Look at my mods in my sig should I get a CAI ? Are the bbk's ok I know they look good!
 

kboy262

Active Member
Apr 20, 2003
437
0
26
Atlanta-Kennesaw
Jul 5, 2004
#2
  • Jul 5, 2004
  • #2
It pretty much does nothing. I believe the only one that helps is the K&N FIPK. The plastic keeps the heat down which unlike mine (MAC CAI) is metal and gets hot as F***. I think it is more of a appearance mod. It is up to you if you think it is worth it or not.
 

Nick3561

New Member
Sep 28, 2003
90
0
0
PA
Jul 5, 2004
#3
  • Jul 5, 2004
  • #3
densecharger also works well, got 6rwhp from mine...it also uses plastic instead of metal.
 

Go HoTO!

New Member
Apr 11, 2004
602
0
0
Mountaintop, PA
Jul 5, 2004
#4
  • Jul 5, 2004
  • #4
CAI has been proven over and over and over to work on dynos. It has also proven NOT to work. Huh? I have seen anywhere from 0 - 25 rwhp gains from CAI depending on the car and the mods that it already has. The right CAI on a '03 Cobra can net over 20 hp for example. CAI can also cause some idle problems too and trouble with the MAF on fenderwall styles. Most would agree that they also look nice too.

Choose carfully when picking the one you want. If you are into looks, then get one that looks nice. If not, then don't. You can also make one yourself for cheap.

I was just looking under the hood a a guys '93 Stang....he is going low 9's with laughing gas and the motor is heavily modded. He uses CAI.

When it comes to "seat of the pants" feeling from bolt-ons giving 5 - 10 hp gains, that's a pretty good calibrated rump when folks say they can feel them. I think it's their wallet in their pants doing the talking, but it all adds up. I believe that the 99+ Mustangs are mostly limited at the exhaust and not the intake, but the right CAI with exhaust mods is a good match.
 
R

RCChopper

New Member
Mar 21, 2004
27
0
0
Now stationed in England
Jul 5, 2004
#5
  • Jul 5, 2004
  • #5
You guys with the MAC CAI have you thought of ever wrapping them in heat wrap tape and say screw the look i bet it would help
 

NicksBullitt

New Member
May 31, 2004
172
0
0
Holly Ridge, NC
Jul 5, 2004
#6
  • Jul 5, 2004
  • #6
When I purchased my Bullitt used from the ford dealer, it came with a MAC. I did not like it since it put the inlet tube in a "bind". I ordered the Densecharger Full CAI, with the 95mm MAF bench flow tested for the Bullitt. It all came from Demolet at Densecharger. I found some SOTP increase in the low rpm range 1500-3000.

I cannot say how much someone with the stock airbox might pickup, but it was a noticeable difference from the mac. It looks pretty cool too, with the Carbon Fiber.

Total cost with the MAF 340.00, well worth it considering the MAF normally goes for 200.00+.

Oh yeah, and its all plastic and carbon fiber
 

twogts4us

15 Year Member
Apr 1, 2004
4,188
12
79
Dunedin, FL
Jul 5, 2004
#7
  • Jul 5, 2004
  • #7
The K&N FIPK GEN 2 (rather than the GEN 1) seems to be the piece to have. It seals against the hood when closed. One of our StangNeters reported an 8 RWHP gain with just this mod...not bad for $200 bucks or so. RWHP for these mod motors typically does not come cheap.
 

4.6_02_Black_GT

Founding Member
Jul 26, 2002
622
1
0
Charlotte NC
Jul 5, 2004
#8
  • Jul 5, 2004
  • #8
I went with the Mac CAI ...simply for looks...the ol'GT needed a little more chrome under the hood. As everyone has said performance gains are minimal at best if any at all. Under acceralation, the sound is slightly different too..since the factory silincer is no longer there.

I would recommend it only as an "appearance" item.(Mac CAI that is)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Lost low end torque
  • JJ's90fox
  • Jun 12, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
22
Views
706
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 5, 2025
Methodical
Engine 87 NA - Tune or no Tune needed?
  • R82148V
  • Sep 17, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
8
Views
314
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Sep 17, 2025
R82148V
A
Discussion on mild budget build/ top end
  • Acesario
  • Feb 21, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
643
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 23, 2026
General karthief
M
Engine Unexplainable Exhaust Pop and Gurgle
  • Mrnissen122
  • Feb 14, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
12
Views
459
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 18, 2026
Noobz347
B
Subframe connector question
  • B0udreaux
  • Jan 27, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
802
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 5, 2026
rednotch
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?