Interesting read on CAI's...
- Thread starter menasci
- Start date
Invalid test IMO. They did not tune the car for identical A/F curves and then observe the results. I can design a CAI that will make the A/F curve very lean solely based on the orientation of the MAF and the amount of bend in the CAI prior to the MAF. This disruption of the laminar airflow will make my SAE/STD numbers higher than the JLT or even the DC for that matter. Unless they make the playing field equal for ALL TESTS this eval was pretty much a waste of time.menasci said:
My 2 cents...
U.M.
CanadaStang
New Member
Exactly, until someone does an independent test with the a/f corrected before and after, I'll remain sceptical. With all the people using CAI I'd think that someone somewhere must have done this.Uncle Meat said:
I've read a ton of CAI posts on here and manuf websites trying to figure out if a CAI really does something and is worth the cash. There are so many variables like you guys have pointed out that can make the gains seem great, but end up being false because it seems the a/f goes lean and it looks like you are making HP. I wish there was a test where they correct for everything and see if there really are gains.
Whats also funny, in asking everybodies opinions on if its worth it to drop $200 on a CAI, most everybody says no, its a waste of money, but when you look at all the sigs, most everybody is running some sort of a CAI.
Whats also funny, in asking everybodies opinions on if its worth it to drop $200 on a CAI, most everybody says no, its a waste of money, but when you look at all the sigs, most everybody is running some sort of a CAI.
stangGT97
New Member
spederman said:Whats also funny, in asking everybodies opinions on if its worth it to drop $200 on a CAI, most everybody says no, its a waste of money, but when you look at all the sigs, most everybody is running some sort of a CAI.
We tell you that so you don't make the same mistake
worst $200 you can spend on a stock GT imho (I had a MAC CAI, it did nothing)
CanadaStang
New Member
mogs01gt said:
I would really like to see him do a test for the 2V, as the same stock intake may very well be adequate for the 2V but be restrictive for the 3V and 4V engines as their air requirements will be greater. I would still be interested in seeing the 3V test though!!
The problem with testing CAI's is that even if you correct for the a/f ratio, a dyno is not really a good test b/c most dyno's are in a controlled environment. CAI's are supposed to bring in cool air from the fender. I don't know how much of an effect it will have, but I imagine that a moving car going 60mph will have more cool air in the fender well than a stationary car on a dyno.
I think what would be a better test is for someone to rig a system where we can see the effects of different air temperatures going into the intake system. Basically, control the intake temperature before before the MAF. Get hp and tq curves at air intake temps of 30, 40, 50, 60, etc. This would be somewhat complicated but it would be interesting to see the results. Of course keeping the a/f ratio, engine temps, etc. as close as possible to each other. Than take a stock stang and do road tests all the CAI's. Take temp. readings all along the intake system. Now you will have better data. You have the intake to power curves and now you have the temp vs. CAI curves. The best CAI will be the one that pulls in the coldest air. Now, if someone would do this, than we could end the debate over CAI's.
I think what would be a better test is for someone to rig a system where we can see the effects of different air temperatures going into the intake system. Basically, control the intake temperature before before the MAF. Get hp and tq curves at air intake temps of 30, 40, 50, 60, etc. This would be somewhat complicated but it would be interesting to see the results. Of course keeping the a/f ratio, engine temps, etc. as close as possible to each other. Than take a stock stang and do road tests all the CAI's. Take temp. readings all along the intake system. Now you will have better data. You have the intake to power curves and now you have the temp vs. CAI curves. The best CAI will be the one that pulls in the coldest air. Now, if someone would do this, than we could end the debate over CAI's.
rpburnette said:
You make a very valid point! Testing CAI's on a dyno is not real world and does not provide a true representation of how a CAI will act out on the open road or track.
It has been proven once the car is moving at 20+ MPH it doesn't matter whether you run an "In Fender" CAI or an "Under Hood" CAI (with heat shield). The temperature of the air they draw in is within 1 or 2 degrees of each other. I even performed an impromptu test myself using the data-logging capabilities of my Predator. I monitored IAT1 temps while stationary and while in motion. The IAT1 temp dropped to ambient as soon as the car started moving and this was with a K&N FIPK. Those fender mounted systems draw in cooler air when the car is stationary or moving slowly, but once the car is in motion the cool air that flows in and around the headlight, hood, and through the fender is all the same temperature!
U.M.
Just remove the air silencer or cut it, slap in a K&N and be done with all the horse-crap. After years of testing, CAI's cannot prove they gain anything on an N/A 2V.
This was the biggest BS test I have ever seen.
BOTH RAI kits LOST, yes LOST power on a 03 Cobra. Once I read this I was done. This is a very old article and JP Demolet of Densecharger, JPI, Variable tuning, or Tunable inductions (Just a few of the name changes I know about in the last 2 years) uses this in his favor.
Anyone can read this and find tons of wrong info and false testing.
Why wasn't the JLT CAI run brought to a higher RPM? It was climing in HP and the run was shut down??
Put any filter on the MAF of a 03,04 Ocbra and BAMB you'll see 15 RWHP or more. Not 10 less.
Sorry for the rant, but this is the worst case of BS advertising I have seen.
BOTH RAI kits LOST, yes LOST power on a 03 Cobra. Once I read this I was done. This is a very old article and JP Demolet of Densecharger, JPI, Variable tuning, or Tunable inductions (Just a few of the name changes I know about in the last 2 years) uses this in his favor.
Anyone can read this and find tons of wrong info and false testing.
Why wasn't the JLT CAI run brought to a higher RPM? It was climing in HP and the run was shut down??
Put any filter on the MAF of a 03,04 Ocbra and BAMB you'll see 15 RWHP or more. Not 10 less.
Sorry for the rant, but this is the worst case of BS advertising I have seen.
CanadaStang
New Member
Similar threads
