http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp...kes/index.html

AEM's long tube CAI had some great results. And if Tony (Hydrazine) wasn't involved in it, I wouldn't put too much credit to it.

Would love to hear Tony's thoughts on this latest test.

 

How about clearly defining the differences b/w heat soak and excessive IAT's created via stagnating, hot engine temps under hood.

Link to a quick write-up on HEAT SOAK:
http://cjbfire.com/Heatsoak.pdf

High initial IAT's cause the engine to pull timing and adjust accordingly. I differ with others on how long it takes, but suffice to say there is an initial lag in performance (albeit as little as 5-10whp).

For the love of god......stop with the heat soak BS.

I know Tony will chime in with the 06 box being superior all around....I don't dispute that, but I think the Pop charger is equal to or perhaps slightly lesser option. Properly shielded with a thermal protection/insulation the Pop Charger works well in all conditions. I ran both.....didn't notice much difference to be frank. I run the Pop charger now because the velocity stack had more material for me to lathe to 80mm and match my larger maf housing. I made a crappy, diy soft, insulated box to elevate temps around the filter element....along with a front duct.

I also ran the AEM LT, and it was crap. **** poor throttle response and a genuine "lazy" feeling to the motor.

 

That article doesn't address anything we are talking about here.

Um to me, 5-10hp is alot at take off. Unless you are reving to 4000+ and clutch dropping.

The stillen would be the best choice in your option. You can lathe the crap out of that v-stack also

But did you read the article. The AEM LT actually got good gains. I would like Tony to chime in here and validate/dispute the article's contents

 

4500-5500 depending on weather, track prep, etc.....In my personal opinion (I know you and DaveB differ) the 1-2 secs of 5whp loss is nothing....

 

You don't understand. I don't drive like that everyday to and from my commute. THAT is what counts to me. But not to you. Which is fine but we should clarify in what cases we are referring.

I don't want to suffer 5-10hp loss at a stop. Hell that's more loss than what any intake would gain.

 

Frankly, my numbers were speculation.....I wouldn't be surprised if it were less. As mentioned in the other 19203291 threads on the subject...a DIY thermal barrier can in some capacity lower static IAT's....I made a quick one out of pipe insulation and reflective/heat resistant foil that dropped my IAT's 10-12c on a hot summer day. That in conjunction with a front duct made it within 2-4c of when I had the 06 box installed during a similar (perhaps not perfectly equal) stint in traffic/hot temps. The difference without the barrier was 16-18c at times.....that is dramatic and I won't contest your point on the matter. For a pure commuter car.....the 06 box rules....but in terms of pure performance on track.....the difference is negligible at best. I ultimately stuck it out with the pop charger because it had enough material on the incorporated velocity stack to lathe it to 80mm and match my maf inlet.

On with the debate though.....

 

Tony told me he was misquoted a lot in that article, and explained some of this thoughts on it to me. But I'd rather let him chime in on all of this rather than me leaving out details. He also told me I had one of the worst type of intakes for performance LOL. I sorta knew that already though .

In for more info!

 

As taken from the my350Z discussion regarding the same article:

I PM'd Tony. Hopefully he'll chime in within the next few days.

I'll say this, if Tony thought an intake was a useful mod, wouldn't he have already developed one? It's such as easy part to develop and manufactuer. The potential profit margin is huge too. I vaguely remember Tony looking into making a cold air box which used some sort of device to cool the airbox. I can't remember if was a liquid cooling unit or using A/C air to cool down the air box.

 

One big problem of that article was their definition of a velocity stack. What they count as one presents a big problem with me. The stack should be on the end of the maf opening like the stillen/JWT cone. But they don't use that style to test their theory about a v-stack possibly being a varible affecting the SRI's results. They use the generic type cone with some bastardization of a v-stack on the very end of the cone filter. Not the same thing.

 

It is Import Tuner mag after all. I don't put much faith in these guys as being experts or conducting useful tests.

 

I wasn't there for the CAI testing. In fact, I didn't even know I would be quoted on intakes.

My quote was a spinoff of a exhaust system discussion.

What is it you wanted to know?

Tony

 

in for info

 

Tony, great to hear from you. I just wanted a clarification of the article's results and conclusions. It's quite contradicactory to your previous research. I thought you have have made a new observation?

 

nice #'s but heat soak will totallly make a difference in the tests

if its winter CAI fo sho, summer stock w/ ztube

im running stock all year round now

 

Go figure

Now we're going to have guys believing CAIs make a legit 12whp because of this one test. I have as much faith in those dynos numbers as I do with the basic bolt-on 06 Acura TL 6MT that recently went 13.9@106.5mph on Acurazine.