Post a pic of your car as it sits currently

[mfuller]

Originally Posted by [ChaosweaveR]

The stock airbox is complete garbage.

In all my years I still haven't seen any concrete scientific evidence to substantiate this statement.

[stewartfn18]

Originally Posted by sleepyalero

Then hit it from behind while she out cold.

Ahaaaaa!

win

[AaronGTR]

Originally Posted by mfuller

In all my years I still haven't seen any concrete scientific evidence to substantiate this statement.

I've seen plenty of dyno's that show CAI's do make more power than the stock air box, even with a K&N panel filter. They are good at keeping rain and leaves and stuff out of the intake, and good at muffling noise, but that's about it. They have poor air velocity with all the baffling inside and all the angles and turns they make.


For the price of a K&N filter, you can get a CAI instead. Some of them come with crappy filters, but you can get a K&N cone filter or similar quality for pretty cheap. People who are worried about dirt and water mist, they can get one of those pre-filter covers that go around the cone and that should take care of it. If you don't drive through a really deep puddle at speed or completely submerge it, there shouldn't be a problem. I've heard of some people who had problems, but some of them didn't have their fender liners in. Others, I wonder if the problem was really the CAI or something else. I've been running a CAI for YEARS... through crappy MI winters, and through FL's torrential down pours, and I've NEVER had an issue.

In fact, the only problem I ever had in the rain was spark jumping across the contacts on the coil adapters for the MSD ignition I had and killing my coils. Car died twice because of that and had to be towed home, so I ditched the MSD. Never a problem with the CAI though.

[ForcedFirebird]

Panel filters flow better than cone filters. K&N filters are the worst since there is very little surface area compared to a pleated cloth/paper filter. If you cut and open a K&N, they are only a couple square feet, whereas a panel filter opened up is quite large. I would have to look for the article where the different filters were flowed (we haven't taken the time to flow filters, too busy on heads//intakes).

[AaronGTR]

Originally Posted by ForcedFirebird

Panel filters flow better than cone filters. K&N filters are the worst since there is very little surface area compared to a pleated cloth/paper filter. If you cut and open a K&N, they are only a couple square feet, whereas a panel filter opened up is quite large. I would have to look for the article where the different filters were flowed (we haven't taken the time to flow filters, too busy on heads//intakes).

I would disagree. That depends completely on the size of cone filter you get. The K&N cone filters are pleated the same as the panel filters, and if you get one of the correct length and diameter it would have the same area as a panel filter. Besides, the main power difference doesn't come from filter area... that has more to do with how much dirt it will trap and how long it takes to before the filter gets dirty and becomes plugged, within a reasonable size range anyway. The main difference in power and the power curve is the air velocity, which sucks in a plastic air box full of criss-crossing plastic grid work on the inside.

[mfuller]

Originally Posted by AaronGTR

I've seen plenty of dyno's that show CAI's do make more power than the stock air box, even with a K&N panel filter. They are good at keeping rain and leaves and stuff out of the intake, and good at muffling noise, but that's about it. They have poor air velocity with all the baffling inside and all the angles and turns they make.


For the price of a K&N filter, you can get a CAI instead. Some of them come with crappy filters, but you can get a K&N cone filter or similar quality for pretty cheap. People who are worried about dirt and water mist, they can get one of those pre-filter covers that go around the cone and that should take care of it. If you don't drive through a really deep puddle at speed or completely submerge it, there shouldn't be a problem. I've heard of some people who had problems, but some of them didn't have their fender liners in. Others, I wonder if the problem was really the CAI or something else. I've been running a CAI for YEARS... through crappy MI winters, and through FL's torrential down pours, and I've NEVER had an issue.

In fact, the only problem I ever had in the rain was spark jumping across the contacts on the coil adapters for the MSD ignition I had and killing my coils. Car died twice because of that and had to be towed home, so I ditched the MSD. Never a problem with the CAI though.

With all due respect Aaron there's nothing scientific about your claims. I am looking for measurable, quantitative results. You and I both know that no dyno reads the same way and dyno numbers are easily manipulated.
The evidence I am searching for is something along the lines of rising or falling mass airflow frequency numbers at steady constant loadbearing states, taken at multiple points through the revband. A higher frequency would unequivocally tell us that more airflow is passing through the intake tract, correct?
I think that is the first step of many to come to a complete conclusion on the power producing capabilities of a cold air intake.
I'm not looking for an argument here but I am looking for a thoughtful discussion.

[AaronGTR]

Sorry, but again, I disagree. If you test a car on the same day, on the same dyno, with and without a CAI, and it makes more power with.... that qualifies as documented, scientific test results IMO. I've seen it done in person, and no "fudging" occurred. You can also gain power from a decrease in resistant to flow without any significant increase in over all volume, but you could show that by scanning MAF signal, wideband O2, injector pulse width, and so on. But simply data logging a maf signal does not change the results on the dyno. Logging data from the pcm doesn't make the results any more "scientific" is my point. All that does is provide more supporting evidence to back up a claim.

[mfuller]

Originally Posted by AaronGTR

Sorry, but again, I disagree. If you test a car on the same day, on the same dyno, with and without a CAI, and it makes more power with.... that qualifies as documented, scientific test results IMO. I've seen it done in person, and no "fudging" occurred. You can also gain power from a decrease in resistant to flow without any significant increase in over all volume, but you could show that by scanning MAF signal, wideband O2, injector pulse width, and so on. But simply data logging a maf signal does not change the results on the dyno. Logging data from the pcm doesn't make the results any more "scientific" is my point. All that does is provide more supporting evidence to back up a claim.

Yes, I will agree that there is something going on there.
And I said that logging MAF frequency was a start. It's certainly not a blanket statement that says "if your mass air flow goes up, you'll make more power". It's only a contributing factor.
So let's dial this back for a moment. Have you ever seen anyone with a 1999 through 2005 V6 Grand Am dyno their car with the stock air box, then turn around and do it again with no other changes except for changing the factory air box for a CAI? And then what did the resulting data show? What measurements were taken?
The theory is there but I'm speculative of all these claims with little or no data to support those claims. I'm not in any way saying that cold air intakes make power - maybe they do, maybe they don't - but on this platform, I need something more to sink my teeth into.

[AleroB888]

Originally Posted by AaronGTR

Sorry, but again, I disagree. If you test a car on the same day, on the same dyno, with and without a CAI, and it makes more power with.... that qualifies as documented, scientific test results IMO. I've seen it done in person, and no "fudging" occurred. You can also gain power from a decrease in resistant to flow without any significant increase in over all volume, but you could show that by scanning MAF signal, wideband O2, injector pulse width, and so on. But simply data logging a maf signal does not change the results on the dyno. Logging data from the pcm doesn't make the results any more "scientific" is my point. All that does is provide more supporting evidence to back up a claim.

Well, I disagree with your disagreement, in some ways. First of all, the things you need to measure to find out if a filter flows better are to measure the pressure drop after the filter, and the air density change (measured through the MAF). Then you need to monitor air temperature in the upper intake (as well as engine coolant temperature) for heat soak effects. Air velocity comes into play if there are turbulances caused by changes in tubing section diameter (especially if too close to the MAF), but measuring the pressure drop takes that into account.

Even then, the dyno seldom gets perfectly identical conditions from pull to pull, and the ECT only tracks temperature at one point, not the average temperature of the whole engine.

I would trust track tests (and extended road tests) in 50-60 degree ambient temperatures more than a dyno, for real-world conditions.

As far as paper filters, the panel style does have more area than the K&N panel, and I did get slightly worse track times on a stock engine after changing to a K&N drop-in replacement. But, I also recorded more KR on the runs with the K&N.

For conical or cylinder type, paper vs K&N, the paper type does have more area, but the pleats are packed too tightly to fully expose the area, in the models I have used.

[stewartfn18]

WAYYYYYYYYY the fvck off topic

[[ChaosweaveR]]

What have I done...

[stewartfn18]

chaos this is your fault? why am i not surprised

[sleepyalero]

Study up, faggots.

[tipnitty]

No studying needed. The CAI is cheap, cleans up the engine bay from all that plastic, and sounds nifty.

>Well spent $30
>End discussion.

[Smithkid21]

Originally Posted by tipnitty

No studying needed. The CAI is cheap, cleans up the engine bay from all that plastic, and sounds nifty.

>Well spent $30
>End discussion.

Tip wins. You all can go home.

[sleepyalero]

I can agree. I hated the stock airbox.

[fisdad]

Originally Posted by tipnitty

No studying needed. The CAI is cheap, cleans up the engine bay from all that plastic, and sounds nifty.

>Well spent $30
>End discussion.

I hate agreeing with this guy, BUT... He makes a good point. Win

[sleepyalero]

ryan

[AaronGTR]

Originally Posted by mfuller

So let's dial this back for a moment. Have you ever seen anyone with a 1999 through 2005 V6 Grand Am dyno their car with the stock air box, then turn around and do it again with no other changes except for changing the factory air box for a CAI? And then what did the resulting data show? What measurements were taken?

Yes. I have. They make on average 3-5 more hp than the stock air box with a paper filter. Chris White did this in an article for High Performance Pontiac as well. Dyno'd the car stock then with CAI and no other changes.

Originally Posted by AleroB888

Well, I disagree with your disagreement, in some ways. First of all, the things you need to measure to find out if a filter flows better are to measure the pressure drop after the filter, and the air density change (measured through the MAF). Then you need to monitor air temperature in the upper intake (as well as engine coolant temperature) for heat soak effects. Air velocity comes into play if there are turbulances caused by changes in tubing section diameter (especially if too close to the MAF), but measuring the pressure drop takes that into account.

Even then, the dyno seldom gets perfectly identical conditions from pull to pull, and the ECT only tracks temperature at one point, not the average temperature of the whole engine.

I would trust track tests (and extended road tests) in 50-60 degree ambient temperatures more than a dyno, for real-world conditions.

As far as paper filters, the panel style does have more area than the K&N panel, and I did get slightly worse track times on a stock engine after changing to a K&N drop-in replacement. But, I also recorded more KR on the runs with the K&N.

For conical or cylinder type, paper vs K&N, the paper type does have more area, but the pleats are packed too tightly to fully expose the area, in the models I have used.

You are getting way over complicated. First off, the MAF doesn't measure air density. It measures volume. The pcm has to add in IAT and MAP readings to that to get air density.

Second, you'd trust driving the car on the street over instrumented testing? How the f'k are you going to measure anything that way? With your calibrated ass dyno? This conversation is stupid. It's been debated endlessly, and proven many times over, so I'm done with it.

[mfuller]

Originally Posted by AaronGTR

Yes. I have. They make on average 3-5 more hp than the stock air box with a paper filter. Chris White did this in an article for High Performance Pontiac as well. Dyno'd the car stock then with CAI and no other changes.

That's all I was looking for.
When someone says the stock airbox is garbage, I'd like to see a reason as to why.
I don't remember things to well anymore, so go easy on me if I bring this up again in a year.