H00DZ

short ram intake vs cold air intake.
voice your opinion on which one you thinks is better.
What brand gives the best sound and most gains.
Also if anyone is selling a used one I'm looking to buy one of them.

BukvaMan

I have a k&n that can be both short ram and cai. I can sell it to you if you want.

H00DZ

@bukvaman how much and how long have you used it for?

Steven Bell

iTrader: (2)

Read this....


https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-112/all-1-about-sri-cai-mostly-sri-862394/

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

although, you may want to believe your short ram intake is beneficial, it however isnt.

https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-112/experiments-air-intake-temperatures-868353/#post14031468

Colder air = more denser air = MORE POWER

350

iTrader: (4)

SRI = hot engine bay air, CAI = fresh air from outside engine bay. Both sound cool, only one performs better than stock. Only real risk is if you're driving through a flood... the filter is much closer to the ground.

beyond 1000

Both will definitely produce more volume and maximum butt dyno. For looks put it in. For butt dyno put it in. For real acceleration, save your money don't put it in, find a girl and put it in.

That's all folks.

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

losiglow

iTrader: (1)

^ You're point is invalid. See 2:17 :ghey:

LoL. Just kidding. I said it before in my other thread on this subject:

By the way, it's IAT, not AIT. Apparently I'm a




Really though, you probably won't notice a night and day difference with a CAI because the stock intake already pulls relatively cool air from outside the engine bay. I think the stock intake was designed this way because the Honda engineers knew that their agressive timing would have to be adjusted when hotter air was introduced into the engine, thus reducing output. A ram air on the other hand seems to be worse (in my observation) than the stock intake because most of the air introduced this way is from the engine bay. This is unless some sort of system is used to route cool air to the ram air filter.

These are just my observations. Take them for what they're worth. But if you do either, I'd recommend the CAI. I believe the SRI is a downgrade from stock. And while the CAI isn't a massive upgrade, it's a little cooler and a lot less restrictive (and lighter) than stock.

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

^I have to read your thread but what data and proof do you have?

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^if you read it, you'll find out.

He measured IATs (intake air temperature) and found out that COOLER IS BETTER.

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

^ thx captain obvious

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^you asked dumdum!

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

^lmao

losiglow

iTrader: (1)

Cliff notes - Basically measured temps with CAI vs. SRI. Average IAT's with CAI = 10-20F higher than ambient. Average IAT's with SRI = 40-60F higher than ambient. Went two days, about 100 miles total with the SRI before I swapped it back to the CAI. Unfortunately I didn't have the stock to compare the two. Would have been interesting to throw that one in the mix. Butt dyno's are unreliable at best but the difference between CAI and SRI was dramatic. Considerable drop in response and output.

I've done the UCM however, which might change the dynamics of airflow under the hood and change the way air enters the engine bay. I doubt it has a huge impact but it's worth considering. SRI might be more reasonable in the winter when ambient temps are very low. CAI the rest of the time :P

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

i think your theory is good but regardless to say "feeling" the difference isnt solid evidence, though i think you are on the right track so i will keep reading on your experiment.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^he didnt use feelings.
he measured temperatures and based off cooler temps, the CAI is better. duh

IAT = Intake air temperature

the higher the temp = the worse its for your car = reduced timing
the cooler the temp = the more power you will gain.

simple car stuff, evil....

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

^ i know what he used crabman. yes in theory colder air should provide us with more power but it is still an incomplete experiment without a solid conclusion

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^how so?

I'm convinced, and it proves what IHC and inaccurate have been saying all along.

P.s. you plan to go supercharged..COOL IATs is where its at.
if you dont believe me, ask Tee_el.....he's battling the heat right now.

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

^ guess i was looking for some numeric statistics. i was factoring everything else in

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

i'm tipsy right now, so excuse me.

butt, I thought thats what this was...

I will gladly take the 10-20 degrees over ambient temps than the 40-60 degrees over.

for example, lets take HOUSTON's ambient temp of 100 degrees.
would you rather be at 120 degrees or 160 degrees!?!?!?!!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!? !?!?!?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

the engine will perform better at 120 degrees than 160 degrees, do you not agrees!!?

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

^ iagree with thati waslooking 4overall power numbers.....whp

fuck that i wouldnt even be outside

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^well, in his experiment, he only tested temperature.
we can all agree that timing will retard with high temps.


so, we can conclude that his experiment is true.
COOLER TEMPS = MORE POWER

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

i guess this is what i was referring to a complete experiment. just like they tested this:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/...02_26_2009.pdf

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^with diagrams and pie charts!?

brb, let me draw some up.

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

f u

you know what i meant

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^lol

BukvaMan

I put my money down that stock is better then cai or Sri. I tried both for longer periods of time and sri is more responsive but no power to back it up, only noise!! Cai, response sucks and low end also. Maybe with the cai you would gain 2-3 hp over stock in top end but in terms of regular driving it doesnt even compare. That is the reason why mine is in fhe closet. But to each their own. Its just a noise maker....

losiglow

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, I don't have quite the budget that the U.S. department of Energy has, but I suppose it would be easy enough to measure whp with IAT's at a certain temperature, say 80F, then introduce 130F air to the engine and remeasure. Although it would be interesting, I don't think it's a critical experiment to conduct. I'm pretty sure I already know what the outcome would be. I doubt it would be a matter of whether power is lost but rather, exactly how much is lost.

Back in college my chem instructor used cold air intakes on automobiles as a case study to demonstrate the Ideal Gas Law and Charles' Law. Not to get too "sciency" or anything but basically put, colder air means more oxygen molecules. This is sort of a "duh" to most of us but it's still sometimes forgotten how much air compresses and expands with temperature since the things we see on a daily basis (solids and liquids) don't expand very much with temps.

Here's a chart showing relative volume of air in relation to temperature:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ai...ume-d_853.html

As you can see, the difference between air at 70F and 120F is 10% (1.00 vs 1.10) meaning that the amount of oxygen (and all other components in the atmosphere) is 10% higher between these two temperatures. That's pretty significant. Imagine a bottle of water expanding by 10% when heated 50F or a chunk of wood or metal expanding like that. The ECU in any given car also knows this and is programmed to inject the corresponding amount of fuel which theoretically, in this case, should result in a 10% increase in output. That's not always the case as there's lots of factors to consider. But in general, cooler air allows for more output.

EvilVirus

iTrader: (8)

^ I agree with you; so there OP and all other noobs I have posted questions that have been ask time and time again and they have respond with great info. oh thx justin for being my monkey on this

jungy4

I just ordered a cheap SRI on e-bay for about $50. If it's only a noise maker, sure why not. People do cosmetic mods that don't add power. TL (especially with 6MT) is plenty powerful for what it is, at least for me. I wouldn't care about debatable power decrease.

bouncer07

No need for evidence, it's been proven before the TL was in production.

Steven Bell

iTrader: (2)

Guys, I believe everything written in this thread. But I can tell you one thing...my Type S feel like it has more power and it feels peppier with the TBS, SRI and J-pipe.

Maybe I'm dreaming, but it's the truth-irregardless.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^the noise!
warp speed engage.

Steven Bell

iTrader: (2)

Actually Justin, I don't hear a whole lot of noise. I never drive with the windows down, so I don't really hear it. I just know the Type S seems to have more pep and more power.


What can I say......

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^what can I say?
believe the proof and not your feelings, sir.

colder air is better.

Steven Bell

iTrader: (2)

Absolutely...I agree.

bouncer07

My thoughts is if you live in CA, TX, or FL wher eit gets hot, you'll notice the SRI/CAI difference vs people living in Canada and the Northern states. Again, it's preferences where you live and to your power goals in the RPM as well.

Grob844

You guys posted some great threads on SRI and CAI... BUT what is your opinions on the best CAI on the market today> Meaning the best overall(price,looks and real hp gains). And yes I did my research but I would like to hear your opinions. 2008 Tl 3.2 Thanks if anybody can help.

vietxquangstah

iTrader: (7)

Only difference between all CAI is the brand. It's just a different sticker slapped on a tube. All CAI is pretty much the same. Same tubing, different brand stickers. There would not be much of a difference in terms of HP gains between different CAI brands (AEM, Injen, K&N, etc).

Now with different brand comes with difference pricing. K&N is going to be the most expensive of course since it's so widely popular and advertised in autozone/o'reilly auto parts.