Thoughts On All Intakes Currently Avaliable For the SS/TC
12-09-2010, 12:38 PM
#251
Hmmm, I wonder if the smaller OD of the factory intake reduces said resonant vibration/airflow disturbance just enough to not cause fluttering - then upsizing the ID just makes the problem apparent...
sound plausible...
I wonder if anyone is ever going to step in with a fix...
sound plausible...
I wonder if anyone is ever going to step in with a fix...
12-09-2010, 01:58 PM
#252
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Hmmm, I wonder if the smaller OD of the factory intake reduces said resonant vibration/airflow disturbance just enough to not cause fluttering - then upsizing the ID just makes the problem apparent...
sound plausible...
I wonder if anyone is ever going to step in with a fix...
sound plausible...
I wonder if anyone is ever going to step in with a fix...
Last edited by Terminator2; 12-09-2010 at 02:17 PM.
12-09-2010, 03:11 PM
#253
I think it is the trumpet like taper of the AEM elbow as it goes from 3.25" to 2.375" The flutter happens just as badly on the stock airbox with the AEM elbow hooked to it. The factory intake tube stops all the flutter issues completely and the factory tube is the same size 3.25" down to 2.375" the taper is different though and it is made of stronger material as well. I ran the factory airtube on my old AEM for a week just to see and the flutter completely stopped.
did you have any tweaks you had to make to hook up the factory airbox part to the AEM CAI?
12-09-2010, 04:40 PM
#256
Member
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: Virginia
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a vendor in ms3 land ptp had found GM parts had stainless steel mesh and bought some. They got it on their intakes 3-4 inches in front of the maf and found the ltft's ans stft's became more stable.
PT-Performance.com
thats a cheap start... course stainless steel mesh could be found else where as well.
PT-Performance.com
thats a cheap start... course stainless steel mesh could be found else where as well.
Honeycomb cells for MAF
12-09-2010, 05:01 PM
#257
The screen looks good but if I'm gonna depend on glue, I want more surface area involved. There's also this cool 1/8" aluminum honeycomb available in 3 and 4 inch diameter disks. Looks like it's easy to lube up the target site with epoxy and slide this home.
Honeycomb cells for MAF
Honeycomb cells for MAF
12-09-2010, 05:04 PM
#258
Member
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: Virginia
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At first I wanted the 8:1 (1 inch thick) but then since I have to push it around a bend I ordered 6:1 (3/4" thick). Apparently the new 1/8" honeycomb works lots better than the old 3/16" size.
12-11-2010, 09:01 PM
#259
Senior Member
Thread Starter
You have to bend the mount for the AEM because the stock airtube is shorter by about 1/2" stock airtube flows less than the AEM tube though so performance wise it is just like stock.
12-12-2010, 01:17 AM
#260
hmmm...
I had long thought that the largest restriction on the stock airbox was the overal size, with an emphasis on the opening to the airbox - but what you just said would seem to suggest that the biggest airflow restriction doesn't lie in the intake, err, inlet for the airbox, but in the reduction to the turbo inlet?
I would have thought that since there would be negative pressure at that reduction that if the rest of the intake was able to flow better, that the net results would be positive...
I had deduced from your prior post that for anyone not wanting to HAVE to tune, and not wanting fluttering, that using an AEM intake with the stock airbox's elbow would essentially be about as good as it gets.
I guess I was wrong then huh?
I had long thought that the largest restriction on the stock airbox was the overal size, with an emphasis on the opening to the airbox - but what you just said would seem to suggest that the biggest airflow restriction doesn't lie in the intake, err, inlet for the airbox, but in the reduction to the turbo inlet?
I would have thought that since there would be negative pressure at that reduction that if the rest of the intake was able to flow better, that the net results would be positive...
I had deduced from your prior post that for anyone not wanting to HAVE to tune, and not wanting fluttering, that using an AEM intake with the stock airbox's elbow would essentially be about as good as it gets.
I guess I was wrong then huh?
12-12-2010, 12:12 PM
#261
Senior Member
Thread Starter
hmmm...
I had long thought that the largest restriction on the stock airbox was the overal size, with an emphasis on the opening to the airbox - but what you just said would seem to suggest that the biggest airflow restriction doesn't lie in the intake, err, inlet for the airbox, but in the reduction to the turbo inlet?
I would have thought that since there would be negative pressure at that reduction that if the rest of the intake was able to flow better, that the net results would be positive...
I had deduced from your prior post that for anyone not wanting to HAVE to tune, and not wanting fluttering, that using an AEM intake with the stock airbox's elbow would essentially be about as good as it gets.
I guess I was wrong then huh?
I had long thought that the largest restriction on the stock airbox was the overal size, with an emphasis on the opening to the airbox - but what you just said would seem to suggest that the biggest airflow restriction doesn't lie in the intake, err, inlet for the airbox, but in the reduction to the turbo inlet?
I would have thought that since there would be negative pressure at that reduction that if the rest of the intake was able to flow better, that the net results would be positive...
I had deduced from your prior post that for anyone not wanting to HAVE to tune, and not wanting fluttering, that using an AEM intake with the stock airbox's elbow would essentially be about as good as it gets.
I guess I was wrong then huh?
12-12-2010, 07:08 PM
#263
Member
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: Virginia
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-13-2010, 08:43 AM
#264
Senior Member
Thread Starter
12-13-2010, 09:21 AM
#265
Well it will not let me edit my original post so update post to add to this thread.
First off is the updated AEM intake. I ran this intake for 5 months on my car and had to to do less than 1-2% changes (read: not necessary at all really) to a few areas of the MAF tables but honestly as far as fuel trims go the newer AEM is a winner. One negative thing some have noticed is some cold start compressor choke even with the revised intake and while some cars have this issue some do not for some strange reason. I still firmly believe that the silicone elbow is still the reason for this choking issue and there is a way to almost completely eliminate that issue through tuning the cam tables especially the cat heating cold idle tables.
Next is the K&N SRI I have done 5 cars now with the K&N SRI and all have needed anywhere from +5% to +10% changes to many areas of the MAF tables. The K&N SRI gives good drivability untuned compared to the other SRIs because it has cleaner airfow over the MAF due the way K&N designed the shape of the filter so changing this filter for a different type will most likely lead to a large decrease in drivability.
Next is Treadstone's CAI. Of all the CAIs this one is a very close 2nd to the revised AEM intake. Most areas of the MAF tables need only 2-3% adjustment but there are some high load areas that needed up to +13% adjustment. The car in question has a VTA BOV so there are times at light loads when the BOV vents that the fuel trims can be off by up to _30% but this is not due to the intake but the VTA BOV bleeding out already metered air. When the BOV is shut those same areas are off by less than 3%.
First off is the updated AEM intake. I ran this intake for 5 months on my car and had to to do less than 1-2% changes (read: not necessary at all really) to a few areas of the MAF tables but honestly as far as fuel trims go the newer AEM is a winner. One negative thing some have noticed is some cold start compressor choke even with the revised intake and while some cars have this issue some do not for some strange reason. I still firmly believe that the silicone elbow is still the reason for this choking issue and there is a way to almost completely eliminate that issue through tuning the cam tables especially the cat heating cold idle tables.
Next is the K&N SRI I have done 5 cars now with the K&N SRI and all have needed anywhere from +5% to +10% changes to many areas of the MAF tables. The K&N SRI gives good drivability untuned compared to the other SRIs because it has cleaner airfow over the MAF due the way K&N designed the shape of the filter so changing this filter for a different type will most likely lead to a large decrease in drivability.
Next is Treadstone's CAI. Of all the CAIs this one is a very close 2nd to the revised AEM intake. Most areas of the MAF tables need only 2-3% adjustment but there are some high load areas that needed up to +13% adjustment. The car in question has a VTA BOV so there are times at light loads when the BOV vents that the fuel trims can be off by up to _30% but this is not due to the intake but the VTA BOV bleeding out already metered air. When the BOV is shut those same areas are off by less than 3%.
And that's what I had to add.
I like it a lot, surprisingly not as noisy as I thought it would be...I thought it would be noisier than the Hahn and really it's not.
If I don't like it I have a Hahn to swap to
12-14-2010, 11:20 AM
#267
Member
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: Virginia
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally got the CAI (got the sock to put over the Amsoil filter) and charge pipe in the car (all I had to start with was the GMS1). At first, I didn't tighten up the clamps enough and it blew off at the middle connector. Then I tightened things up. The change is amazing. The car is way quicker than before. On warmup, the sound from inside the car is trashy, like scrap sheet metal is flying around inside the engine (the stock intake must muffle most of that). Seems gas mileage dropped to 19 from 22. But it sure is worth it.
Last edited by pbass; 12-16-2010 at 08:20 AM.
12-22-2010, 06:09 PM
#268
bringing this back because I was thinking about it again...
I am wondering if the AEM with some kind of water sheild isn't in fact the all around winer here...
I would only place it over the K&N because it's a true CAI, where as the K&N is more or less a WAI - which most of the time wouldn't matter, but on a hot day at the track, it would.
now regaurding the fact that some people still have fluttering with the revised AEM, I am wondering if doing T2's fix and using the stock elbow wouldn't be the "fix"... please allow me to elaborate on my thinking;
Are we all in agreement up to this point?
now, if we soley look at the aftermarket versus factory airtube, if this was a naturally aspirated engine, the flow of this part would dictate which is the batter part.
(See where I'm going here?)
But because there is actually negative air pressure at that elbow, it essentially outflow itself, meaning the restriction would be put back to the airbox/intake setup used;
If the AEM as well as the Factory airtube/elbow both have the same start and ending diameter, the AEM elbow seems to have been given the nod as the better part soley because it has the larger air capacity...
Am I correct?
(If I'm wrong, please point out where my logic is flawed.)
T2;
could you tell me what you observed when swapping between the AEM airtube/elbow and the factory airtube/elbow??
This is all making me think about possibly changing intakes next summer...
I would only place it over the K&N because it's a true CAI, where as the K&N is more or less a WAI - which most of the time wouldn't matter, but on a hot day at the track, it would.
now regaurding the fact that some people still have fluttering with the revised AEM, I am wondering if doing T2's fix and using the stock elbow wouldn't be the "fix"... please allow me to elaborate on my thinking;
- The factory airbox has the restriction at the inlet, as well as being all around smaller OD/ID than any aftermarket offerings...
- With the factory airbox being replaced by any same sized (OD/ID) aftermarket intake, the theoretical airflow up to the elbow is identical...
- The AEM not only uses a dryflow filter (which eliminates the possibility of fouling the MAF), but it also does attempt to fix MAF issues with it's placement...
Are we all in agreement up to this point?
now, if we soley look at the aftermarket versus factory airtube, if this was a naturally aspirated engine, the flow of this part would dictate which is the batter part.
(See where I'm going here?)
But because there is actually negative air pressure at that elbow, it essentially outflow itself, meaning the restriction would be put back to the airbox/intake setup used;
If the AEM as well as the Factory airtube/elbow both have the same start and ending diameter, the AEM elbow seems to have been given the nod as the better part soley because it has the larger air capacity...
Am I correct?
(If I'm wrong, please point out where my logic is flawed.)
T2;
could you tell me what you observed when swapping between the AEM airtube/elbow and the factory airtube/elbow??
This is all making me think about possibly changing intakes next summer...
12-23-2010, 11:38 AM
#269
Senior Member
Thread Starter
bringing this back because I was thinking about it again...
I am wondering if the AEM with some kind of water sheild isn't in fact the all around winer here...
I would only place it over the K&N because it's a true CAI, where as the K&N is more or less a WAI - which most of the time wouldn't matter, but on a hot day at the track, it would.
now regaurding the fact that some people still have fluttering with the revised AEM, I am wondering if doing T2's fix and using the stock elbow wouldn't be the "fix"... please allow me to elaborate on my thinking;
Are we all in agreement up to this point?
now, if we soley look at the aftermarket versus factory airtube, if this was a naturally aspirated engine, the flow of this part would dictate which is the batter part.
(See where I'm going here?)
But because there is actually negative air pressure at that elbow, it essentially outflow itself, meaning the restriction would be put back to the airbox/intake setup used;
If the AEM as well as the Factory airtube/elbow both have the same start and ending diameter, the AEM elbow seems to have been given the nod as the better part soley because it has the larger air capacity...
Am I correct?
(If I'm wrong, please point out where my logic is flawed.)
T2;
could you tell me what you observed when swapping between the AEM airtube/elbow and the factory airtube/elbow??
This is all making me think about possibly changing intakes next summer...
I am wondering if the AEM with some kind of water sheild isn't in fact the all around winer here...
I would only place it over the K&N because it's a true CAI, where as the K&N is more or less a WAI - which most of the time wouldn't matter, but on a hot day at the track, it would.
now regaurding the fact that some people still have fluttering with the revised AEM, I am wondering if doing T2's fix and using the stock elbow wouldn't be the "fix"... please allow me to elaborate on my thinking;
- The factory airbox has the restriction at the inlet, as well as being all around smaller OD/ID than any aftermarket offerings...
- With the factory airbox being replaced by any same sized (OD/ID) aftermarket intake, the theoretical airflow up to the elbow is identical...
- The AEM not only uses a dryflow filter (which eliminates the possibility of fouling the MAF), but it also does attempt to fix MAF issues with it's placement...
Are we all in agreement up to this point?
now, if we soley look at the aftermarket versus factory airtube, if this was a naturally aspirated engine, the flow of this part would dictate which is the batter part.
(See where I'm going here?)
But because there is actually negative air pressure at that elbow, it essentially outflow itself, meaning the restriction would be put back to the airbox/intake setup used;
If the AEM as well as the Factory airtube/elbow both have the same start and ending diameter, the AEM elbow seems to have been given the nod as the better part soley because it has the larger air capacity...
Am I correct?
(If I'm wrong, please point out where my logic is flawed.)
T2;
could you tell me what you observed when swapping between the AEM airtube/elbow and the factory airtube/elbow??
This is all making me think about possibly changing intakes next summer...
12-23-2010, 12:09 PM
#270
Member
Join Date: 12-18-10
Location: SouthEast
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-23-2010, 12:18 PM
#271
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Modded stock airbox with the AEM tube has flutter issues sometimes like the full AEM intake does sometimes. Performance wise the AEM intake seems to make a little more power than the modded stock airbox. The K&N SRI is a good intake that does not appear to cause any issues other than 5-7% skew of the fuel trims and hot IATs when lots of low speed driving is done or if it is 90* outside. HP wise all three should be within 3-4 hp of each other so no real noticable difference.
12-23-2010, 03:16 PM
#272
Member
Join Date: 12-18-10
Location: SouthEast
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modded stock airbox with the AEM tube has flutter issues sometimes like the full AEM intake does sometimes. Performance wise the AEM intake seems to make a little more power than the modded stock airbox. The K&N SRI is a good intake that does not appear to cause any issues other than 5-7% skew of the fuel trims and hot IATs when lots of low speed driving is done or if it is 90* outside. HP wise all three should be within 3-4 hp of each other so no real noticable difference.
Sounds like the K&N is the right choice then overall if it keeps the fluttering issue down to a minimum.. and 3-4HP on the bottom end of things is really inconsequential I think over the net gain in peformance by doing either upgrades... I mean from what I see here, just seems that the K&N overall is best for the WAI, and modded AEM best for CAI? .. my question would be, I wonder if a vented hood would be a possible answer to temperatures for the K&N... the Omni used to do this with a vented hood around the air intake.. it was kind of duel purpose upgrade.. at low speeds or stopped.. it would serve as a way to vent the hot temps out... at speed or when sucking in more air, it would serve as a duct for air to slip into... kinda makes me wonder about the RKSsport hoods ability to cool the intake... hmm .. just throwing ideas out there
12-26-2010, 01:49 AM
#273
I've considered this... ram air in the front, heat extractors at the back...
The ram air portion would be pointless without a little more thought being put into it, but as you're thinking, it may get some more air to it that way though.
That opening on the passenger side is where the air comes in from the hood... right above where the K&N and heat shield sit.
There was a Canadian company that created a CF version of this too.
The ram air portion would be pointless without a little more thought being put into it, but as you're thinking, it may get some more air to it that way though.
That opening on the passenger side is where the air comes in from the hood... right above where the K&N and heat shield sit.
There was a Canadian company that created a CF version of this too.
12-26-2010, 04:05 AM
#274
Member
Join Date: 12-18-10
Location: SouthEast
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've considered this... ram air in the front, heat extractors at the back...
The ram air portion would be pointless without a little more thought being put into it, but as you're thinking, it may get some more air to it that way though.
That opening on the passenger side is where the air comes in from the hood... right above where the K&N and heat shield sit.
There was a Canadian company that created a CF version of this too.
The ram air portion would be pointless without a little more thought being put into it, but as you're thinking, it may get some more air to it that way though.
That opening on the passenger side is where the air comes in from the hood... right above where the K&N and heat shield sit.
There was a Canadian company that created a CF version of this too.
so where can I get one of these!?
12-26-2010, 05:11 AM
#275
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-23-10
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 3,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See I think this is a seriously good Idea... Subaru has done this type of thing for years and functional air scoopes have also shown up on several other cars.. now, its hard to say what if any increase in performance you are getting from it, but, the ease to which cooler air flows into the system over what is underneath the hood has certainly got to be improved on this design. plus the heat extractors certainly have to assist on thermal reduction... I think for the K&N WAI.. this is the best alternative to having a CAI, not to mention the reduced concern for hydrolock I would think.
so where can I get one of these!?
so where can I get one of these!?
