Well the resonator that sits in the fender well. I was thinking about trying an OEM replacement K&N filter just to see what goes on.

 

there isnt a resonater on the TC's like on the other cobalts theres just a snorkel

 

Ahhh, I've never opened up the fender well yet. I think I'm gonna try a K&N drop in filter this week and see what happens.

 

Yeah, just take out the passenger side headlight and cradle that holds it. It provides enough room to work in that space without having to work from underneath or take off the front facia or anything.

The cold air intake tube comes out from the underside of the air box and runs through a hole and into the fender. There it is fastened by two fasteners. One is out a ways, towards the front, at the end of a supportive plastic arm. The other is one of those long locking plastic screws (similar to those used to hold wire bundles in place in the engine compartment), further back... right above the wheel well (it's a little harder to get to.. a flat blade screwdriver would help loosen the lock piece on it).

 

hmmmm......I though i did lots of research before i bought my dejon charge pipes and sri......Kinda disappointed!

 

Oh I know how it comes out, I just haven't gotten into taking anything apart on my car yet. I thought it may have been like the 2.4 SS and had that massive resonator box in the fender well. If it's just a snorkel tube without the massive box then I'll leave it in. With all the skewed MAF readings that the intakes are causing I just though of using a drop in K&N to see if it increases the flow without causing turbulence. I'm beginning to wonder if the air filter design on the ones used by Dejon, Injen etc. are contributing to the turbulence in the intake and causing the MAF to freak out?

 

Thats what I am running right now. After a few days now... deff. lost some power and some spool time!

But the car is better behaved, so I may just have to deal with it!

 

Is the dejon intake really that bad....I mean, i havent had any problems besides it poping off, and that will be fixed this week with a silicone reducer between the turbo and intake as well as t-bolt clamps. What problems were you having performance wise....I noticed that some times my car feels laggy and other time it feels fast. I just dont wanna have to get rid of my charge pipes and intake because i will never get my money out of them! Someone please shed some light on this?

Should i take these off and try to sell them or just leave them on and see what happens??

 

I f'ed up my car at the track today and wasn't able to log any runs

 

Car was not as responsive with the Dejon intake even when I tuned the fuel trims close to 0 like stock it bogged and over all ran crappy. Did not flow anymore air than the stock air box too.

Your airloads are too conservative in the less than 80% load areas. You want faster spool time crank them up. Mine feels more powerful now except when I rev it over 5K or so it may have lost a little Hp but it fells like I gained some low end and midrange torque.

 

mine seems pretty responsive...and doesnt seem to bog out....Only oce in a while it feels laggy when you get on it but not very often

 

I am leaving out some info. My dejon is flared to 3.25" at the filter then it goes down to it normal diameter 2.75" IIRC. That maybe part of the issue but the car runs tons better now that I put the stock airbox back on. IDK........... shrug shoulders. Just my experience. If you want you can try your stock air box and see if you notice a difference.

 

i might give it a try and see....Their charge pipes ar good arent they....

 

As long as they are not popping off they are fine. CPs do skew the fuel trims some as well it appears myself and 1badblueberrysc have both noted a 4-5% change in the LTFTs because of CPs. He has Dejon I have Clearimage and it seems to be about the same for either.

 

ok cool...just wish i wouldnt have gotten the dejon sri....I have the charge pipes in imperial so its gonna be hard to match another intake to that color...lol

 

With CP, IC, and DP I have not needed to touch the MAF. LTFT are 0.

 

I guess it is mostly intake related but mine are -4 to -5 with stock airbox CPs IC and DP. ! Badblueberry SC is seeing -3 to -5 as well with stock airbox and CPs. I dunno why?

 

Mine are about that.

I have Hanh's CP.

 

All are 2.5" pipe and you have the stock IC so that is not it I guess it must be the different diameter of the CPs causing that 4-5% of fuel trim change. Very strange.

 

I've currently got the IC. I'll volunteer for a LTFT scan if somebody around here's got a way to read it.

I'm planning on CP and DP too, so this'll be interesting. Intake too, but not sure what kind/brand yet. I'll see if I can scan it after those mods too. It'd be good for a before-and-after, IC only, and IC+CP+DP figures.

 

I think I am starting to understand what is really going on here. I Did an intake on my GTO a while back and it was still using the stock MAF housing just a cone filter on the end. I noticed that when the IATs were really hot (above 120*) the ECM would start pulling a ton of fuel 6-7% more than normal. When I modified the intake to where the IATs were lower the fuel trims went back into line I have noticed even with the stock box the IAT1 are higher than 120* lately because the sensor is in the hot engine bay it too will heat soak. (Underhood temps are well over 160*) I think AEM really has the right idea relocating the MAF into the fenderwell because it will give a true IAT and proper fueling calculation to go with it. Just my two cents.

 

I'm reading this as SRI... FTL... unless you've got some good, cool ventilation or something.

It's an interesting thought, definately. It may also explain why people have suddenly started to find this issue now that summer is here...

 

That is what I have found. The ECM senses the hotter air coming in at the IAT1 sensor and pulls fuel because of it hence the negative LTFTs with a SRI and even with the stock airbox. My LTFT are pretty close to zero at first but as the IAT1s get hotter they go more and more negative. Now that summer is here it is very apparent that a CAI with the MAF relocated so the IAT1s are not effected by heatsoak in the engine bay is the way to go.

 

But if the stock air box has the MAF in the engine compartment where the heat is, why aren't the stock people having these problems?

 

It sounds like some are.

I'm starting to wonder if this is really a problem though, since you naturally have to pull back the amount of fuel as the air going into the engine gets hotter anyway and vice-versa as the air gets colder/denser. Am I confusing this with another issue? Do you mean it's doing it even more than in naturally should?