Originally Posted by soundjunky (Post 5426612)

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...

Originally Posted by Terminator2 (Post 5426785)

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.

Originally Posted by 08ssedan (Post 5427006)

So you said the K&N sri is okay to run without a tune right away?

Originally Posted by northvibe (Post 4750724)

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.

Originally Posted by pbass (Post 5427176)

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

Originally Posted by northvibe (Post 5427215)

ya ive thought about buying one of those honeycomb ones.....now that I'm keeping my car I just may.

Originally Posted by soundjunky (Post 5427001)

wow.

did you have any tweaks you had to make to hook up the factory airbox part to the AEM CAI?

Originally Posted by soundjunky (Post 5431565)

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?

Originally Posted by Terminator2 (Post 5431941)

The factory snorkel where it necks down, the factory filter and the "kink" in the airtube right where it goes over the AC line are the most restrictive parts of the intake tract.

Originally Posted by pbass (Post 5432563)

That accordion-pleated piece looks worse than anything else to me.

Originally Posted by Terminator2 (Post 5426373)

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%.

Originally Posted by Nal (Post 5339400)

so has the k&n been reviewed?

Originally Posted by Terminator2 (Post 5433644)

The kink is right near that piece. The inlet to the turbo is a nice transition but right where GM had to clear that AC line instead of moving the AC line 1" over they put a crush point in the intake tube. :thumbsdow

Originally Posted by Terminator2 (Post 5431204)

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.

Originally Posted by soundjunky (Post 5452099)

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;

• 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...

Originally Posted by Terminator2 (Post 5453443)

With the factory elbow the flutter disappears completely but airflow is less and car pulls the same as with the whole stock intake on the car.

Originally Posted by MajorCB (Post 5453498)

So what ends up being better? .. the K&N? upgraded AEM? or modified Stock Air box?

Originally Posted by Terminator2 (Post 5453512)

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.

Originally Posted by Stamina (Post 5457623)

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.

https://www.cobaltss.net/gallery/fil...3/img_2726.jpg

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.

https://www.cobaltss.net/gallery/fil...3/p1000151.jpg

There was a Canadian company that created a CF version of this too.

Originally Posted by MajorCB (Post 5457688)

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!?