Thoughts On All Intakes Currently Avaliable For the SS/TC
08-02-2010, 10:18 PM
#227
New Member
Join Date: 04-01-09
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-03-2010, 11:14 AM
#228
Senior Member
Thread Starter
08-03-2010, 11:16 AM
#229
Senior Member
08-03-2010, 11:22 AM
#230
Senior Member
Thread Starter
08-03-2010, 11:25 AM
#231
Senior Member
But I would love for you to tune my car!
08-03-2010, 11:29 AM
#232
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Yes. Exactly. It's a 2006 TBSS RWD. It has the LS2 with the Automatic Transmission. I think it's the 4L70E. And yes I am still thinking about you tuning my car. I would LOVE it RIGHT NOW, but I need to stay away from speed. So maybe I will be contacting you later this month, to see if you could tune both.... But I would love for you to tune my car!
But I would love for you to tune my car!
08-03-2010, 11:37 AM
#233
Senior Member
08-05-2010, 09:42 AM
#235
Senior Member
Thread Starter
09-16-2010, 07:53 PM
#237
Member
Join Date: 12-02-09
Location: Toronto
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air flow simulation video of the MAF screen effect
I found this great flow simulation video on YouTube of the difference a MAF screen makes. Somebody could make some money I think if they sold a drop-in MAF screen solution for the intakes available for our car!
Don't freak out about the colours, the important thing to watch for is consistent flow across the sensor.
With a screen, notice how the flow is consistent across the MAF sensor, turbulence is filtered out and a steady signal and flow is acheived. This is what the sensor expects to see.
YouTube - Flow Illustrator MAF with Screen
Without a screen, looks okay at first but then WHOA! A huge turbulence wave blasts across the sensor! The MAF would read this as a spike in the signal and try to react even though really there is no change in the average flow through the intake. Result could be hesitation and a messed up AF ratio.
YouTube - Flow Illustrator MAF
Don't freak out about the colours, the important thing to watch for is consistent flow across the sensor.
With a screen, notice how the flow is consistent across the MAF sensor, turbulence is filtered out and a steady signal and flow is acheived. This is what the sensor expects to see.
YouTube - Flow Illustrator MAF with Screen
Without a screen, looks okay at first but then WHOA! A huge turbulence wave blasts across the sensor! The MAF would read this as a spike in the signal and try to react even though really there is no change in the average flow through the intake. Result could be hesitation and a messed up AF ratio.
YouTube - Flow Illustrator MAF
09-20-2010, 01:14 PM
#238
New Member
Reply to those regarding SRI by Dejon. Good results after 20 minute install-awaiting tune until I buy a charge piping set.
No surge issues that I can tell. No computer generated error lights. I did simply move the filter as far forward as it went and ended the turbulence. Oh, and I am happy with the powdercoat.
No surge issues that I can tell. No computer generated error lights. I did simply move the filter as far forward as it went and ended the turbulence. Oh, and I am happy with the powdercoat.
12-08-2010, 12:51 PM
#241
This started out as a great thread;
I read up to page #7, but by then it was far off on a tangent...
I am wondering if anyone here would care to compile essentially the same info as post #1 - because some of that info is now outdated;
From my perspective you could start off by saying something to the effect of;
I am posting this becasue I found the AEM intakes online, and did a search here for information - of which this was one of the hits I git.
It appears as though the AEM intake has been revised since this thread was made (this has not been mentioned here), and the K&N SRI has been released for some time, so that info would do good...
I also think that with the tuning disclaimer, this thread would be most useful by removing any other variables out of the equation;
eg: run a 100% stock tune, and post up any issues or gains.
I don't tune, and don't plan on getting a tune, so I cannot attest to LTFT or what not, but have no immediate plans to buy an intake, while have run both the K&N drop in filter, as well as the stock paper filter - both seemed to me, to run identical. with no issues what so ever.
In summary;
Post #1 is great but out dated, and the thread is further muddied by talking about tuning, when that does not seem to be the original intent...
http://www.aemintakes.com/search/pro...x?Prod=21-682P
http://www.aemintakes.com/search/pro...x?Prod=21-682C
http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...rod=69-4518TTK
I read up to page #7, but by then it was far off on a tangent...
I am wondering if anyone here would care to compile essentially the same info as post #1 - because some of that info is now outdated;
From my perspective you could start off by saying something to the effect of;
for any intake to be optimized, you need to tune for it.
It appears as though the AEM intake has been revised since this thread was made (this has not been mentioned here), and the K&N SRI has been released for some time, so that info would do good...
I also think that with the tuning disclaimer, this thread would be most useful by removing any other variables out of the equation;
eg: run a 100% stock tune, and post up any issues or gains.
I don't tune, and don't plan on getting a tune, so I cannot attest to LTFT or what not, but have no immediate plans to buy an intake, while have run both the K&N drop in filter, as well as the stock paper filter - both seemed to me, to run identical. with no issues what so ever.
In summary;
Post #1 is great but out dated, and the thread is further muddied by talking about tuning, when that does not seem to be the original intent...
http://www.aemintakes.com/search/pro...x?Prod=21-682P
http://www.aemintakes.com/search/pro...x?Prod=21-682C
http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...rod=69-4518TTK
12-09-2010, 07:28 AM
#242
Member
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: Virginia
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoot, soundjunky, if you don't like it, buy something, guinea pig your car, and contribute to the knowledge base. It's what I'm doing. It's what everyone else did.
Last edited by pbass; 12-09-2010 at 07:47 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
12-09-2010, 10:22 AM
#243
Where did you get the idea that I didn't like anything??This started out as a great thread, but due to the K&N SRI being out, and at least one ot he listed intakes being revised, this thread either needs to be updated, or made redundant by a new thread.
Also my first hand experience with the local cobalt community, has given me the impression of reluctance to use aftermarket tunes - which is why I suggested a comparison of this sort be done on stock tune ~ I mean anyone who has done any reading here will know that to optimize any aftermarket part, you need a tune to compliment it - hence the suggestion of just putting a disclaimer first, instead of talking about tuning, or what needs to be done to even out he (for example)LTFT's...
I looked this up because although I have no immediate plans, I am interested... I was actually helping someone out yesterday and finding information for them on this exact subject, then kept looking into it for myself.
I would compile information to make an updated version of this thread, but I personally have no experience with any of these parts - so I do not feel I am in a position to state an opinion on any of this.
(IMHO, to state any opinioins without firsthand knowledge would be wrong.)
On the off change you were suggesting that I buy every intake to compare them over again - am not financially "well-endowed" so I cannot afford that...
Frankly I thought I had a good suggestion...
I know the only one that I'd consider (but am pretty sure the information is out of date in here) is the AEM...
Last edited by soundjunky; 12-09-2010 at 10:28 AM.
12-09-2010, 10:48 AM
#244
Senior Member
Thread Starter
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%.
Last edited by Terminator2; 12-09-2010 at 10:55 AM.
12-09-2010, 11:09 AM
#245
Senior Member
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%.
Thank-you.
12-09-2010, 11:14 AM
#246
[QUOTE=Terminator2;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.
[QUOTE]
Being Terminator2 tuned (you are the best BTW!) and having the AEM I can first hand say that this Intake is awesome. The only problem I have is with the BPV fluttering at light throttle dumps and I will solve this with the forge BPV valve. I have 0 compressor choke and driveability is good.
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.
[QUOTE]
Being Terminator2 tuned (you are the best BTW!) and having the AEM I can first hand say that this Intake is awesome. The only problem I have is with the BPV fluttering at light throttle dumps and I will solve this with the forge BPV valve. I have 0 compressor choke and driveability is good.
12-09-2010, 11:16 AM
#247
Senior Member
Thread Starter
12-09-2010, 11:22 AM
#248
Senior Member
12-09-2010, 11:55 AM
#249
Being Terminator2 tuned (you are the best BTW!) and having the AEM I can first hand say that this Intake is awesome. The only problem I have is with the BPV fluttering at light throttle dumps and I will solve this with the forge BPV valve. I have 0 compressor choke and drive ability is good.
I like what Term posted... but have read about, and seen videos on this fluttering... which I wouldn't care for...
12-09-2010, 12:07 PM
#250
Senior Member
Thread Starter
There is apparently a stainless steel spring inside the elbow already to reinforce the elbow. It is not collapsing completely. What I believe is happening is that as the air flows though the elbow it triggers a resonant vibration under certain conditions which causes a disturbance in the airflow into the compressor which momentarily chokes it. This seems to happen a lot at low RPMs and high loads (cat warm up) or when changing from high to low loads quickly (letting off)
Last edited by Terminator2; 12-09-2010 at 02:15 PM.