does that saying "size doesnt matter, its how its used" come into play here?

 

Heat = less horsepower and torque is “not” a theory. A little research will prove that to you.

I stated that I agreed that once moving and within seconds that the temperatures in the engine bay would come down and then a cold air intake and open element would see about the same temperatures.

However what I disagreed with, due to facts that are not only logical but can be proven, is a cold air intake will provide MORE horsepower and torque in a ¼ run over an open element.

It’s a very simple reason. Until the vehicle is moving and removing the heat, sometimes in the neighborhood of 200 degrees F under the hood the motor is sucking that heat in through the open element intake. Now, it may only take 5 seconds to get those temperatures down in a ¼ mile run, or stop light to stop light, but the FACT remains a cold air intake does NOT suck in hot air for 5 seconds and thus provides MORE horsepower and torque. In the case of a stock Lightning 5 seconds is a little less then half way down the track to lose horsepower and torque due to sucking in hot air from the engine bay.

If you want REAL data that actually PROVES performance gains on intake systems you need ¼ mile times. It’s as simple as that. Dyno’s don’t mean a thing “in the real world”, they are a diagnostic tool, a research tool. The ¼ mile is the proving grounds over any claims…

City driving, freeway driving with data logged about temperatures don’t mean anything when it comes to performance especially something as little as 7 – 10hp. If you want to see the facts post some ¼ mile data…

¼ mile times and data is not theory, it’s the “real world” environment…

 

So you’re saying Mike is wrong?

 

Why do you continually try to make other perspectives out as someone against Mike, or in this case myself against Mike, or that Mike is wrong?

No, I do not think Mike is wrong nor do I think he has any bad data. What I was pointing out is there are “other” real world means to collecting data and showing, proving, qualifying, you chose the phase you wish to use, that there are other means to show “real world” performance gains.

I am saying that as far as ¼ mile or stop light to stop light performance goes is the fact that out of two equally designed cfm air intake systems the “true” cold air intake will always beat out an open element (under the hood) air intake system.

There is no way around that fact since the open element air intake system will be drawing in hot air in the first seconds of a run. It don’t matter if it is 3 seconds that is enough hot air ingested (lost horsepower and torque) to lose a race with two vehicles (i.e. Lightning vs. Lightning) all else being equal.

You can’t change physics and hot air is less dense which means less oxygen which means less power…

 

01 - you should go over my posts... I had the K&N with the factory 'cold air' setup... the AF1 clearly helps to produce more HP and about .2-.3 in the ¼. Sure if maybe cooler air, but it's not enough air from the factory. Plus it's not like the AF1 or others are not drawing any cool air from the fender... they are.

But, I will agree with your statement that two EQUALLY designed and flowing (cfm) intakes the one that is truley a CAI will have an edge in power since it will not be drawing any hot air from the engine bay.

 

HI!... Mines bigger!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I absolutely agree with you there. The AF1, due to design (more cfm), has the ability to suck in more air over the stock factory air intake and thus, with more fuel, equals more power…

I was just making the argument, which you understood, that two equally designed air intake systems (cfm) one being an open element under the hood vs. cold air intake that the cold air intake would always gain more horsepower and torque over the open element under the hood…

 

You don’t get it do ya. If all AF1, or any other CAI manufacturer, has to do to increase performance is draw air in from the fender why do you think they don’t? Maybe because that’s a bogus argument? Ya think? Test data and months of R&D says you’re wrong, face it

 

Again, equally designed air intake systems the “true” cold air intake has and will always have better performance numbers over open elements such as the AF1.

To answer your question the reason many aftermarket HAI (hot air intakes) not CAI are designed the way they are is simple. First, they are a lot easier to design and install, second they have more “bling”.

A “true” CIA (cold air intake) system is pretty boring and don’t have much “bling” therefore they won’t sale as well as the HAI. True performance buffs will always select a “true” CAI over a HAI system.

As far as data proving otherwise do you have ¼ mile data? Dyno and word of mouth mean nothing. When you have some ¼ mile data post it up…

See, I am an engineer and I need real world data to show me “true” differences from one product to another. Dyno’s and data logging, as pertaining to CAI vs HAI mean nothing because they can be manipulated and skewed to show nice “marketing” results.

The real proof is in ¼ mile test numbers. I can dyno my Lightning many times and show some real nice horsepower and torque numbers but they don’t mean a whole lot if they can not be backed up by ¼ times.

If an open element air intake systems is tested on a dyno and the hood is up then it’s a useless test because the numbers represent nothing but “marketing”…

I have a clue, its called thinking logically and asking questions as well as giving a different perspective…

 

I ran AutoTap on my truck today. From a cold start, cylinder head temp at 77, intake air temp at 63. Ran at idle for about four minuets. Cylinder head temp went up to 102 and intake air temp went up to 64. Engine coolant temps follow the cylinder head temp by about 2.

I agree that under hood temps effect intake air temps. I think it's a minimal increase though. According to what AutoTap has shown me, intake air temps will drop a few degrees below ambient when moving at over 20mph. I have never used a "true" CAI but from what I've seen the advantages are minimal.

 

yours isnt running either

 

HI!... Well I hear YOURS doesn't run very good either............

 

as usual your wrong...truck runs great

 

HI!... O.k buddy whatever you say... lol! Why don't you go pick on MIKE TROYER some more. I really enjoy MIKE tearing you apart!

 

Hello everyone,

It's up to you of course, but my suggestion would be to not bother wasting your time paying attention to those same few who are always here for only one obvious purpose - which is only to argue with everything we say here, just as these same exact few have always done.

That pattern is quite clear, and it's always the same people who promote the same nonsense time after time, despite them being proved wrong time and again by our properly controlled testing - properly controlled testing being something they have never done, of course.

I'll bet the next phase will be one of the following: either for them to suddenly post up "data" that just magically and completely contradicts our own - or they'll be stupid enough to demand that we post all of our raw test R&D data free to the entire world - which of course will never be given away, anyone who wants our raw data will have to pay for it, just like a number of manufacturers do. We're not about to hand out our raw data just because a few clowns continue to post nonsense that can't begin to fly in the face of properly controlled testing.

I would think that anyone can see the extremely obvious agenda - which is only to attempt to suck you into their claims - never any data, as they don't have any - not once have their every posted any such data from properly controlled testing, because it doesn't' exist 0- yet they continue to blindly make all kinds of claims that completely fly in the fact of facts, and never do any properly controlled testing. So I only wonder how long it will take them to post up some "data" that somehow magically & conveniently tells a completely different story, or demand that we post our raw data.

I would think that, by now, after all this nonsense always being posted by the same ones, that their agenda is quite clear and beyond obvious. And how they hate for that to be pointed out, that only causes them to step up their campaign of vitriol, of course.

You'll notice it's never a word of thanks for us doing that kind of testing to make sure we know what's really what and so that our customers get the best results - no, that wouldn't serve their purpose.

Wake up and smell the roses, gang - arguing with them is *precisely* what they want, it feeds their need for attention.

The only thing that matters is that each individual vehicle owners is happy with whatever they have done to their vehicle that does not cause unsafe conditions.