looking good. i just cant swing that much for a cai/sri.

 

U will like Cai better trust me.

 

Nice man And i agree with cruzeman get the full CAI. It's better

 

yea i kept reading that the CAI is better, im gonna give a shot next weekend when i got more time but honestly what is the difference between the two? im honestly looking for more mpg, i so figured a SRI?

 

CAI would yield better MPG. Since it's colder air.

 

I switched from SRI to CAI and expirenced a major increase im mpg!
Really didnt think "cold-air" would give me better mpg but it really does.
Plus cold airs better for the engine when running high speeds!
CAI ALL THE WAY!

 

Did Injen include that bag that goes around the filter?

 

yes it was included in the box

 

Btw...post a video or sound clip if you can. I'd like to hear the sound difference with the Sri compared to the cai.

 

Kermit, that sounds like pretty reasonable logic, and it's true cars feel much more peppy with cold air, I personally prefer to get as cool of air as possible into that intake manifold.

However, it's simply incorrect. It's true that the fueling is related to the proportion of oxygen density, however the less dense the air charge is, the LESS fuel is added to maintain appropriate mixture.

Unless a vehicle is overheating, stock programming (due to physics) has IAT corrections decrease fueling when temperature goes up. In addition when the air charge is colder to maintain stoichiometry the ECU will command an increase of injector pulse width.

 

So the IAT will give less resistance with HOTTER air? To keep a balance of A/F i guess? Where is the MPG increase then? The numbers haven't lied.

Isn't it a principle that for a spark to combust it would need more Oxygen? So LESS oxygen would mean more fuel? Just like making a fire for example, no oxygen, no fire?..

Might as well learn something today right?

 

Looks great.

 

thx bro

 

*Warning, a wall of poorly worded text! Forgive me!*

Lots of things with cars seem counter intuative, trust me, I've been trying my best to learn about the finer points of engine mechanics and design since I was 17 (I'm 29 now). And I'm still learning every single day.

It's also very very very hard to find people online that you can trust to give you the correct information. I find that most people on car forums, have wonderful intentions and love to help people (part of why I'm part of so many). However it's difficult to determine someones credibility online for sure!


Lame description:
To make it super simple, outside of things like catalyst thermal protection, or engine coolant temperature mitigation, the ECU will work off of a simple scenario - a basic recipie.

There is a commanded air to fuel ratio, obviously I'm sure you're aware.
Let's call it.

12.5:1 That is 12.5 parts air to 1 part fuel.
Lets say we have a sealed box of air sealed, at atmosphere 1:1 no pressure or vacuum. At room temperature.

If we increase the temperature of the air in the box, the pressure will rise above ambient atmosphere.

Obviously as we drop the temperature we get a vacuum.

During engine operation the engine (we'll say) processes one BOX of air. Let's pretend all variables being equal it'll process the same Box (volume) at the same throttle input, at the same RPM every time. (just saying this for simplifications sake)...

If our only variable is air temperature and the computer is targeting 12.5 parts air to 1 part fuel here is what happens.

Motor takes in that same Box of air at that moment at 120 degrees F. Since we're talking about a 1:1 ratio of box pressure to atmosphere, let's pretend that whatever excess pressure that was in the box when it was heated, we were able to let out, and once it reached 1:1 ratio of atmosphere, no pressure, no vacuum. We would find that same amount now containing the same temperature (if we could equalize it) but with LESS oxygen molecules. Less density if you will.

Opposite is true for colder air. Since our sealed chilled box has a vacuum it's looking to equilize the pressure as atmosphere in the box. So we open it, and allow the pressure to equalize to our 1:1 and we keep that new air chilled as well... So now we're at 1:1 and we seal that box back up.

That box has a lot more moles of O2 in the same container.

Back to our motor. It's now taking in that box and passing it through our heated Mass Air Flow sensor, and it determines just how many molecules of O2 is in that fixed volume of air (our box). And it has no choice but to add more fuel to the colder air to maintain it's 12.5 parts air, to 1 part fuel.


Where MPG could come from:
Here is the truth...

-Short ram could increase MPG because you're pulling in hot air. It makes you slower, but it's somwhat similar to using less throttle actually.

-Since the cartridge style MAF is designed for a VERY specific cross section (and volume within a confine) any deviation in that could cause the ECU to improperly read the air density. If for some reason this happens there could be a shift in commanded Air/Fuel and you could be leaning out the mixture for that air volume. (this is ACTUALLY happening as shown by the dynos I made a comment about this actually - people seemed to ignore it hehe)

- Technically reducing any pumping loss would improve mechanical effiency, this reducing the amount of HP used. Personally, I don't think this is anything significant just bumming around town. Reason being is that the stock intake is designed for airflow to feed the entire engine at peak boost and RPM, we'll call it 250 CFM. At 10% throttle under 2200 rpm (bumming around town) you might be using 15-20% of the intake flow capacity... So better "flow" is likely not something that would improve economy in this particular instance. If we saw 30-40% capacity of the intake just driving normally, then I'd say there could be some gains there.

Again though, I haven't flow benched the stock intake system, nor has anyone else except GM at this point. So there is no way to know where the cut off point is, however I think I'm probably correct about it in this case.

 

Lots of things with cars seem counter intuative, trust me, I've been trying my best to learn about the finer points of engine mechanics and design since I was 17 (I'm 29 now). And I'm still learning every single day.

It's also very very very hard to find people online that you can trust to give you the correct information. I find that most people on car forums, have wonderful intentions and love to help people (part of why I'm part of so many). However it's difficult to determine someones credibility online for sure!


Lame description:
To make it super simple, outside of things like catalyst thermal protection, or engine coolant temperature mitigation, the ECU will work off of a simple scenario - a basic recipie.

There is a commanded air to fuel ratio, obviously I'm sure you're aware.
Let's call it.

12.5:1 That is 12.5 parts air to 1 part fuel.
Lets say we have a sealed box of air sealed, at atmosphere 1:1 no pressure of vacuum. At room temperature.

If we increase the temperature of the air in the box, the pressure will rise above ambient atmosphere.

Obviously as we drop the temperature we get a vacuum.

During engine operation the engine (we'll say) processes one BOX of air. Let's pretend all variables being equal it'll process the same Box (volume) at the same throttle input, at the same RPM every time. (just saying this for simplifications sake)...

If our only variable is air temperature and the computer is targeting 12.5 parts air to 1 part fuel here is what happens.

Motor takes in that same Box of air at that moment at 120 degrees F. Since we're talking about a 1:1 ratio of atmosphere to atmosphere, let's pretend that whatever excess pressure that was in the box when it was heated, we were able to let out, and once it reached 1:1 ratio of atmosphere, no pressure, no vacuum. We would find that same amount now containing the same temperature (if we could equalize it) but with LESS oxygen molecules. Less density if you will.

Opposite is true for colder air. Since our sealed chilled box has a vacuum it's looking to cram more air in the same box. So we open it, and allow the pressure to equalize to our 1:1 and we keep that new air chilled as well... So now we're at 1:1 and we seal that box back up.

That box has a lot more moles of O2 in the same container.

Back to our motor. It's now taking in that box and passing it through our heated Mass Air Flow sensor, and it determines just how many molecules of O2 is in that fixed volume of air (our box). And it has no choice but to add more fuel to the colder air to maintain it's 12.5 parts air, to 1 part fuel.

Bravo... :not_worthy: Understood. I was aware of the fixed air fuel ratio, but didn't take it into consideration... Totally overlooked.

A day in which you don't learn something is a day wasted. Thank you kind sir, for taking time for that informative post.

 

they pretty much sound almost the same, When taking off, in SRI form, i think its a bit louder then CAI.
But i love my CAI much better then SRI

 

Definitely love the CAI more. They sound about to same when you accl to over take a car for example. But take off, WOT, it is definitely different.

BTW i drilled four wholes on the fog light cover, i beat you by 2 holes. Jus' Sayin'. After i was putting in the filter, i saw how much air can flow freely in the fender well.

 

Just ordered a black one...hehe. I think I'll try it in Sri mode first though..I dint have a lot of time to be fiddling with fender walls and such.

 

The HAI car will pull timing and be down on power. Guess what your average owner will do?

Push the pedal further down.

I'd stick with the CAI's to prevent detonation.

A lot of guys used to use this same "trick" when changing their thermostats.

 

so what was your mpg increase?

 

does any body know where i can get some #'s on the mpg increase? i really want to make the purchas but i need to prove to the wife that it will help with mpg. i need all the help i can get.

we are going to make a trip this summer to mi (nc to mi 642 miles) and i would like to make the purchas before we go so i can show her the diference. thanks

 

My intake is coming. I am going to match a few of my driving senarios to try and see if there is a MPG change. Once installed I am going to try and get my max mpg with the SRI and see if I can top my current one.

I'll post my conclusions once I get some data. I know one other member was going to try and do the same but I don't think he has posted yet.

 

thanks q, i think iwould rather have data from you guys instead of the manfact.

 

Mine also is on its way and i'd love to see some improvements in MPG's too.

 

after 200 miles with the cold air installed the dic is up to 47 mpg and its still rising after every 50 mile trip!!!!

 

but what were your mpg before the intake?

 

i figured i would post this seeming on how where on the topic.


Wiki - Turbocharger
A turbocharger may also be used to increase fuel efficiency without any attempt to increase power. It does this by recovering waste energy in the exhaust and feeding it back into the engine intake. By using this otherwise wasted energy to increase the mass of air it becomes easier to ensure that all fuel is burnt before being vented at the start of the exhaust stage. The increased temperature from the higher pressure gives a higher carnot efficiency.

Your Welcome =).

 

i figured i would post this seeming on how where on the topic.


Wiki - Turbocharger
A turbocharger may also be used to increase fuel efficiency without any attempt to increase power. It does this by recovering waste energy in the exhaust and feeding it back into the engine intake. By using this otherwise wasted energy to increase the mass of air it becomes easier to ensure that all fuel is burnt before being vented at the start of the exhaust stage. The increased temperature from the higher pressure gives a higher carnot efficiency.

Your Welcome =).

What I would love to see applied to turbo on ECO type cars would be the turbo design on the DD15 and DD15 Diesel truck engines. The heat from the exaust going though the turbo is converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is trasfered to a gear attached to the crankshaft.

In the DD engines, this is used to provide more HP under load, but I am pretty sure it could be adapted to reduce fuel needed to power then engine and thus improve MPG, especially at higher speeds.

Imagine if at 55 mpg on the Eco you got 52 mpg, then it decreased, but at 70 mph+ the extra gear kicked in, so instead of 38 mpg, you went uo to 40.

 

We have ALL colors (polished and black) in stock for the 1.4 and 1.8L engines... They are going fast.

 

It comes today....

 

go straight for the cold air install, skip sri..

 

Well I really want to test the SRI for potential MPG improvement. The CAI cannot provide the same improvement as the SRI as there is no way to "trick" the air sensor into a "lean fuel" situation.

 

the week i had sri my mpg dropped to lowest level ever at 36 mpg, you can see it on my fuelly chart.

 

I believe you, but I want to test this. There can be several reason for this. The inital change and the throttle response because of it caused an increase in fuel usage. The audio difference. The excitment of having it. A trip that required faster driving. You know, all the fun stuff that robs us of fuel.

The way the fuel system works, you made get better throttle response, but you cant just get better MPG. The MAF and O2 sensor combined with the EFC will simply adjust the amount of fuel used based on the airflow and oxygen sensed.

ECO did a great write up on this. I forget what thread it is. But more air, with more oxygen just results in more fuel to maintain the correct ratio. More HP as a result, but not more MPG.

 

Change in restriction is what will yield MPG's at light load situations. The engine now will have less pumping losses hence bringing up the BMEP.

 

On newer cars, the data shows otherwise. (Reference case study http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/Air_Filter_Effects_02_26_2009.pdf)

The conclusion was, on new model cars 2006+ (That is what they tested) even clogging the air filter did not reduce fuel efficiency. However with a carburetor it did (10 - 15%).

I got mine for HP and response, I just wanted to know if there is any data to support mpg (especially for those interested in getting one for MPG). Every study I found actually indicates no on newer cars. Most of what I read on forums is speculation and "feel" and leftovers from old model vehicles.

BMEP may be affected in some small measurable amount, but I believe the ratio when compared to all of the other forces acting on the vehicle is to small to impact MPG.

 

Just to clarify I am engine / vehicle calibrator. Lowering pumping losses will increase MPG