Spoon CF Air Duct vs. CAI set up
01-31-2002, 11:13 PM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will concede to the fact that to get the full effect of the Injen or AEM intake, you must have the brake duct cut. In the case of the Injen, I know it creates a virtual air box in there, and builds up quite a bit of pressure.
Utah is correct, and I HIGHLY respect his opinion on this. The only thing is, there is NO denying the fact that a larger tube WILL flow better than a smaller one. Yes, curves in the tubing come in to play, but consider the snorkel....for its size, does it have less curves? Plus, how much smaller is it than the Injen/AEM? Lets put it this way. Which one, overall, can carry the largest capacity of air? I'd be willing to bet (And now that I think of this, it would probably be a simple experiment), that if you put some type of blower connected to the Spoon intake and then read how much it was flowing form the other end, vs. the CAI setup, the CAI would win. I think that this is the main issue. I know the Spoon setup will get cooler air to the Airbox. No doubt about it. I trust they wouldn't produce something worthless, and I also have no doubt about the ramair effect it gets at high speed. But the question is, when it gets the ram air effect, is it flowing the same amount of air as the Injen would?
The Injen would probably be able to take as more advantage of the air pressure in the brake duct area than the Spoon would, since the brake duct area has about 1 1/2 ft^3 of air that would be somewhat pressurized, compared to the volume of the Spoon airduct.
In other words, if the engine starts to use however much air is being provided in the intake itself, which one provides it with easier access to "reserves"?
Honestly, I don't think this debate will EVER end. You can push points for both. I am biased, since I have the Injen. But to me, logically, the Injen is a better design. I think it really comes down to this: At high speeds, the differences are negligable, but at low speeds, the Injen wins. So find people that have both, try them out! We know in static situations, the Injen is superior....but that really tells us virtually nothing...
Blake
BTW, my number one goal in life is to sound like Ultimate Lurker...how's it coming?
Utah is correct, and I HIGHLY respect his opinion on this. The only thing is, there is NO denying the fact that a larger tube WILL flow better than a smaller one. Yes, curves in the tubing come in to play, but consider the snorkel....for its size, does it have less curves? Plus, how much smaller is it than the Injen/AEM? Lets put it this way. Which one, overall, can carry the largest capacity of air? I'd be willing to bet (And now that I think of this, it would probably be a simple experiment), that if you put some type of blower connected to the Spoon intake and then read how much it was flowing form the other end, vs. the CAI setup, the CAI would win. I think that this is the main issue. I know the Spoon setup will get cooler air to the Airbox. No doubt about it. I trust they wouldn't produce something worthless, and I also have no doubt about the ramair effect it gets at high speed. But the question is, when it gets the ram air effect, is it flowing the same amount of air as the Injen would?
The Injen would probably be able to take as more advantage of the air pressure in the brake duct area than the Spoon would, since the brake duct area has about 1 1/2 ft^3 of air that would be somewhat pressurized, compared to the volume of the Spoon airduct.
In other words, if the engine starts to use however much air is being provided in the intake itself, which one provides it with easier access to "reserves"?
Honestly, I don't think this debate will EVER end. You can push points for both. I am biased, since I have the Injen. But to me, logically, the Injen is a better design. I think it really comes down to this: At high speeds, the differences are negligable, but at low speeds, the Injen wins. So find people that have both, try them out! We know in static situations, the Injen is superior....but that really tells us virtually nothing...
Blake
BTW, my number one goal in life is to sound like Ultimate Lurker...how's it coming?
02-01-2002, 01:03 AM
#13
Registered User
I'm still very interested in a CAI but still undecided about which one, although I like the relative simplicity of the Spoon one and Mingster's. I don't think I'd be expecting any great performance gains, but I would hope to get improved throttle response due to the combined cold/ram air effect.
02-01-2002, 08:38 AM
#14
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: walnutcreek
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-01-2002, 11:37 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 10,134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here's my observation of the spoon/IDi style setup:
i used to commute in LA, and in the summer while stuck in stop-and-go traffic, the S bogs big time (i surmise that it's due to increased heat in the intake temperature). when i had the "snorkel"/duct installed, the car no longer bogs like it used to in the same traffic as the air it breathes comes from the front of the radiator and is (again, i surmise) as close to the ambient temperature as it can get. it's by no means an "intake", it's simply an effective add on to the already very well designed stock intake system.
i used to commute in LA, and in the summer while stuck in stop-and-go traffic, the S bogs big time (i surmise that it's due to increased heat in the intake temperature). when i had the "snorkel"/duct installed, the car no longer bogs like it used to in the same traffic as the air it breathes comes from the front of the radiator and is (again, i surmise) as close to the ambient temperature as it can get. it's by no means an "intake", it's simply an effective add on to the already very well designed stock intake system.
02-01-2002, 11:55 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WASTED in Margaritaville
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Rich here...
Thats why I decided to fabricate my own setup based on this principle. I promise I will get some pictures of it tomorrow and explain what I did. I essentially made a low buck cold air intake which can either work with the BYS Intake plate (not so low buck, but I like it), with the stock air guide (assuming you don't mind cutting it, or without the stock air guide. Plus since its cheap, if it doesn't do really do anything I don't feel to bad. Thusfar I think I have noticed an improvement.
It's a similar idea to what Wesmaster did on his car, using a brake duct mounted in a Coastal Metals grill. Except the way I did it the air duct sits in/behind the front grill, so its more stealth.
And if your careful, you don't have to take off the bumper when you install it.
Thats why I decided to fabricate my own setup based on this principle. I promise I will get some pictures of it tomorrow and explain what I did. I essentially made a low buck cold air intake which can either work with the BYS Intake plate (not so low buck, but I like it), with the stock air guide (assuming you don't mind cutting it, or without the stock air guide. Plus since its cheap, if it doesn't do really do anything I don't feel to bad. Thusfar I think I have noticed an improvement.
It's a similar idea to what Wesmaster did on his car, using a brake duct mounted in a Coastal Metals grill. Except the way I did it the air duct sits in/behind the front grill, so its more stealth.
And if your careful, you don't have to take off the bumper when you install it.
02-01-2002, 12:13 PM
#17
Just out of curiosity, can anyone who has the Mingster "snorkel" guesstimate the cross sectional square inches at the most restricted part (on the inside)? I don't think it's as narrow as it looks in the pics.
02-01-2002, 12:31 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 10,134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by xviper
[B]Just out of curiosity, can anyone who has the Mingster "snorkel" guesstimate the cross sectional square inches at the most restricted part (on the inside)?
[B]Just out of curiosity, can anyone who has the Mingster "snorkel" guesstimate the cross sectional square inches at the most restricted part (on the inside)?
02-01-2002, 12:48 PM
#19
Originally posted by mingster
it isn't, but i have no idea how to get the inner dimension of it without breaking it apart.
it isn't, but i have no idea how to get the inner dimension of it without breaking it apart.
Also just as useful, take a string and wrap it around that part and what length of string do you have?
02-01-2002, 10:37 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a given perimeter, a circle has the largest area. IE, if you only have 30 ft. of fencing, a circle will enclose the most area. For example, a 3" circular pipe has ~7 in^2 of area, where as a square pipe with the same perimeter has only 5.5 in^2 of area. So you wouldn't be able to flatten the pipe. You loose area. Thats the main reason circular tubing is used instead of square/rectangular...well, actually, its probably because they use less piping to get the same area, thereby saving money, but same difference. You really need the actual dimensions instead of just the perimeter of the CAI. Assuming the intake is 8 inches wide, and a half inch thick at the narrowest part, you're looking at 4 sq. in. Thats 3 inches less cross sectional area than the Injen.
Blake
Blake