ocdz

iTrader: (11)

So, July '10 Import Tuner takes on the question of the 350z short ram intake. Their test basically determines that the short ram interferes with MAF readings and causes a rich fuel mixture, inherently losing power. Has anyone attempted to fix this problem? It seems the answer could be as simple as adding an air diffuser in-line before the MAF?

I couldn't find any links this article yet so I scanned it.





So, can it be fixed and has anyone attempted?

Also... really sorry if this is a repost.

terrasmak

iTrader: (8)

I love how they tested it agains a cheap generic non shielded short ram, its almost like they made this an add for AEM.

Corbic

iTrader: (1)

It's Import Tuner, I'd expected more serious car talk from Good Morning America.

I've noticed they hate to pit any paying advertiser against another advertisers product.

I would have rather seen HKS, AEM, K&N, Stillen, ARC, Injen, eBay, Greddy so forth filters lined up and tested back to back.

kacz07

iTrader: (15)

This kinda just goes along with what Tony has said all along... stock 06 airbox works best.

Jairen

iTrader: (1)

I'd have to agree on that.

Maybe we can get an opinion from Tony himself.

ocdz

iTrader: (11)

Well as for that being a "cheap filter" that is an ARC super sports cleaner , without the shielding. It's not a generic filter.

http://www.nengun.com/arc/super-sports-cleaner

Also, I agree that the testing here is rather biased for AEM.

KA24DE

How did you come to that conclusion?

onagao

That's actually very, very interesting. Personally, I think it's about time that someone did some comparative dynos for various intakes - there are too many educated opinions and not enough proven facts out there.

I find it even more interesting because my brother just switched his Injen short ram for the Injen CAI setup. He was telling me all about his butt dyno results and I sort of just scoffed at it. However, now I think his claims might be spot on. Articles like this make me wish that someone would just collect every single intake out there, slap their car on the dyno, and just spend a few days swapping them all out and testing them.

davidv

iTrader: (2)

The article is self-explanatory. Add a cone filter decreasing horsepower, then fix the problem that you created? What's the point?

jonnylaw

iTrader: (3)

The solution is to use the factory airbox, preferrably from a later year with the larger velocity stack.

And the first short ram intake does have a ARC cone filter on it, but is an incomplete ARC intake. There should be aluminum heat shielding that surrounds the intake, and there is an incorporated velocity stack (at least there was one on the ARC box I had on my G).

onagao

According to the article the solution is a true CAI, not the factory airbox. I don't understand where you got that, unless you're just claiming that the numbers are false.

Secondly, the heat shield makes little to no difference on a dyno when you have a fan blowing and the hood is up. In fact, it's arguable that dyno setups skew the performance numbers for short ram intakes since they have a larger area that's open to the air than they normally do with the hood closed.

kacz07

iTrader: (15)

Do your research in the intake/exhaust or NA builds thread. I don't say things that are untrue or haven't come straight from the horse's mouth.

onagao

Except that this doesn't go along with the theory that "the stock 06 airbox works best". This says that it does when it comes to short ram intakes - the cold air intake yielded huge gains over both the airbox and the short ram.

Don't get me wrong, because I'm running with the Stock Airbox, myself. I'm just saying that he was right in questioning your conclusion, as it doesn't really match up with the article.

ocdz

iTrader: (11)

I don't think the stock airbox is the solution if a CAI is making 10 or moer peak horsepower. What I do want to know is if a short ram intake could be "fixed" by manipulating the air flowing through it. I'd really like to hear someone who knows something about this chime in... perhaps Motordyne???

rich2342

iTrader: (3)

Cai intakes are said to suffer losses due to increased piping length and reduced suction due to that.

It's interesting that not many tuned de's utilize a CAI with their set-up. Most are using pop-charger or the like.

GeauxLadyZ

iTrader: (9)

Wow, Import Tuner prints a plug for one of its biggest advertisers, and even more mind-blowing, the results favor the advertiser...

Also keep in mind that that these test were done with the BUMPER OFF...i wonder if that would increase airflow to the AEM's CAI confined filter location at all...

Im not disputing these results, but i am the variables. I dont understand the logic to this article... If more air is being shot into the plenum via a short ram, then why would the MAF mistakenly overestimate the airflow? How is it being tricked?

Are you telling me that the airflow dynamics differ so much from the point that air hits the MAF to the point it enters the plenum that although more air is being charged in w/ a short ram and at a faster rate, the same amount of air is entering the plenum and at the same speed rate as compaired to a stock box?? Even the same or less so than a CAI?

That's how i am interpreting the technical aspects of this article, and it makes no sense. If the engine is providing the suction for air, then how would air flow decrease as it moves closer to the plenum? Your saying the air is being charged in faster at the filter than at the plenum?? I dont get that.

By the same theory they are using, then would a CAI provide a lean mixture because the filter location is further from the MAF than normal, being that air is being sucked in less at the filter with a CAI because the filter is further from the point of suction. So by their theory, the airflow should be weaker than stock by the time it hits the MAF, then speed up as it gets closer to the plenum, the point of suction, thereby causing the engine to compensate by restricting fuel base on MAF readings, when in fact, air flow is greater at the plenum that at the MAF.

Does any of this sound crazy?

onagao

It doesn't sound crazy. It just sounds like you're missing some of the fundamentals of fluid dynamics as they apply here.

2004Black350z

iTrader: (37)

Tony recommends the stock 06 airbox due to intake temps. I halfway don't believe **** I read in magazines or for that matter half the **** i read on here. Always take it with a grain of salt

Entaille

iTrader: (16)

what sucks is there is some really good info in the article, they just blew it with the AEM crap though.

GeauxLadyZ

iTrader: (9)

Please explain these dynamics?

Are you referring to the fact that they are suggesting that the literal airflow around the MAF is whats throwing it off? So basically, where fluid dynamics are involved, lets pretend that the filter element is causing the bulk of the faster air to flow on the upper portion of the pipe where the MAF is located. The MAF reads this as a consistency throughout the entire pipe, when in fact, the bottom portion of the pipe has much less and slower air flowing through it as compaired to the top. Is this correct?

So if this is their argument, then "uneven" airflow, by itself and intake temps aside, throughout the pipe causes such a drastic change by the ECU in A/F ratio that it could possibly be negating a 10WHP difference?!

Somehow that is incredibly hard to believe. I understand flow dynamics play a huge role in the exhaust system, such as they effect scavenging, but i fail to see a similar role played by flow dynamics in the intake system.

I understand that the flow dynamics are important in intake systems, but 10WHP important? Really??