AEM intake review

[shadow1]

I bought the Mazda 6 short ram intake. Fits great. I removed the upper air box and snorkel. I didn't bother removing the lower resonator box which buried in the wheelwell. I used an L bracket to bolt the intake tube's mounting bracket to a frame rail. Fits great. Noticeable increase in power. The turbo really spools up now. Lots of turbo sucking noise as well. SO far the only downside is the noise increase. I was hoping for BOV sounds but the stock BOV is silent. I may shop around for an aftermarket BOV. I wonder if the stock plastic BOV leaks boost. If the CX-7 has a 15.6 psi boost peak, then I expect to hear the BOV through an open intake.

[Copper Red CX]

I bought the Mazda 6 short ram intake. Fits great. I removed the upper air box and snorkel. I didn't bother removing the lower resonator box which buried in the wheelwell. I used an L bracket to bolt the intake tube's mounting bracket to a frame rail. Fits great. Noticeable increase in power. The turbo really spools up now. Lots of turbo sucking noise as well. SO far the only downside is the noise increase. I was hoping for BOV sounds but the stock BOV is silent. I may shop around for an aftermarket BOV. I wonder if the stock plastic BOV leaks boost. If the CX-7 has a 15.6 psi boost peak, then I expect to hear the BOV through an open intake.
You have the same BOV as I have on the Mazdaspeed 6. The stock BOV is a cheap piece of junk. There are many other options out there to replace the stock BOV if you so desire.

[Raider]

We have the CPE CAI for our CX-7, and we do hear the turbo spool, and most importantly, we have the BOV kicking in. What we do plan on installing, is an aftermarket BOV. We pre-ordered the TurboSmart BOV from Street Unit, link here (http://www.streetunit.com/product_p/sucx7tsbov.htm?Click=125). there is a flange that is being made for the BOV to fit, and that should be out in a couple weeks. We ordered the aftermarket, because when we installed the TMIC, we took off the BOV and it just seemed like it was a low quality plastic toy part. Not really expecting hp gains, only to have the BOV better controlled.

I know it fits, but I am not sure if the regular 6 AEM SRI was really engineered to work with the 2.3 Liter turbo. CPE dyno tested a 20 hp or so increase with their cold air. We plan to test it out with all our modifications once we get them. Do you plan to dyno at all?

[shadow1]

I really doubt that I will get anymore serious with the CX-7 other than an aftermarket BOV and exhaust (waiting for Corksport). Plus it's really my fiancee's ride. I have way more fun tuning the Evo. But the next step in the upgrade pathway would be a boost gauge (a must especially if a turboback exhaust is installed) and boost control (manual or electronic). Once you change the downpipe, the stock boost control solenoid can no longer maintain adequate boost control and you will get boost spikes. Not good for the motor since this can lead to detonation. I would not assume that the CX7 can handle any additional boost increases without monitoring wideband O2 numbers. I have no idea how close to 100% the stock fuel system is at. Based on the exhaust soot, the CX7 is no where near as rich running as my Evo used to be stock. Which means that I suspect that there is not a lot of leeway for running more boost. The Mazdaspeed 6 runs more boost, but that car is tuned differently and has a different turbo.

[shadow1]

Update: Driving in the heavy Noreaster rain today - got severe bucking under high boost. Like fuel cut. CEL came on. Pulled the code p0103 which is a high voltage MAF fault. I think water got into the intake. Interestingly, there was a fair amount of water spray in the engine bay. I would worry about hydrolock if I was running the CPE CAI, since the CPE filter is a lot more exposed to water in the wheel well area. I cleared the CEL and re-installed the stock airbox. Drives fine now. MAF sensor is fine. BUT, the CX7 is so much slower. I lost A LOT of midrange power. I'm going to re-install the AEM intake for sure!

[shadow1]

Another update: I cleaned the MAF sensor and reinstalled the AEM intake. I also reset the ECU by unplugging the ground from the battery. Man, the CX7 is SO much quicker off the line with the AEM intake. The midrange power is incredible. The stock airbox is definitely choking the motor. All I need now is a turboback exhaust and some ECU tuning and the CX-7 will be the ultimate sleeper.

[carbonRX8]

Update: Driving in the heavy Noreaster rain today - got severe bucking under high boost. Like fuel cut. CEL came on. Pulled the code p0103 which is a high voltage MAF fault. I think water got into the intake. Interestingly, there was a fair amount of water spray in the engine bay. I would worry about hydrolock if I was running the CPE CAI, since the CPE filter is a lot more exposed to water in the wheel well area. I cleared the CEL and re-installed the stock airbox. Drives fine now. MAF sensor is fine. BUT, the CX7 is so much slower. I lost A LOT of midrange power. I'm going to re-install the AEM intake for sure!Can you use some aluminum to create a shroud around the filter? Alternatively, is there space in the bumper to route the intake filter inside? You need to see my new filter to get the idea that I am describing. This would take the filter out of the engine bay, protect it from water, and quiet it down. Might have to cut some holes... Or you could sink it into the space where the resonator is.

[shadow1]

No space in the bumper cover for the intake. Unlike the RX8 the whole nose is open for the radiator (or a future FMIC ;) ). Shielding would be a good idea. I need to experiment. Injen makes a filter shroud that I could use...

[B-ram-z]

Does installing a new intake void the factory warranty?

[Raider]

Not necessarily. If you install an aftermarket accessory, like an intake, your warranty on the intake is no longer covered. So if you install an intake, and a piece of it breaks off internally, and gets sucked into the engine, blowing it up (this will never happen), then yes, warranty void. But as the owner of a CX-7, with a 3" TMIC, a cold air intake, boost hoses, and a pending blow off valve, I know my warranty rights. We even have the Federal Government (scary, eh??) to help, as we have the Magnuson-Moss act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

As for the AEM SRI, I am not really sure I would do it, as it was designed for the Speed6, which is tuned differently than our CX-7. CPE's CAI was developed over many months of engineering on a CX-7. The issues with water in the engine bay I can confirm, too. I see water spots after heavy rain in there. But I am not worried, the intake sucks in air in the fender. I had an SRI on my protege5, I never saw much of any water in the engine compartment. I wonder if it is because the CX-7 sits higher.

I did check, and our cold air is routed into the fenderwell, and as of a week ago, looks like no water ever got inside, as it is factory clean.

[shadow1]

I worry about fenderwell water because of the foglight opening. Water can get into the fenderwell housing through there. Take a look and see if the CPE intake is "in the line of fire" so to speak.

[Raider]

It was completely dry last week, had it installed since February with zero problems, and plenty of heavy Florida rain, and a good number of puddles.

[shadow1]

So I sold my AEM intake and installed the CPE intake. The CPE intake is very well made. However, by my butt dyno, there is no performance difference between the 2. Twice the money for the CPE intake however. The only advantage is that the spool up noise is about 1/2 with the CPE intake since the filter is in the wheelwell rather than under the hood. So IMHO, either intake is a good performance upgrade for the CX7.

[Raider]

Well, we know CPE tested 20 hp with the intake gains-wise. I am sure removing a lot of the restrictions with the SRI helped too, I wish ya had a dyno run.

[wongster]

yea i bought shadow's intake.. installed it this morning.. i can def notice a diff in pickup.. and can finally hear the turbo spooling.. hahaha... hey shadow since its a dry flow intake is there any special way to clean it?

[shadow1]

AEM sells a special cleaner fluid for it. I'm sure you can find it online. Not sure if anyone has tried using generic soap (like dish washing soap).

PS I'm glad you like the intake. You got a good deal on it.

[Evo_mike]

Is this a Mazda 6 or Mazdaspeed 6 SRI?? And where is a good site to buy one from??

Thanks:)

[Raider]

It was for a regular Mazda 6. I would personally recommend the CPE intake. It is engineered for the CX-7, dyno proven power gains. Streetunit.com has them in stock, as well. Our CX-7 is the one in the pics on their site. www.sucx7.com goes directly to the CX-7 section.

[shadow1]

It is a Mazda 6s intake (V6 model). It fits great. Although I like the CPE intake better. I originally purchased it from ptuning.com but a lot of vendors sell AEM stuff.

[Evo_mike]

I just got my cx-7 and am leasing it so I don't want to get the CPE intake, I think it is nicer than the AEM but the AEM will be a faster bolt-off to take to the dealer if I have too.:)

Thanks for the info :)

[shadow1]

The AEM intake installs in 5 min since you can leave the lower resonator box in place. I put aluminum foil duct tape over the hole so crap doesn't fall into the box.

[arisin]

is the CPE CAI C.A.R.B. legal? If yes, I will really consider getting one too.

[shadow1]

The CPE intake is not CARB certified. CPE is a small company out of Maryland. They have no reason to do CARB testing which is only a requirement in California. May I ask why you are worried about CARB certification if you live in IL?

[Raider]

As I have even told Shadow, the AEM intake is not designed for the CX-7 engine at all. It technically fits. The CPE intake was engineered for nearly 6 months with dyno proven results of gains. I know there are many parts that can physically be installed on our CX-7 and Speed3. However, I have learned in my many years of working on cars, to do it once right.

If it helps, we just had our car serviced with every aftermarket part on it. No problems at all. 2 TSB's done for PCM and TCM and they gave us no hassles.


I also feel that I spent 30 grand on the car, I am not gonna settle. That is my .02.

[shadow1]

I agree with Raider in principle and do prefer the CPE intake over the AEM one. But I do feel from real world experience that the AEM intake is a viable option for CX7 owners.

[ataller]

To go back to when hydrolock was being discussed in this thread. Has anyone had experience with K&N's "Drycharger" filter wraps. They are suppose to prevent water from getting into the intakes with minimal reduction in air flow. For $30 seems like a pretty good deal?


Adam

[shadow1]

I have never used the Drycharger wraps. Injen makes a version of this as well. I suspect it will impede flow but how much I do not know. Anyone with before and after experience with these water blocking filter wraps?

[Rick's CX-7]

As I have even told Shadow, the AEM intake is not designed for the CX-7 engine at all. It technically fits. The CPE intake was engineered for nearly 6 months with dyno proven results of gains. I know there are many parts that can physically be installed on our CX-7 and Speed3. However, I have learned in my many years of working on cars, to do it once right.

If it helps, we just had our car serviced with every aftermarket part on it. No problems at all. 2 TSB's done for PCM and TCM and they gave us no hassles.


I also feel that I spent 30 grand on the car, I am not gonna settle. That is my .02.

Raider,

You are really hammering the AEM SRI and for no good reason! The simple fact is, the AEM SRI and the CPE CAI are both pipes with a MAF housing on them. The only obvious difference is the lentgh of the pipe, CPE's being longer. As long as the MAF housing is the same diameter AND shape as the stock housing, there will be no difference in driveability. As far as I've been told, the AEM SRI has the same diameter and shape as the stock MAF housing.
If the housing diameter was too small, it would increase air speed going through the MAF sensor, thus ECM would think a larger volume of air is entering the engine, adding extra fuel. If it was too big a diameter, the opposite would happen. As long as diameter and shape around the MAF is the same, it won't affect readings at all.

I believe you are unfairly slamming the AEM SRI. Yes it was made for the Mazda 3.0L, but there is nothing special to it or CPE's CAI.
BTW, I just ordered an AEM SRI yesterday....less than half the price of CP-E CAI!

Rick

[Raider]

My feelings of the intake not designed for the CX-7 do not come unwarranted. The CPE intake is more than just a metal tube, couplers, and a filter. There are pieces in side to help direct the airflow, and designed to not throw a CEL.

Look up Mazdaspeed 6 CAI CEL. You will see many people got CEL's from them. The intake is actually made by AEM. On the protege 5, their intakes rubbed the master cylinder to the point holes wore into the aluminim and rendered the intake worthless. I have been involved with Mazdas since 2001, and modifying cars for over 18 years. I have experienced going cheap for modifications, and I have also seen what happens when you buy name brand. I am not new at this.

Call CPE and ask them about the fabrication of the intake, and what it took for them to engineer it to work with our engine. The same amount ot work went into the CPE intake I also have, but on my Speed 3. It is more than just a metal tube with couplers.

My feelings may be opinion, but I spent 30 grand on my CX-7, and I decided that I will go with parts that I know are quality, and are for my CX-7. I am not gonna slap something that might work if I rig it to work. I decided to save up, and install parts designed for my turbocharged motor.

The CPE dynos for 10 HP, proven gains. I challenge you, or anyone who installs the intake to do a before and after dyno test and prove that it is as good as the CPE. i think this challenge has been out for a long time. Prove me wrong. The AEM might physically fit, and might make a cool sound. But how is it affecting the engine? Dyno it. Show us the true gains.

Here is the link to Dynojet's website, and simply enter your zip code to find a local dyno.
http://www.dynojet.com/dyno_centers/list_automotive.aspx


Prove me wrong, that the AEM is actually a good thing for the CX-7. Right now, until it can be proven to provide gains. I do not believe it.

[MAZOOM]

You have to use some reasoning, it's not like it won't provide gains, it does remove the restrictions, and the MAF holder is a perfect fit, it also has significantly less tubing.

[Raider]

Yes it physically fits, I am not doubting that. What exact hp gains are there? Thatis my question.

[shadow1]

Someone might do a Dashhawk analysis before and after an AEM install to show objective gains.

[Superstretch18]

No matter what the results, the problem still exists that by purchasing product built for another vehicle, you are not showing companies that there is a market for CX-7 parts. If more people buy the CPE, that translates into greater potential for new products from CPE.

[Rick's CX-7]

$269 is quite a bit for a lot of us!

[Raider]

Well, then most mods for our car will be out of your budget, unfortunately. TMIC, BOV, and others are well over it. Of course, if you had a Mazdaspeed protege, you would freak out at their intake costs when they came out.

Of course, my cheapo knock off POS intake for my protege 5 was 50 bucks. Not name brand, SRI, actually. The K&N filter cost more than the tubing.

Cannot wait to see someone dyno before and after the SRI.

[Rick's CX-7]

My feelings of the intake not designed for the CX-7 do not come unwarranted. The CPE intake is more than just a metal tube, couplers, and a filter. There are pieces in side to help direct the airflow, and designed to not throw a CEL.

Look up Mazdaspeed 6 CAI CEL. You will see many people got CEL's from them. The intake is actually made by AEM. On the protege 5, their intakes rubbed the master cylinder to the point holes wore into the aluminim and rendered the intake worthless. I have been involved with Mazdas since 2001, and modifying cars for over 18 years. I have experienced going cheap for modifications, and I have also seen what happens when you buy name brand. I am not new at this.

Call CPE and ask them about the fabrication of the intake, and what it took for them to engineer it to work with our engine. The same amount ot work went into the CPE intake I also have, but on my Speed 3. It is more than just a metal tube with couplers.

My feelings may be opinion, but I spent 30 grand on my CX-7, and I decided that I will go with parts that I know are quality, and are for my CX-7. I am not gonna slap something that might work if I rig it to work. I decided to save up, and install parts designed for my turbocharged motor.

The CPE dynos for 10 HP, proven gains. I challenge you, or anyone who installs the intake to do a before and after dyno test and prove that it is as good as the CPE. i think this challenge has been out for a long time. Prove me wrong. The AEM might physically fit, and might make a cool sound. But how is it affecting the engine? Dyno it. Show us the true gains.

Here is the link to Dynojet's website, and simply enter your zip code to find a local dyno.
http://www.dynojet.com/dyno_centers/list_automotive.aspx


Prove me wrong, that the AEM is actually a good thing for the CX-7. Right now, until it can be proven to provide gains. I do not believe it.

1- What exactly are these pieces inside you speak of...air straighteners? The stock MAF has none!
2- I can see a slight miscalculation causing CELs and such. I don't see any rubbing problems with the AEM intake....it seems to have plenty of space around it.
3- Have you tested the CP-E piece and saw 10HP, or are you basing your claims on CP-Es own numbers? While it seems CP-E is a reputable company, you have no proof of the advertised 10HP. Z-Max, Duralube and Slick 50 all claim you can run your engine without oil.....I dare you!!!
4- I might just take your challenge. I just looked up the nearest Dyno using the site you provided. It's 84 miles away....but I might just do it. I'll take both, stock and SRI and run them back to back. I will reset the ECM to eliminate any "learned" variables.

Rick

[Raider]

1) These pieces are inside the intake, and are a few pieces of metal that directs the air flow
2) the AEM I referred to rubs on a protege 5, Speed Protege, and protege.
3) I have not personally tested, but I am indeed trusting the CPE dyno results. I am also comfortable in knowing the gains as I have seen the sheets from when a local speed 3 owner who stock dyno'd, then afterwards, dynod with 24 wheel hp gains with the #1 pre-production CPE intake for Speed 3. I have #2.
4) please do. And like Rexercx7, video and photos, as well as dyno sheets will help.

Show me gains, that is all I ask.

[Rick's CX-7]

Like I said, if it isn't too inconvinient, I might just take on your challenge. One thing to note, my stock air box is not stock either. I took out the baffle and silencer months ago....and threw them away. I still think an aftermarket intake will make some gains.

Rick

[Raider]

Well, that will not count. That intake trick was dyno proven 10 wheel HP on a Speed3. We need someone bone stock to dyno, then install the intake, and dyno again.

[shadow1]

Raider - there are no airflow pieces inside my CPE intake tube.

[Rick's CX-7]

I took out the baffle and silencer back in May. I still think any pipe with a filter will flow better than an air box.

Can you take some pictures of those pieces inside the CP-E CAI? I'm very intrigued!

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123671895

[HunterSwift]

I am going to laugh when they dyno the AEM SRI and find it puts more HP than the CPE CAI.

[Raider]

I just called and spoke to Josh at CPE. Silly me, I installed the CPE on the CX-7 within hours of mine being installed. The MS3 does in fact have the diverters. But the CX-7 does not have so many bends, so it actually does not. I stand corrected there.

But he did mention to make sure you monitor fuel trims with the other intake, as the air boxes are different on each one. He also gave me a lot of information too about the differences and such. I emailed them the link, and asked Josh to come post up some technical details on the matter.

Again, dyno a stock CX-7, and one after SRI..

[HunterSwift]

why doesn't CPE make a SRI?

[shadow1]

CPE does not make a SRI.

[www.cp-e.com]

Hey guys! I did want to make a couple quick comments, and if you guys have any questions I'd be happy to answer them :)

By the way, there is a TON of great CAI information linked below. I had a similar conversation with the guys over on Mazda3forums a little while ago:

http://www.mazda3forums.com/index.php?topic=77296.0


Anyway, cold air kits are tricky because more often then not, the end-user is merely concerned with horsepower. I mean, horsepower is what modding is all about, but the trick is to design a product that makes great power, but not at the expense of the engine! That isn't to say that our competitors products are going to hurt your vehicle, but there is more to intakes then meets the eye.

In our opinion, the most important aspect of any cold air intake kit is the MAF housing. That's exactly why our intakes are so unique; because we spend so much time on our MAF housings. The MAF sensor is arguably one of the most important sensors on your engine, but what many people don't realize is that when you install a new cold air kit, your MAF isn't working the same way it did before. Let me explain...

The MAF sensor on the CX7 uses a hot and cold wire to indicate flow velocity and not mass flow. One wire is at ambient temperature, and the other is heated by electric current (like a toaster filament). As air flows past the hot wire, the air pulls heat away from the hot wire and the PCM senses an increase in current through the wire since temperature and electrical resistance are coupled properties. The change in electrical current is proportional to the incoming mass airflow.

Now, here's where the trick is. Really what the MAF is doing is measuring flow velocity. As an analogy, think about when you're hot and you turn on a fan. As you all know, as the air velocity increases, so does the heat transfer from your body to the air. So the faster the airflow, the cooler you feel. The same principle applies to the MAF sensor. So you can *fool* the MAF sensor by increasing the air velocity without actually increasing the mass airflow. As air speed increases, so does the heat transfer from the heated wire in the sensor. You can then use calculations to determine mass flow rate if you know the diameter of your (stock) intake.

So what?! Why the lecture?

Well, your engine is pretty much always going to suck up the same amount of air, no matter what size pipe you put on it (within reason of course!). Airflow into the engine stays relatively constant, but if you change the diameter of the pipe feeding the engine, then you can effectively alter the air speed. This is exactly what some cold air intakes do. They don't appropriately size the MAF housing so the air speed across the sensor changes. Even though the actual airflow into the engine hasn't changed appreciably, the air speed has, which fools the sensor! This can make the car run poorly, it'll unnecessarily increase ignition timing while cruising (bad), and it'll throw your fuel trims out of whack which can cause a check engine light. You guys who used to have Mazda 6i's would be all too familiar with this concept, as the Injen intake for that vehicle set a check engine light for this very reason. We even produced a product that would eliminate the CEL by scaling the MAF voltage back to where it needed to be:

http://www.cp-e.com/2006.html

So, what do we do differently with our XCel intakes? We call our intakes "XCel" because we guarantee that you won't get a CEL from them. As far as I know, our CAI's are the only ones to utilize machined MAF housings, and this is why we can offer such a guarantee. The fact that we machine them means that we can tailor the inside diameter to anything we want, instead of using standard sized piping (e.g. 2.5", 2.75", 3", etc.). Our MAF housings start as aluminum blanks, and we machine them on our CNC lathe to tolerance of +/- 0.002", which is about the diameter of a human hair! So we can very finely tune the engine to keep the fuel trims perfect (sometimes better then the factory), and you won't jack your ignition timing while cruising either.

Now, I'm sure someone will say, "Yeah but, company 'X' produced a CAI that made more horsepower then yours. So there!" Well, that is a valid point, but consider why a car makes more power from a CAI. There's nothing special about an aluminum pipe. So long as there aren't any sharp bends, one aluminum pipe will pretty much flow as well as the next one does. The power you gain from the addition of a CAI should come from the reduction of pumping losses relative to the stock equipment. In other words, you're helping your engine breathe better. But, if you were to make the MAF housing larger then stock, then you'll be scaling the signal coming from the MAF sensor. That means your car will run leaner or richer then it did before. So technically, you can actually make more horsepower by making the MAF housing the improper size! So even though horsepower is important, you have to understand where the power is coming from. For instance, I may be able to get a few more horsepower by increasing my ignition timing, but is it really good for the engine?

Now, I know I'm throwing a lot of information at you guys in a relatively short post, so if I glossed over something that you're not clear about please feel free to chime in with your question. Otherwise, have a safe and happy Holidays guys!! :cool:

[HunterSwift]

so i understand this applies to your CAI, but there really isnt another CAI out there we are comparing it to. What most are comparing it with is the AEM SRI. Of course in my opinion thats like comparing apples to oranges, both I guess might have there benfits. But from what i am getting from you is that your is designed specifically for that purpose and is the best one out, it is the only one. but people like choice, and the AEM is a cheap alternative. Having the knowledge, experience, testing, etc is it possible for you to design a SRI? or is as you explained before you will have the same problem of tricking MAF. And if you built a SRi would it be any different than the AEM SRI?

[www.cp-e.com]

so i understand this applies to your CAI, but there really isnt another CAI out there we are comparing it to. What most are comparing it with is the AEM SRI. Of course in my opinion thats like comparing apples to oranges, both I guess might have there benfits. But from what i am getting from you is that your is designed specifically for that purpose and is the best one out, it is the only one. but people like choice, and the AEM is a cheap alternative. Having the knowledge, experience, testing, etc is it possible for you to design a SRI? or is as you explained before you will have the same problem of tricking MAF. And if you built a SRi would it be any different than the AEM SRI?


Ahh, so you guys are deciding between our cold air and the AEM short ram? No problem. I'll type up a "No BS" guide to short ram versus cold air. That way you guys can weigh the pro's and con's of each and make a decision on your own. I'm trying my best to lay the facts out on the table and let you guys decide which meets your needs the best.

So, I'll be back ;)

[Rick's CX-7]

Jordan,

You confirm what I've known all along....as long as the MAF diameter is the same, there should be no problems.
Anyway, what difference does a machined MAF makes vs a regular pipe?

Rick

[HunterSwift]

I agree that CAI are superior to SRI, but it would be nice to see how much better the CPE CAI is better then the AEM SRI? We know how much better the CPE CAI is from stock, but how much better is it than the AEM SRI?

and if CPE made a SRI would it be any different that the AEM SRI?


B

[SassiMac]

Jordan,

You confirm what I've known all along....as long as the MAF diameter is the same, there should be no problems.
Anyway, what difference does a machined MAF makes vs a regular pipe?

Rick

I don't believe that is what he is saying. Please re-read the post. The MAF diameter will be dependent on the overall piping diameter in order to correct flow rates.

One question that I have not seen anywhere on this forum answered.
"Is the air temp registered by the sensor on the MAF actually colder than the stock airbox?"

Hell, it's called a cold air intake.... so is it.????

[Raider]

The location of the stock MAF sensor is a lot closer to the fenderwell than stock, and is also further away from the radiator, as well. My hypothesis is it is. Will take 2 CX-7 at the same location and a test with the Dash Hawk with easy. I would think it does show that reading. Cold air and less restrictions=more power. Now to find a CX-7 and a Dashhawk in my area, then post the results.

[matrix86]

I really doubt a cai would have a 20hp increase on a boosted motor.

[Raider]

It can and has. Local Orlando guy dyno'd CPE Pre-Production intake #1. Here is the dyno sheet for it. This is on a Speed 3 though, which is albeit a different car, I am proving it is possible.

[shadow1]

I really doubt a cai would have a 20hp increase on a boosted motor.
Every car is different. On my Evo, an intake adds 5+ hp. However, the Mazdaspeed airbaox is very restrictive, every CAI regardless of brand has shown good gains in the 20 hp range.

[matrix86]

It can and has. Local Orlando guy dyno'd CPE Pre-Production intake #1. Here is the dyno sheet for it. This is on a Speed 3 though, which is albeit a different car, I am proving it is possible.

Well, when you prove it I'll buy it!! :eek: :)

i've seen the gains on the MS3 but was under the impression that the motors had to have some different internals... Sorta like the WRX and STI.

[Raider]

Yup. We have different internals, different transmissions, and a "couple" more lbs. CPE tested the CX-7 intake, got about 10 HP gain. links are on the upper right corner of this page http://www.cp-e.com/2035.html

[matrix86]

Oh alright, well 10hp is a huge difference between 20hp....

thanks a lot for being so helpful!!!

[Raider]

Yeah, it is. but I have the benefit of knowing I get 24 HP AND 10 HP gains, as I got both. :p

[shadow1]

I was under the impression that the DISI motor is identical between the Speed 3/6 and CX7. Even the peak boost levels are the same. The main difference is the smaller turbine housing along with tuning for lower end power on the CX7. Of course the trannies are different being an automatic.

[mancx7]

i agree with shadow1, I thought we had same engine internals except that of a slightly smaller turbo and perhaps a detuned ecu mapping configured for auto tranny.

it is very dissapointing to see 24hp and a 10hp difference in a similar engine with almost a same cpe product. we dont get enough air flow? or our cx7 piping is wrong? whats the deal here...oh wells 10hp is better than a 5hp gain lol

[shadow1]

I already posted in the other AEM intake thread, but I believe CPE's hp claim is conservative with less than ideal dyno runs that CPE admitted to.

[SassiMac]

Please consider the theory that the CX7 intake is better, so the gains are more minimal.

Also, I believe the intake manifold is different too.

[mancx7]

Please consider the theory that the CX7 intake is better, so the gains are more minimal.

Also, I believe the intake manifold is different too.

SassiMac, I'll race you, cos thats the only difference with you and I, with our current mods thus far. A CPE CAI between us :)

[SassiMac]

HA..!!! Not a chance.!!!! I like my license, and car. Remember the hoon laws....

But I'll certainly do a 0-100kmh log for you.

[mancx7]

hehe hoon laws....i heard they can take your car away now, if they catch u....

yes i hope i get better times than 8secs....thats just tooooooo slow.....hmmmm

[www.cp-e.com]

First off, Happy Holidays to everyone!! :D

I'm really happy to come back to this thread to see everyone talking. I'm glad my comments were able to bring up some questions, even though I didn't answer the right question, doh!

Anyway, to answer the CAI versus short ram debate, the answer is actually very straightforward, and I can lay out the differences for you here:

How is a short ram intake better then a cold air intake?
Lower cost
Easier to install and service
Great bang for the buck (relative to CAI)


What are some of a short rams fault/issues?
Higher intake air temperature
Potentially inconsistent performance


I think the pro's are pretty self-explanatory, and that you guys are more concerned with the con's. So I'll explain a few things about an SRI's higher intake air temperature and what it can do the the vehicle's driveability and you guys can fire some questions back.

Believe it or not, excessively hot intake air can cost a lot of horsepower, and there are two reasons why this is ture. First, because air density and temperature are inversely related, the lower the temperature the thinner the air is. Because the name of the game is to get as many air molecules into the engine as possible, hot intake air won't help, and its just such an easy problem to prevent. Hence why almost all OEM's manufacture their cars with some sort of fender or grille induction system these days!

The other reason why hot air stifles performance is because ignition timing is retarded when the intake air temperature increases. Ignition timing is incredibly important on forced induction vehicles because of the higher cylinder pressures forced induction vehicles produce. So any ignition advance that we can maintain is a plus. How do we know that ignition timing is retarded with intake air temperature increases? We've lied to the car about the temperature at the MAF and we saw a reduction of about 1° ignition advance for every 7-8°F increase in temperature. So yes, hot intake air can seriously spoil your fun.

The other issue is that unlike a cold air intake, the temperature inside the engine bay is always in transition. You've got oil coolers, intercoolers, radiator fans turning on and off, and oh yeah, an aluminum heat engine in there! When you're tuning, repeatability is the name of the game. Let me give you an example: You're tuning your ignition timing, and in one run your ignition advance is °5 BTDC with no knock. So, you dial in another degree of timing and go for another run. However, on this run your radiator fans turned off, and the air blowing past the intake air filter drops as a result. The ECU will increase ignition timing in response to the drop in temperature. Combine that with the ignition advance you added, and maybe now you're knocking! The point is that you want the vehicle to perform as reliably as possible, but that's very difficult to do when one of the most important sensors on your engine is constantly changing temperature :eek:

So why hasn't cp-e made an SRI? Lot's of great companies have made SRI's (AEM is just one of them) but we don't like the design as much for the reasons mentioned above. That isn't to say that they are no good, we just don't like the way the vehicle behave's with them installed so we've chosen to stick with a CAI design. Yes it is more expensive, but then again most of our products aren't cheap.



I agree that CAI are superior to SRI, but it would be nice to see how much better the CPE CAI is better then the AEM SRI? We know how much better the CPE CAI is from stock, but how much better is it than the AEM SRI?

and if CPE made a SRI would it be any different that the AEM SRI?


B


I think the only way to settle that dispute would be to test both products side-by-side, but I can give you a stock versus XCel intake air temperature comparison for the SPEED6. One of our customers measured the change in his intake air temperature when he installed our XCel intake onto his SPEED6. His notes are below:



One notable change I can document was the decrease in the difference between ambient and input air temperatures while under way. I'd been watching the IAT for a while before the intake was installed and it had been consistently 30 +/- degrees over the ambient air temperature while in motion. Now the IAT is only 5-8 degrees over ambient, a significant difference for those living in warmer climates.

http://forum.mazda6club.com/index.php?showtopic=75266&hl=




I don't believe that is what he is saying. Please re-read the post. The MAF diameter will be dependent on the overall piping diameter in order to correct flow rates.

One question that I have not seen anywhere on this forum answered.
"Is the air temp registered by the sensor on the MAF actually colder than the stock airbox?"

Hell, it's called a cold air intake.... so is it.????


Exactly! A stock diameter MAF housing wouldn't be ideal for our CAI for instance.

See above ;)

The stock airbox does draw from the grille, so technically it too is a CAI. However, our cold air intake removes much of the restriction present on the stock airbox.



i agree with shadow1, I thought we had same engine internals except that of a slightly smaller turbo and perhaps a detuned ecu mapping configured for auto tranny.

it is very dissapointing to see 24hp and a 10hp difference in a similar engine with almost a same cpe product. we dont get enough air flow? or our cx7 piping is wrong? whats the deal here...oh wells 10hp is better than a 5hp gain lol


Really, intakes make power from a reduction in pumping losses, and sometimes from leaning a car out. Because we try not to rely on leaning a vehicle out through the MAF housing to make power, the power gain will almost always be dependent upon how restrictive the stock airbox is. It just so happened that in this case the SPEED3 was more restricted. I think sometimes people equate the quality of a product by how much power it makes. As I mentioned earlier, I could make a product for you that adds a lot of horsepower, but your engine might not be around long for you to enjoy it! There are unfortunately many considerations and compromises required when designing these parts. Sometimes our competitors address them, and sometimes they don't. The 6S Injen intake was just one example of this.



Please consider the theory that the CX7 intake is better, so the gains are more minimal.

Also, I believe the intake manifold is different too.


You got it!

[mikomi]

Thanks for the write up. I read your posts on other forum before and they are always informative.

[SteveA]

Believe it or not, excessively hot intake air can cost a lot of horsepower, and there are two reasons why this is ture. First, because air density and temperature are inversely related, the lower the temperature the thinner the air is. Because the name of the game is to get as many air molecules into the engine as possible, hot intake air won't help, and its just such an easy problem to prevent. Hence why almost all OEM's manufacture their cars with some sort of fender or grille induction system these days!

It's generally accepted that the air is more dense as the temperature is lowered !!! Otherwise, very interesting and informative.

[Superstretch18]

Believe it or not, excessively hot intake air can cost a lot of horsepower, and there are two reasons why this is ture. First, because air density and temperature are inversely related, the lower the temperature the thinner the air is. Because the name of the game is to get as many air molecules into the engine as possible, hot intake air won't help, and its just such an easy problem to prevent. Hence why almost all OEM's manufacture their cars with some sort of fender or grille induction system these days!

It's generally accepted that the air is more dense as the temperature is lowered !!! Otherwise, very interesting and informative.
I think that was a typo...

[www.cp-e.com]

Thanks for the write up. I read your posts on other forum before and they are always informative.


It's really my pleasure! I'm just happy to have an audience, lol :p



It's generally accepted that the air is more dense as the temperature is lowered !!! Otherwise, very interesting and informative.


Bah! That was in fact a typo, but a good catch nonetheless. Thanks for the correction Steve!

[SassiMac]

FYI....

ECU data logging has shown an almost consistent +10C to ambient while the car is in motion.

[shadow1]

+10C with what?

[SassiMac]

I stand corrected after looking at all the data again. Only one run was over 10C difference between ambient and MAF temps.

Go and grab the spreadsheet of the ECU logs I made. Part of the data is the inlet temp at the MAF. Also listed on each sheet is the ambient temperature.

Ambient: 32C
Av MAF Temp: 36C
Difference: 4C

Ambient: 18C
Av MAF Temp: 26C
Difference: 8C

Ambient: 24C
Av MAF Temp: 35C
Difference: 11C

Data available here (http://homepage.mac.com/sassimac/FileSharing1.html).