CARB CAI's

glewis29

New Member
May 4, 2006
98
0
0
I'm looking at getting a CARB certified CAI. The ones that I know of are AEM, S&B and K&N. Any thoughts on those, good or bad?

Any other CAI's that you know of that are legal in CA? (I see Injen is CARB pending)

Right now I'm leaning toward the S&B...good price and the filtering/flow is well documented on their site.

Thanks,
 
  • Sponsors (?)


If I were to expend the money I would personally go with the K&N. But that is my personal preference. Get what you are comfortable with. I prefer K&N as a mfg. of intake systems - always have, that is just my personal preference. I do not believe that the cost for a CAI is worth the gains, but again, totally up to you. K&N has been around for decades. AEM has flooded the market and although known for import aftermarket intakes, has recently come into the domestic world. Reputable on the other side, so I see no reason why their products would not be just as good for our vehicles. I know nothing of S&B

As for the CARB legality of many of these CAIs: keep in mind that many self-certify as they have designs that within good faith and due diligence are like in design to those that have already received approval from the Resources board; therefore, they will not have an actual CARB executive order issued to them or that show in the CARB database. Here is the URL for the database.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/devices/amquery.php.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you get hit at smog time, just keep the stock air box and assembly in the garage just in case.


Here is one I have never heard of. lol Doesn't look like that big of a deal, but old school days a CAI never was when it was a short ram design with a tube and a filter. Good luck in your quest. :)

EO: D-599-1
EO Date: 11/20/2006
Manufacturer Name: Honeywell Consumer Products Group
Device: FRAM BOOST Air Intake Systems
Device Type: Air Filter / Intake Modification
FIS-2003 2005 4.0L Ford Mustang
 
oil can get on the MAF with any oiled filter. the key is to be sure its not over oiled. if in doubt, wash it out and do it yourself, following the instructions.

also, if you do get oil on the MAF, get a can of MAF cleaner and clean it up, ASAP.
 
Thanks Jenn, I've been to the site before and all 3 I mentioned do actually have an E.O., so it shouldn't be an issue.

I'm actually leaning away from the AEM because it uses a metal tube which ends up being a heat radiating path for the air. I'd rather have good performance than shiny under my hood.

I've been running a K&N drop in filter for the last year and I haven't been able to find any dust past the filter. I'd agree that it lets in more dust than a stock filter, but enough to damage the engine? I kind of doubt it.

Thanks for the opinions... anyone else? I'm particularly interested in feedback on S&B
 
ranger, please refer to these documents that AEM themselves have on their website. Although their marketing picks out specific points to the dust collection there are other issues relative to a filter that are important - one is sustained air flow and pressure.

Again, AEM is coming a long way; however, they have just started to release OEM filters for use in stock boxes, where K&N has been doing this for decades.

AEM is credible and they have their pros and cons, but I do not believe that when considering the technological aspects of the oiled filter other manufactures come close. When I oil my K&Ns I leave them sitting over night on newspaper to ensure any residual is soaked off the filter cage. It takes a fine hand and some patience to know when the filter is properly oiled and not overly oiled. Rocket science it is not.

If you pull up these two and look at the side X side results of the Element Pressure Drop as a Function of Airflow Rate using ISO testing 5011. When viewed side-x-side the research specs are comical, yet the marketing makes this sound soooooo much better than the other competitor products.



http://www.aempower.com/files/dryflow/SWRIresults_injen5inch-kn9inch-airaid9inch.pdf

http://www.aempower.com/files/dryflow/SWRIresults_9inchdryflow_newandcleaned.pdf
 
Interesting find Jenn... from what I'm reading it looks like AEM's test shows the K&N filter performs better than their filter... kind of like AEM is saying "Almost as good as K&N without the oil!"

Here's a stat sheet on a test of the S&B filter http://www.sbfilters.com/pdf/iso_5011_131_ISO 5011 Test Results for 75-5004.pdf

The S&B capacity is pretty low (only 65 grams), but their filtration efficiency is very impressive (almost as good as the Ford OEM filter). Across the spectrum of Air Flow readings, it shows 17% less pressure drop.

I'm not sure how comparable the S&B test would be to the AEM test due to different protocols/dust composition (AEM used Fine dust, S&B used Coarse it seems).
 
Almost as good as K&N... :rlaugh: That would not be a good marketing line for AEM, True - but not good. :lol:

As for the course dust sample being used in the "control" studies, well that in itself loads the final results for efficiency toward the S&B because of the use of coarse dust. There can be no comparison unless a test is completed with coarse dust on all comparable units. The efficiency of any type of filter material will increase at all tested velocities when coarse dust is used. :nonono:

An old school aircraft filter company once made this comment about "controlled laboratory tests"... I kept it around for the engineering humor....

"One of the largest laboratory considerations of prime importance is the efficiency at which the filter media collects dust. This is, of course, important because lower efficiencies generally produce greater engine wear. However, if this interpretation is to be placed on efficiency, field tests must substantiate this in all cases, and this has turned out not to be always correct. Therefore, this corollary must be tempered with judgment and substantiated with controlled field tests.

For example, if steady air flow is considered, an oil bath air cleaner may look much worse in the laboratory than on the field tests. Even with variable air flow, this may be the case. Why is this so? AC feels that the corollary is upset because the laboratory tests do not and cannot consider all of the actual variables encountered." - Field Test Speciality AC Spark Plug

Ahhhh the beauty of "independent" test data when the companies actually link the PDFs. Nearly makes me want to email Mr. John Concialdi @ AEM and ask him if he REALLY believes the marketing content contained on their home page is relationally true. :rlaugh:

Anyways..................................... Really - Go with the K&N unit if you are going with one that will not require a tune. :D