Does anyone have any input on this CAI

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by 06 White GT, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. You almost have me convinced, except for one last detail... being that you're intake tube has 2 outer layers, what is the actual inner diameter ?? is it 2, 3, or 3 and half inches ?? I know that the outer diameter is 4" however, with the 2 layers as a factor, the inner diameter is going to be smaller, which is also going to effect the amount of air flow, as concern here, is if the inner diamater isn't at least an inch larger than the stock intake tube, there won't be very much of an air flow advantage, in addition from what I understand...for naturally aspirated applications, anything over 90MM. is considered overkill, and un-necessary.. and in certain test results, there was actually a loss in both HP. and torque, compared with systems that have MAF housing's of 83MM..88MM...and 90MM. : is it possible to subsitute or swap you're 95MM. MAF to maybe one of you're older metal MAF housing's used in any of you're other systems ?? just an idea, I thought of... :shrug:
  2. The inside TB pipe diameter is 4". The outside diameter is 4 5/8".
    The 95 meter is the biggest possible with the 4" i.d. TB pipe.

    The aspect about the meters which will make this make more sense to you is that ALL the 05/06 systems use the factory sensor. Meaning that the housing surrounding the sensor is all that has to be manufactured.

    All my aftermarket meter suppliers include a new sensor which wouldn't be applicable to the 05/06 systems. Plus the ports in the housings are for the older sensors, not the 05/06 sensor.
    You would have to manufacture a new housing anyway!

    The exception to this would be to use my Pro Mass race 80mm meter with a 'jumper harness' as you see in the AFM 05/06 system.

    To do it this way would DOUBLE the cost of the system WITHOUT a tuner !!

    I could have the race 80 calibrated to not need the tuner but decided to go the route I did due to more gains with the tuner and all the other benefits received with adding the tuner. Plus as your mods increase you'll have to go to a tuner anyway.

    If my meter failed to work as we had hoped for I would have done another adaptation. It was scary as we had just finished all the meter part of the system right at the wire for the shootout and the shootout prototype system was the first testing.

    Luckily the meter has worked exceptionally well. It posted + 1.5 hp, +3 ft. lb. tq. over the C&L in the Murillo testing with better tuning results which is a good indicator that it's not too big.
  3. Just read over you're for the possibilty of going with an aftermarket meter housing, I may have found one... if you check out the MMR website, they have an 88mm. high flow, that can be purchased, for custom applications..I'll include a link for thier website..check it out, and let me know if thier meter housing could be adapted to fit you're intake tube, and if so...could this option possibly work ?? anyway here's the link, and thanks once again for you're support JP :SNSign:
  4. Changing meters would change the tune fitment, etc..

    I'm a firm believer in the axiom " If it ain't broke don't fix it".

    You'd like it as it is and it's available through parts shopper which helps support this forum.
  5. Aluminum included! -> "changeing the tunes back and forth with the cold airs always resulted in similar power changes regardles of how much heat soak the motor had.."

    But it produced less hp and torque than the C&L in the 5.0 Mustang shoot out.
  6. Ski.. yes, you are correct and I do agree with you, however the reason why the TI produced less HP. and Torque in the 5.0 shootout, was due because of the following factor.. the actual production version, was not used during the shootout.. In it's place was a prototype, which did not include the heat shield, therefore IMO. the C&L has just a slight advantage.. On the other hand, if the actual production version, including the heat shield had been can pretty much be assured that the test results, would have been much closer, and perhaps even better than the C&L and please don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the C&L in anyway here, I'm just pointing out all of the factors, that were involved, and although the C&L had a slight advantage over the TI.. it just barely produced a little over a half HP. better..Anyway just something you may want to take into consideration, in all fairness.... :)
  7. red,
    The lack of a heat shield will cause a CAI to produce lower numbers with the hood closed. But since dyno runs are normally made with the hood raised and fans blowing into the engine compartment, a heat shield is not a critical component.
    Last summer I performed heat soak tests on my C&L using the Predator's data logging feature. With the ambient temperature hovering around 90 F, I allowed the C&L to heat soak for 30 minutes with the engine off and the hood closed immediately after doing a long hard run. Then, with the hood still closed and the car at a standstill, I monitored the air inlet temperature, and found that it dropped at a very slow rate with the engine running at 750 rpm idle speed, and that it dropped at increasingly faster rates with increasingly faster rpms.
    I then went for another hard run, and again allowed it to heat soak for 1/2 hour. But this time I monitored the air inlet temperature with the hood opened, and found that it immediately dropped like a rock with the engine running at only idle speed(750 rpm).

    In addition, the Murillo dyno runs showed that the TI produced its best numbers with a 12.9-13.1 A/F ratio, which is very lean, and can possibly cause pinging during the hot summer months.(The Murillo runs were made in Nov. when temps are cooler.)
  8. You got that right.
    I'm glad I backed out of this a long time ago.
  9. Now that you mention it..those A/F numbers do appear to be somewhat lean, so I'm going to contact Murillo directly and find out if those numbers were a result of the dyno testing, or if those were the results, after his performance tune was applied, However what I don't understand is your claim, about a heat shield not being much of a factor, during dyno testing.. in fact if you take a look at the 5.0 shootout does address that issue, and I'm going to include a couple of passages from that article, for you to examine... MMR claims 8-15 rwhp with the base kit and up to 35 rwhp with intake tube. The base kit crushes those numbers, and the High-Flow kit comes surprisingly close. Some interesting observations came out with the MMR parts. First, the base kit, which lacks a shield, had inlet temperatures that spiked dramatically during the dyno pull (up to 113 degrees on some runs). This told us what we had expected: Air-filter shielding is crucial for good performance. Of course, this is on a dyno, so we can't comment on a moving car; but we're sure the other companies' shields are there for a reason... We found that shielding is practically mandatory on these cars. Unless you drive in 30-degree weather all year, there is at least some (and likely a lot) of benefit from shielding the intake charge from fan turbulence and underhood heat. The '05 Mustang is a hot-running little beast that can use all the fresh air you can get into it. You don't want this byproduct of combustion to get back into the engine and run the risk of throwing off the tune or adding to detonation. Again, we recommend only those cold-air kits that offer shielding--it's that important.

    So there you have it Ski..despite a fan blowing inside an open engine compartment, there was still 113 degree inlet spike, that occured during that particular dyno run, so according to this opinion..Air-filter shielding is crucial.
  10. The Prototype system utilized a closed end filter.

    I had a higher flowing Dual Cone molded for the production system.
    The Murillo testing was with the dual-cone.

    Plus the polycarbonate shield is a 'full-surround' shield. If you square off the whole corner with a plastic that will withstand 240 degrees and seat against the hood blanket it's going to be far superior to a metal shield or a non-surround shield.
    Which will offer the best heat isolation in everyday use?
  11. Hmmm... It's strange that my data logging results showed the temps to drop dramatically with the hood open, even without a heat shield installed. I wonder if the MMR runs were done when the ambient had reached its max of 103 F during the testing?

    Here's another excerpt that may keep us debating ad infinitum:
    We asked Shannon Wall of Western Motorsports to tell us a bit more about the company's testing of this unit since we had a limited amount of time with it. Shannon said, "Without the ram-air box, I think you'll find the air gets hot quickly on the dyno, probably only good for one run without any cool-down. On the street, a considerable amount of air finds it way to the filter even without the airbox--if you watch the air temp, it gets hot when you stop, then cools down quickly once moving. The ram-air box keeps temps colder all the time and will have a ram effect at higher speeds, although we have not been able to determine a power difference yet."
  12. I honestly don't know what else to say, Ski.. I was just forwarding the quotes, from the shootout article..At this point, I'm still considered a newbie and am still learning about the 05 computer's drive by wire, BS I'm still un-decided as to which CAI to purchase for my 05GT...But I can tell you, that it's going to be either the C&L or the JTI :shrug:
  13. red05bulitgt:

    PMd you a price.
  14. Don't Mean to Butt In But..

    I am just wondering, are any of these products patented? I work in the patent industry and would be very interested in reading the claims of the patented devices. This would add a lot of credence to the claims of the advertisements. Also, if "theories" are expressed but not "enabled", the patent office will not allow patenting unless the theories can be proven.
  15. One More Question...

    What makes this particular CAI "tunable"? What exactly does this mean?
  16. The CAI is designed and manufactured, by its owner.. John DeMolet..the term Tunable Induction, is just the name of the kit.
  17. i believe that the previous stangs allowed you to change a few things about the CAI, making it "tunable" locations and directions of bends/meters, etc. :shrug:
  18. Sorry for my misunderstanding, from my previous reply...I thought you were referring to the Tunable Induction CAI kit.
  19. The 89-04 systems are all tunable.

    Anytime you change the diameter or length of a MAF system it changes the HP & torque.

    The 89-04 systems allowed 3 tuning positions (2 std., 3 with optional meter adapter) This way you can test/dial-in the system for the best performance setup for your particular motor and for the addition of aftermarket meters without having to permanently change the system. It's a unique and universal system.

    The 05/06 systems are fixed due to requiring a tune specific to the 05/06 computer code.
  20. You'll get excellent performance from either unit.