cold vs warm intakes
 

what i meant was that a cold air intake is better for high end power and a short air intake is better for low end power. i just want low end power inmy civic. would buying a cold air intake be a watse of money! i am also scared a cold air takes because of water. my boy blow his 99 gsr with in 4 weeks of installinghis CAI


Modified by wm5holla at 3:47 PM 7/29/2003

Re: cold vs warm intakes (wm5holla)
 

Well, technicaly yes.

CAI gives more power at high-end, and 'warm' or 'hot' air intakes will not.

If you think you might have hot air flowing into your intake, then it is a waste, might as well go back to stock, all your doing is starving your engine for oxygen and increasing heat...

Re: cold vs warm intakes (976)
 

warm is never good.
cold air is allways better because it is more dense so therefor is has more oxygen that can be combined with more fuel and will make more power.

Re: cold vs warm intakes (EG TYPE-R)
 

ugh, no its the opposite.

The difference is not in the air tempature, but the length and diameter of the pipe.

After you get above 30mph, the air in the engine bay is fresh and the tempature difference is not even worth mentioning. I have seen tests done on it.

The length and diameter of the pipe is whats important, as they effect intake velocity, which in turn effects volumetric effeciency.

The longer tube of the cold air intake increases intake velocity, which causes volumetric effeciency to happen earlier and give better midrange. This is where the term "AEM hump" has come up, in reference to the hump of power between 4 - 5k on dyno graphs of cars that have a CAI.

Short rams on the other hand have a slower intake velocity and thus cause volumetric effeicency to happen later. This is why you see heavily modified NA engines using short ram intakes, because with the high reving they need air quantity over air velocity. The result is better high end power with their heavy breathing engine package.

Re: cold vs warm intakes (StyleTEG)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by StyleTEG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ugh, no its the opposite.

The difference is not in the air tempature, but the length and diameter of the pipe.

After you get above 30mph, the air in the engine bay is fresh and the tempature difference is not even worth mentioning. I have seen tests done on it.

The length and diameter of the pipe is whats important, as they effect intake velocity, which in turn effects volumetric effeciency.

The longer tube of the cold air intake increases intake velocity, which causes volumetric effeciency to happen earlier and give better midrange. This is where the term "AEM hump" has come up, in reference to the hump of power between 4 - 5k on dyno graphs of cars that have a CAI.

Short rams on the other hand have a slower intake velocity and thus cause volumetric effeicency to happen later. This is why you see heavily modified NA engines using short ram intakes, because with the high reving they need air quantity over air velocity. The result is better high end power with their heavy breathing engine package.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly https://honda-tech.com/forums/images/smilies/emthup.gif

Seen dyno charts on it and the shorter length of intake made up for the power of drawing cold air over a longer length.

Re: cold vs warm intakes (EG TYPE-R)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EG TYPE-R &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">warm is never good.
cold air is allways better because it is more dense so therefor is has more oxygen that can be combined with more fuel and will make more power.</TD></TR></TABLE>

True.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EG TYPE-R &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ugh, no its the opposite.</TD></TR></TABLE>

How is hell is it opposite. What you said is very true, however you think a long intake pipe that bends around the engine and stops near the exhaust manifold is going to produce a lot of power because of the gained velocity. Once engine is heated the performance would be worse... C'mon, your statement is true, and so was his as well. You're both right, just not opposite... https://honda-tech.com/forums/images/smilies/emthup.gif

Re: cold vs warm intakes (976)
 

I was saying its the opposite of

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
cold air intake is for high end power and a warm air intake is for bottom end power
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Re: cold vs warm intakes (StyleTEG)
 

Short rams produce more torque over high end aftermarket cold air intakes, please go read up on some of this stuff. There are a lot of books out there that have great info and dyno comparisons from the past. Check out Maximum boost and this great book.

Re: cold vs warm intakes (StyleTEG)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by StyleTEG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I was saying its the opposite of


</TD></TR></TABLE>

Oh, my bad. I feel stupid. Sorry bro...

Re: cold vs warm intakes (976)
 

can this explained a lil better Short rams on the other hand have a slower intake velocity and thus cause volumetric effeicency to happen later. This is why you see heavily modified NA engines using short ram intakes, because with the high reving they need air quantity over air velocity. The result is better high end power with their heavy breathing engine package.