CAI, which is better for Civic
RSX type R
04-13-2002, 02:02 PM
Injen
or
AEM
or
AEM
delsolguy
04-13-2002, 04:31 PM
There is very little difference between the two. Just choose one, it'll work just as well as the other one.
PoisonFangs
04-14-2002, 01:33 AM
I just installed an AEM short stack in my civic on fri, and it works so nice. The sound makes me spluge my pants and you do notice an increase in response. I have not used an injen myself but a dude i talked to at AEM said that there is not much of a difference
kicker1_solo
07-18-2002, 03:09 AM
not much of a difference, but I'll say AEM :)
1995HondaCivic
07-18-2002, 03:46 AM
Iceman
yep, sorry, i'm the outkast
iceman is better because it is plastic
metal attracts heat
yep, sorry, i'm the outkast
iceman is better because it is plastic
metal attracts heat
pric
07-18-2002, 08:18 AM
like everyone has said not much difference go for the cheapest one that's the better one.
metal does not attract heat it conduct's heat and so does plastic.
metal does not attract heat it conduct's heat and so does plastic.
ric
07-18-2002, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by 1995HondaCivic
Iceman
yep, sorry, i'm the outkast
iceman is better because it is plastic
metal attracts heat
even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation.
ive seen dyno's (real ones not manufacturers ones) side by side comparing the two and they are almost identical but the aem usually has a very small gain (less then 1 hp) over the iceman because of its equal sized and shaped tubing as opposed to the iceman which is not. it only leads me to belive that that gap would increase as air ingestion does with a more modified engine.
Iceman
yep, sorry, i'm the outkast
iceman is better because it is plastic
metal attracts heat
even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation.
ive seen dyno's (real ones not manufacturers ones) side by side comparing the two and they are almost identical but the aem usually has a very small gain (less then 1 hp) over the iceman because of its equal sized and shaped tubing as opposed to the iceman which is not. it only leads me to belive that that gap would increase as air ingestion does with a more modified engine.
RICE GOD
07-19-2002, 03:31 AM
intakes restrict airflow. go to home depot and get gutter tubing and duct tape. and some raw chicken dump-valves
pric
07-19-2002, 05:24 PM
even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation.
How do you think a radiator works?
How do you think a radiator works?
ric
07-19-2002, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by pric
How do you think a radiator works?
can i ask what exactly that has to do with anything?
How do you think a radiator works?
can i ask what exactly that has to do with anything?
pric
07-19-2002, 10:42 PM
can i ask what exactly that has to do with anything?
Sure you can ask. In your statment " even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation. " are you trying to say that air temp flowing through the intake does not heat up because it's moving to fast?
If so you would be incorrect. That's why I asked "How do you think a radiator works? " The faster the air flows across the radiator the more heat it disipates and " simple underhood heat dissipation. " is alot more than you maybe think. and if that is not what you meant please explain?
Sure you can ask. In your statment " even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation. " are you trying to say that air temp flowing through the intake does not heat up because it's moving to fast?
If so you would be incorrect. That's why I asked "How do you think a radiator works? " The faster the air flows across the radiator the more heat it disipates and " simple underhood heat dissipation. " is alot more than you maybe think. and if that is not what you meant please explain?
nemesls_2000
07-19-2002, 11:21 PM
AEM. Simply for the fact that they've been in the business longer.
ric
07-20-2002, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by pric
Sure you can ask. In your statment " even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation. " are you trying to say that air temp flowing through the intake does not heat up because it's moving to fast?
If so you would be incorrect. That's why I asked "How do you think a radiator works? " The faster the air flows across the radiator the more heat it disipates and " simple underhood heat dissipation. " is alot more than you maybe think. and if that is not what you meant please explain?
yeah thats exactly what im saying. have you ever ran a car with an obd2 scan tool attached and monitered the intake air temp sensor? at idle there is a very small increase in intake air temps due to underhood heatsoak. at post idle throttle levels and up that temp goes down very quikly and even more so if the initial air you are sucking is colder.
ok lets do this for a 1.6 liter engine
figuring the cfm of air ingestion in an engine is easy its (ci/2)*rpm*ve.
a 1.6 liter motor holds 97ci and idle should be 750rpm with a normal engine operating at 85% volumetric efficiency.
(97/2)*750*.85=30918 cubic inches per minute and there are 1728ci in a CF(cubic foot)
so the 30,918/1728=17.89cfm
now lets go further. now calculate the area of the intake piping for future use (aems for civics are 2.5").
area is equal to pi * radius squared so
(3.14*(1.25*1.25)=4.89sq inches
now lets figure out the flow rate.
thats easy, its your CFM divided by the cross sectional area of the intake tubing so 17.89/.033sqft=542feet per minute or 9 feet per second over any given point. which equals out to be ruffly 6.1 mph.
that is only the velocity of air inside the intake tubing during idle. do you have an idea what how much heat it takes to change the temp of the air moving past it in a given space at that speed or higher? 150-190 degree underhood temps arent going to be enough to do anything near noticable especially with an average crusing speed of 2000-3000rpm making thise numbers i did jump WAY up. also remember this is all assuming underhood air is not your source for air.
now its 3:30 and im going to bed. maybe if your lucky i'll come back on and give some calculations of thermal conductivity to prove how much underhood heat does not actually effect the intake air temps anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics or polished aluminums etc.. or maybe i'll just datalog some numbers from an obd2 scan tool and post them...maybe i'll do nothing.
oh one thing i forgot to say about your radiator theory. compare the amount of surface area on a radiator to the actual fluid flow and acceleration though it vs. the amount and acceleration of air through the surface area of an intake. you'll be sad to see the intake comes nowhere close to the radiator.
Sure you can ask. In your statment " even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation. " are you trying to say that air temp flowing through the intake does not heat up because it's moving to fast?
If so you would be incorrect. That's why I asked "How do you think a radiator works? " The faster the air flows across the radiator the more heat it disipates and " simple underhood heat dissipation. " is alot more than you maybe think. and if that is not what you meant please explain?
yeah thats exactly what im saying. have you ever ran a car with an obd2 scan tool attached and monitered the intake air temp sensor? at idle there is a very small increase in intake air temps due to underhood heatsoak. at post idle throttle levels and up that temp goes down very quikly and even more so if the initial air you are sucking is colder.
ok lets do this for a 1.6 liter engine
figuring the cfm of air ingestion in an engine is easy its (ci/2)*rpm*ve.
a 1.6 liter motor holds 97ci and idle should be 750rpm with a normal engine operating at 85% volumetric efficiency.
(97/2)*750*.85=30918 cubic inches per minute and there are 1728ci in a CF(cubic foot)
so the 30,918/1728=17.89cfm
now lets go further. now calculate the area of the intake piping for future use (aems for civics are 2.5").
area is equal to pi * radius squared so
(3.14*(1.25*1.25)=4.89sq inches
now lets figure out the flow rate.
thats easy, its your CFM divided by the cross sectional area of the intake tubing so 17.89/.033sqft=542feet per minute or 9 feet per second over any given point. which equals out to be ruffly 6.1 mph.
that is only the velocity of air inside the intake tubing during idle. do you have an idea what how much heat it takes to change the temp of the air moving past it in a given space at that speed or higher? 150-190 degree underhood temps arent going to be enough to do anything near noticable especially with an average crusing speed of 2000-3000rpm making thise numbers i did jump WAY up. also remember this is all assuming underhood air is not your source for air.
now its 3:30 and im going to bed. maybe if your lucky i'll come back on and give some calculations of thermal conductivity to prove how much underhood heat does not actually effect the intake air temps anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics or polished aluminums etc.. or maybe i'll just datalog some numbers from an obd2 scan tool and post them...maybe i'll do nothing.
oh one thing i forgot to say about your radiator theory. compare the amount of surface area on a radiator to the actual fluid flow and acceleration though it vs. the amount and acceleration of air through the surface area of an intake. you'll be sad to see the intake comes nowhere close to the radiator.
ric
07-20-2002, 02:46 AM
oh one thing i forgot to say about your radiator theory. compare the amount of surface area on a radiator to the actual fluid flow and acceleration though it vs. the amount and acceleration of air through the surface area of an intake. you'll be sad to see the intake comes nowhere close to the radiator.
SleeperCivic
07-20-2002, 10:18 PM
I like this guy....
VTEC_boi
07-21-2002, 11:15 PM
pric, sorry to point out the obvious.
But you just got OWN3D! http://honda-acura.net/forums/images/smilies/owned.gif
But you just got OWN3D! http://honda-acura.net/forums/images/smilies/owned.gif
pric
07-23-2002, 10:18 PM
ric, Maybe it was to early in the morning for you to comprehend my posts. I don't know how you did it but you have no one to blame but yourself.
1st. I would like to thank you for agreeing with me and contradicting yourself at the same time and I quote "at idle there is a very small increase in intake air temps due to underhood heatsoak. " then your first post which is the one I was commenting on " then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation. " I never said there was a large difference you ASSumed that. I was saying there is an increase never said how much.
2nd. To answer you question "have you ever ran a car with an obd2 scan tool attached and monitered the intake air temp sensor? " yes I have. Have you ever measured the difference between a stock air box and one that is insulated? If not then you have no bases in your statment.
3rd. In your next statment "maybe if your lucky i'll come back on and give some calculations of thermal conductivity to prove how much underhood heat does not actually effect the intake air temps anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics or polished aluminums etc.. " I never said that the air temps were anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics. You once again you ASSumed that on your own.
It is obvious that you have a little idea of basic physics and I ASSumed that most people on this board don't no physics so i was using the radiator in simpleton terms. I apologize if you took that the worng way. As for your last statment "oh one thing i forgot to say about your radiator theory. compare the amount of surface area on a radiator to the actual fluid flow and acceleration though it vs. the amount and acceleration of air through the surface area of an intake. you'll be sad to see the intake comes nowhere close to the radiator. " I was using the radiator as an example. Show me where I was comparing the heat dispation rate of the two. You can't because once again you ASSumed to much.
If you would like I would be happy to pm you and discuss the basic princples and formulas of heat flow and the first law of thermodynamics.
1st. I would like to thank you for agreeing with me and contradicting yourself at the same time and I quote "at idle there is a very small increase in intake air temps due to underhood heatsoak. " then your first post which is the one I was commenting on " then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation. " I never said there was a large difference you ASSumed that. I was saying there is an increase never said how much.
2nd. To answer you question "have you ever ran a car with an obd2 scan tool attached and monitered the intake air temp sensor? " yes I have. Have you ever measured the difference between a stock air box and one that is insulated? If not then you have no bases in your statment.
3rd. In your next statment "maybe if your lucky i'll come back on and give some calculations of thermal conductivity to prove how much underhood heat does not actually effect the intake air temps anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics or polished aluminums etc.. " I never said that the air temps were anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics. You once again you ASSumed that on your own.
It is obvious that you have a little idea of basic physics and I ASSumed that most people on this board don't no physics so i was using the radiator in simpleton terms. I apologize if you took that the worng way. As for your last statment "oh one thing i forgot to say about your radiator theory. compare the amount of surface area on a radiator to the actual fluid flow and acceleration though it vs. the amount and acceleration of air through the surface area of an intake. you'll be sad to see the intake comes nowhere close to the radiator. " I was using the radiator as an example. Show me where I was comparing the heat dispation rate of the two. You can't because once again you ASSumed to much.
If you would like I would be happy to pm you and discuss the basic princples and formulas of heat flow and the first law of thermodynamics.
ric
07-24-2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by pric
ric, Maybe it was to early in the morning for you to comprehend my posts. I don't know how you did it but you have no one to blame but yourself.
i dont think there was any misunderstanding about it
1st. I would like to thank you for agreeing with me and contradicting yourself at the same time and I quote "at idle there is a very small increase in intake air temps due to underhood heatsoak. " then your first post which is the one I was commenting on " then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation. " I never said there was a large difference you ASSumed that. I was saying there is an increase never said how much.
excuse me that my clarification wasnt up to par in my first post. i didnt know i would be having a pissing contest once again with someone. its should have read "even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation to cause any sort of noticable difference.
something i still stand by.
and as for never saying how much exactly i think
" are you trying to say that air temp flowing through the intake does not heat up because it's moving to fast?
If so you would be incorrect. That's why I asked "How do you think a radiator works? " The faster the air flows across the radiator the more heat it disipates and " simple underhood heat dissipation. " is alot more than you maybe think. and if that is not what you meant please explain?
2nd. To answer you question "have you ever ran a car with an obd2 scan tool attached and monitered the intake air temp sensor? " yes I have. Have you ever measured the difference between a stock air box and one that is insulated? If not then you have no bases in your statment.
why yes, actually i have, as a matter of fact it was in my car when i thought an insulator would help. i found out it didnt to any reasonable degree and basically made the engine bay look like shit.
3rd. In your next statment "maybe if your lucky i'll come back on and give some calculations of thermal conductivity to prove how much underhood heat does not actually effect the intake air temps anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics or polished aluminums etc.. " I never said that the air temps were anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics. You once again you ASSumed that on your own.
then why even argue? but then again you did say "and " simple underhood heat dissipation. " is alot more than you maybe think. dont create situations that make the reader assume and he wont.
It is obvious that you have a little idea of basic physics and I ASSumed that most people on this board don't no physics so i was using the radiator in simpleton terms. I apologize if you took that the worng way. As for your last statment "oh one thing i forgot to say about your radiator theory. compare the amount of surface area on a radiator to the actual fluid flow and acceleration though it vs. the amount and acceleration of air through the surface area of an intake. you'll be sad to see the intake comes nowhere close to the radiator. " I was using the radiator as an example. Show me where I was comparing the heat dispation rate of the two. You can't because once again you ASSumed to much.
once again "friend" dont lead the reader into assuming things and he wont. sorry but comparing a radiator to an intake in a post that has taken a turn towards the technical aspect of the subject is bot the smartest idea.
also how could you possibly ever know what my understanding of physics is? do you know me? the odds are that you dont so your claim is unfounded. if you did know me then you would know i am in school for mechanical engineering so i would hope that the 50,000$ worth of money i have spent to date would leave me with a somewhat decent understanding of what i am going to school for. not to mention the wall of physics books i have for my own personal entertainment.
try to take your own medicine and please dont ASSume
If you would like I would be happy to pm you and discuss the basic princples and formulas of heat flow and the first law of thermodynamics.
thats quite alright, you dont impress me, your case is weak, and continuing this pissing contest any further is no longer appealing.
good day.
ric, Maybe it was to early in the morning for you to comprehend my posts. I don't know how you did it but you have no one to blame but yourself.
i dont think there was any misunderstanding about it
1st. I would like to thank you for agreeing with me and contradicting yourself at the same time and I quote "at idle there is a very small increase in intake air temps due to underhood heatsoak. " then your first post which is the one I was commenting on " then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation. " I never said there was a large difference you ASSumed that. I was saying there is an increase never said how much.
excuse me that my clarification wasnt up to par in my first post. i didnt know i would be having a pissing contest once again with someone. its should have read "even at idle a 1.6 liter engine ingests more air in one second then could possibly ever be heated from simple underhood heat dissipation to cause any sort of noticable difference.
something i still stand by.
and as for never saying how much exactly i think
" are you trying to say that air temp flowing through the intake does not heat up because it's moving to fast?
If so you would be incorrect. That's why I asked "How do you think a radiator works? " The faster the air flows across the radiator the more heat it disipates and " simple underhood heat dissipation. " is alot more than you maybe think. and if that is not what you meant please explain?
2nd. To answer you question "have you ever ran a car with an obd2 scan tool attached and monitered the intake air temp sensor? " yes I have. Have you ever measured the difference between a stock air box and one that is insulated? If not then you have no bases in your statment.
why yes, actually i have, as a matter of fact it was in my car when i thought an insulator would help. i found out it didnt to any reasonable degree and basically made the engine bay look like shit.
3rd. In your next statment "maybe if your lucky i'll come back on and give some calculations of thermal conductivity to prove how much underhood heat does not actually effect the intake air temps anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics or polished aluminums etc.. " I never said that the air temps were anywhere noticable enough to justify using thermoplastics. You once again you ASSumed that on your own.
then why even argue? but then again you did say "and " simple underhood heat dissipation. " is alot more than you maybe think. dont create situations that make the reader assume and he wont.
It is obvious that you have a little idea of basic physics and I ASSumed that most people on this board don't no physics so i was using the radiator in simpleton terms. I apologize if you took that the worng way. As for your last statment "oh one thing i forgot to say about your radiator theory. compare the amount of surface area on a radiator to the actual fluid flow and acceleration though it vs. the amount and acceleration of air through the surface area of an intake. you'll be sad to see the intake comes nowhere close to the radiator. " I was using the radiator as an example. Show me where I was comparing the heat dispation rate of the two. You can't because once again you ASSumed to much.
once again "friend" dont lead the reader into assuming things and he wont. sorry but comparing a radiator to an intake in a post that has taken a turn towards the technical aspect of the subject is bot the smartest idea.
also how could you possibly ever know what my understanding of physics is? do you know me? the odds are that you dont so your claim is unfounded. if you did know me then you would know i am in school for mechanical engineering so i would hope that the 50,000$ worth of money i have spent to date would leave me with a somewhat decent understanding of what i am going to school for. not to mention the wall of physics books i have for my own personal entertainment.
try to take your own medicine and please dont ASSume
If you would like I would be happy to pm you and discuss the basic princples and formulas of heat flow and the first law of thermodynamics.
thats quite alright, you dont impress me, your case is weak, and continuing this pissing contest any further is no longer appealing.
good day.
sageuvagony
07-07-2003, 11:19 PM
hey 1995HondaCivic!!!! do you have any idea that this whole thing is YOUR FAULT!?!?!? lol
B16EJ1
07-07-2003, 11:46 PM
Hey sageuvagony!!! Do you know how old this thread is???
sageuvagony
07-09-2003, 01:37 AM
so how the hell did it end up on the recent threads? uhh... its the only reason I responded to it..
B16EJ1
07-09-2003, 01:57 AM
Some noob probably voted on the poll. Check the post dates.
moleodonuts
07-09-2003, 11:21 AM
<smack head> that's 2 you've done
emerge
07-09-2003, 01:09 PM
i have to admit, although this is an extremely old post, it's a great discussion/debate of the mechanics of a car. that's why we're here. we need more posts like this!:bigthumb:
RedBetta
07-09-2003, 01:46 PM
and more brainiacs....
99civic03
07-09-2003, 02:50 PM
Damn, this thread is old!
moleodonuts
07-10-2003, 12:35 AM
I have spark plugs that keep igniting my fuel when the car is on.... as a result my gas tank keeps on emptying out.
anyone got any suggestions? I tried not using the clutch and just slaming the gears around, but all it did was make loud noises :confused:
anyone got any suggestions? I tried not using the clutch and just slaming the gears around, but all it did was make loud noises :confused:
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026