Does anyone have the REAL difference in power between these two. Not what you guess or hear, but what the true tested difference in horsepower is. Alotta people trash the charger, but I'm not sure the CAI is leaps and bounds better. Thanks.

 

Had the Stillen and took it off after a month.
Bought the CAI kept it on ever since.
Anthony

 

My question to any one who knows the answer is which one is louder?

 

my money is on the CAI...i haven't had anything but the CAI on my car but my buddy had a popcharger style intake on his corolla...it was loud...we switched it to a CAI and it got louder...the CAI is esentially louder because its outside the engine bay and can be heard easier over all of the engine noise..

 

Take a look here for some of the arguments for and against...

http://vbxmaxima.8m.com/caivssi.html

 

CAI: larger piping, lower air velocity, less efficient swirling effects in the combustion chamber.... gr? votes for POP charger

 

yeah...i think after all these talks i may switch my piping after the MAF to 2.5"....any takes on that?

 

I'm almost sure they've both been dynoed and the CAI creates 5-8 hp while the pop creates 2-3 hp.....

CAI is louder because of what chris said but also because it is sucking all the air out of the wheel well chamber and at high RPM's it is sucking soo much air the air begins to resonate with the panels in the wheel well thus creating that noise...

BTW: i LOVE that noise..

Chris i'm gonna try that 2.5" tubing after the MAF also ..

Ant

 

Believe it or not its pretty sound theorectically (sp?). This may not count but my piping from Cone to MAF was 3", however since my MAF is 60mm it had a reducer. So basically it went from 3" to 2.5" at the MAF, also my tubing from MAF to TB was stock 60mm (2.5"). Because MAF's for my car are so plentiful and cheap the screens were removed. Both the dyno and timeslips show a consistant gain in power. Matter of fact even when I was hot lapping at the strip my average ET's were still better than my best with the car cooled down with the cone filter under the hood. I don't believe our engine would flow enough air to cause the 2.5" intake to be a restriction. Had my engine not blown I would have tried and dynoed it by now .

 

I don't think it is that simple.
First, if people wanted "more swirling" then why do they port and polish intake manifolds and heads? Doesn't this smooth out the path of flow to the combustion chamber?

Also, you have to mathematically calculate to see if the flow becomes laminar with a CAI. With the long tubing of the CAI the Reynolds number may not be as as high but it still may be in the turbulent region where there will be no difference in the amount of swirling.

 

Louder to whom? Passangers or peopel out side? Regular cone would be louder to the passangers and CAI to the peopel out side.

Why? Simple... look at the location of the cone. The stillen, jwt, etc, are right there infront of the driver. The CAI is way out in the front of the car under a sheet of metal and covered up. CAI is quieter to the passnager.

-Shing

 

Here's my understanding. Sorry if I'm repeating anyone else's points.

This debate has been hashed over at the yahoo site pretty good. From my understanding, the cone filter was giving higher ultimate maf readings than the cai. But the cai is generally thought to give better low-mid range torque. This makes perfect sense. If you look at header or intake runner theory of ie.. a sho. The sho featurs dual length runners. At low speeds, the sho uses long narrow intake runners for good air velocity and torque. Once at higher rpms, shorter and wider intake runners take over for good air flow(les restriction).

Now if you say the cone=short wide runner and the cai=long narrow runners, it makes perfect sense. This is totally ignoring any temp considerations here. This same theory is sound for header design also(another discussion)

Both units will flow better than the crappy stock airbox and both will give better high end airflow. What's better for you?? Well IMHO since the VQ already has plenty of grunt down low, the cone might be the better of the two. For my VE, I pull into the rev limiter anyway, so I don't really need the slight top end advantage. I would rather have the long runners + "cooler air" that the cai would provide. This should give me better low/mid end punch w/ little effective top end penalty.

 

is there an insert for the temp sensor on a 95se for the stillen intake

 

when the manifold is port/polished, the amount of flow increases but lower air velocity. remember, most cars that have these port jobs do it for high end power, so they're not worried about lower air velocity at low engine speeds. They want complete cylinder filling at the higher engine speeds, so the low end ram air is not a priority.

 

Ok. That makes sense. So from what i gather from the other posts, high velocity-turbulent air is needed for low end torque and power while low velocity-non-turbulent air flowing at a higer rate is needed for high end power, right? So how does high and low velocity air differ when dealing with an engine (how does high velocity air aid more in low end power?)

 

The CAI is alot more than a popcharger and it supposedly gives an estimated 3-4 more hp. Now my question is; Is it worth the extra $80-100 for the CAI and will the popcharger provide just as good performance as the CAI for less?

 

My HKS intake (pop) is very loud and deep. Yesterday when I dynoed my Max, my car was one of the loudest V6s they had very heard on the dyno. I've heard my car wrapped up in 2nd going down a street and it was very loud and the same goes when you're inside the car.

As for power, I think a pop charger will make nearly the same power as a CAI if you put a heatshield around the intake. Once I added a heatshield, my intake pipe and filter are cool to the touch after driving in 75 degree weather (I haven't tested under warmer conditions yet) The CAI brings in colder air, but when your motor is heat soaked, the slightly cooler intake charge isn't going to do much. If your intake manifold is heat soaked, then your car will be down on power. The VQ performs poorly once it becomes heat soaked just like most other high compression motors. I have hard time believing a CAI will out perform a pop charger at the track if both motors are cooled down.

I think this whole debate is overplayed and pretty much useless because we are talking about 1-2 hp difference. The CAI looks nicer and the pop is cheaper. Either way you can't go wrong. Both will produce similar power and noise. Anyways, the biggest restriction in the stock Maxima intake track is it's intake box. Not the air temp.

Dave

 

I agree completely. The difference is neglible.
I'd just like to know the physics behind all of it i guess!

 

I hate fizziks See I can't even spell the damn word!

Dave

 

Well said!

 

IIRC, the Stillen is actually louder. I've heard the Stillen, JWT, and CAI (all on different cars though) and the CAI on *some* cars produces a distinct sucking sound.... where as the SI seems loudest by a hair.

 

https://maxima.org/forums/showthread...threadid=10524

Check this thread out. MaxGator and I tested both styles of intakes and found no difference either on the dyno or the street. On my car, the CAI was actually louder as well, with a deeper pitch to the intake "roar". I like the sound of the underhood intake better personally and have switched over to that style.

 

I'm going to get a PR CAI soon. I don't really care about the sound. I want the power! From talking to people in person, I found that most of them prefer the CAI over the SI. The people that I talked to had both, so they would know, including myself. I since sold the SI, and now waiting to get the CAI.