im thinking about making a SRI using the Spectre intake parts found at autozone. they have the MAF adapter but im not sure what to do about the IAT. any suggestions? im looking to save some money n it would be a interesting part to create.

 

Save your money entirely and leave the stock intake in place; it'll perform as well (if not better) than anything you can fabricate (regardless of how much time and money you put into the project).

 

First of all, I understand your need to want to create your own, and to save money. These things are not cheap to begin with, especially for what they are and what "gains" they offer... and they're getting more expensive as I write this post!!
I'm not so sure the universal parts at AutoZone will give you what you want. What they are liable to give you is a CEL.
Remember, the volume of air flowing around the MAF is specific. To big or too small is not an option or you will create a CEL.
There are companies that offer complete universal kits. Though I cannot remember the specific names of these companies I have seen these on "the car shows" on SPEED and SPIKE tv. It might be worth a Google to find one of those instead.
Basically how it works is, they send you a kit with various tubing, some straight and some pre-bent w/connectors and adapters for the MAF, etc.
You modify the pieces and build the intake, then you can either send it to them for welding, have it welded yourself, or the simple way, use clamps and the rubber connectors.
When you're done, you send back the unused pieces for partial credit.

 

Honestly. K&N, Injen etc intakes are expensive but personally I find that you are paying for name rather than the "gains" they offer. An intake is an intake honestly. There are very few things I would go to ebay for my car but an intake is one of them. If you look you can find a "bombz racing" Intake for like $30 with shipping. Compared to the $200 plus injen or k&n. Most, if not all, the intakes i've seen for the three come in a two piece design that you can make a cold air or short ram. For me, I make mine short ram in the winter (warm up quicker for the car and gets the intake away from the snow, ice, salt etc.) and go back to cold air in the summer.

To be perfectly honestly. I use to work at autozone here in st.louis and I've tried using the specter parts because I get a discount and such and it won't work. the MAF adapter doesn't quite fit right and causes too many leaks. The car will start but die to leaks/to much air flowing over the MAF.

 

Thanks for all the info. I was reading up on using the spectre parts n from what ya'll are saying I guess Ill save up. I do agree that your paying for the name vs the actual performance aspect I.e. KnN injen ect so ill start looking into other intakes. I am interested in the weapon r sri or fujita. Anyone have trouble or code issues with these manufacturers? Thanks again

 

Name or no name, you'll get virtually zero real-world gain in performance. That said, if all you're after is a little more intake noise or a "better look", go for it.

 

^^^That's pretty subjective if you ask me. If your considering a "real world" gain as if you are going to feel it in a "*** dyno" No. you probably won't. You could say that about any bolt on mod honestly whether it be I/E/H/intake mani. The only way you are going to "*** dyno" something is if you get nos or forced induction and obviously incredibly different from the stock setup. They will give you better numbers though that will make you feel better about your purchase. You just wont know it. Increase in performance? Eh, you MIGHT, keyword, might feel a little better pop off the line/less hesitation. You should see an increase in gas mileage though. I did. and I didn't change my driving habits.

 

Not subjective at all, virtually every dyno sheet I've ever seen shows an extremely modest gain on the top end (no more than four or five HP) right after the CAI has been put in, that and a commensurate loss in mid range torque. However, once the OBD-II computer relearns the new intake metrics, most if not all top end gains are gone but the midrange torque loss remains. Not much of a deal if you ask me.

Absolutely, positively impossible. There is no way any of the mods you made to your car will yield even a .0001% improvement in fuel economy. Like it or not, believe it or don't, a CAI doesn't change the laws of physics. In fact, to take it one step further, there is a very good likelihood that a CAI will result in lower fuel economy when the OAT drops below roughly 40°F. Why? Because fuel atomization suffers when the intake charge gets cool, and when that happens, your fuel economy drops.

For a much more detailed discussion on this issue, take a very close look at this thread (especially the dissertation on the perfectly stirred reactor):

• https://www.mazdaforum.com/forum/general-tech-6/cais-fuel-economy%3B-whats-real-truth-20812/

 

Lol "name or no name" agreed that's why I even considered building my own from the spectre parts. I ask about the weapon r because I think it was reasonably priced last time I looked on ebay, as for the fujita intake sys a good friend of mine has one on his B16 cvic and he's pretty happy with the part granted that the engines have similaritys as well as their differences.

 

Ship, after completely wasting my time with that ridiculously long tread I have come to several conclusions on this where you are dead right and dead wrong at the same time. By the laws of physics and mathematical theories (key word being theories, which what they are because they aren't fact..yet). On paper, you can debunk the fact that adding a CAI would more than likely reduce MPG. However the downfall with math is the consistency. Even as engines are slaves to the OBD-II computer system, they are just as inconsistent as the behavioral changes in a girl on her period. Just like men dealing with a girl on her period OBD-II systems have tolerance. (or maybe lack there of with some men lol) Real world applications are anything but consistent. Going through the tread I agree with you and the other guys points here

Point 1. Science or not, believe it or not. Atmospheric pressure 14.xx (whatever) is not enough to actually push air in. Why, because cars are giant vacuums. You can argue pressures right before and after the tb are identical well duh, you just went from one enclose area (intake) to another enclosed area (manifold). I think where we disagree on this point is that; If you have a low pressure system inside the engine and and a higher "normal" pressure out side the engine, you are assuming that the higher pressure is pushing the air in to equalize the low pressure system inside the engine. This, however, is not the case. Assume for a moment a shuttle in space. We can all agree the space is one massive low pressure system which is also referred to as a vacuum type system. The pressure inside the shuttle is much higher obviously that what is in space. Assume, for a moment that the shuttle had a cabin leak, what happens? Under your theory, you would claim that the higher pressure system is leaking out into space to raise the pressure of space to equalize it. Much similar in a way you think the higher pressure outside the intake box pushes into the intake to equalize the low pressure system inside the engine. However, the case is, low pressure systems ALWAYS "win" over high pressure systems. In my previous space example with the shuttle, in actuality, the low pressure (space) system is drawing out (sucking out) the higher pressure system in order to have both equalized low pressures NOT the other way around. The piston drawing down is actually creating an artificial low pressure system and it is trying to equalize by drawing air from the high pressure system. You know what the say about a 4 stroke engine, SUCK, squish, bang, blow. NOT, PUSH, squish, bang, blow.

Point 2. I will agree with you that OBD-II cars are slaves to the computer and your mathematics again would be correct if the computer were specifically set to a finite exact number and could not be any other way with out the engine failing. However, real world practicality accompanied with fine tuning the ecu will state that the engine is operating under "normal" conditions given a range of values entered. Given that said having the slightest most minuscule clog in a fuel injector or air filter or having the most minuscule hotter or colder spark could actually increase or decrease in MPG because you would be taxing the engine in one system or another yet still maintaining range values for the ecu. Yes, engines work, in fact only 20% of fuel burned is converted into workable mechanical energy. So when you tax it you make the engine less efficient whether it be fuel, torque or, horsepower.

Point 3 - Again I will agree with you that MAF sensors will measure the weight of the air and that the weight of the air is greatly determined by humidity and actually temperature of the air. Thus will send an electrical signal (also just as inconsistent) to the ecu and then sends an (inconsistent) signal to the spark and fuel to mix with the air. Assume for a moment that an intake is a straw to breathe through for the engine (yes i'm bringing up this debate that people use all the time to claim that cai's are better than the stock setup). I'm leaving out here that the TB butterfly actually produces most of the restriction, which I will agree with you however, it does not produce all of the restriction. Where you think that the actual tubing of the intake is irrelevant when it comes to efficiency or mpg, I will state otherwise. So do you have to work as hard to breath through an wider diameter straight straw, or a curvy, crunched, coffee stirrer? I think it would be safe to say that it would be easier to breathe through the larger straight straw. Because I say this I do not mean bigger is always better because like we agreed to earlier, the computer will learn this and adjust accordingly. What I am understanding from you is that time has no relation to efficiency when it comes to an internal combustion engine. When in fact it does. Just because you speed up a process it doesn't mean you using the same amount of gas in just a shorter amount of time. Think of it this way, you have a stock crank pulley that can rev to 5,000 RPM's in 2 seconds and it uses 1lb of fuel (obviously i'm pulling these numbers from no where) Now if you have a light weight crank pulley lets say you can rev to 5,000 RPM's in 1.5 seconds and because the time length is shortened and the fact now that the engine doesn't have to work as hard to spin the crank it doesn't need as much fuel to produce the same output. Going further back, how does and engine "work"? Well the work comes from thermal combustion, the combustion then is transferred (partially lost) into mechanical energy. Basically, a couple of points come across here, human inputs that make the mechanical process easier means less "work" is needed to produce the output. Less work then would mean less combustion needed to produce that work. The next point would be volumetric efficiencies. TB butterfly there or not you can increase the volume of air into the engine without the computer changing fuel consumption depending on how far the range is where it becomes too lean to run in the condition that it is, hence CEL lights.

Couple of sum up points here. Your math, science, data just proves what SHOULD happen but DOESN'T ALWAYS happen and that data obtained isn't a constant but an average of what happens. With that being said, you could increase power and efficiency at the same time by running lean (better mpg) and make the process of the engine quicker, that is still within an acceptable range for the ecu. Due to inconsistencies given a range of time, transfer of energy, electrical surges and shorts, minuscule differences hotter or cooler spark, dirty injectors, air filter, MPG could be adversely affected (by adversely affect I mean +/- 1 possibly 2 mpg) Basically, your math and science proves at 4000 RPM's 'x' amount of air at a given temperature will need 'y' amount of fuel and produce 'z' output. That's all fine and dandy except that doesn't happen every time consistently. Driving habits and conditions play a huge factor in this as well.