We didn't have time. Had to dyno two other cars for customers. Results will be posted when we dyno it...don't worry.
Advanced Race Technology "long tube" cold air intake made for my 2013 CX-5 GT
- Thread starter theorie
- Start date
We didn't have time. Had to dyno two other cars for customers. Results will be posted when we dyno it...don't worry.
What is Wrong with my statement? - "With the intake that low, if you pick up water in that intake it will kill your engine and Mazda won't cover the damage. I would not drive it in any standing water and not follow traffic at speed that are throwing up water"...
I stated "if you pick up water" which is true and not WRONG!(picking up water is not spray). You are arguing that water will not get in which is opinion and like ass holes everyone has one.
Last edited:
- :
- Mazdaspeed6
I disagree. Visualize yourself driving behind a car in heavy rain. Tires are able to displace 1-2 gallons of water per second per tire at freeway speeds, much of which turns into mist which flies up into the air, and into the front of your vehicle.
I do agree that the filter is better protected with the fog lamp in place, however. And even though I haven't looked closely on my own CX-5, I assume there are no vents around there since the CX-5 does not utilize a PS cooler...
What I don't get is with having such a bad ass FD like that, why in the world do you want to tinker with the 2.0l S-G in the CX-5? I can see maybe with the upcoming 2.2l S-D, but not the 2.0...
I do agree that the filter is better protected with the fog lamp in place, however. And even though I haven't looked closely on my own CX-5, I assume there are no vents around there since the CX-5 does not utilize a PS cooler...
What I don't get is with having such a bad ass FD like that, why in the world do you want to tinker with the 2.0l S-G in the CX-5? I can see maybe with the upcoming 2.2l S-D, but not the 2.0...
PhoenixINX
Member
- :
- 2013 Mazda CX-5 GT
My wife drives the CX-5, and I'm DYING to start tinkering with it... It's in our blood, it's what we do.
If that's not your thing, why waste your breath?
I've lost count how many long tube intakes I've run in various cars, and I have never had a problem.
Fatti, I wouldn't sell one of those gurgle tubes to my brother-in-law (or my worst enemy) if I had a free crate of them (I would recycle them for their aluminum content). So it's not clear to me why you think I might want to sell them to anyone. If you would have read the posts you deleted you wouldn't be thinking I wanted to be a dealer of gurgle tubes.
- :
- Mazdaspeed6
I don't know how much breath you waste posting in a forum, but I don't waste any!
fatti03msp
Contributor
- :
- 03 MSP & 91 RX-7 & 00 1500
i wasnt referring to you, i war referring to the OP
I think you guys have an unhealthy fear of driving in the rain, and water vapor/droplets getting into the engine.
Again, my RX-7 has a very low mounted intake (probably about 6-8" off the ground), with exposed air filters (visible directly though the front bumper mouth) and I have driven it many times in very, very heavy Florida rain.
Even RE-Amemiya, the legendary Rotary tuner/race shop is producing for the CX-5...
http://www.re-amemiya.co.jp/diary/2012_11_main.html
Here's a front end design they're working on:
So.... did you put this on the dyno at that shop yet or what?? 
And the most important question - why hasnt someone figured out new tuning programs for the ECU yet? The skyactiv engines are being sold around the world in both the 3 and the CX-5 and then soon the 6 will be on showroom floors.
And the most important question - why hasnt someone figured out new tuning programs for the ECU yet? The skyactiv engines are being sold around the world in both the 3 and the CX-5 and then soon the 6 will be on showroom floors.
I bet that breathes well!
those worried about water ingestion are paranoid. regardless if you have a CAI or not, forging across water is NEVER a good idea - you never know how deep the water actually is. if a road is flooded, best course of action is to find another route.
that being said, i've had an Injen intake on my protege for 5+ years and 100k+ miles, with year round operation. i have NEVER had any issues with water getting into the engine or hydrolock. and, point of reference, the filter is roughly 8-10" off the road and tucked into the bumper well in front of the drivers side wheel. with this filter being 20-24" from the ground, i can't see this set up being in any worry for water ingestion. now, performance benefits on the other hand, is another story...
that being said, i've had an Injen intake on my protege for 5+ years and 100k+ miles, with year round operation. i have NEVER had any issues with water getting into the engine or hydrolock. and, point of reference, the filter is roughly 8-10" off the road and tucked into the bumper well in front of the drivers side wheel. with this filter being 20-24" from the ground, i can't see this set up being in any worry for water ingestion. now, performance benefits on the other hand, is another story...
SayNoToPistons
Wheels, not rims...
- :
- CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech, RX-8 GT 6spd w/ 'goodies'
theorie - glad you're on Mazdas247. There is a great amount of members on this forum that could use some enlightening... To say the least.
Okay, so I'm going to throw this out there so flame me for it.(flame2)
My experience with these types of intake systems both in real world driving, at the drag strip, and on the dynomometer (yes I've done them all) is that sometimes they increase power above 4000 RPM depending on what was also done with other systems like exhaust. Most of the time these intake systems just compromise low end torque and increase noise in lue of top end horsepower. Every engine responds differently because some have more room for improvement than others. Back years ago most engines had more room for improvement as they weren't as highly tuned from the factory as many are today as manufacturers try to eak out as much power as possible from smaller engines in the quest for better fuel economy without compromise. It was cheaper then to just increase engine displacement than to try and increase power from a 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engine and fuel economy wasn't high on peoples lists then. These bigger displacement engines had more room for improvement. An example is with my 2001 Toyota Tundra I had. I got over 20 lb ft of RWTQ from my 2001 Tundra with the DOHC V8 by just changing the exhaust manifolds and muffler. I lost low end power when I installed an aftermarket intake, which made the truck slower off the line. My brother inlaw installed a $300 aftermarket intake system on his Eagle Talon with the 2.5-liter engine and thought it made it faster. I tried to convince him that it was all in his head and when he installed the stock system back on just before he sold it he came to me and said it felt much quicker with the stock system. That aftermarket company even had a dyno graph to prove that it made more horsepower but it was truncated above 3500 RPM because they didn't want you to know it lost low end torque. I'd rather have more torque in the 1500-3500 range than more horsepower in the 3500-6500 range unless I was racing with a real racing engine and sports car.
I'm guessing since the Skyactive 2.0 is already highly tuned for lower end torque (for a 2.0 4 cylinder) that there is very little room for improvement. The Skyative 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engine already has the best engine tweaks from the factory; that is what Skyactive is. I hope your dyno graphs prove me wrong but please don't do what everyone else does and truncate those dyno graphs so all we see is 6 hp at 5000 RPM. I want to know what happens to the torque curve in the 1500-3000 RPM range where in an SUV it really counts. You want the CX5 to feel faster and have better drive-ability than boost torque in the 1500=3000 RPM range where this motor operates most of the time for everyday driving. Ideally for me I'd prefer no increase in noise too. I do applaud you for putting in the effort and money into trying to make engine modifications for the CX5 and I hope you do succeed.
My experience with these types of intake systems both in real world driving, at the drag strip, and on the dynomometer (yes I've done them all) is that sometimes they increase power above 4000 RPM depending on what was also done with other systems like exhaust. Most of the time these intake systems just compromise low end torque and increase noise in lue of top end horsepower. Every engine responds differently because some have more room for improvement than others. Back years ago most engines had more room for improvement as they weren't as highly tuned from the factory as many are today as manufacturers try to eak out as much power as possible from smaller engines in the quest for better fuel economy without compromise. It was cheaper then to just increase engine displacement than to try and increase power from a 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engine and fuel economy wasn't high on peoples lists then. These bigger displacement engines had more room for improvement. An example is with my 2001 Toyota Tundra I had. I got over 20 lb ft of RWTQ from my 2001 Tundra with the DOHC V8 by just changing the exhaust manifolds and muffler. I lost low end power when I installed an aftermarket intake, which made the truck slower off the line. My brother inlaw installed a $300 aftermarket intake system on his Eagle Talon with the 2.5-liter engine and thought it made it faster. I tried to convince him that it was all in his head and when he installed the stock system back on just before he sold it he came to me and said it felt much quicker with the stock system. That aftermarket company even had a dyno graph to prove that it made more horsepower but it was truncated above 3500 RPM because they didn't want you to know it lost low end torque. I'd rather have more torque in the 1500-3500 range than more horsepower in the 3500-6500 range unless I was racing with a real racing engine and sports car.
I'm guessing since the Skyactive 2.0 is already highly tuned for lower end torque (for a 2.0 4 cylinder) that there is very little room for improvement. The Skyative 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engine already has the best engine tweaks from the factory; that is what Skyactive is. I hope your dyno graphs prove me wrong but please don't do what everyone else does and truncate those dyno graphs so all we see is 6 hp at 5000 RPM. I want to know what happens to the torque curve in the 1500-3000 RPM range where in an SUV it really counts. You want the CX5 to feel faster and have better drive-ability than boost torque in the 1500=3000 RPM range where this motor operates most of the time for everyday driving. Ideally for me I'd prefer no increase in noise too. I do applaud you for putting in the effort and money into trying to make engine modifications for the CX5 and I hope you do succeed.
Hey theorie
I noticed in your pics of ART with the red supra. Thats my buddy derek's old car. He has a skyline now. I got my 350z exhaust installed there a little while back.
Back on topic: the intake looks nice. My gf just got a new cx-5, good to see some are doing engine mods lol
I noticed in your pics of ART with the red supra. Thats my buddy derek's old car. He has a skyline now. I got my 350z exhaust installed there a little while back.
Back on topic: the intake looks nice. My gf just got a new cx-5, good to see some are doing engine mods lol
Are we still waiting on Dyno results or are they on another thread?
