Removed the intake resonator

Did that a while ago... I have an SRI on my 5. The CAI and SRI get swapped out on occasion.

I took out the old intake boxes in my 4Runners and Saabs over the years. I was shocked to see that my emmisions tests were actually cleaner! I noticed better MPG on the 4Runner, but had to lay off the gas, which can be tough when you enjoy hearing the throaty sound.

My Saabs were more responsive, but I never drove them looking to get good MPG.
 
Last edited:
I did it but did not put any CAI, someone told me that the performance is better without a CAI or the OEM resonator
 
That's good to know..I just got my CAI and it said I had to remove the front end to get the resonator out...doesnt sound to fun...So thanks for the hook up.
 
Thanks for this tidbit of info...made putting the CAI on so much easier and everything was where it said it was. Muchas Gracias!
 
Personally I don't see how the resonator could create enough pumping loss to negatively affect MPG. Nor do I see why they (the engineers) would design such a system when getting good MPG numbers is so important for selling cars and meeting CAFE. To design a system to quiet the sound emissions down but have it hamper MPG is bad engineering. The "fine" is much larger for bad MPG numbers plus it is easier to reduce ambient intake noise with other types of sound proofing.

I also do not see how one can increase performance and MPG at the same time by just removing some plastic.

I've done plenty of intake 'work" on my various vehicle with nothing to show for it but intake growl.

Folks forget that the biggest "restriction" in the intake is the butterfly on the throttle body...

However, one thing I'll add for "food-for-thought" is that I've noticed that my measured intake temps are typically 8F+ over ambient even when cruising. I can see how a bunch of black plastic next to the engine could create a heat sink of sort. But that'd have to be one hot muther to heat air that fast.

If removing the resonator and routing pipe to a better spot for ingesting ambient air could be achieved then my ears would perk up. :)
 
LOL, just go argue with all the people who done it with their Mazda3, I've done it and i see that the engine respond quicker on low RPM, and I do more KM/Litres. You should see how big is the Intake resonator on a Mazda5 (bigger than the Mazda3) and you will understand imediatly !
 
Will somebody please do a before/after Dyno with sound dB and IAT F numbers...(lurk)

I have played a little with the intakes on some of my previous cars. From my experience, I have learned that the engineers do have to compromise, and that there are little gains to be had. Compromises for the sake of noise dB, overcoming physical packaging constraints, even utilizing previous generation parts bins to save costs.

For most performance oriented enthusiasts, we would gladly give up having a "quiet" intake in trade for a few more hp/lb ft TQ. However most resonators are not only for sound, but also to improve engine performance in certain areas.
 
Last edited:
So it's not good to remove the intake resonator ? Why almost everyone on the Mazda3 forums tell that it's good ? Why a friend told me that it's good for the fuel economy and better performance ? He tried it and saw a difference, i saw a difference too. It looks like to be a good urban legend LOL !
 
Last edited:
I can't speak to my Mazda5 comparison, as I yanked the extra resonator parts out when I bought the thing.

I can say that my previous cars all improved in performance (turbo or not). I even had comparisons on the emmisions tests. I wish I had them to post here.

I'm thinking I might need a resonator attached to my head to assist in my air intake on bike rides. But I may get too much air, go too fast and ride off the edge of the Earth. Oh wait... The Earth isn't flat. (doh)
 
Pringles Mod! Less than $5, and snack is included!

(rockon)
securedownload.jpg
 

New Threads and Articles

Back