Riddle me ths Batman...

[cyberspeed3]

I have the MSCAI. It works well. I noticed the computer is telling me I am averaging about 3-4 more miles per gallon. If this is actually a fact, why wouldn't Mazda have made a similar type of intake that would give this to all Mazdaspeeds right out of the factory? This would certainly boost sales right?

Or, is the computer just full of it? Has anyone actually done a proper test for mileage with the CAI?

 

[Invictus]

When you step on it, you'll get worse fuel economy.

 

[BillTheCat]

Plus, they can charge you a premium for the upgrade, Speed Racer. Let's face it- how many Mazdaspeed vehicles live and die on original factory parts? They know you want upgrades.

 

[eg6motion]

it also presents a water-hazard if the factory car was capable of hydrolocking in deep puddles. The stock intake is safe from that...and if you are deep enough to where it's not safe, then you will have other issues anyway...like your car floating.

 

[cyberspeed3]

When you step on it, you'll get worse fuel economy.

I have been out terrorizing the local streets here in Denver since I put it on. I mean flooring it everywhere! Computer still says "24.3 mpg".

Maybe my car is a FREAK, IDK?

 

[cyberspeed3]

it also presents a water-hazard if the factory car was capable of hydrolocking in deep puddles. The stock intake is safe from that...and if you are deep enough to where it's not safe, then you will have other issues anyway...like your car floating.

Yes, but it seems to me the factory could design a different type of system to get cold air and not injest water?

I'm not trying to start an argument, just an intersting topic for discussion.

 

[Blendercloud]

It seems to me that the OEM airbox/intake gets put on there to help deaden the sound of the turbo. Just my opinion though.

 

[jchapma9]

this is true noise violations . plus they have to make air filter in mass . it is most about cost. air flow is higher with cold air but it is not safe . lol cold water intake

 

[eg6motion]

It seems to me that the OEM airbox/intake gets put on there to help deaden the sound of the turbo. Just my opinion though.

Yep, that too. Not everyone wants that noise. (even though the MS CAi is one of the quietest I have heard, likely from the AEM dry-flow filter)

 

[Saskatchewan17]

It seems to me that the OEM airbox/intake gets put on there to help deaden the sound of the turbo. Just my opinion though.

Agreed with this. Comfort, mainly. And because Mazda can charge you for the MSCAI.

 

[Russm]

I drove my car for 400 miles ,a tank and 1/2 while I was waiting for MSCAI & MSCBE to come in so I don't have a good MPG figure for non CAI as opposed to CAI but I can regularly commute on hwy 55 miles one way an if I keep my foot out of it and stay at 70 and shift at 3K I regularly get 30+ MPG, I think most people I have heard with no CAI get 26-28 MPG so I would say there is an improvement in MPG with the MSCAI.

 

[Blendercloud]

I drove my car for 400 miles ,a tank and 1/2 while I was waiting for MSCAI & MSCBE to come in so I don't have a good MPG figure for non CAI as opposed to CAI but I can regularly commute on hwy 55 miles one way an if I keep my foot out of it and stay at 70 and shift at 3K I regularly get 30+ MPG, I think most people I have heard with no CAI get 26-28 MPG so I would say there is an improvement in MPG with the MSCAI.

Along those lines, when I was completely stock I got about 21mpg city and 25.5mpg highway on 93 octane. Now, with the mods in my signature, I'm making a boatload more power on 22psi boost and getting 26mpg city and 33.7mpg highway.

(cool)

 

[MSMS3]

I have the MSCAI and a catless DP/RP, so the exhaust could be a part of the question regarding fuel mileage. I really can't see any difference, either way. It might be possible to speculate that freer breathing at light throttle would use less fuel, but it's just that -- speculation, unless someone took the time to set up a controlled study on a stock car with and without the CAI.

But I have to point out that if you drove your car the first 400 miles on the stock air box and then upgraded, you were still within the break in period. Cars do get better mileage after the engine fully breaks in. In some it may take several thousand miles before optimum mileage is reached and stabilized.

I think you'd need to eliminate the break in variable, if I'm understanding your post.

 

[Kain]

The stock intake is baffled and chambered for noise reduction, not efficiency.

 

[jchapma9]

there is not so much a brake in . the engine is tested and ran for braking at the factory so you cant mess up the brake in . the car gets a small power add with cai so you use less pedle inturn better gas the same with a tune . the factory are box has many bends that restrict air flow as well as reduce noise.

 

[cyberspeed3]

I think this is the real reason. Follow the money!

 

[BillTheCat]

Yes, but it seems to me the factory could design a different type of system to get cold air and not injest water?

I'm not trying to start an argument, just an intersting topic for discussion.

The most popular CAI's for the MINI actually replace the stock airbox with another box that was open to the back of the hood, where it would suck in cold air. (You could tape streamers to the hood & watch them being sucked under the back of the hood & into the engine bay if you needed proof that it worked) And of course, the obligatory cotton or foam filter, on what was essentially a SRI neck.

Problem with this idea for the MS3 is that the battery box is in the way. Looking at the engine bay, I don't see an easy way to get cold air without increasing the risk of hydrolock.

Maybe design a replacement hood scoop air diverter that sends air to both the battery box & a redesigned airbox that holds an SRI? Not really a DIY project, but I suppose it could be done by someone with the right fabrication skills.

Of course, the more air you divert from the intercooler, the less efficient it becomes, so you may be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Blendercloud]

The most popular CAI's for the MINI actually replace the stock airbox with another box that was open to the back of the hood, where it would suck in cold air. (You could tape streamers to the hood & watch them being sucked under the back of the hood & into the engine bay if you needed proof that it worked) And of course, the obligatory cotton or foam filter, on what was essentially a SRI neck.

1. Problem with this idea for the MS3 is that the battery box is in the way. Looking at the engine bay, I don't see an easy way to get cold air without increasing the risk of hydrolock.

Maybe design a replacement hood scoop air diverter that sends air to both the battery box & a redesigned airbox that holds an SRI? Not really a DIY project, but I suppose it could be done by someone with the right fabrication skills.

2. Of course, the more air you divert from the intercooler, the less efficient it becomes, so you may be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Point 1:
You can always remove the driver's side headlight assembly if you're feeling froggy. Then you can route your intake pipe right into that opening! Only half-serious, of course.

Point 2:
I appreciate you saying this. Many people coming from N/A cars don't understand that your CAI does next to nothing compared to your intercooler. If people spent half the time discussing how to get their BAT's down instead of their IAT's, through innovation and enginuity we'd probably all be reaping the benefits and making a little more power.

 

[///M Compact]

Point 1:
You can always remove the driver's side headlight assembly if you're feeling froggy. Then you can route your intake pipe right into that opening! Only half-serious, of course.

When I used to run track events with some of my friends in the M Register the modded E28 M5 guys really would remove the left headlamp assembly. I had an M6, and it was too much hassle to pull the grill.

 

[MSMS3]

Many people coming from N/A cars don't understand that your CAI does next to nothing compared to your intercooler. If people spent half the time discussing how to get their BAT's down instead of their IAT's, through innovation and enginuity we'd probably all be reaping the benefits and making a little more power.

BATs on turbocharged and intercooled engines are directly related to initial air temperature. Ambient air is almost always cooler than air taken from the engine compartment. The lower the temp of the air charge going into the air filter at the front of the intake tract, the cooler will the the air charge coming out of the intercooler, even though the turbo may add several hundred degrees to the air charge while compressing the air and the intercooler may take most of that back.

There are well established mathmetical formulas that determine intercooler efficiency. Those formulas begin with temperature at the point of earlierst entry of air into the intake system. Work through the formula and the result is that a change by increase in ambient temperature on the front end of the intake tract results in the same number of degrees in rise of the intake charge after it leaves the intercooler.

Sorry for getting us away from the gas mileage issue. How much this difference in initial intake temperature matters can be insignificant or huge depending on operating conditions, which is beyond the scope of this thread about mileage.