Does anyone have any documentation on WHP for different CAI'S I have a mac and I am not happy with it I have a slight bog on takeoff and parkway entrance form a roll. I was either thinking about the Demolet or the C & L. Any response would be helpful.

no docs but I have a one from S&b that is a molded plastic tube. I am not happy with it because it does not seal off the hot air from the engine compartment and the tube itself gets really hot, probally ruining any gain. It cost 200 so I got what I paid for.

local://upfiles/41550/E5BA892FC5074C779567CCFF7B3D8BBA.jpg

So far, it is generally agreed that the C&L and TI units show the best gains.

Thanks I was leaning that way. I was thinking of switching sides but after seeing what your wheels did wtih the TC I may just go in that direction.

Whats your favorite type of pizza?
jk...but people that have cai will typically lean towards the one they own. The c&l cai is supposed to be one of the best though.

Actually they are not all created equal. For example, the AEM was dyno'd to show no gain over the stock airbox. I put up a post with a link to Justins dyno of all of them. I will see if I can find it.

i would ask lx200 he seams to have all the answers regarding CAI's and tuners. i had the AFE till the sc install and was happy with it. the tuners is a must no matter what CAI you have.

ORIGINAL: afixer

i would ask lx200 he seams to have all the answers regarding CAI's and tuners. i had the AFE till the sc install and was happy with it. the tuners is a must no matter what CAI you have.


I had the AFE before I got a dyno tune and was happy with it as well. Actually, LX200 and a bunch of us sorted out our differences in another thread, I think it is all good now. No name calling or anything, just good constructive debate. See what happens when you build a new house Tom, you miss out on all the internet fun! ROFL.

oh ok

One question I have always wondered is this.... how much of the gain from a CAI comes form the fact that the air is marginally cooler, and how much comes from the fact that the large pleated filter has much greater surface area, and therefore much lower pressure drop, so more air can flow into the engine while the intake valve is open.... Both temperature and massflow make a difference, and it seems temperature would really be a small difference...

if you compare how many air molecules are in air at one temp vs. another, you have to use a themodynamic temperature scale like Rankine. So if the air under the hood was normally 110 degrees, but the cold air unit delivered it at 15 degrees cooler, then the gain in air molecules would be

In Rankine, 110 F = 570 and 95 F = 555, so, you would expect 570/555 increase in O2 molecules or a 2.7% increase in O2 molecules. Dunno... this can't be it, right? Even if the CAI causes a 30 degree drop, you are looking at a 5.5% increase. If all those molecules were completely turned into a HP advantage, you would expect an increase of about 5 HP at 15 degree advantage, and 10 HP at 30 degrees advantage, at the flywheel.

ANYBODY know how much these units ACTUALLY cut the temperature??? Especially the C&L which has a metal duct running to the throttle body... I imagine this must work well as a heat exchanger!

ORIGINAL: afixer

i would ask lx200 he seams to have all the answers regarding CAI's and tuners. i had the AFE till the sc install and was happy with it. the tuners is a must no matter what CAI you have.


Afixer... sorry for being a dick to you. I apologize. I will try to be a good boy, but... I have temper issues..... I will try to remember to take my medicine!!

I read in MM that calling them CAI's is actually misleading because the temperature of the air is basically the same as that under the hood. Most of the gain comes from the increased air from the filter and the way the tube is machined. 12-15 RWHP if I recall.

ORIGINAL: LX200

One question I have always wondered is this.... how much of the gain from a CAI comes form the fact that the air is marginally cooler, and how much comes from the fact that the large pleated filter has much greater surface area, and therefore much lower pressure drop, so more air can flow into the engine while the intake valve is open.... Both temperature and massflow make a difference, and it seems temperature would really be a small difference...

if you compare how many air molecules are in air at one temp vs. another, you have to use a themodynamic temperature scale like Rankine. So if the air under the hood was normally 110 degrees, but the cold air unit delivered it at 15 degrees cooler, then the gain in air molecules would be

In Rankine, 110 F = 570 and 95 F = 555, so, you would expect 570/555 increase in O2 molecules or a 2.7% increase in O2 molecules. Dunno... this can't be it, right? Even if the CAI causes a 30 degree drop, you are looking at a 5.5% increase. If all those molecules were completely turned into a HP advantage, you would expect an increase of about 5 HP at 15 degree advantage, and 10 HP at 30 degrees advantage, at the flywheel.

ANYBODY know how much these units ACTUALLY cut the temperature??? Especially the C&L which has a metal duct running to the throttle body... I imagine this must work well as a heat exchanger!




This ties into a conversation I had with John Demolet (TI) over the phone, where he said the TI does well because it does not conduct heat as much as the metal based units.

ORIGINAL: pat6674u

I read in MM that calling them CAI's is actually misleading because the temperature of the air is basically the same as that under the hood. Most of the gain comes from the increased air from the filter and the way the tube is machined. 12-15 RWHP if I recall.


Yep, the term CAI is used now in generalisations. What we have are air intake kits. Cold air intake kits are those that draw air from the outside.

Well, there is an idea... lets work it backwards. Let's suppose a stock V6 delivers 165 HP to the wheels, and a CAI adds 15 HP to this. This is an increase of 9%. So, from my previous calc, this would probably take about 30 degrees of air cooling vs. what's floating under the hood.

The reason I keep thinking it's NOT the filter and it's ability to pass flow is that fact that I have seen several articles that talk about the minute difference in pressure drop between the various filters. Here is one guy with too much time on his hands

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm

His tests show that even bad filters cause very little pressure drop vs. NO FILTER AT ALL... so our C&L filters can't be better than no filter... if his tests are true, and we are looking at only a very marginal gain in air flow, then it must be from temperature gain. Again, we're back to the age old problem of testing in controlled situation. You would need to take reading of the air coming from your stock airbox, and the air under the hood, then compare to CAI, with same ambient conditions and same hood temp (or at least a close approximation). Anybody here going to do that? Ugh.

Does anybody have MAF sensor hard data to help us out here?

ORIGINAL: rygenstormlocke

ORIGINAL: pat6674u

I read in MM that calling them CAI's is actually misleading because the temperature of the air is basically the same as that under the hood. Most of the gain comes from the increased air from the filter and the way the tube is machined. 12-15 RWHP if I recall.


Yep, the term CAI is used now in generalisations. What we have are air intake kits. Cold air intake kits are those that draw air from the outside.


Dunno... if they can isolate the air filter up in the front, and air can flow in directly from under the wheel well, it is going to be somewhat cooler, right? Here is a novel question.... anybody have a clue how much hotter the temperature is under the hood??

I think there is one more thing that could be happening here... if a fair amount of air flow moves up into the CAI area and is trapped in the box (well, not really trapped, but slowed WAY DOWN) then there would be a static head built up there, resulting in higher pressure and therefore more air flow. Same concept as a ramjet... just on a smaller scale.

you have officially stolen another post. lol

oh oh oh...I know the answer......

ok, here is the deal.....your temperature analysis, well.....not right. Rankine is the same units as Farenheight, as so say that one degree change in Rankine is the same as one degree change in degrees F, even though the Rankine numbers are much higher, but that is becuase they are measured with a different scale. To put it in simple terms, the work of your engine is based the first law of thermodynamics. It simply states that the Work = (mass flow of air) * (thermal capcity of air) (change in temperature of the air).

This could be a very long drawn out calculation if you wanted it to be, but for simple purposes, we will assume that the change in temperature of the air is constant, so the only variable we have is the mass flow rate of air......which is simply the density of air times the volumetric flow rate, or CFM. I don't know what the CFM of our engines are, so lets assume 100 CFM @ 250 degrees F due to the temperaure under the hood. That would give a mass flow rate of 335 lbs/hr. Now, if you took that same 100 CFM and it was only 200 degrees F, the mass flow rate would be 516. To find out the actual hp's for the difference in numbers, you would then multiply each times .24*change in temp of air/2544. Then you could see the difference.

Now we can look at the change in CFM. like above 100 CFM @ 250 degrees is 335 lbs/hr and 125 CFM @ 250 CFM would be 419 lbs/hr. Then you would do the same above.

There are to many unknown numbers to do a rational calculation, but i bet we can assume the temp under the hood with the current design of CAI isn't but a few degrees different. that little heat shield doesn't do crap, and I hope all of you can see that. So lets now look at 100 CFM at 245 degrees F. That gives us a mass flow rate of 336.5. So you get 1.5 lbs/hr more.....which when you divide that by the 2544 and multiply by the .24, gets very very very small and translates into zero horsepower.

In conclusion, with the CAI designs like most people are using, the increase in hp comes from the increase in air flow. If you tune your car to keep from running to lean, then you just kept the change in temperature variable even more constant, so this analysis is probably more applicable.

In cars without a tune, there is a seperate step, where you actually get a decrease in the change in air temp. variable due to the incrased air flow, which counters some of the effects of the increased mass air flow....

that is why getting a tuner is benificial along with a good intake that lets a lot more air in.

ORIGINAL: LX200

One question I have always wondered is this.... how much of the gain from a CAI comes form the fact that the air is marginally cooler, and how much comes from the fact that the large pleated filter has much greater surface area, and therefore much lower pressure drop, so more air can flow into the engine while the intake valve is open.... Both temperature and massflow make a difference, and it seems temperature would really be a small difference...

if you compare how many air molecules are in air at one temp vs. another, you have to use a themodynamic temperature scale like Rankine. So if the air under the hood was normally 110 degrees, but the cold air unit delivered it at 15 degrees cooler, then the gain in air molecules would be

In Rankine, 110 F = 570 and 95 F = 555, so, you would expect 570/555 increase in O2 molecules or a 2.7% increase in O2 molecules. Dunno... this can't be it, right? Even if the CAI causes a 30 degree drop, you are looking at a 5.5% increase. If all those molecules were completely turned into a HP advantage, you would expect an increase of about 5 HP at 15 degree advantage, and 10 HP at 30 degrees advantage, at the flywheel.

ANYBODY know how much these units ACTUALLY cut the temperature??? Especially the C&L which has a metal duct running to the throttle body... I imagine this must work well as a heat exchanger!

ORIGINAL: LX200


ORIGINAL: afixer

i would ask lx200 he seams to have all the answers regarding CAI's and tuners. i had the AFE till the sc install and was happy with it. the tuners is a must no matter what CAI you have.


Afixer... sorry for being a dick to you. I apologize. I will try to be a good boy, but... I have temper issues..... I will try to remember to take my medicine!!


lx dont worrie about it. we are all dicks at one time or another. i am no dif than you or anyone else here. some like to for some reason look up to me or whatever. but i'm just a regular guy who fell in love with the new style stang. so i got one, then i got the mod bug. i do have some advantages do to the type of work i do i have fabricating skills (welding and fiberglassing) and a good grasp on electronics and hydrolics. this coupled with my connection at ford and the ability to look up tsb's and service docs, but at the end of the day im still the regular guy. yea i helped beaustang install his shifter but hey i was not doing anything so what the heck. i have belonged to this forum for a long time and have seen many come and go. i belive that there is no such thing as a stupid question! trust me if i did i would have left months ago. do you know how many times i have seen "what is the best CAI. anyway i thought we were ok weeks ago untill your little outburst the other day. dude just chill and we will be just fine. we are all brothers and sisters here. i love these forums i have learned alot from them regarding my car and have tried to return the favor anytime i can.

Peace

also like todd said CAI doesnt really mean CAI its like ordering a coke and getting a pepsi, it has just evolved into the norm to say CAI. as far as the metal tubes go they are like big heat sinks if you ask me.

in theory you have a point about the cooler air, but you are forgetting that that air is also mixing with air at whatever temp. is under the hood, so you have a (t1)*x/(x+y) + (t2)*y/(x+y) that gets you a different entering air temperature than ambient.

The pressure before the filter you are talking about would be a few inches of water gauge at the most, which is hardly nothing, so it might help, but I would think not enough to do anything.


ORIGINAL: LX200


ORIGINAL: rygenstormlocke

ORIGINAL: pat6674u

I read in MM that calling them CAI's is actually misleading because the temperature of the air is basically the same as that under the hood. Most of the gain comes from the increased air from the filter and the way the tube is machined. 12-15 RWHP if I recall.


Yep, the term CAI is used now in generalisations. What we have are air intake kits. Cold air intake kits are those that draw air from the outside.


Dunno... if they can isolate the air filter up in the front, and air can flow in directly from under the wheel well, it is going to be somewhat cooler, right? Here is a novel question.... anybody have a clue how much hotter the temperature is under the hood??

I think there is one more thing that could be happening here... if a fair amount of air flow moves up into the CAI area and is trapped in the box (well, not really trapped, but slowed WAY DOWN) then there would be a static head built up there, resulting in higher pressure and therefore more air flow. Same concept as a ramjet... just on a smaller scale.

I would most certainly flunk this class. :D I hope you're a mechanic or nuclear engineer or something. You may have missed your calling if not. Great info by the way.

ORIGINAL: pat6674u

I would most certainly flunk this class. :D I hope you're a mechanic or nuclear engineer or something. You may have missed your calling if not. Great info by the way.


not quite sure who you were refering to, but I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and I am a licensed in the state of Texas.

I might not know much about cars (self admitidly), but when you break it down into theory of how it works, I can understand that stuff....

I know why it works, but now how it works.

ORIGINAL: KnotBand

ORIGINAL: pat6674u

I would most certainly flunk this class. :D I hope you're a mechanic or nuclear engineer or something. You may have missed your calling if not. Great info by the way.


not quite sure who you were refering to, but I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and I am a licensed in the state of Texas.

I might not know much about cars (self admitidly), but when you break it down into theory of how it works, I can understand that stuff....

I know why it works, but now how it works.


I was about to ask you what you did for a living. My hats off to you man. Impressive stuff.

Deleted

Deleted

After reading those last few posts, maybe I do have a 70 I.Q.

We are all a 70 IQ in some area, and a 140 in another. I always wished I was 140 in picking up chicks. There I was a 60.

I was trying to keep it simple by using the engine as a black box. In doing so, it becomes an open system with an actuall flow in and flow out, where the above analysis applies. If you break it down to each piston and assume a closed system (even though you do have flow in and out), a simple way of putting it is, the actual work done by each piston is given by the pressure of the air in the cylinder times the change in volume. Going back to your ideal gas law that pressure = density * R*T, the higher the density, the higher the density, the higher the pressure, the more work you get.

Your little ideal gas law equation manipulation is incorrect because it is a polytropic (or adiabitc) process, and you end up with p1 = t1(p2/t2)^1.4, or something like that...all of my reference material is at work and I don't remember off the top of my head exactly.

You are also isolating the combustion process, but you are not taking into acount that gas has a certian HHV, something like 20,000 btu/lb.......and your injectors introduce a given amount of fuel with a specific mass (this is fuel injection, not carburation where you get some sort of vaporiztion effect), so you can only add so much heat to the air. any excess air is well, excess air...that is why you have O2 sensors in your exhaust....when they read to much excess air, you get an engine light telling you that your combustion process is not completing, meaning, you have more air in your system than you can combust and need to adjust the computer to add more fuel, which is where tuning comes in.

It is very simple if you look at how supercharges and turbo's work...they compress the air (i.e., make it more dense), then it goes into your pistons...more dense, higher pressure, more work, increased horsepower.

of course, all of this is just a very simplified format because to do it right, you would have to know the initial temperature and pressure of the air going into the intake......if it is truly a CAI and is pulling colder air in than what is under the hood, then you would have to look at the conduction from the air under the hood to the intake tube, then the convective heat transfer from the tube to the intake air. Then you would also have to look at the pressure of the ambient air, the static pressure of the filter, and the tube, and end up with a temperuate and pressure (and therefore every other thermodynamic property you can think of). You would also have to know the mechanical efficency of your engine by measuring the temperuatre and pressure of the exhaust, which you could find the enthalpy, and knowing the temperature and pressure of the intake, you know the entropy, and can find the perfect enthalpy of the exhaust, then just do a little h1-h2/h1-hs (or something like that) to find the efficency.

The bottom line is, this would be a very detailed calculation with many unknowns without raw data. The best way to figure all of this out is to run some tests in a lab.

But if you ask my professional opinion, when asked if you get the hp gain from the current CAI's we all have come to love and use, it is from the increased air flow, not because it is drawing in cooler temperature. If you look at how the filter is placed in the engine compartment, there is no place to draw cooler air from, you are getting the same air that your stock set up was getting. That hunk a junk heat shield is nothing. Even if you did raw in cooler air, you have a large mass of air under the hood it would mix with prior to entering the intake which would warm it up, then you have the convective heat transfer from going through the intake tubing. All in all, you are probably getting a few degrees cooler air, which if you look at P = density*R*T, and calculate actaul psi, you difference is in the thens to hundreths of a psi, which is nothing when you plug it into the P*delta V and change it to horse power.


ORIGINAL: LX200

Knot.... well... I am not sure your analysis is correct either. An engine is a positive displacement device. The piston moves down, creates an opening of a FIXED volume, and air can flow in to fill this volume. The ACTUAL cubic feet of air moving into an engine is based on the RPM's of the engine, and the total volume displaced with each RPM. For our 4 liter engines, each RPM displaces 4 liters of volume. Each cylinder gets a shot at sucking in 4.0L/6 or 0.66 Liters of air during a single revolution (I think.... maybe it takes two revolutions for all six cylinders to get a shot at intake??????).

Now, at any RPM, the amount of energy that can be produced is based on the amount of fuel that can be combusted in the cylinder during the combustion step. The only thing the fuel can use is oxygen molecules, so, at any FIXED RPM (and hence a fixed ACTUAL volume of air moving through the engine), the only way to get more power is to have more oxygen molecules in the volume of any cylinder. This happens when the air density entering the cylinder is more dense, and hence has more molecules of O2.

Now, why did I do the Rankine temperature calc. Rankine is a "thermodynamic" or absolute temperture scale. This means that it can be used in a thermodynamic "equation of state". The old equation

PV = nRT

is such an equation of state. this equation can be rearranged to read

n = P*V/R*T

it can further be rewritten as

n/V = P/R*T or Density = P/RT

where n is the number of mole of gas, in this case air. Moles is just another measure of matter. V is the volume, so n/V becomes density.
Now, to see how many more moles of air you get when you change the Pressure or Temperature, you can write two equations for two different states

Density1 = P1/R*T1 (oh ya, R is just a constant)
Density2 = P2/R*T2

Then to see how much the density has changed due to the two conditions divide the first equation by the second..... you get....

Density1/Density2 = P1*R*T2 / P2*R*T1

Now since R is in the numerator and denominator, and P1 = P2 (i.e. we are looking just at temp changes) we end up with

Density1/Density2 = T2/T1

As long as you use a ratio of THERMODYNAMIC temperature scale temps, this works.... Fahrenheit temps DON'T work in this equation. So, my previous analysis stands. Air that is 30% cooler contains about 10% more molecules of air for a given volume. Hence 10% more oxygen molecules entering the cylinder and ready to be ignited.... and the potential to make 10% more power.

From the website http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtempscales.html
"As for whether just one temperature scale can be used for all purposes, in principle the answer is yes, provided it is an absolute scale (i.e., one whose zero point is the absolute zero of thermodynamic temperature). Certain physical relationships (such as the equivalence of heat and work, rates of chemical reactions, the ideal gas equations of state, the kinetic theory of gases, and the laws governing heat transfer) depend on multiplying or dividing temperatures. You won't get correct answers if you use a scale with an arbitrary zero point. Therefore around 1860, two absolute temperature scales were developed: the Rankine scale, based on the Fahrenheit degree, and the Kelvin scale, based on the centigrade degree. Note that the SI unit of temperature is called the "kelvin" (not "degree kelvin"). The freezing point of water is 273.15K and 491.67Ra"

wrong....it is used all the time to analyze turbine engines, yes, this is a positive displacement engine, but you have the same chemical reactions in both.

and that was the open form of the the first law, not the closed form. open means flow, hence the mass flow rate term.

ORIGINAL: LX200

I am also not sure the assumption that there is a very minimial effect from the shield is correct. It the car is just sitting still, with a general convective type of air flow under the hood, there will be a fair amount of mixing. BUT, when a car is moving forward, there is a high rate of airflow moving from the front of the car, through the engine compartment, down under the car and out the back. This tends to sweep air across the engine and out the back. Now, with all the crap under the hood, there will be all sorts of turbulent flows, but, in general, the air flow is from front to back. This is why air filters are best up front. I believe this airbox could see air 10 or 20 degree less than the general air swirling under the hood....

But... I have no way to prove this. But, what the heck... lets figure it out. I am going to pick up a couple of thermometers, place one on one side of the airbox, and one on the inside of the airbox, and we what we have. This will be interesting....

Oh ya... you qouted first law of thermodynamics in your analysis. You used the closed form of the equation, and this is an open system. Also, the first law is for non reacting systems. An engine is a chemical reactor, so you need to add terms to account for chemical reaction in the system, and work the system does on the surroundings, so the old m*Cp*dt is not sufficient to analyze an engine.

I am done with this, I get enough of this at work.

it is all to hard to prove because of all of the unknowns.

ORIGINAL: stangman53

Does anyone have any documentation on WHP for different CAI'S I have a mac and I am not happy with it I have a slight bog on takeoff and parkway entrance form a roll. I was either thinking about the Demolet or the C & L. Any response would be helpful.



get a dyno tune on your car and you will probably see the difference, a lot of good info posted here but facts are there were some better results with different CAI's, the C&L and Demolet seem to be close in recorded numbers and many different opinions and results with all others

Deleted

ok, since I haven't dealt with IC engines in about 8 years when I took thermo, i had to do some digging on some examples. here is what i found....take it for what it is worth.

first the cycle efficiency was calculated. efficiency = 1-(1/compression ratio)^.4
for the mustang, the compression ratio is 9.7, so the efficency is .597, or roughly 60%.

Next, the temperature at the end of compression was calculated. T2 = T1*(compression ratio)^.4
now, T1 is what the "variable" is when talking weither the CAI's colder air contributes to the more hp, or the more air flow, so T1 will be what we change. Lets use 200F first.
T2 = 659.67R*(9.7)^.4 = 1637R. next the example calculated the heat added = Cv*(T3-T2), where T3 is the temperature of the exhaust. Since this is unknows, lets just assign a value.....the example used 1650F, or 2110R, so the head added = .17*(2110-1637) = 80 BTU/lb of air. Then you multiply that times the cycle efficiency of .6 and get 48 BTU/lb or air. Since air will be measured in lb/hr, we can go ahead and throw in the conversion factor to see how much effect the BTU/lb has on horsepower. so, 80 times mass flow of air (lb/hr) times 3.929*10^-4 = .03*mass air flow

now lets use 90 degrees F...going through the same process, you get .0298*mass air flow.....hmmm..which is less than the hotter air......which I said would happen in an earlier post.

now we look at the mass flow rate of air since it is the other factor. This is made up of denisty and volumetric flow rate. The density of air at 200F is .0598 lb/ft^3, and at 90F is .075lb/ft^3. It doesn't take a genius to see that the colder air will have a higher horsepower.

now, if you want to look at it as density = #of moles/volume, fine...yes the higher the density, the larger number of moles for a constant volume, but I don't know one engineer that deals with moles, and the last time I used them was in chemistry class.

also, take a look at the equations, they are all based on an open system, which is what my first analysis was....and therefore, correct. The numbers were not, because I have no data to use, but the theory was correct.

Ironically, we were both talking about the same thing, but most people don't talk about moles.

also, you can see why I used the polytropic process....because it is important and has everything to do with how much work is produced by an engine.

just because you add 30% more air molecules, that doesn't mean it has a large effect on the horsepower created by the engine.....just like if you add 1 million gallon of water to the ocean, you added a lot of water, but in the over all scheme of things, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Deleted

um, I had to quit reading that cause my head hurt. I'll bet there is a race team that could use some one like you. those tiny tiny increases are what it's all about.

local://upfiles/41550/CC739EF9F23B462C85AF9E05644CC0CC.jpg

um, no, I did take into acount the heat associated with the chemical reaction......that is where you add heat via combustion, and get the difference in temperature from the air after compression to after combustion...which is where all of the power is derived...in the power stroke. Then you have your losses. I don't think you understood the example I gave. There are three temperatures in it...the intake temp, the temp after compression, and the temperautre after combustion (which I had to guess at)

Why are we talking about superchargers and such anyway? Wasn't this supposed to be a discussion on what contributes to the hp gain in a CAI? That is all I am talking about. In fact, i don't even know why you are being so billigerant towards my comments. They are not incorrect. They are all based on theory. In fact, the example I gave came right out of my study material for the P&P exam. If you can't see that we are saying the same thing, in just different ways, then you need to go back to thermo class or something.

Besides, in all of your posts, you assume the 10% incrase in air molecules or whatever is convereted to hp. Cycle efficiency, mechanical losses, incomplete combustion, etc.....that is why shoving 10% more air molecules in the piston in insignificant. If that gave you 10% gain, you are only looking at 20 hp. You can see from my example, that the cycle efficiency is 60%, so you only get 12hp gain, then you have your mechanical losses which will take it down below 10 hp, at the flywheel, then you lose even more to the wheels. More air based on temperature is insignificant. The gain is from the increase in mass air flow, which is because of the increased density with cooler air and the increased flow rate.

Not to mention we haven't even figured out what the intake temperatures are at stock and with a CAI. i still conted they are the same. Yes, you have a heat shield with the CAI, but you also have an air box on the stock filter with an opening facing forward. The CAI just gives you a larger opening by removing the filter box and having a larger filter.


ORIGINAL: LX200

"just because you add 30% more air molecules"

WHAT!!!!! Adding 30% more air and 30% more fuel will have a HUGE effect on the engine. If it didn't, a supercharger would have no effect on an engine. The only reason you use a Supercharger is to jam more O2 molecules into a fixed space, so you can spray more full in, combust the fuel, generate more gas for expansion, and have this expanding gas do work against the piston. By your logic, a supercharger would not have an appreciable effect on engine performance. Yet, in reality, it has a massive effect. Adding colder air with more molecules achieves the same thing.... more O2 molecules in the cylinder and hence more fuel can be added, and more power made. This point CAN'T BE DEBATED. IT'S FACT.

Your heat analysis totally misses all the heat associated with the chemical reaction of combustion... you know, heat of reaction? This is why exhaust is so hot, not because of a temperature rise associated with Polytropic compression. The chemical reaction releases massive heat, causing the gases inside the cylinder to expand and push the piston out, doing work. NO analysis of an engine can be done without considering the KEY step which is combustion.

You state.... "now, if you want to look at it as density = #of moles/volume, fine...yes the higher the density, the larger number of moles for a constant volume, but I don't know one engineer that deals with moles, and the last time I used them was in chemistry class. "

Well, that's because you hang out with mechanical engineers, and don't deal with chemical reactions, which is what is occuring during the combustion step. I'm a chemical engineer and EVERYTHING involving reactions and mass transfer is done in moles. Moles are the accounting used in chemical reactions. AND, my analysis was looking at a RATIO... so who cares if it's moles or mass... it's a ratio, units of measure cancel in a ratio, remember? That's why Cp/Cv is a unitless constant. It's a ratio.

And, adding 30% more water to the ocean would have a huge effect. Not use why you use the example of adding some minute percentage of water to the ocean. I don't get the connection.

I'm done discussing this one...

Deleted

So you finally broke down and became a dick. I could tell you wanted to a long time ago.

well lets see, since I don't know what I am talking about, lets talk about you for a second. In my post above, I described to you why a temperature ratio analysis won't work. Yea, you figured out a ratio, but iyou seem to think that is the final answer.

Second, I guess you have never taken a temperature difference because if you subtract 50 degrees from 100 degrees F, you get 50, and if you subtract the Rankine equivalents, you get 50. Like I said before, the temperature difference is equal weither it is in rankine or ferinheight.

Second, you go back to my Q=m*cp*dt and say it is for a closed system. For the second time, you are wrong, this is for an open system...hence the mass flow term...it indicates flow, and flow happens in an open system. You seem to think this doesn't apply to an engine, I guess your engine doesn't have air coming in and going out of it. I bet that is real interesting. You can teach thermo huh....glad i didn't have you for a professor, i would have everything backwards.

Third, I said I didn't think your temperature thing you did was right, I didn't say it was flat out wrong......and I mainly said that because it is not totally correct....there was no account for any inefficiencies in the cycle.......but I guess you wouldn't teach efficiencies i your thermo class, damn, if I had you as a professor I could have totally skipped entropy.

I reiterate the fact I don't know any engineers that use moles......I would be curious to know what they would be used for in a centrifugal compressor. I have used all kinds of compressors, and what size of compressor a multimillion dollar compressor would be.

And finally, the funniest thing I read in your total defensive response is the fact that you think mechanical engineers design bridges. Hell, I wouldn't drive over a bride a mechanical engineer designs either.

I wasn't trying to start an arguement, I was trying to talk through the answer to the original question because I have been curious about the same thing, but you totally discounted anything I had to say. We are both guilty of trying to "one-up" the other, but i said a long time ago that we were talking about the same thing, just in different ways......

I know what i am talking about, I don't need your approval to validate it. I will just take pleasure in knowing at least I was a man about it and gave you credit after I thougth it all through, worked some things out, and compared it to what you were saying. You on the otherhand, just got defensive and decided to be a bitch about the whole thing.

Funny, I have only known one other chemical engineer, at my last job, a nuclear bomb factory (yes that is true, and yes, that is to one up the multimillion dollar compressor thing), and he was a moron and a dick as well..........there must be some sort of class for this in the chemical engineer cirriculum. (I had to get one last shot it)

Hey kettle, the phone is for you, it is the pot.

Kisses,

BigStudly

ORIGINAL: LX200

Listen pal, go back and read the thread from the start. YOU were the first one who outright stated that what I had said was WRONG. And guess what, it wasn't wrong. Then you dropped little cuts about "my little ideal gas law" when that was precisely the thermo concept to prove my point (again, supported by web source so you can learn some thermo). From minute one of this thread, you've set yourself up as the expert who totally refuted what I said. Then your other cutting comments like "no engineers I know use moles" as if my use of moles instead of a mass unit of measure somehow means I don't know as much as you or your mechanical engineering pals (and mechanical engineers at my company, who design multi-million dollar centrifugal compressors use moles all the time). Then you told me that I can't use the Rankine temperature scale to calculate a ratio of temperatures to find the effect on density (further insinuating I don't know what I am talking about) , COMPLETELY proving you lack even the most basic understanding of thermodynamics. Absolute temperature scales are taught in the first week, you must have missed this class. I even cited a web source that explained what an absolute temperature scale is, so you can brush up. Your blabbing about Rankine just being Fahrenheit with larger numbers made me laugh out loud. If that's all it was, why do you think it was developed??? Becasue many years ago somebody who understood thermo (unlike yourself) realized that it would be beneficial to have an ABSOLUTE temperature scale with degree increments that lined up with the Fahrenheit scale. Go back to thermo class? I can teach it.

So again, review the thread from your first response, and maybe you'll see you were actually the first one to suggest I didn't know what I was talking about on multiple accounts, and refuted me by quoting the adiabatic, closed system form of the first law (Q=m*cp*dT), as if that meant something. So Knotband, if you want to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, do your homework, because you were wrong on every point you made.

If you had approached this topic by saying "Hum, that's interesting, and I think this is what you are trying to say, but I have another view" this would have been an entirely different thread. But you downright said I don't know what I'm talking about, so you can expect a response in kind. I think if anybody reads this whole thread they'll realize YOU don't know what your talking about. I've actually been nice up till now. Most of your messages are incoherent babble designed to mask the fact that you screwed the pooch on your first response to me and were totally incorrect in your assessment of that post.

Now I'm done talking to you about this. Personally, I don't think you know what you're talking about and you don't think I know what I'm talking about, so lets just drop it.

Go ahead, take your last shot. I'll give that to you. But also, if you've worked on any bridge designs in your area, please let me know which ones... I'd like to plan alternate routes.

CAT FIGHT! [sm=happy046.gif]

Nice, LOL!

ORIGINAL: toosober

CAT FIGHT! [sm=happy046.gif]



local://upfiles/32397/2A82F43D09FB4C989F6014F796EC5AD0.jpg

Don't buy the AEM one. How does that sound?

I have C&L on the way. I fell for the RPMoutlet.com marketing when I was a mustang neophyte, I am now paying for my sins. When I paid for my SCT/C&L over the phone @ Evolution Performance, the guy laughed when I told him I had been suckered in for the AEM/DIablo combo. I said "yeah I figured they were all the same when I first had the car", he said that I wasn't the first making this upgrade.

See what happens when we try to be TOO Technical. Uh huh we just get dumber. Take note mods LMAO!

Deleted

In college, I laughed at all engineers, all of our degrees said "Georgia Tech" and we all got good jobs, I just got to have fun in school. Poor fellas.

man i stop to build a house and all this happens. lx200 i think you are showing good restraint. at least at a glance. keep up the good work . all this stuff is way to over my head thats why id rather pay 400 bucks for a dyno tune than 30,000 bucks for a college education!

Afixer... ah heck, I just deleted all my posts. There is no sense having a battle of wits with and unarmed man. I really just have to let this crap roll off my back.

Ohhh.... I am starting to get the supercharger bug...... I can feel it starting....... ehhhhh.... ahhhh... must fight.....

yeah LX I thought you were doing pretty good too, I was impressed. This is not where my knowledge lies though so I have NO clue which one of you were right. I could basically understand what you were both saying but not know which one of you were on the right track. BUT since you were so marvelously restrained I give LX the win. LMAO Sorry KnotBand not slighting you one bit, but LX held his massive temper honorably. Just when I though he was gonna blow...he didn't. LOL

Blazen... the medication must be working....

LOL, is that what it is, I just figured the wife or GF was feeling frisky lately

frisky what the heck is frisky after 12 hours in the hot sun frisky is the last thing on my mind!

LOL, well after I've spent 12 hours in the hot sun it's ineitable that my wife will be frisky. Me on the other hand... hard to say, but then again I got a few years on ya...no offense
ORIGINAL: afixer

frisky what the heck is frisky after 12 hours in the hot sun frisky is the last thing on my mind!

yep im just so glad i poured the footings today thats out of my hair!

I bet! That looks like a nice remodel you got going. Anything special planned for the garage? I ask because I'm planning on doing a second garage at my house in 2 or 3 years.

8 foot high garage door 9 foot cieling dryall all walls work bench on one side and cab floor to cieling wall 2 wall on the other

Sounds nice. Plenty of room pamper to hunny in there. Best of luck with it. Since mine is a ways off I don't know really what I'm gonna do, but it will be good space for a future project car.

ORIGINAL: LX200

Afixer... ah heck, I just deleted all my posts. There is no sense having a battle of wits with and unarmed man. I really just have to let this crap roll off my back.

Ohhh.... I am starting to get the supercharger bug...... I can feel it starting....... ehhhhh.... ahhhh... must fight.....



You just mean you had no rebuttal....hell, it was obvious you were running out of stuff when i had to keep trying to refresh your memory about the open and closed loop thermodynaic conditions.......oh yea, and the fact that you had to resort to saying you wouldn't drive over any bridges in my area???? WTF?? hahaha.....bridges, I am still laughing at that one.

valiant effort though

OK Fellas I started this debacle all I wanted to know is if anyone had the Demolet and C&L dynoed and which one showed better gains if any. I have a Mac and don't like it. Kudos to all the einsteins on the Forum.

KnotHead.... Ya you're the man. Everybody can see that.

Hey... see you flunked out of college the first time from your site.... well, that explains a lot.

yep, it means two things.....

the first time around, I took Goliath's approach and just was interested in having fun...hell, for one semester, all I did was party at night. I didn't even go to a single class after about half way through.

second....about that time in my life, i could have taught thermo about as good as you could today.

"teach thermo about as good as you"

As good? Maybe gooder?

How about teaching it "as well as I could today".

So,
1. You can't spell (I enjoyed your variations on fahrenheit... how does one attain an engineering degree and not know how to spell this?)

2. You use poor grammar. Maybe if you had studied the first four years you were in college, you could have mastered some basics.

3. You think mechanical engineers are never involved in bridge design (ya, right, civil engineers do them all)

4. You think engine power is described by the equation work = m*Cp*dT (I have tears in my eyes on this one).... you just described the amount of energy it take to warm air

5. By the above equation, you think all the work an engine does is transferred to heating the "air" in the cylinder, thereby leaving no work to be done on the piston and delivered to the flywheel (essentially turning a car into an "air" heater)

6. You think you can look at the rise in temperature of the air in the cylinder, EVEN THOUGH there is no air left after the combustion. Wow, further support for your stunning theory of engine operation.

7. You think adding 30% more oxygen molecules to a cylinder will result in an insignificant increase in power, thereby proving superchargers don't really work (brilliant). You derived this conclusion in masterful fashion using your theory of "Work = (mass flow of air) * (thermal capcity of air) (change in temperature of the air). " BY THE WAY, what is thermal "capcity"? Capacity maybe?

8. You don't understand the fundamental difference between the Fahrenheit and Rankine temperature scales (first week in thermo class stuff). In fact, you can't even spell fahrenheit. Lets review YOUR classic explaination of why my density calculation is wrong, in it you say

"Rankine is the same units as Farenheight, as so say that one degree change in Rankine is the same as one degree change in degrees F, even though the Rankine numbers are much higher, but that is becuase they are measured with a different scale".

OK, so WTF were you trying to say? Fahrenheit and Rankine are different temperature scales? Ya, any 6th grader knows this (and can spell both of them as well). So? What's you point exactly? The reason Rankine exists is so you can use it in equations of state... some most 6th graders DON'T know, or you either.
HOW WAS MY USE OF A RANKINE TEMPERATURE RATIO INCORRECT FOR DETERMINING DENSITY CHANGE IN AIR? HUH GENIUS? WELL? Don't skirt this one, THIS WAS YOUR ORIGINAL CONTENTION. Explain to everyone here how my analysis was wrong, and how using Rankine in this equation was wrong. You stated in your first brain fart message...

"ok, here is the deal.....your temperature analysis, well.....not right"

So, now go ahead. Refute what I said with a logical explaination that can actually be understood, and quote internet references to refute my density calculation. Then I'll site multiple internet sources to refute any bullcrap you spew. You clueless retard. IF YOU CAN'T DO THIS, YOU'LL BE EXPOSED TO ALL FORUM MEMBERS AS A BIG BAG OF CRAP. You've been served.

9. You don't understand how to use an equation of state, such as ideal gas law to determine density changes

10. You don't realize that moles are used by engineers of all types to do many things (but... you aren't really an engineer, are you)

11. You think you can analyze an internal combustion engine by looking at air temperature rise and ignore everything else like combustion, heat loss, cooling, compression of intake gas, removal of exhaust gas, etc. Damn, you're good!!!

12. You spent four years flunking out of college because you were too busy drinking. You couldn't even get this right. It took you four years to realize you're a retard. It only took the people on this board a few hours to figure that out.

So to summarize, go ahead, show everybody here I'm wrong. Show everybody you know way more thermo than me..... do the following

1. Answer question 8 above, disproving that the change of density of air can be calculated by taking a ratio of the Rankine temperatures of the two conditions. While you're at it, explain to everybody here on the forum why the Rankine temperature scale was created if it's just Fahrenheit with "bigger numbers".

2. Explain, with equations and from first principles, how the power created by an engine is described by the equation
Work = (mass flow of air) * (thermal capcity of air) (change in temperature of the air).
Then, explain how if the work produced by this equation describes the work done by an engine, HOW IS THERE ANY WORK LEFT TO TRANSFER TO THE PISTON. YOUR EQUATION SAYS THE WORK IS EQUAL TO THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE OF THE AIR. WHAT AIR? WHAT TEMPERATURE RISE? AND WHAT'S LEFT FOR THE ENGINE? HAHAHAAHAHAH. You are such a retard.

Becuase we can always use a good laugh at lunch, I printed this thread down and showed it to a group of engineers. People almost choked on their lunches. They had tears in their eyes. Included in the bunch was a PhD thermodynamicist and a PhD ME... as well a 5 MS level engineers. So hey, at the end of the day, I have to say thanks, you've really provided some excellent comic relief. One guy suggested we should print the thread down, and send it to the head of the ME department where you "graduated". We should ask him WTF they are doing down there, and why they admit people who flunked out of college previously. Must be a real top flight department.

Now don't forget... everybody will be watching.... answer questions 1 and 2 above.... or just admit you're a make believe engineer with a C average from a crap school.

I actually had no idea what Rankine was either and I'm working on a graduate degree. I thought it meant like my uncle's "Rank in" the army was Capt. Damn my 70 I.Q.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and to think, you wasted all that time to write something, and this is all you get out of me....

and you can come back with, "because you can't answer any of my questions", etc....

but mainly because you are now boring me my little puppet, that and the fact that I really don't give a crap what you think...

by this, you just further proved what an idiot you are, and you still have not understood anything I wrote before. Oh yea, I summed up what you typed, just so the other disinterested people don't have to read the long version...

ORIGINAL: LX200

"teach thermo about as good as you"

As good? Maybe gooder?

How about teaching it "as well as I could today".

So,
1. blah, blah, blah...i got nothing left so I am just going to say you can't spell good...

2. blah, blah, blah....

3. blah, blah, blah...I am really reaching here (ya, right, civil engineers do them all)

4. blah, blah, blah....I am confused between work and heat because he left out the "-Q" to simply things and I still didn't get it.

5. blah, blah, blah...I am going to try and sound smart eventhough I have no idea what I am talking about.

6. blah, blah, blah....wait, I just described an open system when I have been saying all along I have been saying an open system is wrong......damn it.

7. blah, blah, blah..I really don't know what thermal capacity is so I am going to sneak this question in to see if he answers it for me.

8. blah, blah, blah...I did some internet research to help me out, but I didn't understand it, so I just posted links so other people can read it and hopefully is says you are wrong.

9. blah, blah, blah

10. blah, blah, blah (you are so boring I am even losing interest in typing blah, blah, blah)

11. blah, blah, blah...I just proved to you I have no idea what you were talking about and I have no idea if it is right or wrong.

12. blah, blah, blah...another reach.

blah, blah, blah....I'm wrong. blah, blah, blah you know way more thermo than me..... blah

1. blah, blah, blah

2. blah, blah, blah

blah, blah, blah

blah, blah, blah

I enjoy beating a dead horse, see the other post I have made dedicated to my new idol Big Studly...i mean KnotBand

Well, KnotHead admits defeat. He can't answer any of the questions, so he covers with this lame response, insinuating he doesn't want to answer. I like the part where he keeps insisting I just don't understand what he wrote. Ya, I admit that, because it's all wrong. I don't understand how anybody who claims to have an engineering degree is so retarded when it comes to all things engineering.

Now all the forum members know you are a make believe engineer. Scurry off to some other threads and try to impress some people with make believe engineering.

Pat... don't sweat it... you know as much as the average mechanical engineer from a bad school

ORIGINAL: KnotBand

and to think, you wasted all that time to write something, and this is all you get out of me....

and you can come back with, "because you can't answer any of my questions", etc....

but mainly because you are now boring me my little puppet, that and the fact that I really don't give a crap what you think...

by this, you just further proved what an idiot you are, and you still have not understood anything I wrote before. Oh yea, I summed up what you typed, just so the other disinterested people don't have to read the long version...




hahahaha....I knew you were going to have that response......still trying to convince yourself huh......you crack me up

you are definately the cum your mom should have swallowed.

Knotband I think you just lost big time because you could not come up with anything. ANd I am a sexy smart girl. And sexy smart girls know more than anyone else in the world. ANd your only come back was that?

I think LX200 and KnotBand both need to stop all this back and forth flirting. It's getting really annoying.

All the thermodynamics is too over the top. Most people have no clue what you're talking about and after reading a few of those posts, I'm wondering if you guys even know what you're talking about. I admittadly spent most of the time I was supposed to be in thermo classes on the couch watching ESPN. But come on... nobody wants to hear you two girls flirt any longer.

crap like this is the reason the forum is getting revamped.

ORIGINAL: v6stanggoddess

Knotband I think you just lost big time because you could not come up with anything. ANd I am a sexy smart girl. And sexy smart girls know more than anyone else in the world. ANd your only come back was that?

Sexy smart girl? You have my undevided attention! ;)

At this point I have lost all interest in the thinking crap, don't care if I can spell, but am headed over to v6godesses house with some drinks and carry out italian to sit in the hot tub. you guys have fun.

local://upfiles/41550/21CCA29E551D492ABBB5479F192A8502.jpg

I would just like to say WOW....................this is great ****..........also goddess I bet your hot, and you like cars............... "YOUR MY DREAM GIRL"

Deleted due to boredom.

Wow, 3rd different thread, and yet, still nothing original....I am actually suprised you didn't pull out the ever so lame "you got served"....when you write crap like that, you sound gay, but hey, at least you wouldn't be trying to copy me

oh yea, and BigFrumpy??? come on self proclaimed smart guy....for someone that is such a genius as yourself....out of all the cut downs people have thrown out on the internet because I have pisseed them off, that is by far, the weakest one...you can do better than that....

or can you???

wait for it......wait for it....


ORIGINAL: LX200


ORIGINAL: KnotBand

ORIGINAL: KnotBand

and to think, you wasted all that time to write something, and this is all you get out of me....

and you can come back with, "because you can't answer any of my questions", etc....

but mainly because you are now boring me my little puppet, that and the fact that I really don't give a crap what you think...

by this, you just further proved what an idiot you are, and you still have not understood anything I wrote before. Oh yea, I summed up what you typed, just so the other disinterested people don't have to read the long version...




hahahaha....I knew you were going to have that response......still trying to convince yourself huh......you crack me up

you are definately the cum your mom should have swallowed.


Well, look at this latest response. How many more ways can KnotHead (aka BigFrumpy) admit total defeat (well, just hang on, I'm sure he's about to deliver one shortly). Couldn't come up with answers to two simple questions. He is now very clearly.... my bitch.

Deleted - Killing too many brain cells.

I got 1 post for ya's!:)

http://shockforce.net/images/photos/arguing.jpg

LADIES LADIES!!! come on, Knotband, dont feed the troll.

Lx200 is a Gimp, we all know it, just let him BLAH BLAH BLAH and dont reply :)

Paul

This one we'll keep... because it's true.....

Pauly, our resident high school dropout, is a good example of the danger posed by driveway sealant fumes. Keep on brushing Pauly....

deleted - Stupidometer pegged.

but then I wouldn't have had any fun with him

[sm=icon_blah.gif]

I agree... [sm=idontcare.gif]

Lx I absolutely love your side stripes by the way....with the hood you have a real mean look.[sm=icon_rock.gif]

Thanks Teach... people seem to either like them or hate them. Same with the black theme with the hood scoop and black wing. I want to complete the look with the 17" or 18" Black bullits. We'll see....