Cold Air Induction Kit - Page 2 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning Talk about modifications, or anything else associated with performance enhancements. Have a new idea for performance/reliability? Post it here. No idea is stupid! (please use Detailing and Appearance for cosmetic ideas)

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-21-2002, 05:17 AM   #11
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
99BonnevilleSE is on a distinguished road
Default

Actually depending on the year of Crown Vic'* they make different HP'*. The 98-2000 makes 210HP and 260 Torque. The 2001+ Crown Vic'* have the PI heads and make 225HP and some like 265 torque. If you want, I will take a pic of the time slips to prove just to you that it took off that much time. I have them sitting right here next to me. Give me like a day or two to take the time and scan it in. I also have video.

It'* up to you if you want to do a 4" intake pipe. A 3" pipe is huge actually and does not restrict high rpm, I have had this on my car for over a year, it'* kinda hard to argue with what I have proven works? Do a 3" and a 4" pipe, you will find it dissapointing, the 4" pipe will kill so much low end and hurt your top end as well, its just too big. I don't even know of */C cars that use 4" pipes, because it doesn't matter, they are forced induction.... And N/A cars can't use huge stuff or else they lose power, its that simple. Go for it on your SSEi, it wont make a difference, it will help your top end at 80+ mph for a 4" pipe because its finally gaining velocity, the 3" pipe pulls from 55+ mph easy in my car.... It'* a big difference. We have tried both sizes, 3" works better.

Oh, and 2000SilverBullet, I fixed the quote in the post for you.
99BonnevilleSE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2002, 02:07 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
2000SilverBullet is on a distinguished road
Default

<<The outlet temp of the SC can be determined by boost. But to calculate it you donít just take your boost as it applies to atmospheric pressure, you have to take the difference of the SC outlet to the intake vacuum. So if you have a restrictive intake you might have some vacuum in the intake causing the SC outlet temps to be higher than they need to be. Not only will the vacuum cause your outlet temps to be higher it will also mean more hp robbed from the motor to turn the charger. This is why I started the throttle body project and spent hundreds of hours studying the intake design of our 3800 engines. Everyone has a decent air box but the TB is a restriction even with the stock pulley and becomes even more so as you start to run the smaller pulleys. If I had to guess I would say that having a modíd TB is like getting an extra lb of boost for free (as it applies to KR). Not only that but most people donít realize that the TB to SC gasket hangs in the airflow just a little bit causing more restriction. Cutting this gasket out 2mm bigger is a free mod.
>>

Hector,
I agree that the smaller inlet pipe will improve torque on non supercharged engines but reading the above quote from ZZperformance implies something different for supercharged engines like mine.
I seems that any additional pressure drop (even as small as 2mm of gasket material on throttle body) has the effect of raising the SC outlet temperature. :o
I really would be interested in a proper comparison where only the inlets on the SC engine is changed....no other mods like a computer chip.
If a smaller pipe vs say nothing at all (for a really low restriction) as a test, on a SC Series II engine, then I will be sold.

What about you other supercharged bonne owners? If you have switched to the 3" inlet pipe CAI, have you gained performance or just looks and sound. I would expect about a 10 hp gain if it works. Dyno comparisons are the best but 0-60 times should improve by a couple of tenths.

Hector, Thanks for fixing the quote in my previous reply. Looks like I messed this quote up too.
2000SilverBullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2002, 09:11 PM   #13
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
99BonnevilleSE is on a distinguished road
Default

It'* all good, we learn from each other. I agree with the temp difference and all, but I agree more with real world testing.
99BonnevilleSE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2002, 04:18 AM   #14
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Gainesville, Ga.
Posts: 46
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ejecto is on a distinguished road
Default Large intake ID'*

Point 1:
The 4.6 Ford engines mentioned here are normally asperated, and remain 4.6 liters at all times..
The SSEi'* blown 3.8 engines have a 90 cubic inch (about 1.5 liter) supercharger onboard, giving them a corrected displacement of 322 cubic inches (or about 5.3 liters) when under boost conditions. That and the corresponding horsepower and torque ratings for each engine in question would lead one to think that the SC 3800 engine under boost conditions needs MORE intake air than the Ford 4.6.
Thus, why would one shy away from the larger intake diameters?

Point 2:
While discussing on other message boards the low RPM torque vs. high RPM power debate concerning my last two cars, (5.0 Mustang and an LT-1 powered Formula Firebird), I always asked this question:
Since I can now overcome available traction at low speeds, resulting in the smoking of tires, the car has all the low RPM torque it presently needs or can handle. The same goes for my present Bonneville.
Therefore, why worry about the present overabundant low speed torque? The car can put extra high-RPM power to more use than any extra unneeded "off the line" torque.
Why not open up that intake route and get high speed, high RPM power and torque that the car can actually put to the ground and use???
I, for one, would be willing to sacrifice a little of the torque that is wasted in tire smoke for more grunt when the car is moving....

I respectfully admit that I am new to souping up a V-6 and new to tinkering with a supercharged engine. Hell, my Bonneville is only my second vehicle with less than 8 cylinders, and my first vehicle to feature front wheel drive or a supercharger.
And I'm 44 years old!

So, tell me where I'm wrong with the above theory.
Even though I was a confirmed, hard core "wrench head" before many of you guys out there were born, I am more than willing to listen to any and all information, explanations, advice, and so on.
Anyone who can explain why my above intake rebuttal is wrong is welcome to explain exactly why it'* at fault.
I freely admit my present lack of experience with V-6'*, superchargers, and heavy Bonnevilles in general.
I'll listen with a completely open mind, and would appreciate any enlightenment disputing my above philosophy....
ejecto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2002, 06:30 AM   #15
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
99BonnevilleSE is on a distinguished road
Default

ejecto, I pretty much agree with all you said. But I am more used to dealing with N/A since there is not as much for them as the */C cars. The N/A engine'* have potential but no one has really touched it much.

But anyways, we should not be arguing about intake sizes. For N/A or */C, 3" is just fine. You can go bigger with */C since its not affected by tuning issues of N/A. But we are arguing about the wrong issue. Have you looked closely at your Throttle Bodies lately. If it has a 4" opening, then why do our engines struggle for air. If you look at it closely it tapers down way too much and starves all 3.8L'* period. And to make it worse, the MAF is too close to the TB Plate which messes with the air and blocks 1/4 of the opening with a large plastic post. ZZP did a LS1 TB divorce and gained alot of power because it took the restriction of air out of the equation. I believe they gained around .3-.4 tenths faster just because of that. We are going to try the same since I can get a free MAF and Throttle Body from my friend 02 Camaro Z28 since we are going to switch out both of his anyways. So it'* more of a matter of restriction from the TB than the intake. We need to focus together and make these engines faster rather than argue w/ each other.

Everyone has their theories, intakes are a tricky yet simple device. You can make more power N/A on the intakes from tuning but the cost/power ratio is not worth it unless you have tapped out everything else. For */C, the intake is not a big deal, it just doesn't have to restrict the */C and block particles from coming in and its all good.

But I am just a car guy at heart. I don't really care about good looks, I don't care about how you go fast, I just want to go fast. And whatever makes me go fast I want to offer to other people. Simple.

-Hector
99BonnevilleSE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2002, 07:42 PM   #16
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
speedyguy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 99BonnevilleSE
ejecto, I pretty much agree with all you said. But I am more used to dealing with N/A since there is not as much for them as the */C cars. The N/A engine'* have potential but no one has really touched it much.

But anyways, we should not be arguing about intake sizes. For N/A or */C, 3" is just fine. You can go bigger with */C since its not affected by tuning issues of N/A. But we are arguing about the wrong issue. Have you looked closely at your Throttle Bodies lately. If it has a 4" opening, then why do our engines struggle for air. If you look at it closely it tapers down way too much and starves all 3.8L'* period. And to make it worse, the MAF is too close to the TB Plate which messes with the air and blocks 1/4 of the opening with a large plastic post. ZZP did a LS1 TB divorce and gained alot of power because it took the restriction of air out of the equation. I believe they gained around .3-.4 tenths faster just because of that. We are going to try the same since I can get a free MAF and Throttle Body from my friend 02 Camaro Z28 since we are going to switch out both of his anyways. So it'* more of a matter of restriction from the TB than the intake. We need to focus together and make these engines faster rather than argue w/ each other.

Everyone has their theories, intakes are a tricky yet simple device. You can make more power N/A on the intakes from tuning but the cost/power ratio is not worth it unless you have tapped out everything else. For */C, the intake is not a big deal, it just doesn't have to restrict the */C and block particles from coming in and its all good.

But I am just a car guy at heart. I don't really care about good looks, I don't care about how you go fast, I just want to go fast. And whatever makes me go fast I want to offer to other people. Simple.

-Hector
Amen brother Amen!!!!!!!

Well actually I am a bit of a sucker for shiny stuff.

Ty
speedyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2002, 07:51 PM   #17
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

You guys are great!

Hey Ty.....I have a shiny penny in my pocket.....I'll sell it to you!
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2002, 05:58 AM   #18
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: California
Posts: 93
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
buickpower3800sc is on a distinguished road
Default

When will ADTR have the 3800 series 1 intake ready?
buickpower3800sc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2003, 11:12 PM   #19
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Gainesville, Ga.
Posts: 46
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ejecto is on a distinguished road
Default

Folks, I did not intend to sound argumentative- I just wanted to know why I was so wrong reusing the 4" K&N and duct salvaged from my Formula.
Yes, we are all looking to increase power, and it'* great to have this forum and all of you good people available for real world advice.

Hey, "car people" like ourselves must stick together. If not, the anti-car weinies will force everyone into driving glorified shopping carts!!
To parody a well known phrase: They will only get the keys to my powerful cars (and my guns as well) from my cold, dead fingers!!!
A dramatic and corny statement, but TRUE when coming from me.....
Anyway, yes, by all means, we are on the same side.

Hector: From the appearance of the thing, you are so right about the restrictive TB. It does indeed appear to be a "weak link" in the intake route. I also concur that the MAF and TB are too close together.
Once I learn more about these cars, make my intended pulley and exhaust mods, and do further research, I will be tempted to take a Dremel tool to the TB- and maybe the MAF as well.
If and when I do so, you all will read about the resulting triumph or disaster in this forum.
Surely one of us can make power-increasing inroads on the subject at hand, and everyone else can read about it here.
Randy
ejecto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2003, 11:21 PM   #20
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

As we speak, Hector is in the process of porting his own Series 2 TB. If this was a secret, Hector......SORRY! How many times do I have to tell you guys that Hector don't let any moss grow under his big feet?

Either Hector or I will let you know here on the forum when the Series 1 ADTR intake has been test-fitted. The very day, within the hour. I promise!
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
cold air induction??? luminazkidd21 Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 3 12-20-2006 09:27 AM
cold air induction excessive81 Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 6 04-03-2004 11:54 AM
Cold Air Induction "Kinda Stumped" IO 2000-2005 5 02-28-2004 08:38 PM
Air Induction Idea TelePlayer Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 12 08-11-2003 11:38 PM
'95 SSEi air induction Brad_Olson Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 6 12-31-1969 08:00 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:35 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.