Originally Posted by GraphiteGhost
Max, nope! Yours is the best CAI I have seen to date on our XF's. Its intake origin is outside the engine bay (the area where the OEM tubes were?), its filtered, its tube diameter is larger than OEM (best I can discern) and both sides are (as best as possible) balanced (air masses merge approximately the same as the original, combining above the MAF to limit one sided airflow which might have skewered the metered flow in and throughout the cross-sectional area of the sensor).
You said the OEM temps at idle was the same vs your CAI (are those metal tubes or chromed plastic)? You mentioned they climbed into the 125 F range, was that with any type of tail breeze (it matters, engine heat easily flows forward into the OEM/CAI placed ducted area through the radiator/condensor coils and various gaping holes in that bulkhead if the breeze is towards the front)? I would expect that influx of (engine bay heated) air being sucked into those two intake points if the prevailing breeze carried that heat forward. Just a thought?
Finally, yes I keyed on your post. I did that because its rare to find that type of information posted unless someone asks. Yours is the example I liked most because of the information given, and the effectiveness of the design of actual CAI's. Not to mention (but I will anyway), its absolutely gorgeous looking! Clean, sharp, and in my opinion as pictured, totally 100% functional and a correct application of a CAI.
Ghost,
has anyone ever related to you the truism:
The best indication of a mans' intelligence is the degree to which he agrees with you?
Mine is all metal. 3" OD. Unfortunately, the y-pipe is .060" stainless steel and has more thermal mass than I would like. If I could have made this whole thing out of Boron, I would have. The balance of the materials is aluminum and silicone (couplers and reducing elbow). The intake tubes are .030" wall, silicone smoothwall flex, 3.00" ID and is jammed through the radiator bulkhead. It fits well on the passenger side but is really crammed into the driver's. This is where Needswings and TVT use a 2.75" tube. I was able to deform mine to fit. Barely. There is a 12% difference in
measured cross sectional area. Not perfect, but the best I can do. Even on the passenger (larger) side, there is a slight deformation from a true circle. As anyone who passed 8th grade geometry can tell you-any deformation of a circle reduces the area (cross section). Right?
As to having a tailwind at rest? He!!, I drive roadster! After a 30 mile cruise, I could be in the vortex of a tornado and not know it. No idea, but your point is well taken, just not considered at the time.
Your point of linearizing the airflow before ingestion by the MAF is a point I considered and designed around. Removal of the inlet screens has been asked about and bandied about here in many threads. Sure, one will gain maybe 5%-10% greater cross section, but it will confuse the MAF at higher airflow volumes. Laminar airflow has been well understood since Bernoulli figured out how an asymmetrical surface can produce lift.
For those reading this: Picture if you will a faucet with the aerator removed; as you start flow, you see a v-shaped cross section of water steam. As you increase the flow rate, the shape of the water flow stays the same, but moves at a less oblique angle. If you had a stationary object in the flow, it would only be hit dead-center by the stream at a certain pressure/flow. Replace the aerator. Now, no matter the flow rate, it all comes out at the same angle, in a uniform cross section. Needswings got around this by re-positioning the MAF at the end of a long (~12") section of straight run tubing: the flow/pressure is isobaric
(same pressure) across its face.
And at the same time removed any restriction in the OEM throttle body. And the linearizing screens.
Nice thinking Needswings and/or TVT and all who contributed!
I just wasn't willing to pay the MSRP for the product.
Please rebut?
Max