Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now

Now available from EcoModder: ScanGauge II fuel economy gauge.  Click for details.  

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-30-2008, 04:00 PM   #1 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
toomuch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 20

Unwaking Sleeper - '00 Toyota Corolla LE
90 day: 34.11 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lightbulb Comparing Warm Air Intakes (WAI) & Cold Air Intakes (CAI)

Comparing Warm Air Intakes (WAI) & Cold Air Intakes (CAI)

My basic point is:
With respect to air intake temperature, maybe there is no difference between a Cold Air Intake and a Warm Air Intake regarding Fuel Economy (FE). Please read on.

CAI:
From what I have gathered, in the performance tuner world, a cold air intake is one of the most basic mods one can do. Power gains can be small, especially for smaller engines. 0.5% improvement is a good minimum starting point for the power gain.
The idea is that air intake is supposed to be placed farther away from the engine than stock, thereby sucking in colder air. The lower the temperature of the air, the denser the air. More air than stock needs more fuel to keep the fuel ratio satisfied. At any given throttle position, this should result in more power than stock since more explosion mixture is being introduced to the explosion chamber.

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that the only advantage here is the denser (colder) air. (Other advantages of new intake plumbing: less restriction. This may be a result of a more-porous filter, larger intake tube diameter, smoother plumbing, or less bends and turns in the plumbing.)

A cold air intake does not result in a richer mixture of fuel. If a mass ratio of 14.7 to 1, air to fuel, needs to be maintained, then the engine will keep it there. A rich mixture is a mixture with less air (flip side of the coin, more fuel) than the stoich mix requires, and therefore would not be the result of a CAI. (This could be the result of a reprogrammed ECU)

WAI:
A Warm Air Intake is placed closer to the engine than stock to pull in warmer air. The greater the temperature of the air, the less dense the air. Less air than stock needs less fuel to keep the fuel ratio satisfied. At any given throttle position, this should result in less power than stock since less explosion mixture is being introduced to the explosion chamber.

A warm air intake does not result in a leaner mixture of fuel. If a mass ratio of 14.7 to 1, air to fuel, needs to be maintained, then the engine will keep it there. A lean mixture is a mixture with more air (flip side of the coin, less fuel) than the stoich mix requires, and therefore would not be the result of a WAI. (This could be the result of a reprogrammed ECU)

Stoich:
The modern engine is trying to keep a 14.7 to 1 mass ratio of air to fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio

Hypothetical and demonstrational situation:
So normally, if one is cruising along at 55mph, say the car needs 25 units of power to do this. And to achieve this power the engine needs to run at 2200 rpm.

Now say one has a WAI. Cruising at 2200 rpm, the engine is pulling in less air, and so it is making 24 units of power, and runs at 53 mph. In order to cruise at 55mph, the engine needs to run faster, at 2250 rpms to achieve 25 units of power.

Next, the same vehicle as a CAI. Cruising at 2200 rpm, the engine is pulling in more air, and so it is making 26 units of power, and runs at 57 mph. In order to cruise at 55mph, the engine needs to run slower, at 2150 rpms to achieve 25 units of power.

(assumption about to start)
But all situations should be consuming the same amount of fuel.
(end assumption)

Problem:
I suppose the engine is consuming the same amount of fuel to make the needed power at any rpm?
It seems as if the needed rpm is shifted, but not the fuel consumption?


Point of difference:
The point of difference between CAI, stock, and WAI would be at WOT. At WOT (Wide Open Throttle) the engine should be making the most power (& burning the most fuel) with the CAI, and be making the least amount of power (& burning the least fuel) with the WAI. Maybe this is the only time there is a difference. I would not call it an efficiency, I think it is more of a difference.

Personally, I'll stick with the CAI because when I need the vehicle to go, I need the car to go! And now I realize that with a CAI I am not loosing any MPG when I am trying to be economy minded.


A new direction?:
Maybe eco-modders should be more concerned with gaining the other benefits of a new Air Intake, namely less restriction. This may be a achieved by a more-porous filter, larger intake tube diameter, smoother plumbing, or less bends and turns in the plumbing.
Less restriction should result in better overall breathing efficiencies.
Reprogrammed ECUs for leaner fuel ratios. I do not want to touch this subject any farther than that!

Please Note:
1 I bet I am wrong somewhere. Please, someone put it right!
2 I am just a college student, studying marketing. I have no formal background in any of this. But I do have a hunger for understanding how things work.
3 All of my references are to fuel injected engines with an ECU. I have no knowledge of carburetors.

__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2008, 04:21 PM   #2 (permalink)
Moderator
 
tasdrouille's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mirabel, QC
Posts: 1,672

The Guzzler - '08 Hyundai Elantra GL
90 day: 33.12 mpg (US)

Got Soul? - '11 Kia Soul 2U
Thanks: 35
Thanked 72 Times in 45 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomuch View Post
[...]
Hypothetical and demonstrational situation:
So normally, if one is cruising along at 55mph, say the car needs 25 units of power to do this. And to achieve this power the engine needs to run at 2200 rpm.
That's not really how it works. The 25 units of power for 55 mph can work out, but the 2200 rpm is not to get 25 units of power, but to get 55 mph. For each rpm, there is a certain amount of power available. Actual power will vary depending mostly on the throttle plate openning.

We've already discussed WAIs and CAIs in plenty of threads to great lenghts. You might find the information you are seeking in those threads. If you have any unanswered questions or feel like commenting on some points please do so and it'll be a pleasure to continue the discussion. But I don't think we need to go over this all over again from the beginning.
__________________



www.HyperKilometreur.com - Quand chaque goutte compte...
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2008, 04:27 PM   #3 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
toomuch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 20

Unwaking Sleeper - '00 Toyota Corolla LE
90 day: 34.11 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tasdrouille View Post
We've already discussed WAIs and CAIs in plenty of threads to great lenghts. You might find the information you are seeking in those threads. If you have any unanswered questions or feel like commenting on some points please do so and it'll be a pleasure to continue the discussion. But I don't think we need to go over this all over again from the beginning.
OK, sorry about that.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2008, 05:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 157 Times in 106 Posts
I think starting this thread was a great idea. This should give everyone that has done cold or warm air intake modification the opportunity to post their before and after results in one place. Maybe we can compile some data.

One point I would add to the original post in this thread. In most modern electronic fuel injected engines the ECU will use the temperature signal from the IAT (intake air temperature) sensor to advance (cold air) or retard (hot air) spark timing in order to prevent detonation. Because of this input to the ECU, any efficiency gained from the low density hot air going into the engine will be lost because of retarded spark timing. The work around this problem would be to manually control the input form the AIT sensor in order to trick the ECU to advance timing. This seems extremely dangerous to me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2008, 05:32 PM   #5 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 21

Focus - '05 Ford Focus ZX3 SE
90 day: 30.86 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomuch View Post
Hypothetical and demonstrational situation:
So normally, if one is cruising along at 55mph, say the car needs 25 units of power to do this. And to achieve this power the engine needs to run at 2200 rpm.

Now say one has a WAI. Cruising at 2200 rpm, the engine is pulling in less air, and so it is making 24 units of power, and runs at 53 mph. In order to cruise at 55mph, the engine needs to run faster, at 2250 rpms to achieve 25 units of power.

Next, the same vehicle as a CAI. Cruising at 2200 rpm, the engine is pulling in more air, and so it is making 26 units of power, and runs at 57 mph. In order to cruise at 55mph, the engine needs to run slower, at 2150 rpms to achieve 25 units of power.
Augh! please don't take this personally, but this couldn't be more wrong. If your wheels are going 55 mph, your engine is turning at only one RPM ever (assuming you are in the same gear, automatic or manual doesn't matter). If you're going 55 mph, your engine will be at say 2200 rpm, whether or not you are flooring it or coasting or whatnot. There is a physical, geared linkage between the wheels and motor, with an exact ratio of # of turns of the engine to # of turns to the wheels. If you measure in your car (in one particular gear) the engine speed at a particular wheel speed, that ratio will always hold up in that gear no matter what. The only single caveat I can think of is an automatic transmission when it's not in lockup mode, but that isn't because of the reasons you list at all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2008, 05:37 PM   #6 (permalink)
Administrator
 
Daox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 8,060

CM400E - '81 Honda CM400E
90 day: 58.77 mpg (US)

Daox's Grey Prius - '04 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 53.03 mpg (US)

Daox's Metro - '99 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 73.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 536
Thanked 1,050 Times in 689 Posts
True, warm air will cause ignition retardation. In some engines this will happen faster than the benefit from the increased load (and reduction of pumping losses). In other engines it will happen slower than the benefit from increased load and you will see benefits from it. It may work great on some engines during the winter, but since ideal intake temps, for example, are around say 80F the benefit is negated during summer. The point is there are too many variables to have a blanket statement that says they do or don't work.
__________________
Current project: 2002 Honda Civic LX auto - repair & modding

Last edited by Daox; 04-30-2008 at 06:36 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2008, 07:52 PM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 157 Times in 106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daox View Post
The point is there are too many variables to have a blanket statement that says they do or don't work.
YES!
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2008, 09:43 PM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 303

Pushrod - '02 Chevrolet Cavalier
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
When I finish my injector driven MPG gauge, I will be happy to do an A/B/A test with the factory cold air intake then with a cone filter right on the throttle body. That will put the whole issue to bed, at least for me. Until then, the Scanguage is not accurate enough to tell if WAIs work. It tells you how much fuel it thinks the engine should get, not what it's actually getting. I notice that after fillups during the time of year with large temperature swings, I have to make significant changes to the fillup trim values.

BTW, jcantara is absolutely right. RPM and MPH are directly related. That's why we call them gear ratios.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2008, 11:11 AM   #9 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
toomuch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 20

Unwaking Sleeper - '00 Toyota Corolla LE
90 day: 34.11 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The following is disjunct, but I don't really have a lot of time, but I feel like I owe the replies a post.

You know I was supposed to be working on my thesis (undergrad),which has nothing to do with any kind of engineering or designing, so I had taken a B vitamin complex and some ginkgo biliba. I crapped the starting post out pretty quickly, my apologies.

Tjts1 , it seems like you are not convinced, especially from reading the other posts.

I feel like I opened up a can of worms. I did not realize how many factors go into this equation.

After reading a few threads from a WAI search, I feel like the answer is that there are many factors that affect this situation.
This article surprised me:
http://www.metrompg.com/posts/wai-test.htm

So reduced pumping losses, can someone point me to an explanation of that?
If not I'll keep looking myself.

I will ask my friend, he is the ASE “Master Technician” at the local Firestone. I love this guy, he can smell my car before it hits the parking lot and know how to fix whatever I just broke. Plus he is very nice about answering my 5 technical questions every time I see him.
http://www.ase.com/Template.cfm?Sect...ied_Technician
I am not saying that he is the Dr. Jesus of autoshop, just that he is a pretty good source of info.

How about the other point in my post, improving inefficiency through less intake restriction? Has that a goal of eco-modders new intake systems?

RPMs & Speed & gearing. So even at a cruising load, the power the engine makes does not matter? Maybe as long as it is enough? Thanks for your comments!
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2008, 11:16 AM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 303

Pushrod - '02 Chevrolet Cavalier
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
How about the other point in my post, improving inefficiency through less intake restriction? Has that a goal of eco-modders new intake systems?
Not at all. Well, maybe for the TDI guys, but not for gas engines. Less intake restriction gives you more power at 100% throttle, no less. If you care about MPG, you won't be doing much driving at full throttle. Hell, the reason we have a throttle is to restrict the intake.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cold air VS Warm Air Intakes - what's the difference? deadman1474 EcoModding Central 59 12-06-2013 09:18 PM
Honda IACV explained TomO Off-Topic Tech 15 05-23-2013 03:47 AM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com