I picked up a TB Spacer today for my 2200 cavalier for $20. I am also lookin at gettin some sort of CAI for my car to possibly weapon R. Do you think I will notice much of a gain from it. I have a WAI on it now and it helps out some. I just wanted to know if the spacer will do some justice to the car with a real cold air intake.


2009 Ford Mustang V6

that TB spacer does nothing.



Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!

you just lost 20 bucks.

LarryAKACavVL92 wrote:I picked up a TB Spacer today for my 2200 cavalier for $20.

Just like the other 2 posts, that won't do anything for you. Once you get into seriously modding, you will see the horsepower isn't cheap, so $20 will defenitley not do anything for you.

I will be a little more helpful to you and answer your 2nd question, yes you will notice good gains from an intake upgrade. As far as weapon-r making a "CAI", no they don't. Their products are good though and I would highly suggest getting them.

Quote:

I just wanted to know if the spacer will do some justice to the car with a real cold air intake

There is really no real or ture cold air intake. It's more of an advertising ploy. For example: AEM has a "CAI", they call it that cause the actual pipe leads outside the engine bay and the filter is outside the bay also and it picks up air from the outside. If it's hot outside, it's going to pick up hot air. See what I'm saying? Even if you have a WAI, you will still get cool air inside your bay but not as much as a "CAI". I believe the performance differences between the 2 aren't that great though, so your better off either staying with what you have or upgrading to weapon-r (which makes great intake systems).

If you want a place that sells Weapon-R intakes for a good price, go to www.definedparts.com

Good Luck with your decision...



www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837

thanks for the help everyone. since I payed the $20 I think I am still gonna put it on. might as well use it if I have it lol.


2009 Ford Mustang V6

if i were you id put it on ebay and try and get my 20 bucks back

Quote:

if i were you id put it on ebay and try and get my 20 bucks back

Agreed.

Dont quote me on this but like an exhaust system bends and turns arent good. With a CAI that would add at least another almost 90 degree angle, which to my knowledge would be bad, I think the advantage of sucking in a little bit cooler air would be equaled out by the bend in the pipe.




2.2 OHV 2.4l coming soon
2.25 inch custom exhaust
WAI
RK Underdrive pulley
50 shot of NX
pacesetter header

I would recommend reading the FAQ at the top of this page, or at least the first page of it so that you will not keep making these mistakes. Here is a good write up on how to make a good INTAKE using Honda parts for really cheap.

it's not really a mistake. I bought it to try it out. I could have spent alot more on it and then it would have been a mistake. not like it's a really big deal.


2009 Ford Mustang V6

well a TB spacer can be used with nitrous. you can drill the spacer for your nozzle instead of drilling your intake. but other than that, its just a paper weight

as far as the "COLD AIR" intake goes. that is bs IMO. when its 90 degrees out what do you think that "cold air" intake is going to be sucking in? and as most of us know, when it is hot out the black top gets hot. hotter than the temp in the air. and the heat from the black top rises and your "cold air" intake will be sucking in that hot air. sort of defeats the purpose



Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!

^^^ so true....

big marketing ploy...

why do you think AEM only lists

intakes as

COLD AIR

and

SHORT RAM

http://www.aempower.com/product_intake.asp


people would thing "WARM AIR" which is what short rams are referred to, is bad.

and COLD AIR which is what a long ram is, is much better.



good use of words to confuse people though.


its like calling a tragic plane crash, "a rough landing"

[quote="Event"]its like calling a tragic plane crash, "a rough landing"


HAHA

Or the cause of the New York City blackout "a slight miscommunication" haha



www.kronosperformance.com / 732-742-8837

you knowWW!

lol is that a paintball in your sig ? i have paiontballs that buirst just like taht color and everything

Still, There is a big difference if it is cold outside, I had a short ram intake and in the winter in Flag that puppy was pretty hot, then I constructed cold air piping down to the wheel well and I noticed how cold the pipe was all the way to the intake. Still 90 or 115 is better than 190+ in your engine bay.


"Smoked"

even whith the helix bore?? im new to here and i just bought one new for 125$ if it really wont do anything im going to return it!!

Yes, all they are good for is tapping for nitrous and meth injection.

thanks for the info im getting my money before its too late

you bought a spacer for 125 bucks? ouch

Expensive nitrous oxide fogger nozzle mounting block!


And a very old thread!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, January 04, 2009 3:17 PM

I would have voiced the same opinion as everyone else is this thread about the TB spacer in the past....

A few months ago i spent a lot of time reading on a Honda forum (8th gen Civic forums) and to my suprise a TB spacer seems to be a pretty good mod. There are plenty of dyno tested 8th gen Civic Si owners that have proven the TB spacer to add about 2-5whp across the entire rpm range, idle to redline. It seems that a slighlty increase in the intake manifold's plenum volume can make a decent gain in hp. 3whp isn't much at all but considering its a constant gain from 1000-8500rpm for sure s cheap price i'd say its a well worthy mod. Read more here http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/bolt-ons-all-motor/70434-p2r-throttle-body-spacer-faqs.html


- 93 mph in the 1/8 mile
Member of J-Body Of Michigan.

By the looks of the Honda intake manifolds, they are rather small, with short, wide runners. Their plenum volume my not be sufficient to feed the motors all that they need and short, wide runners do nothing for torque.

The 2200s have really long runners in comparison, with a tiny plenum. With such long runners, it's hard to develop a lot of top end horsepower, even with an increase in plenum volume. (Such small valves and ports don't do a lot either, nor does the short duration, symmetrical, wide spread lobe cam!) Unless someone has dynoed the 2200 with and without a TBS, I doubt it did a whole lot for performance, due to the runner design. Definitely not enough for someone to feel it.

As for the '97 older 2.2L OHVs, you can't put a spacer in there, so the question is not applicable. The plenum spacer I made for mine, on the other hand, allowed my car to cruise at highway speeds a bit smoother. Beyond that I haven't tested it. The one time I did get it to the track with the spacer, was at a crappy track, I don't normally run at and the clock malfunctioned and I got no times. (I did smoke a Civic in the other lane though!:-) )

On the Twin Cams, I haven't done enough research into their intake design, aside for a few bits from the thread about the H.O. intake dyno results. The intake adaptors and/or the runner volume of the head my play a role in the results that came up with that test. I would have to read up more on it to be sure though. Maybe the intake is well designed for it's application, without any size restraints, as the Honda seems to have.

Oh and BTW Jeremy, I ran across an old post you mentioned that about, from August 2003, just ealier today! I was in Baghdad at that time!

Intake temperature comparison test:

Quote:

CAI vs. Pop Charger vs. OSCAI: Intake Temperature Test Results
I perused quite a few SAE articles regarding intake temperatures and their effect on different engine applications and found an interesting standard: By using the SAE correction factor "B" for temperature's effect on horsepower, we see that the correction factor for temperature is approximately 1% per ten degrees. That is, you get a 1% increase in horsepower for each 10 degrees you lower the temperature of the incoming air into your filter.

I am certain that many of you have personally felt the difference, on a cool, perhaps damp
(there is another correction for that) morning, when your car seemed to have more power than usual, and that those of you who have been lucky to participate in track days have posted lap times in the cool of the morning you could not equal on the warmer afternoon sessions.

This finding prompted me to swing by the local Radio Shack and purchase a digital thermometer with the sensor attached to its 10-foot wire. I attached it to my door.

http://images.cardomain.com/install...172_17_full.jpg

I then routed the wire connected to the thermometer’s display out the window, under the hood and inside the cone filter to get the exact temperature of the air entering the throttle body.

http://images.cardomain.com/install...172_19_full.jpg

Here is what I tested:
1) Intake Temperature at IDLE (8 minutes) with Pop Charger
2) Intake Temperature at IDLE (8 minutes) with CAI (I placed sensor in drainage hole in fender where the CAI would reside)
3) Intake Temperature with Pop Charger
4) Intake Temperature with CAI (I placed sensor in drainage hole in fender where the CAI would reside)
5) Intake Temperature with OSCAI (A 2” tube connected to a scoop under the car bringing cold-air to the filter. SEE

http://images.cardomain.com/install...172_11_full.jpg

Here are the results:

Outside Temperature: 34 degrees F
Test length: 2 Miles/Run
1) Intake Temperature at IDLE with Pop Charger: 95.8F and increasing
2) Intake Temperature at IDLE (8 minutes) with CAI (Sensor in hole in wheel well): 51.2 Steady

3) Intake Temperature with Pop Charger

Temp @ 40 mph: 47.6F
Temp @ 70 mph: 44.2F
Notes: The temperatures were volatile and increased when accelerated hard or came to a brief stop. Temperatures would not reach their low until the end of the run. When stopped for more than 2 minutes, the temperature would rise quickly to between 60-65 degrees.

4) Intake Temperature with CAI
Temp @ 40 mph: 45.1F
Temp @ 70 mph: 39.8F
Notes: Idle temps were already low, so low temperatures were achieved quickly. The temperature did not vary and stayed relatively constant when accelerating hard or stopping. Extended periods of idle would bring the temperature up, but not significantly. I suspect using the fender well as a heat shield aided in the temperature consistency.

5)Intake Temperature with OSCAI
Temp @ 40 mph: 45.0F
Temp @ 70 mph: 40.9F
Notes: The rate of change for the temperature was dependent on the speed I was going. The temperature increased when accelerating hard or coming to a stop, but quickly returned to it’s low under steady driving. Again, as the basic pop charger set-up did, momentary stops for 2 + minutes would send the temperature up to 60-65 degrees.

Conclusion/Serendipity

I was surprised that the Pop Charger by itself, without the CAI or OSCAI set-up was able to produce almost same temperature reading as the other two at speed. I guess, from what I gathered, the CAI benefits the most by creating a ceiling for temperature not to exceed (in this case 50 degrees) whereas the other two allow the intake temps to climb at the engines heated will. This 40 degree difference can be a factor in ¼ mile times where the car must idle for extended periods of time before launching. But as the outside temperatures increase, so will the air in the wheel well, thus making the differences slight. Additionally, I am not certain what adverse affects the longer tube combined with a bend may have on the intake airflow. Perhaps the tube may heat up thus warming the cooler air.

In the end, when comparing the extremes of winter and summer weather, say 10F vs. 100F (engine temps) and using the 10degree/1% power gain correction factor equation, in the Maxima’s case:
100-10 = 90 * .10 = 9% power increase for a 190 hp car which is somewhere around a 17 horsepower difference between the extreme summer and extreme winter case, then I guess cold air should be taken seriously. But when the difference between the ways of obtaining the cold air and inducing it into your engine yield almost the same results at speed, then what should you do? Who knows…

But maybe you could get a head start by using my write up! Enjoy and feel free to comment or add variables or conclusions that I have left out.

-Raceen
str8ridin

Gas mileage test:

Quote:

MetroMPG01-12-2006, 03:04 PM

the summary is:

CAI (performed 5 bi-directional runs)
54.3 F avg air intake temp
79.12 km/gal (US) avg consumption

WAI (performed 4 bi-directional runs)
106.7 F avg air intake temp
79.31 km/gal (US) avg consumption

it's always disappointing to put this much work into something and not see any significant results.

in case you're wondering, that's a .2% (point two percent) difference of WAI over CAI. i haven't calculated margin of error yet, but i suspect it's within it, which would make the difference statistically insignificant.

details and methodology to come later on...

Hot air from asphalt is going to be nowhere near the temp of the engine bay. Once the car is moving, the air hitting the CAI is getting ambient temperature.

Also, a fallacy I keep hearing is that if the tube is hot, the intake air is hot. The air is moving very fast, and needs to be idle to warm up, which is not happening. Try taking a pipe and put it on a heat source of 150 degrees temp, now pour water through it that is the same temp as the outside, say 80 degrees. Let it pour quickly through at a steep angle into a jar. Stick a thermometer in the water, I bet you it will be 80 degrees or within 1 degree of it.

Some would say the WAI "should" have more velocity, but... think about this, velocity is created by the intake vaccuum. If the bends of the CAI slow this in any way, then the WAI "would" have one advantage.

At WOT, the CAI has all the air a 4 banger is going to ask for.

Yes, less bends "can" make for better flow, but it has to hit a point where it is a hinderance.

Has it hit that point with a CAI?

I seriously doubt it on a 4 banger.

The intake tube is huge, and albeit some bends, still wont be making the throttle body have any 'less' air coming in even at WOT.

Use the same logic with a beer bong.
The person can only fit X amount of beer into the mouth.
The tube on both are huge, more than necessary.
One has a couple extra bends, the end result will be a lot of beer being wasted and falling to the ground with or without bends.
The reason is, by design, a person's mouth will only fit so much beer in, and both designs deliver MORE than a person can handle.
In other words, the volume required at any possible point is met by both designs.
I have seen people with their beer bongs being held bent and straight down and I never see anyone without a wet shirt and puddles on the ground afterwards.
This is just to attempt to put it in a perspective that some may understand.
Volume is just one factor though.

The fact that a WAI can have an increased temperature at the intake of 20 degrees more makes me wonder why people believe the WAI is better.

Gas mileage is a hair less with a WAI too.
.2% is a very small difference though.
I always get better mileage when I clean my filter, and also notice a little more pep.
If the WAI is getting less MPG, then I would have to venture to say it is going in the opposite direction.
In fact I have seen people record losses in HP with WAIs.

Maybe on the J-body something magical happens and WAIs are better...lol





2003 Sunfire with 2 1/4 inch turbo muffler, 2 1/4 piping, 2 1/2 inch resonator, a 2 1/4 inch catalytic converter, 2 1/2 inch down-pipe, a 4:2:1 RK Sports 'clone' header, E-bay strut brace, ground wire kit and an AEM true cold air intake NOPI edition.

As for the spacer, it does nothing on a fuel injected motor.
They were designed for carbed motors.

Some say it increases the intake volume, but dyno tests have shown no evidence of this.




2003 Sunfire with 2 1/4 inch turbo muffler, 2 1/4 piping, 2 1/2 inch resonator, a 2 1/4 inch catalytic converter, 2 1/2 inch down-pipe, a 4:2:1 RK Sports 'clone' header, E-bay strut brace, ground wire kit and an AEM true cold air intake NOPI edition.

Mike85220 wrote:As for the spacer, it does nothing on a fuel injected motor.
They were designed for carbed motors.

Some say it increases the intake volume, but dyno tests have shown no evidence of this.

Did you not read the link that Skilz10179 posted above. That thread that he links us to has two different peoples dyno runs that show otherwise. Maybe butt dyno tests have shown no evidence, but there are two dyno tests linked in that thread that do, albeit on a different motor and manufacturer. Will the results be the same for other motors? I seriously doubt it. There are too many variables for this to be all inclusive.