injen vs k&n vs fujita CAI

[yfin]

Just thought I'll mention that Torque is in fact a derivative of Power, so the power curve's gradient at any one point, when plotted, will become the torque curve. So you can mentally picture how the torque distribution and performance of the car from the power curve.

To me anyway, reading a power curve and torque curve has little difference, you can tell instinctively what effects any change in both will have on drive ability, I think!

I don't find it easy. If I showed you only the power chart on the right could you predict what the torque curve on the left would look like?

[yfin]

I found some charts for the Injen for the TSX on their website. Have a look at the torque graph between 2000 and 3000rpm. The base line shoots up. Sorry for pic size. In day to day driving you spend a lot of time at that RPM.

[TypeG]

I found some charts for the Injen for the TSX on their website. Have a look at the torque graph between 2000 and 3000rpm. The base line shoots up. Sorry for pic size. In day to day driving you spend a lot of time at that RPM.

nice find
that's the fact

[aaronng]

I don't find it easy. If I showed you only the power chart on the right could you predict what the torque curve on the left would look like?
[/IMG]

I can.
Power (hp) = torque (lbf.ft) x RPM/5252

Given a power curve, choose various points on the chart (the more the smoother). The higher the RPM, the lower the respective torque of that point.

[yfin]

I can.
Power (hp) = torque (lbf.ft) x RPM/5252

Given a power curve, choose various points on the chart (the more the smoother). The higher the RPM, the lower the respective torque of that point.

You need to be an engineering geek to do that calculation in your head!

[aaronng]

You need to be an engineering geek to do that calculation in your head!

What do you think I am?
Ask EuroAccord13. Hhahaha

[ginganggooly]

Slightly less power is less power than stock which no one wants. And I don't see a torque graph so how can you comment on torque? The other graph is air fuel ratio.

Like most modifications, there is a compromise. I'm more than happy to sacrifice less than 2kw for a 400rpm piece of powerband, when the trade off is more torque thus power for the rest of the powerband in its entirety.

To answer your second question- If you understood the relationship between power and torque you'd understand my comment. Power is a derivative of torque and RPM.

[yfin]

What do you think I am?
Ask EuroAccord13. Hhahaha

Yeah I know you are an engineer - that is why you are so smart So am I right in saying that even a small drop in power at low RPM is going to correlate to an even bigger drop in torque at low RPM?

And the same would not necessarily hold true at high RPM?

The torque in that first Injen graph (without MR tech) is terrible. It dips below stock quite a few times in the curve - not just down low The revised Injen looks much better.

[ginganggooly]

It's part of the whole reason many argue that dynos cannot represent real world driving situations, and hence measuring power/torque changes from air intakes is difficult.

Yes you're right- As has been said many times on these forums, dynos aren't meant for pissing contests, they're a tuning tool, and they're great for measuring gains and losses from various mods, provided you try to maintain some consitancy during the testing process.

The point i was making was that, during testing, the various setups were dyno'd bonnet up and bonnet down. The results were nigh on identical, they were consistant and very repeatable.

[040501912]

You need to be an engineering geek to do that calculation in your head!

google - ing ! lol

[Tobster]

Yes you're right- As has been said many times on these forums, dynos aren't meant for pissing contests, they're a tuning tool, and they're great for measuring gains and losses from various mods, provided you try to maintain some consitancy during the testing process.

The point i was making was that, during testing, the various setups were dyno'd bonnet up and bonnet down. The results were nigh on identical, they were consistant and very repeatable.

What I was trying to express was that just because a dyno shows a repeated improvement, the improvement is applicable under THOSE conditions. It doesn't necessarily mean that the improvement will happen on the road where the airflow conditions are different. SRIs are the prime example: they'll show a marked improvement on a dyno where there's lots of air, but tend to suck in lots of detrimental hot air on the road.

[ginganggooly]

What I was trying to express was that just because a dyno shows a repeated improvement, the improvement is applicable under THOSE conditions. It doesn't necessarily mean that the improvement will happen on the road where the airflow conditions are different. SRIs are the prime example: they'll show a marked improvement on a dyno where there's lots of air, but tend to suck in lots of detrimental hot air on the road.

The point I was making is that the SRI's showed a big loss on the dyno, which I'm guessing would have been amplified on the road due to heatsoak
There was no tangible gain anywhere on any of the graphs by running a SRI over a CAI on any of the cars we tested. (bolt on only)

What I was trying to get across was that in terms of output, regardless of heatsoak issues, CAI > SRI on the cars tested