New Intake
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 163
From: TX
Yes it does cover up the oil filter/dipstick access if you mount it like this. But really, how hard is it to loosen 1 hose clamp and unplug the MAF to remove the whole intake assembly to change oil? You can still reach the dipstick without intake removal. However you can always mount it like this:
Then you can just build a small bracket to hold it off of the valve cover. I have removed the plastic air dam between the top of the radiator and the steel crossbar, so there is plenty of clean air coming right in the grill and through that space.
And yes HHR_PNOY you hit the nail on the head. This is a less expensive version of an intake that will clean up the looks under the hood.
Then you can just build a small bracket to hold it off of the valve cover. I have removed the plastic air dam between the top of the radiator and the steel crossbar, so there is plenty of clean air coming right in the grill and through that space.
And yes HHR_PNOY you hit the nail on the head. This is a less expensive version of an intake that will clean up the looks under the hood.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-03-2006
Posts: 855
From: Los Angeles, CA
and using that setup will eliminate the issue the CGS has with the filter being a tight fit next to the washer bottle.
Do you think its possible to add two different brackets, so the buyer has an option on how they want to mount the tube?
Do you think its possible to add two different brackets, so the buyer has an option on how they want to mount the tube?
Senior Member
Joined: 10-02-2005
Posts: 1,245
From: VA
Nice looking piece!! 
Really, a nice effort.
First concern is that there will be no power gain with hot under-hood air. I've done extensive testing and monitored air intake temps with digital thermocouple probes placed to analize what is happening to try to figure out what will and will not work.
First, the stock intake (which looks like crap, IMO!) [B]does not[B] create any restriction. This can be documented with MAP (manifold absolute pressure, aka "vacuum") graphs in full power runs logged with HP Tuners. If the intake were restrictive, you would see a drop as the RPMs increased.
Secondly, and contrary to opinions posted here in the past, intake air temps do make a difference in power!!. That is roughly 1% per 10 deg. F difference by SAE formulas based on air density and temp. Testing showed that there was about 35 - 40 deg. difference in IAT (intake air temp) just with the stock hose moved from the fenderwell to the "hole" where the popular CGS filter sits. Dyno tests confirmed a 4 -5 HP loss due to the difference in the IAT with the factory filter based on that alone.
It has been stated that the CGS will draw cooler air through the "hole" in the fenderwell, however thermocouple temp tests have shown that with this hole open, hot air is actually flowing outward, with the filter position temps remaining the same, while temps in the fenderwell rise to what the hot underhood temps are. Air is going out the hole, not in!
The CGS followed this trend under testing. Dyno tests with the hood up resulted in no HP change. Just before the pull, close the hood and the drop was about 4 -5 HP due to the underhood air temps. Who drives around with their hood up??
There has never been any real dyno charts posted here regarding intakes. Personally, for looks, I think that the CGS is the best available on the market right now and the AirAid and the K&N are ugly, even though they draw cooler air. And.... it does sound gooood!! But for HP, forget it!!
I've contemplated fabbing my own design intake, making sure that it is drawing cold, denser air to make some more power. The biggest challenge is space!! Also, proper sizing of the tubing, especially at the MAF is critical. However, should the tube diameter vary from the stock dimension, it is a simple matter to rescale the ECM MAF tables to account for the difference in detected air flow to keep fueling parameters on target and not generate a DTC. Actually this "prototype" intake tube is close enough to the factory diameter that registered airflow past the MAF sensor would be within the tolerances of the ECM and no codes would be generated. The larger inlet diameter would not be of consequence and may actually help airflow.
As far as intake runner length is concerned, in this area of the intake it really doesn't matter. Look at the intake system itself. What does matter to the engine characteristics is what's below the throttle body. There is a large plenum with runners from that to the intake ports in the head. It is the length of those that will have an effect, not anything else. Heck, above the throttle body if the filter was mounted on the back bumper and there was no restriction to the flow, it wouldn't make any difference due to length!
Also of concern is the proximity of the MAF sensor to the filter. If it were an oiled element that could contaminate the MAF and create problems. A dry-type filter, such as the AEM would eliminate that potential problem.
All this said, I may still spring for one of these to incorporate into a custom intake just to not have to deal with the MAF mounting! The "ideal" system would be one that looks good and draws cooler, denser air. But that doesn't exist right now.
What would be ideal is something like this inlet that no matter where or what type of filter was used, would look good, sound good and make some HP and get rid of that "lid" that GM likes.
Really, a nice effort.First concern is that there will be no power gain with hot under-hood air. I've done extensive testing and monitored air intake temps with digital thermocouple probes placed to analize what is happening to try to figure out what will and will not work.
First, the stock intake (which looks like crap, IMO!) [B]does not[B] create any restriction. This can be documented with MAP (manifold absolute pressure, aka "vacuum") graphs in full power runs logged with HP Tuners. If the intake were restrictive, you would see a drop as the RPMs increased.
Secondly, and contrary to opinions posted here in the past, intake air temps do make a difference in power!!. That is roughly 1% per 10 deg. F difference by SAE formulas based on air density and temp. Testing showed that there was about 35 - 40 deg. difference in IAT (intake air temp) just with the stock hose moved from the fenderwell to the "hole" where the popular CGS filter sits. Dyno tests confirmed a 4 -5 HP loss due to the difference in the IAT with the factory filter based on that alone.
It has been stated that the CGS will draw cooler air through the "hole" in the fenderwell, however thermocouple temp tests have shown that with this hole open, hot air is actually flowing outward, with the filter position temps remaining the same, while temps in the fenderwell rise to what the hot underhood temps are. Air is going out the hole, not in!
The CGS followed this trend under testing. Dyno tests with the hood up resulted in no HP change. Just before the pull, close the hood and the drop was about 4 -5 HP due to the underhood air temps. Who drives around with their hood up??
There has never been any real dyno charts posted here regarding intakes. Personally, for looks, I think that the CGS is the best available on the market right now and the AirAid and the K&N are ugly, even though they draw cooler air. And.... it does sound gooood!!
But for HP, forget it!!I've contemplated fabbing my own design intake, making sure that it is drawing cold, denser air to make some more power. The biggest challenge is space!! Also, proper sizing of the tubing, especially at the MAF is critical. However, should the tube diameter vary from the stock dimension, it is a simple matter to rescale the ECM MAF tables to account for the difference in detected air flow to keep fueling parameters on target and not generate a DTC. Actually this "prototype" intake tube is close enough to the factory diameter that registered airflow past the MAF sensor would be within the tolerances of the ECM and no codes would be generated. The larger inlet diameter would not be of consequence and may actually help airflow.
As far as intake runner length is concerned, in this area of the intake it really doesn't matter. Look at the intake system itself. What does matter to the engine characteristics is what's below the throttle body. There is a large plenum with runners from that to the intake ports in the head. It is the length of those that will have an effect, not anything else. Heck, above the throttle body if the filter was mounted on the back bumper and there was no restriction to the flow, it wouldn't make any difference due to length!
Also of concern is the proximity of the MAF sensor to the filter. If it were an oiled element that could contaminate the MAF and create problems. A dry-type filter, such as the AEM would eliminate that potential problem.
All this said, I may still spring for one of these to incorporate into a custom intake just to not have to deal with the MAF mounting! The "ideal" system would be one that looks good and draws cooler, denser air. But that doesn't exist right now.
What would be ideal is something like this inlet that no matter where or what type of filter was used, would look good, sound good and make some HP and get rid of that "lid" that GM likes.
