ok, we've all spent time and keystrokes debating "what's better" in terms of parts. i can understand the loyalty and whatever it is that makes you prefer a certain brand or mod over another, but here's a question i've always asked myself but don't have an answer for:

if AEM/Injen style intake is the way to go in terms of CAI (or so it seems on dynos), why didn't Mugen, Spoon, or a whole host of other tuners do it in the first place? what could possibly be the reason mugen went with their design and spoon had:



and greg, i don't see a Mugen intake on the Spoon S2000, what Spoon S2000 were you referring to?

 

Talk about R&D ... I believe Mugen did wind tunnel testing. Whatever the choice may seem clear, but I think Japanese develop things where it's feasible and have improvements but not to an extend where it requires upmost maintenance because at the end of the day, we aren't driving race-spec prepared cars. Why I choose Spoon? Because I've been with Mugen too long and it's more of a personal perference change over the 2. Let's hear more opinions accordingly ...

 

I haven't seen an Injen but I have seen the AEM...

The AEM and "traditional" cold-air style that puts the filter in the bumper, or behind some other "fascia," would strike me as being better for the street or the strip, in 1/4 mile or street racing. Putting the filter where they do is great for pulling in cooler air into the engine, and lengthens the intake pipe a great deal at a fixed diameter, resulting (if I remember right) in improved top end power (air velocity?).

The Mugen and Spoon style intakes put the opening of the intake in a high-pressure area. They still draw in cold air but draw in cold *pressurized* air at speed. In my mind, this is what Spoon/Mugen wants, cars that peform at speed, in a track/road-racing environment. You don't get the long intake tube, which would affect top end power, but retaining the factory intake box produces a "well" of air that aids in torque and transients during shifts. I think that at high speeds the AEM style might actually hurt performance as the filter is in what might be a low-pressure area at certain speeds.

I think it's just the environment the product is intended for- different styles give power in different places.

 

very well said! makes total sense.

thanks!

 

Sure... of course, if anyone has any other comments, please feel free- this is just what I'm conjecturing, at this point. I haven't heard otherwise.

I know from experience with my Prelude that a "chamber" in the intake tract did a lot of good in improving low-end torque and transients when shifting. It felt like the difference between lifting off the throttle between shifts and holding it near wide-open. It was a big enough difference to make the car feel a LOT peppier under VTEC.

Can anyone with an AEM or similar long-pipe "in the bumper" setup sans airbox comment on low-end torque/power loss? Is there a tradeoff?

 

Great post there, I agree very much as well. Anyone else with CAI thoughts to share?

 

Given the pictures I have seen of the Mugen intake installed, why would you consider that a high pressure area? If you have measurements that show this, I would be interested in seeing them. I would also be interested in knowing why the AEM is thought to be located in a low-pressure area.

My opinion was that Mugen used the style that they did because it maintained the Honda intake system, which was likely designed to meet ULEV requirements. It would be difficult to convince me that the BEST solution is to simply add a snorkle to existing system. I mean, the length of the snorkle seems to be dictated solely by the length needed to get from the airbox to the cool air under the car. The interior cross-section seems dictated by whether it can fit in front of the radiator air dam.

I'm not saying that the Mugen is ineffective (or even less effective), but I am not ready to assume that it is a perfect high-speed driving CAI just because it is made by Mugen and costs $1500.

 

I think the Mugen and Spoon uses forced/Ram air, and the other CAI just suck up whatevers on the bottom of the car.

 

Umm Marccuci I think you have it the wrong way around.

A longer intake tract will actually result in a low/mid range resonance, whereas a shorter tract will result in a high rpm resoneance.

Sans the aem dyno graphs that are floating around.

I wish someone could tell me if mugen did ever to any intake length tract tuning at all.

 

Thanks for the correction- you're right.

As for the Mugen, I haven't seen it in action, but from the pics I've seen it looks to have a "snorkel" like the Spoon extension.

The stock intake setup is designed to take air from the high-pressure area in front of the radiator. How do we know this is high pressure? I haven't measure it, but inevitably it is. As soon as you start moving, the frontmost part of the car sees the highest pressure. The stock intake is designed to be in this path. The Spoon piece (and the Mugen, from the looks of it) are designed to enhance this. The AEM goes down in the bumper out of the direct airflow, off to the side. I don't know for a fact that it's a low pressure area, but almost inevitably is. Open up the faux brake vent and it might not be, but I would still be suspicous. That section of the bumper is not flat, you may have a speed (hence pressure) differential across it creating a vacuum.