12-14-2012, 03:26 PM | #1 |
Injen CAI ?
What are the differences between these two, if any? Pros/Cons?
Injen PF7012 cold air intake vs Injen Short Ram Intake System http://www.injenairintakes.com/ Thanks! Last edited by b1gr3dmachin3; 12-14-2012 at 03:36 PM. |
|
12-14-2012, 10:10 PM | #2 |
Drives: Too many to list Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: East Coast Runner
Posts: 878
|
True long CAI vs. Short Ram CAI
Personally, I have the long CAI. I love it. A lot of other people have the CAI Inc. Intake and they like it. It's a matter of preference. |
12-14-2012, 11:22 PM | #3 |
Thanks, are there any significant differences between the two?
|
|
12-15-2012, 07:14 PM | #4 |
Drives: Too many to list Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: East Coast Runner
Posts: 878
|
Injen long CAI is very good and even better with a proper tune. There is no use in getting the Injen short ram. If you would prefer the short ram style, I would go with the CAI Inc. Intake, they not only look better than the Injen short ram but they provide performance increase where the Injen short ram does not.
|
12-16-2012, 03:57 AM | #5 |
That's the answer I was looking for, thank you very much
|
|
12-16-2012, 01:54 PM | #6 |
Guest
Drives: bbbbbb Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: bfe
Posts: 713
|
I have the Injen short ram polished CAI. The picture you are looking doesn't do the Injen intake justice. It looks a lot better when the top plate is on. In my book I just looked at the photo for the CAI Inc one and I would say if you are going for looks the Injen looks better, I myself don't like to look at the filter. Bad thing is I didn't get the washer bottle relocation kit and you have to pull 4 bolts and take the cover off to fill it. But not a problem for me since I have only had to top it off once in the 7 months I have owned it and it didn't need filling low wsher fluid never came on. As far as performance I never really noticed any increase. There is a noticeable difference in MPG though since it breathes better. Considering the LFX is supposedly pushing 323HP (sales hype, guessing off the rear of the engine and not the standard rear axle HP that is used these days) the increase I never noticed. Just my $.02.
Dean. |
12-16-2012, 02:09 PM | #7 | |
Drives: 2012 LS M6, Black Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,045
|
Quote:
John B.
__________________
12 LS M6, IPF S/C, ASA GT-5 wheels, VMax PTB
1995 Mitsubishi Montero SR 1987 Dodge Raider Turbo Project 1986 Mitsubishi Montero 2.4l FI Transplant |
|
12-16-2012, 02:23 PM | #8 |
Guest
Drives: bbbbbb Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: bfe
Posts: 713
|
Thank you for clarifying. This I may be wrong on but I thought the standard was switched in the 70's and the manufacturers went to using RWHP. Has it changed again? 323HP sure sounds appealing when buying I guess is why it was done. As much as I wanted the HP of the SS I just could not justify another $10K so I stuck with the V6. Even looking at the dyno sheets I have seen at 250-280HP is still quite impressive for a V6. I know I am more than satisfied with mine. Dean. |
12-16-2012, 03:39 PM | #9 | |
KaBoom1701
Drives: 13' ZL1 Red M6 Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: I.E. SoCal (Yucaipa)
Posts: 8,630
|
Quote:
With your mods I think your pushing 300+ HP right? |
|
12-16-2012, 08:36 PM | #10 |
Guest
Drives: bbbbbb Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: bfe
Posts: 713
|
Not sure exactly what it has now. I am upgrading to the machine throttle body and next spring I just may take it in and have it run on a dyno. There is a local one doing it here fairly cheap and just may have to have it checked out. Only have the CAI so far and with the TB being added soon I would guess it would make it about a total of 20HP. I have only seen a couple dyno sheets on other 2012's and they topped out just shy of 280 with the CAI. Dean. |
12-16-2012, 10:53 PM | #11 | |
Drives: 2012 LS M6, Black Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,045
|
Quote:
John B. |
|
12-17-2012, 05:55 PM | #12 | |
Guest
Drives: bbbbbb Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: bfe
Posts: 713
|
Quote:
Now you just confused the hell out of me. If you are saying it is rated at the flywheel it has changed since the 70's in the recent years. I thought I read somewhere on a car website that prior to 1971 or 72 (somewhere in there) it was checked at flywheel no accessories and then to accessories attached and off the rear wheel. Am I or did I miss something? Please clarify. Thanks, Dean. |
|
12-18-2012, 02:50 PM | #13 |
Stovebolt BluFlame 6
Drives: '12 2LT/RS, IBM; '20 Traverse Prem Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Wherever!
Posts: 893
|
JohnnyB is correct. Manufacturer's Published HP has never been at the wheel; always been at the crank.
|
|
|
|
|