Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Vararam
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V6 LFX Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-14-2012, 03:26 PM   #1
b1gr3dmachin3
 
b1gr3dmachin3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro IOM LFX
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 272
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.
b1gr3dmachin3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 10:10 PM   #2
ecko04

 
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.
ecko04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 11:22 PM   #3
b1gr3dmachin3
 
b1gr3dmachin3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro IOM LFX
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 272
Thanks, are there any significant differences between the two?
b1gr3dmachin3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 07:14 PM   #4
ecko04

 
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.
ecko04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 03:57 AM   #5
b1gr3dmachin3
 
b1gr3dmachin3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro IOM LFX
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 272
That's the answer I was looking for, thank you very much
b1gr3dmachin3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 01:54 PM   #6
skibik
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.
skibik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 02:09 PM   #7
JohnnyBfromPeoria

 
JohnnyBfromPeoria's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 LS M6, Black
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by skibik View Post
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)
All new vehicles are rated at the flywheel.

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
JohnnyBfromPeoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 02:23 PM   #8
skibik
Guest
 
Drives: bbbbbb
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: bfe
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBfromPeoria View Post
All new vehicles are rated at the flywheel.

John B.

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.
skibik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 03:39 PM   #9
KaBoom1701
KaBoom1701
 
KaBoom1701's Avatar
 
Drives: 13' ZL1 Red M6
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: I.E. SoCal (Yucaipa)
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by skibik View Post
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.
Dean,

With your mods I think your pushing 300+ HP right?
KaBoom1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 08:36 PM   #10
skibik
Guest
 
Drives: bbbbbb
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: bfe
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaBoom1701 View Post
Dean,

With your mods I think your pushing 300+ HP right?

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.
skibik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 10:53 PM   #11
JohnnyBfromPeoria

 
JohnnyBfromPeoria's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 LS M6, Black
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by skibik View Post
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?
It changed in the early 70's, correct. It went from a "gross" HP measurement to a "net" measurement, which is better for comparables, because the standard includes having the accessories mounted on the front of the engine, etc. It hasn't changed since.

John B.
JohnnyBfromPeoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 05:55 PM   #12
skibik
Guest
 
Drives: bbbbbb
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: bfe
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBfromPeoria View Post
All new vehicles are rated at the flywheel.

John B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBfromPeoria View Post
It changed in the early 70's, correct. It went from a "gross" HP measurement to a "net" measurement, which is better for comparables, because the standard includes having the accessories mounted on the front of the engine, etc. It hasn't changed since.

John B.

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.
skibik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 02:50 PM   #13
RJT Impala
Stovebolt BluFlame 6
 
RJT Impala's Avatar
 
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.
RJT Impala is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.