Factory Air Intake Modifications

HICal · May 28, 2007

This modification adds more airflow and is worth a try. I already had my intake tube, airbox and fuel lines/rail covered in cool tape with addition of the mopar drop in air filter. I've noticed that after I cut this hole the car seemed more responsive and torque is more noticable (even off the line). Since this mod cost nothing I think it's worth a try. I used a band saw and cut it so if needed I could reattach the cutoff piece. As of yet I did not get the TSB concerning the launch enhancement but even if anyone has got it could try this out just for kicks. I've cut this location because it is away from the engine side and has a nice flow being that it sort of acts like a ram intake being air pressure is greater at that spot.
Another addition I did was to the grille. I opened up the 2 slots at the center directly foward of the hood latch. If you notice that the air to the airbox goes in through this opening diverted by the 2 gasket/seals, 1 on the hood and the other in front of the airbox opening. With the hood opened look at the grille through the latch opening and you can see that. I also driven in rainstorms and water is not a problem. If anything this could get more and hopefully a little cooler air, I did a test with a leaf blower just to see the air flow through the grille with the slots opened or blocked and it did have a difference as far as better air direction.

Silver SXT Sport, 2.0 CVT, Intake & Exhaust Mods, Rear Spoiler, Tints, Short Antenna, tweeters add on, Blacked Out Treatments, MOPAR logos

Prop1 · May 28, 2007

First of all, until you've had a Dyno test, I doubt this so called "way more responsive and torque is much more noticable" seat-of-the-pants observation. Second, everyone that messed with their airbox found out that the engineers actually knew what they were doing when they designed it. Removing, or modifying it in every case has resulted in the fuel economy going to hell.

So in my opinion, I wouldn't recommend anyone doing this.

IBUILDCALIBERSUAW1268 · May 28, 2007

Prop1 - Is there some background (mods) of yours I might have missed or are you just going by what you have read?

I'm all about making things better and although they might have been done best the 1st time around, that might not always be the case and I'm open to other ideas.

Just asking for some backing, which I understand you are too asking for some Dyno testing results!

Prop1 · May 28, 2007

IBUILDCALIBERSUAW1268 said:
Prop1 - Is there some background (mods) of yours I might have missed or are you just going by what you have read?

I'm all about making things better and although they might have been done best the 1st time around, that might not always be the case and I'm open to other ideas.

Just asking for backing which I understand you are too, asking for some Dyno testing!

I've read on multiple sites, both about the Caliber's intake and other car's intakes. I also thought many years ago that I could improve the intake on my Dodge Ram by cutting a hole in the airbox. End result was no real improvement, and fuel economy dropped by almost 2 mpg. If you really want hp, torque, and fuel economy; modifying the factory intake may give improvements in one area, but it's at a sacrifice in another area. It's always best to replace it with an engineered replacement intake. Thinking you know better than the engineers that designed the one on your car, and cuting, removing, or doing some other modification to the existing intake will only prove one thing. The engineers designed it to give you the best balance of hp, torque, and fuel economy, and all you're doing is tipping the balance.

HICal · May 28, 2007

Before this mod I was getting anywhere between 24 to 30 mpg. I did this mod recently and with the last 3 fill ups I've got 29/30 mpg. The car has a slighly more throaty sound so I know that more air is getting in. I also use and swear by Shell 87. Here in Hawaii our travels are mostly city based driving with not much highway stretches.
I would only advise this cut if you make it kind of similar to how I did it so it can be reattached. I made it all in one cut so everythings intact and can be either glued or taped back. Plus I was looking at the K&N system so I thought there's no loss. My opinion is I like it and if you feel like you crazy enough like me try it. I don't have any performance numbers but I know it's there.

HSKR · May 28, 2007

Prop1 said:
The engineers designed it to give you the best balance of hp, torque, and fuel economy, and all you're doing is tipping the balance.

Actually, the engineers probably designed it to meet the factory fuel economy ratings, and for noise reduction. I'm sure horsepower and torque was not at the top of the list in thier designs. If all they cared about was horsepower, torque, and fuel economy, then the factory intakes would look more like the "engineered replacement intake" you talk about. And there would be no point in buying the aftermarket intakes.

Prop1 · May 28, 2007

HSKR said:
Actually, the engineers probably designed it to meet the factory fuel economy ratings, and for noise reduction. I'm sure horsepower and torque was not at the top of the list in thier designs. If all they cared about was horsepower, torque, and fuel economy, then the factory intakes would look more like the "engineered replacement intake" you talk about. And there would be no point in buying the aftermarket intakes.

Sorry, I got caught up in the post and left the qualfying part out. It should have read this way:

The engineers designed it to give you the best balance of hp, torque, and fuel economy based on what they had to work with, and all you're doing is tipping the balance.

I'm sure the intake engineers are the last guys to get to do their engineering under the hood. It's almost an after thought.

HSKR · May 28, 2007

Still, the aftermarket intakes don't require any type of modification other than removing the stock set up and installing the new one. The factory engineers are more concerned with sound than performance. Most people woudl be turned off on buying a new car if it made a lot of noise because of the intake design. That's why there are baffles and otherwise useless chambers on the intake. They help reduce the engine noise.

Prop1 · May 28, 2007

HICal said:
Before this mod I was getting anywhere between 24 to 30 mpg. I did this mod recently and with the last 3 fill ups I've got 29/30 mpg. The car has a slighly more throaty sound so I know that more air is getting in. I also use and swear by Shell 87. Here in Hawaii our travels are mostly city based driving with not much highway stretches.
I would only advise this cut if you make it kind of similar to how I did it so it can be reattached. I made it all in one cut so everythings intact and can be either glued or taped back. Plus I was looking at the K&N system so I thought there's no loss. My opinion is I like it and if you feel like you crazy enough like me try it. I don't have any performance numbers but I know it's there.

I'd like to see what happens to fuel economy if you put the piece back in.

Prop1 · May 28, 2007

HSKR said:
Still, the aftermarket intakes don't require any type of modification other than removing the stock set up and installing the new one. The factory engineers are more concerned with sound than performance. Most people woudl be turned off on buying a new car if it made a lot of noise because of the intake design. That's why there are baffles and otherwise useless chambers on the intake. They help reduce the engine noise.

Very true, but I always get the feeling when I look under any hood, like some engineer stood in front of the car scratching his head for hours, saying "Where hell am I going to fit a air intake in all this mess?"

HICal · May 28, 2007

I am still in the experimentation stage so it'll be in a week or so that I will try to reattach the cutout piece but like I mentioned that for the last 3 fill ups with the mod the gas mileage has been more consistent. By looking at the part I cut out you can see why I decided to cut at this point. It is located near the computer at a well vented area and the angle cut was made for the reason that this part has a slight overhang and water would have a very hard time getting inside. Also with any Fuel Injection car you want the air intake to be long for velocity reasons. I tried driving it with that part just removed altogether and it wasn't the same. Had more noise but acceleration was the same. Only with the cut I've noticed the difference, but with electronics and differences with every car it could only work for my car. Just thought someone would like to try this as well and let me know what it did for them.

HSKR · May 28, 2007

"Also with any Fuel Injection car you want the air intake to be long for velocity reasons"

That is what the design of the throttle body and intake manifold is for. The factory air intake is design for noise reduction more than anything else.

CoolCallie · May 29, 2007

Prop1 said:
I've read on multiple sites, both about the Caliber's intake and other car's intakes. I also thought many years ago that I could improve the intake on my Dodge Ram by cutting a hole in the airbox. End result was no real improvement, and fuel economy dropped by almost 2 mpg. If you really want hp, torque, and fuel economy; modifying the factory intake may give improvements in one area, but it's at a sacrifice in another area. It's always best to replace it with an engineered replacement intake. Thinking you know better than the engineers that designed the one on your car, and cuting, removing, or doing some other modification to the existing intake will only prove one thing. The engineers designed it to give you the best balance of hp, torque, and fuel economy, and all you're doing is tipping the balance.

I highly disagree with this assesment, when people get stuck in one train of thought, they tend to engineer themselves into a corner and then "perfect" this corner, thinking they are making it better. Ford thought it had performance well covered with their VTCS system (tumble vanes in the intake manifold, our engine has them as well). They put it in the 2.3L Duratec 4-cylinder, because they THOUGHT the 2.3 needed help in the low-end, so the butterflies were put in. Just like they did with the 2.5L Duratec V6, and time has passed and shown us that all they did was restrict power and kill powerbands, not help them.

Several 2.3 Duratec owners have removed the VTCS system from their intake manifolds and not only seen a vast improvement in power, but ALSO in GAS MILEAGE!

If you think Mopar designed it right or perfect from the factory and view it as a teeter totter, then you will forever be stuck with a problem that you don't know you have.

http://forum.mazda6tech.com/about2409-0-asc-0.html

Prop1 · May 29, 2007

CoolCallie said:
I highly disagree with this assesment, when people get stuck in one train of thought, they tend to engineer themselves into a corner and then "perfect" this corner, thinking they are making it better. Ford thought it had performance well covered with their VTCS system (tumble vanes in the intake manifold, our engine has them as well). They put it in the 2.3L Duratec 4-cylinder, because they THOUGHT the 2.3 needed help in the low-end, so the butterflies were put in. Just like they did with the 2.5L Duratec V6, and time has passed and shown us that all they did was restrict power and kill powerbands, not help them.

Several 2.3 Duratec owners have removed the VTCS system from their intake manifolds and not only seen a vast improvement in power, but ALSO in GAS MILEAGE!

If you think Mopar designed it right or perfect from the factory and view it as a teeter totter, then you will forever be stuck with a problem that you don't know you have.

http://forum.mazda6tech.com/about2409-0-asc-0.html

And you missed my point completely. In simple terms. To make modifications without having any idea what affect it will have is not what I call rational. Modifications should be done with engineered components, not "Oh, I'll just make a cut here...oh, that looks big enough." Engineering isn't always perfect, as you point out, but at least it can be repeated with simular results. With no accurate measurements, and no hard data, this is not a modification I would do on a car under warranty.

CoolCallie · May 29, 2007

Prop1 said:
And you missed my point completely. In simple terms. To make modifications without having any idea what affect it will have is not what I call rational. Modifications should be done with engineered components, not "Oh, I'll just make a cut here...oh, that looks big enough." Engineering isn't always perfect, as you point out, but at least it can be repeated with simular results. With no accurate measurements, and no hard data, this is not a modification I would do on a car under warranty.

Some of our greatest engineering marvels were done without hard data, without measurements and in some cases, by mistake. The VTCS modification listed in that link was done without engineered components, well, I take that back, it was done by removing engineered components and "making a cut here and oh that looks big enough now".

When it was discovered that the lean condition on bank 2 in my last car COULD be related to the EGR tube protruding into the intake manifold and blocking off the rear bank in the intake. We didn't sit around and wait for Ford/Mazda or CPE or Wagner to develop a replacement EGR tube, I took the tube out, grabbed the Dremel and a diamond cutting disc and started making cuts. No measurements, just cutting and re-fitting it back into the intake. Let's face it, you had to play it by eye when you have to peer through the throat of the intake and it's 4" back into the intake, to see if it is flush or at least not blocking bank 2 anymore.

Then used the Snap-On MT2500 scan tool to check the long term and short term fuel trims and found that bank 2 now had variance to factory spec. We ended up diagnosing it as poor intake design overall. Venom further backed us on that assesment when they tested their dry shot system they had in R&D on a loaner car and watched as more nitrous loaded up on one bank than the other and blew out the bottom end.

"With no accurate measurements, and no hard data, this is not a modification I would do on a car under warranty."

This makes me chuckle. People who randomly remove engineered components from their vehicle, take rotary tools and cutoff wheels to their engine bay, this thought is nowhere in existence, "I wonder if I screw up, will Dodge pay for it for me?"

I leave you with this parting thought, it was the lack of measurements, lack of hard data, lack of pre-engineered modifications that drove the community surrounding my last vehicle to CREATE an aftermarket. Small performance start-ups saw this (Custom Performance Engineering, Wagner Motorsports, etc) and took to us and offered us product that no big name (K&N, AEM, HKS, etc) company even thought of offering us and well exceeded performance gains of product the big names did provide us. So you can sit there, maybe fire off some emails or phone calls to these big name companies and be some of the lone voices begging for product or you can break out of the box and show everybody how badly you want more performance out of these engines. I speak this from a marketing perspective, no one is going to really spend any R&D dollars if they see a community who is not that into performance. They won't have head and cam packages if we just sit here and TALK about cold air intakes and cat-back exhaust systems.

Prop1 · May 29, 2007

Blah, blah, blah. I spent many years in R&D. What sometimes seems like a non-engineered move by an engineer, is an experienced educated action. In other words, seen that, been there, done that, so it should work in this case as well.

I don't see that in this case. Anybody that would make this mod to their intake should keep in mind: You don't know this person, you can't verify the claims, and there's no way to accurately duplicate what he did.

Since you think there is nothing wrong with this mod, why don't you perform it so it can be validated, CoolCallie.

HSKR · May 30, 2007

Well, based on what he posted, it seemed like he put some thought into where/how he was going to make his cut. Anytime you can increase the opening that air can get into the motor, you are going to increase airflow and possibly performance. Basically all he did was make another hole for air to be sucked in instead of just relying on the small rectuangular opening the factory engineers decided was big enough based on the area they had to place it.Plus he cut it in a part than can easily be replaced if it didn't offer any benifits. As for his claims, they are no different than any claims made by any aftermarket company with mods for the 2.0L/CVT combo at this time since nobody has figured out a way to dyno the non-autostick CVT.

CoolCallie · May 30, 2007

Prop1 said:
Blah, blah, blah. I spent many years in R&D. What sometimes seems like a non-engineered move by an engineer, is an experienced educated action. In other words, seen that, been there, done that, so it should work in this case as well.

I don't see that in this case. Anybody that would make this mod to their intake should keep in mind: You don't know this person, you can't verify the claims, and there's no way to accurately duplicate what he did.

Since you think there is nothing wrong with this mod, why don't you perform it so it can be validated, CoolCallie.

Placing a relay on a valve cover, to which relays stop working when they overheat, was the action of an experienced, educated engineer. There are very few manufacturer engineers I respect and those that I do, no longer work for car manufacturers.

I never stated anything about this modification, I just don't like people who automatically down somebody because they deflowered the perfectly engineered car with a guess and attempt. My battery cover has been off since day 2 of ownership, it sits in the shed gathering dust and spiderwebs.

When a thesis is presented, two parties usually come about, protagonist and antagonist. He has presented his side by doing it, why don't you present your side with your HARD DATA and dyno sheets to officially put this modification to rest?

We proved on my last vehicle that air box mods provided more power, it also happened to be due to the fact that FoMoCo designed the air box with only one inlet, a 1"x3" vacuum controlled air duct. There was a tray on the bottom of the air box reducing it's volume and then a resonance box beneath the air box. There was also a tuba-shaped horn which was half blocked by the tray in the air box and then at the exit of the horn was the overlap of the air box lid. All of this was NVH, removed it, the noise part of NVH was brought into play and more power was found, and no butt-dyno there, actual DynoJet.

Prop1 · May 30, 2007

CoolCallie, give it a rest.

HSKR · May 30, 2007

Yeah coolcallie, give it a rest. We're not going to change Prop1's mind on this.

Factory Air Intake Modifications

HICal

Attachments

Prop1

IBUILDCALIBERSUAW1268

Prop1

HICal

HSKR

Prop1

HSKR

Prop1

Prop1

HICal

HSKR

CoolCallie

Prop1

CoolCallie

Prop1

HSKR

CoolCallie

Prop1

HSKR

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities