Nope, anecdotal results such as you report are no proof of anything, and as of yet, I've never seen even a single shred of compelling evidence that shows CAIs do anything of the sort.

Really? Name one.

A couple of points:

• False advertising is not illegal, hence the fact that you have Slick 50 and crap like that on the market.
• I've looked at the published data from a number of CAI makers, and I have yet to see a single one that shows fuel economy increases.
• K&N and AEM are well known makers of induction systems and as of today I was unable to find any mention of fuel economy from any perspective on their web sites. That said, if I recall correctly at least one of them (K&N I think) used to say something like, "Some of our customers even report increases in fuel economy..." That isn't even remotely the same as saying their product will improve fuel economy.

Given that none of the CAI makers I looked at this morning even remotely mention fuel economy, the "theories" are more likely to be urban legend than anything else.

There is no theory about it; it is a scientific fact that a CAI cannot improve fuel economy. Period, full stop, the end.

Nope, you have that completely wrong, all you seem to be doing is repeating the stuff of urban legend that has no basis in fact.

You missed my point entirely. If CAI systems were capable of even a miniscule improvement in fuel economy, every car would come with a CAI system from the factory. Please don't confuse the issues of aftermarket systems (i.e. noise and hydro lock) with why manufacturers don't build them into their cars. If CAIs were effective, manufacturers could easily design around such problems.

1. The rumble being "nice" is subjective and as such, inarguable.
2. Increased Horsepower, that is very debatable and varies by engine and car
3. Increased Torque, also debatable
4. Possible increase in gas mileage, ummm, yeah, "Possible" only because so many folks have repeated this fiction for so long and so often that other folks start believing it.

Too funny, you did nothing of the sort. Funnier still that you referred several times to the data and advertising of the CAI makers; data and advertising that doesn't seem to exist. Said another way, the very absence of such absurd claims in the advertising of the CAI makers should tell you something. If you want even more, I'll dig up some research from publically available sources (my principal source is the SAE archives, and it isn't legal for me to republish the technical documents I have from their archives).

Long story short, I'm afraid you've been duped by folks that "wish" CAIs improved fuel economy. The thing is, wishing it were so, and saying it is so often enough, will not make it so in reality. Relative to your car, my bet is that if you were to put the factory intake back on, it would get as good as or better mileage than you're currently getting. The problem here is that unless you put your car in a dyno for a before and after test, there would be no way for you to prove it either way.

 

Hello..
Welcome to the forum...
________
Land rover 101 forward control history

 

My wife has 2007 Mazda5 with 4 speed auto...which is not great to tell the truth.Fuel mileage is ok.Lotsa power for its size and ok room.We have 3 taller than average kids but they all fit without too much whining!!!!!We use a rooftop carrier on long trips for extra luggage room.
Mike

 

So customers claim that they have increased fuel economy. Why would they claim these things out of no where? I'm sure people have experienced an increase in gas mileage.
Here are the facts. I actually HAVE a cold air intake in my car. I HAVE had an increase in gas mileage. It is something that I HAVE experienced. Why would you try and argue that it is not true that an intake can increase gas mileage? I find it silly that you would even think to argue that. I don't care if you don't believe it, I don't care if you think you know all of this stuff about an cold air intake. I actually HAVE the intake IN my car. So I'd say I have more to say than you?

And now your saying that a horsepower and torque increase is debatable? HAHA thats a joke! Check out any intake site, autopart site, or anywhere that has intakes for sale. They have data and Dynos that show that there is an increase on cars.

And I have tested these components in my car. I didn't dyno my car for gas mileage but driving 3 hour drives before AND after and calculating my gas mileage is very strong, credible data. The mazda 3 gets 30 mpg freeway. Mine got about 30, maybe 28 or 29 depending on my driving, and now I get 34 mpg freeway. Why argue with that?

Everyone knows that the harder you push on your gas, the worse your gas mileage is and the higher the RPM's, the worse your gas mileage is. These are what you call facts. You'd have to be an idiot if you were to call that an urban legend.

CAIs give increased horsepower and torque. They have so many positive impacts for your car, so why don't car producers put them on to increase horsepower and torque? If they did things to change the CAI to make it quiter, you would just end up with the stock intake again. That is why they are designed how they are! There are more reasons why car producers don't have them in every car!

Where is YOUR data and RESEARCH that shows that the CAI doesn't increase fuel economy? Where have you seen that? You are just trying to prove every little detail that I mention is wrong. Do you even have any experience with cars or are you just babbling on and on with stuff you have googled?

 

It's called wishful thinking and unless the increase in gas mileage is validated scientifically, then that's all it is, wishful thinking. There may have been an increase in fuel economy, however, said increase was most likely due to a difference in driving style, a looser/more fully broken in engine (new engines rarely achieve their peak fuel economy numbers for several thousand miles), weather, wind, road surface... You get the idea. Long story short, customer claims are worthless unless they're more than anecdotal.

Come on man, try and understand it, there is not a single thing that a CAI can do that will improve fuel economy, not one. Said another way, if CAIs did increase fuel economy then the makers of these kits would be screaming that from the top of every mountain, and yet not a single one that I've looked at even hints that their kit does anything of the sort (contrary to your bogus claims from your previous post). By the way, I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to a manufacturer that does make this claim.

If you look at my post and actually read it, you'll see that I qualified my statement by saying that any benefit varied by car and engine combo. Even still, gains are extremely marginal in the best of cases.

Ahhh, now we get to one of your core issues, apparently you don't understand the meaning of testing. Testing is where you "test" in a controlled environment, and in the case of your car, that would mean on a dyno and not on the roads where traffic, geography, weather and your right foot are all huge variables, none of which are controllable. FWIW, my Mazda3, with the factory intake no less, gets nearly 40 mpg on the highway, sure glad I didn't ruin my fuel economy by putting a CAI on it.

A few points:

• Everyone? Sorry, that's a rediculous statement from several perspectives. First, not everyone knows that (I surely don't), I mean, think about it this way, unless you push on the throttle pedal hard enough to get the car up to at least 40 mph in top gear, your car will not be moving fast enough to get peak economy. Second, when you push on the throttle pedal you aren't "pushing on the gas", the throttle pedal has absolutely no connection between your foot and how much gas is being injected into the engine. What the throttle pedal does is open the butterfly valve in the throttle body so that more air can enter the intake plenum. Once the air is down stream of the throttle body, then (and only then) does the engine management system weight the intake charge and meter out the precise amount of fuel necessary for that air. This appears to be the key point you are failing to understand; it makes zero difference whether that air came through the factory intake, a CAI, or no intake at all, the amount of fuel per pound of air entering your engine will be the same regardless.
• The higher the RPMs? Please tell me that you do understand that at any given speed, RPMs have nothing to do with fuel economy. Why? Because at any given steady speed and in any given gear (assuming torque converter lockup for automatic transmission equipped cars), your RPMS will not vary at all. Period, full stop, the end.
• As for being an idiot, well, I’m not going to resort to name calling. Long story short, the only write-ups that suggest that CAIs can improve fuel economy are the stuff of urban legend.

Do you really have that little faith in the folks that design our cars? Come on dude, like it or not, believe it or not, the combustion process is very well understood by the car companies, the very companies that examined CAI technology and discarded it in favor of other methods of improving fuel economy. Think about it this way, if CAIs were so good for fuel economy, why have both Toyota and Honda (to name just two) added plumbing to bring hot coolant to their throttle bodies to heat the intake chanrge as a means of improving improve fuel economy?

Last thing first, not only have I worked for two major auto manufacturers, I've also been building engines as a hobby for several decades now. Based upon my engineering background, my experience with cars (both professionally and personally), and simply logic, yes, you are correct in that I have tried to show you that your understanding of how intake systems work is completely wrong. You can either learn from what I have written, or you can continue to criticize it and call me an idiot, it doesn't really matter all that much.

As for providing you with research, it's hard (but not impossible) to come up with research in an area where the engineers know full well there is no benefit to doing said research. If you check around you will be hard pressed to find much publically available research on the fuel economy benefits of CAI systems, and that lack of research is simply because no engineer worth his or her salt is going to spend resources doing something they already know won't yield any beneficial results.

As promised, I did dig around for any publically available research regarding fuel economy and CAIs, and so far I've come up with nothing, and by nothing I mean nothing from either perspective. I then went to the SAE web site (www.sae.org) and searched their archives. My initial search was "CAI fuel economy", and wouldn't you know it, I came up with LOTS of hits. To say that I was surprised is a gross understatement. I then remembered that "CAI" in automotive engineering terms actually means "Controlled Auto Ignition" (a technique used to more evenly control the combustion process under light throttle). I then altered my query to "cold air intake fuel economy" and didn't get even a single relevant hit. Not too surprising. Why? Because any research that shows a Cold Air Intake application as being able to improve fuel economy is most likely junk science and wouldn’t be accepted by such an august organization as the SAE.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for a link to even a single CAI maker that makes fuel economy claims.

 

My mazda got 30 mpg. Then I got 34 mpg after my intake install. And I have continued to get that afterwards. I had 26000 miles on my car when I installed the intake so it was well worn in. I have driven it many times on my commute to the same place. It is a 3 hour drive. I don't change the way I drive. I have driven the same since I have started driving. So explain that?

Didn't you say that you have seen a K&N post that said that customers have claimed that there was an increase in gas mileage? I believe that I have been claiming that CAI's CAN improve fuel economy not that they will for every vehicle.

As I have stated before, I have run the test and the same drive over and over again. Several times. Keeping track of my gas mileage. The fuel economy of my car was increased everytime. I have driven with traffic, and all year around. If you average that all out, there is still an increase in the Fuel Economy. GO FIGURE! You don't have to tell me how to run a test. I work with statistics in my job. And this test that I have produced, is a good set of data. Thank you very much.

Now that is a joke. If you got 40 mpg on your highway, people would be jumping up and down for a mazda over a honda civic anyday! But mazda isn't know for getting that well of fuel economy. Read any review. Even if you have the 2.0 liter engine (Which I wouldn't doubt someone like you would have) You wouldn't measure up to getting 40 mpg. It is unheard of.

Ever heard of different ideas? Car companies always try out different ideas taht they think can help their cars in different ways. Thus the different engine styles, transmissions, suspension, and other technology.

FALSE. When you press on the throttle pedal more, as you said, the computer decides how much fuel to put into the engine. Thus when you push down on the throttle pedal MORE, then the MORE gas that goes into your engine correct? Soo then you are using more gas. Giving you worse fuel economy? You said so yourself. When your going stop at a faster speed then you just wasted all that gas that you used to get to that speed. Correct? So the truth is that you do waste gas the more you press on your throttle pedal. Explaining the term "Mobbing on Gas" which is when you go to high rpms before shifting gears.

Hmm is that so? So where are you getting your bogus research then? And where have you come up with the ideas that they don't improve fuel economy? You keep mentioning that scientists and car manufactures and yada yada yada, but you haven't actually named any people that have studied this? Where as I HAVE conducted an experiment to prove that they do? Sounds like your lacking evidence.

 

Here's the thing. I have tried understanding what you have written and your perspectives on things, but it doesn't seem like you have much research or evidence to back it up. To me it seems like we have different opinions on what the cold air does for the car, and how it affects the car.
As far as you saying that I am criticizing you, your the one who is pulling out every single thing that I say and stating that I am wrong. Who are you to say that I am wrong? I have my evidence. I have my research. And I have my beliefs. You have yours. So be it. I haven't seen any of your evidence, any of your research, so tell me why I should drop what I have learned, experienced and researched for what some guy says on a mazdaforum? I also have many years of experience of working on cars. I have worked in autoshops, dealerships, and etc. I have worked on cars for many years. And I do understand how cars and intakes work.
Calling my statements "bogus" "ridiculous" "hopes of people" and straight up "wrong" won't make me think that you have more knowledge. I have not seen 1 thing of evidence or proof like I have provided for you. All I have seen in your posts is you rambling about what you believe and what you think.

 

Explain that? I explained it several ways in my last post. Most likely you've been driving more conservatively, that said, my last car didn't return it's best mileage until it had over 145,000 miles on the clock, so your engine could still be in break-in mode.

I believe what I said something like, "I think I remember seeing a customer testimonial regarding the fuel economy." Given that it is no longer on their web site, it has either been retracted because it's impossible, or it was never there in the first place and I remember a similar quote from a different manufacturer/product.

If you work with statistics then you ought to know better. The truth is that NOTHING that you've done is even remotely scientific and as such, not compelling evidence of any kind.

Unheard of? Please check the various fuel economy posts around this very forum, there are a number of folks that have reported 40 (or very nearly so) for both the 2.0 and 2.3 engine. My most recent trip between southern New Hampshire and New York City netted just over 37 mpg, and that was with nearly a quarter of the trip driven in stop-and-go traffic. I've only had two other road trips in my Mazda3 and both of them were in the high 39 mpg range.

As for your crack about engine size (or are you referring to some other size?), I’ll warn you this last time, knock off the personal shots.

I simply named two makers that used heat to aid fuel atomization, there are more. Why is this relevant? Because heat greatly enhances the fuel atomization process, and the better the fuel is atomized, the more homogenous the mixture is which in turn means the better the fuel economy is. Said another way, cold air is the enemy of fuel economy.

I need to split this one up a bit...
No, that's not what I said, so let's try it again. When you press on the throttle pedal the ONLY thing you do is let more air into the engine. From there the computer weighs the air passing through the intake plenum and meters out exactly the correct amount of fuel for said air. If your CAI passes more air into the plenum at any given throttle setting (something that is very unlikely at anything below wide-open-throttle), then the computer simply adds more fuel to keep the air-to-fuel ratio in balance. Said another way, the same amount of air and the same amount of fuel equates to the same amount of power and the same fuel economy for any given driving dynamic.

As I wrote above, only in relation to the weight of the air passing through the plenum.

Yes, and developing more power too, and that means that you’re going faster.

As I wrote yesterday, that depends. If you're talking about increasing your speed from say 65 mph to 80 mph, then yes, that will equate to worse fuel economy, however, if you're talking about increasing your speed from say 30 to 50, then you fuel economy will improve. The thing is, the above holds true regardless of whether you have a CAI installed or not.

Sorry, I have no clue what you're saying or asking here; please rephrase the above.

Bogus research, ummm, yeah...
https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/1999-01-0793
https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-2516
https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/1999-01-0792
https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/2002-01-2807

As for your "research"; it is anecdotal, it is not scientific, it is unsupported from a scientific perspective, and not even the manufacturers of these devices make your claims (contrary to what you've said).

 

Let's try it this way...

• Do you acknowledge that the "gas pedal" only affects the butterfly valve in the throttle body and has no direct effect on the amount of fuel supplied to the engine?

• Do you acknowledge that the warmer the intake charge is, the better the fuel atomization is?

• Do you acknowledge that the better the fuel is atomized, the better the fuel economy?

I have other questions to pose that depend upon how you answer the above three.

 

wow you 2 guys have totally hijacked this thread!!!!All the guy wants to know is 5 vs 3 im sure he doesnt care about CAI and there effects real or percieved!!!!!
Mike