doesnt the aem v2 give you like 20whp? i think the reg one only gives 15, so id go with the v2.
WHAT??? The only possible way I could see a 20 hp gain would be on a highly modified motor and that gain being at the crank and not the wheels. From what I've always understood there's pro's and cons of both, the CAI version doesnt suck hot air from the engine bay however the V2 has an advantage in its design.
I'd love to see a dyno done on both but my gut feeling is the differences between the two are minimal.
I dyno'ed my track engine with both intakes, back to back, 5 minutes between runs after the NepTune ECU tuning was done. I made more power, almost everywhere with the CAI and a AEM filter (5 years old, but just cleaned). The V2 was brand new. The engine was tuned with the CAI, and I wanted to see if the V2 would make the same or more power, if it did, I was going to stick with it and have the tuner retune for the V2. The difference was quite amazing, somewhere around 5 HP at peak difference, but peak HP was only different by 2 HP or so.
__________________
Billy - 98 Prelude
#27 H2 NASA TX HondaChallenge
#27 PTB NASA TX Performance Touring Racing makes heroin addiction seem like a vague wish for something salty. -- Peter Egan
So what you're saying Billy is I actually have that right and the advantage looks like it goes to a CAI? Woot, now whenever I go to have some dyno pulls done I might bring a Type S with K&N drop in to compare against my Iceman with K&N cone filter.
Once again I think the gains and differences will be minimal but it will be intresting for me to see.
2 peak HP, probably not, but the larger area under the curve, you might feel.
Also, keep in mind the main benefits of a CAI really can't be exploited on a dyno.
That being said, I agree it would be difficult to notice the difference between the two, but if you had a consistent driver, you would probably see a consistent difference in lap times.
Keep in mind my car is a track car that made 204 WHP on a very basic engine with this intake so the differences might have been larger on my car than a typical Prelude
__________________
Billy - 98 Prelude
#27 H2 NASA TX HondaChallenge
#27 PTB NASA TX Performance Touring Racing makes heroin addiction seem like a vague wish for something salty. -- Peter Egan
Wow... somewhere I have flow bench data comparing the Iceman short ram and the Focuz (loooks VERY much like the AEM V2). The Iceman showed better flow performance hands down.
My take on this is the same as it was back in '01 when I did the testing- the large Type-S "like" chamber works well to provide transient throttle response but not much more. When you blip the throttle or transition, there is more volume there to draw in. IMHO this isn't worth bothering with.
A CAI, unless it is in a an area under vacuum or has constricted piping, is ALWAYS going to be better for performance than a short-ram underhood.
Wow... somewhere I have flow bench data comparing the Iceman short ram and the Focuz (loooks VERY much like the AEM V2). The Iceman showed better flow performance hands down.
Todd, one thing to be aware of is that the Iceman, at least the Prelude one is tapered twoards the throttle body. I'm sure that that would affect the results versus an AEM-style CAI.
If I can find my old dyno sheets, I had the Aem V2 and a Iceman CAI. I made more power all the way around with the Iceman. I sold the Aem V2. Tuning was done on Neptune by Jeff Evans.
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
