996 intake systems,, worth it?

is it worth it to have a cold air intake for my 2000 996 C2? any noticeable gain? any issues? what CAI system is best? KJ

What would be worth it and more power would be individual intakes with secondary injectors. That would be a good start for approaching getting 180hp per liter. Some nice flatside carbs would really make the car rip up the road. Instant throttle kick in the tail.

No real HP gains. If it was that easy and cheap, Porsche would have already done it. It just sounds louder so you ears tell your "butt dyno" that the car is faster!

I recently installed the EVOMS intake and took measurements of airflow before and after the installation. Starting at 4k rpm you pick up about 5% airflow and move the volumetric efficiency of the engine from 90-95% to 95-100%. Assuming the ECU provides the fuel you should make more power.

How did you calculate the efficiency of the air flow? I think the original box and filter 'too little, you should put one of the GT3, or a conical filter as nlla 996 cup.

Sound can be a percieved improvement equating to a gain in HP, but many might question and significant gains in power. However, it is a popular mod for many nonetheless.

Quotes source post: 7435513

Sorry, Tim, but that's just not true, even though people on the interweb say it all the time. No car manufacturer designs an engine with a single minded focus on power. There is always a list of engineering criteria, and often they conflict with one another. In the case of cold air induction, Porsche is bound by German noise laws, which are strict (these same rules also apply to exhausts, which is why the PSE was born). Companies like EVOMS don't have to comply with those regulations. It's therefore impossible to say with certainty that an aftermarket CAI is no better than the OE version, unless you have data... because we don't know what a CAI would look like if Porsche designed it for power alone. Also, a CAIs are about more than volume of air. A CAI has to manage volume, temperature, turbulence and the pressure of the charge (relative to manifold pressure or something like that...). People grossly oversimplify these things. I'm not saying aftermarket pieces are better or worse or that one is better than another; I'm just saying that "nice noise but no power" as a generalization is misinformation.

better money spent on DE entry fees.... if you find you are driving the car 100% and need more - THEN make changes

what is DE?

Disregard Ed.

Hahahahaha (a$$) Drivers education

any issues of using cai? I recall a member changing maf sensors as a habit since cai installed.

Nixed reviews on CAI - new MAF is $400, not a gamble I was willing to take

Evo is popular.... no cel. Just to answers your ???

Quotes source post: 7435949

This seems to vary by the brand of CAI, based on previous discussions. If you're compiling data, put me down for four trouble free years with the EVOMS piece.

Seems like all the issues people have with CAIs come down to the awful oiled cotton or foam filters they use. Is it really that hard to redesign the intake for better flow, but use a decent filter? Or maybe the filter would have to be as big as the engine lid to flow enough air while actually filtering out particles.

The 996 already has the intake receiving air from directly outside the vehicle. This is what others selling CAIs are trying to acheive. The stock paper filter has a very large surface area already and is housed in a large air box. There is most likely already a ram air effect, as air moving over the car is directed into the louvers on the rear deck and directly into the air intake. This happens to even a greater degree when the spoiler is raised. At speed, the air box may even have positive pressure from its design. It's hard to improve on that. Oiled gauze and foam filters and the subsequent housings and plumbing, will generally offer more intake noise and the ability to clean the filter element. As the stock system is dynamic by design, flow will improve with increased air movement across the car. It may be easy to improve torque output numbers on a dyno with less restrictive filter media installed. But these numbers generated in a static enviroment have little real world meaning. In the interest of performance, a study should be done of the intake and exhaust system. It should be determined what components generate the greatest restriction or barriers to increased air flow at both ends. Once they have been identified, addressed and corrected, move on to the next item. When everything external of the motor has been corrected, internal modifications are the the only thing left. By just bolting on a different filter or exhaust header, you have little chance of making more usable torque in the rpm range that will make the car accelerate faster. This is especially true of a world class performance car like the Porsche. It's important to remember that peak numbers on a dyno mean very little. Lastly, it's pretty easy for Porsche to design an intake and exhaust system that will maximize power generated by their motors. You're perspective may vary.

Quotes source post: 7436250

Beautifully written....

Quotes source post: 7436286

indeed!

Quotes source post: 7436286

But speculative and a little bit misleading. Engine design isn't a more power/less power kind of process. That's naive. What we're talking about here - with everything from chips to intakes to exhaust modifications - is tuning . The statement that these mods won't produce more torque is likely often true, but it ignores the fact that a lot of performance tuning for cars like this isn't directed at drag racing. Often, the very mods that give you more peak power will make the car feel slower at normal speeds, but give you in exchange the ability to continue accelerating into the wall of wind at higher speeds... which is what horsepower is for. For some people, moving the power around the rpm band, which is what a lot of tuning does, has a purpose and is worthwhile. Mods like this don't make a car better. They make it different. With all due respect, people who justify their mods with peak HP gains - unless they're racing - wasted their money, and reveal a limited understanding of what tuning is about. They're just bench racing. And I feel the same way about people who dismiss these mods on the same basis. They're just numbers. The only question that matters is whether the car is better for your purposes when the mods are done.

Quotes source post: 7436527

I agree. I tend to think what you get in HP you loose in Torque. I changed my exhaust for the sound. Changed my cats with less restrictive ones for the durability since my car runs rich and the more restrictive cats don't last for more then a year. I tried the Evo airbox not sure if it does as good as a job as the OEM airbox. Compromising more air flow but for air that is not as clean. I like that it magnifies the noise from the engine compartment. I have installed X51 headers, if it's good for the same engine then I couln't see it hurting anything. Didn't notice any performance gain at all but it did change the exhaust note. Has a little more lower tone, almost a tad quieter.

Several points seem to come up in these conversations again and again. I won't bother rehashing all of the previous explanations. I think Bruce summed it up pretty well. For those concerned about cleanliness, I agree that oiled cotton doesn't seem to filter as well as some other medias. That said, I've tested the oil on three different vehicles all running oiled cotton filters and have never seen elevated levels of silicon. This is a small sample size and not the be all and end all of tests, but it's enough comfort to allow me to sleep at night. The factory airbox is good and does have a big filter, but if you've looked at the box design you can see that most of the filter isn't being used. Not because it's plenty big enough, but because the flow path of air is restricted by the resonance chamber. After the fitment issues i had with the EVOMS I wanted nothing more than to see no gains with it so I could take it out of the car. Instead i saw a modest gain across a large part of the rpm band. To answer the earlier question on efficiency calculations: I measured air flow using the stock MAF. You can calculate the theoretical maximum flowrate of the engine (displacement, rpm) and compare the numbers to determine the efficiency.

Quotes source post: 7436527

My intent was not to mislead, it was solely to offer a perspective. I'm not sure what you mean regarding engine design. Engineers design motors with different objectives in mind. Some are designed with power as a main objective, others with fuel economy, still others with extreme low rpm torque. All of this is after certain reliability and environmental concerns have been addressed. Even if a motor is designed for a specific task, it is still "one size fits all" and can usually be improved upon. I always regarded tuning as a way to taylor desired characteristics to better suit ones driving style. This can be in the area of torque and power management with motor mods and gearing, braking improvements and suspension setup. Ergomomics are important as well. Your reply is confusing me. Horsepower is torque achieved in a certain amount of time. Increasing horsepower is achieving a given torque value faster, or increasing torque in a given amount of time. Any improvement you can do to maximize the twisting force in less time will give you faster acceleration thru an increase in horsepower. Any improvement that will maximize acceleration thru the first 3 gears and a bit into the 4th such as in the first quarter mile, should continue to improve acceleration all the way thru 4th, 5th and thru 6th gear. So, not trying to confuse, just state that any improvement verified by quarter mile times should carry over into the 100 mph to top speed territory as well. My point is that too much creedence is put on peak dyno numbers, mostly by those that understand little in the way of power deliverly. The peak number is usually just attained for a split second before a shift. The torque and power at the point the rpms drop to and beyond are much more important for maximum acceleration. Anyway, bottom line is, all that matters is that the guy that pays the piper is happy. Big gains, little gains, no gains or losses, your preceptions are all that counts. It's a different story when racing, all the BS stops, lol.

Yes, engineers design engines with specific objectives in mind, it's true. But never are those objectives single-minded. I don't mean to split hairs, but I think that really understanding what an automotive engineer faces is a useful way to put this kind of debate in context. Engineers work with imposed parameters: Emissions, fleet fuel economy regulations, noise, safety regulations, things like that. They also work with discretionary parameters: Marketing (where, for example, they will design to a high peak HP number so as to make good ad copy... ask me how I know), price targets, liability concerns, stuff like that. They also work with market acceptability parameters: Noise, vibration, harshness, throttle response, brake pedal feel (you'd be surprised at how many people hate a 'jumpy' throttle or brakes in focus groups), things like that. And mechanical parameters: Reliability, durability with respect to warranty exposure, component cost, available existing platforms and shared components, production engineering (ie how it will be assembled), packaging under the hood, serviceability, maintenance intervals, that kind of thing. And, finally, the intended use of the engine, where they will tip the bundle of compromises in the direction of low end torque for a truck, or high horsepower for a sports car, or quietness for a luxury car, or whatever. Every single thing you see and experience in a car is a complex set of compromises that very likely got fought over right up to the time the line started rolling. Even the Veyron had to draw the line somewhere. One of the things we like about Porsches is that a lot of those compromises didn't get made, especially the ones dealing with the lowest common denominator consumer. They are simpler, more focused cars. But lots of trade-offs still happened, and this is especially true of the 996, which was designed and built when the company was in financial trouble. In the years I worked with Toyota (and briefly with Honda), every powerplant engineering presentation I ever saw focused on the brilliant compromises they'd made. Good quality mods if they're well chosen, put some of the control over those compromises back in the owners' hands. He can choose different tradeoffs than the designers did on some of the less critical items. To me, modding a car is a creative thing. With my car, for instance, I did the EVOMS intake and the EVOMS exhaust, a REVO custom flash and a B&M short shift kit, but my suspension rides on Bilstein HDs at stock North American height, yet has brilliant tires. It has no stability control or LSD, no nav, no nothing except a stereo and hard back sport seats (and console delete). If you drove my car, you would say that it has a distinct personality as a result. It's less civilized than a typical modern 911, and to me has a tiny bit of the character of an old one in that things feel and sound very immediate, but it's still a sports car rather than a race car. That suits my taste. The HDs are there because I want all four tires on the ground on real world lousy roads at the speeds I drive. I love the look of a lower, firmer suspension, but for my kind of driving it would be slower, not faster. I made it for me . I don't think my car is better or faster than anybody else's, and I'm more interested in the total effect of the mods than on any one item. I just changed the mix of compromises and personalized the car. I don't mean to ramble on about this. But I really do believe that people have to leave a little room for guys to make what they want of their machines. Most of the naysaying about mods is pretty baseless, and you can't drive numbers anyway.

Quotes source post: 7435838

Bruce, of course, you are correct. I should not have stated in an "absolute manner." I should have stated that "HP gains will be minimal, if any." It is just that I get so fed up with some of these aftermarket guys claiming a 10+ gain in HP with their "cold" air intake, when that "cold" air is coming directly from inside the "hot" engine bay. The Porsche Carrera Power Kit costs $16,900 and adds 26 HP. That included modified cylinder heads, carbon-fiber air filter casing (upper part), new variable resonance intake manifold, sports exhaust system, and modified engine management. So the aftermarket claims that a $350 to $600 air intake alone will add 10+ HP is ludicrous. Even if a CAI did add 5 HP, on a MK II car with 320 HP that additional 5 HP is a 1.6% increase in power. Who would ever notice that? Can anyone say that the stock air intake leaves the engine starving for air? The volume of air that moves through the stock intake is more than the engine needs if no additional changes are made to the engine. Personally, I would NEVER add a CAI to any car I own, let alone a Porsche!

Quotes source post: 7437382

It's true. Marketers in this category don't do themselves any favours, unfortunately.

Bruce, thanks for adding all the gory details! I'm very aware of all of those things, just sometimes like to forget about them. Glad to hear that you have done several things to your car to individualize it and make it your own. Sorry to hear that it's no better than anyone elses, lol. (I'm certain it is!)

Quotes source post: 7437396

I always wonder what additional changes were made to the car to allow them to get a proven XX HP gain. Their wording is such that it makes me wonder. Here is a good example. I changed the manufacturer name to XYZ: "How does a XYZ air intake increase horsepower? It all stars with The World's Best Air Filter............ In fact, on the 2003 Ford Mustang SVT, XYZ engineers were able to achieve an impressive increase of 30 horsepower!" The second sentence boasts that the engineers were able get 30 HP gain on a Mustang, but it doesn't say that the 30 HP gain was attributed only to the CAI. It has been a long time since I got sucked into a CAI thread! No more! I would rather debate oil!

Quotes source post: 7437440

I can be such a bore.

BruceP good shot at the dilema of airbox fiddling. I just wish aperaceparts supplied parts and porting for the porsche. Then we would be talking real flow numbers. I just gave up and emailed them to see if they would work on porsche heads.

I have an EVO that was on my car when I bought it - I'm also skeptical of HP claims, but I do like the noise that it makes, so in the end the performance claims are a moot point to me.... now if I had a stock intake and contemplating putting the CAI on, then I probably would find other ways to make noise.

Quotes source post: 7437382

Tim, I always forget about the most important piece of data one could use for this argument; the carrera power kit!!! Spot on.

Quotes source post: 7438426

I can't tell if this was a joke, so I apologize if I missed the tone. How is the fact that Porsche is willing to sell you something for $17000 validation that you can't achieve similar results for less? Does a supercharger setup cost the same for the same power gain? Does a $5,000 PSE add the same amount of power as a $1000 exhaust setup or for that matter at $500 setup?

Quotes source post: 7440798

Did you see in the kit it includes heads? Or maybe you saw it has a redesigned intake?

The problem with the X51 argument is that it presupposes all you're getting is a peak horsepower number. The X51 kit doesn't create one great big peak power moment that you can brag about, which a lot of bolt on mods do. It... - Gives you more power across the full rpm range. - Does so in a way that keeps the engine emissions and noise law compliant. - Does so in a way that does not compromise reliability or durability of other components or affect warranty-ability (remember, this kit was sold for new cars). - Does so at a huge expense, which includes I'm sure some generous margins for Porsche. Lots of bolt on mods could very well give you the same peak power bragging rights. But they'll... - Give it to you in a less usable way, such as a spike near the redline. - Give it to you in a way that makes the car loud and possibly less efficient. - Give it to you with risk of, say, an air supply that's not as clean as the manufacturer's standards dictate and could, over the service life of the car, compromise other components. - Give it to you cheap. Peak power is a virtually meaningless number to the experience of driving a car, so it's a lousy way to compare mods, IMHO. And for sure, the horsepower-per-dollar argument is specious. If that's what really counted, we'd all be driving Corvettes.

Quotes source post: 7437724

yea, that should be easy for you

Quotes source post: 7437441

So should I be running 0W-40 mobil 1 or 75w-90 valvoline?

Quotes source post: 7442317

Well said! And I couldn't agree more, big (peak) numbers on the dyno don't count in the real world.

Quotes source post: 7442669

Has anyone tried to come up with a better unit measurement? Thinking about it, you could do an area under the curve number, based on say 2000 rpm to redline (or an arbitrary number for modifications that raise redline) measured every X rpm. That would give a very useful idea of how much a power mod would actually improve the driving experience, even if it made no gains, or even a loss at the peak.

Bruce, I'm lost? So the filter gives you peak numbers but you say that, that is not important in the "overall package" which I agree. So........what is the point???? Is it just for individualism?

BTW, you cannot get a peak in HP #'s without having a gain in torque, this is an impossibility. Fact: torque is measured by a dyno, HP is calculated from torque measured.

Quotes source post: 7443004

raising the rpm while keeping the torque flat will increase the horsepower, this most likely won't happen as peak torque usually occurs at a much lower rpm and after it peaks will fall.

Quotes source post: 7443477

Flat torque is a metaphor. You cannot raise hp without raising torque, hp is calculated from torque. To raise you RPM requires extending the torque to a higher RPM. So, even though torque appears to be dwindling, it is the multiplier of RPM raising HP. For instance, F1 engines make what, 1500hp? They still make gobs of torque, just at a really high RPM. I believe I read something like 800ft lbs. Not sure of time frame I read this. It is all relative. HP comes simply calculated from torque.

Quotes source post: 7443539

Agree!

Quotes source post: 7442983

I was speaking hypothetically, only in order to make the point that there are lots of ways to generate a higher peak HP number, but they aren't all equal. I just wanted to take apart the X51 argument, because I think it oversimplifies the debate. Sorry if I confused things. As for what the point is, I can only answer for myself: I enjoy the way the car drives with my EVOMS intake, when combined with exhaust and flash. The sound makes the car more involving to drive, and it feels quicker above 4500 rpm. I can't actually a) Parse out what contribution the CAI makes to that, or b) Tell you whether it is, in fact, quicker. That was kind of my point with the long-winded post from yesterday... tuning is about personalizing.

Quotes source post: 7443539

Correct! You can't imagine how many people don't realize that... Fun fact: The math of horsepower is the reason why on every reciprocating engine there is, the torque and horspower curves intersect at exactly the same rpm. How much torque an engine makes and at what rpm can be influenced by lots of things, but the fundamental factor is displacement. After that, it's engine configuration (an undersquare engine is more naturally torquey than an oversquare engine, and an inline engine will produce more torque than a two-bank design, all other things being equal). Everything else is kind of at the margins.

Quotes source post: 7443834

5252 RPM to be exact!