Why metallic intakes do not work

[wootwoot]

Originally Posted by s2d4

beep test with a multimeter?

These kind of simple and well informed solutions have no business on the internet. Please edit accordingly.

[Turdinator]

Good thread. I like the information put forward and that you haven't named names. I agree with others that it would have been good to test the metalic intake with it electrically insulated to isolate that as the issue.
@PERRIN_Jeff I'm also interested in the larger intake...

[sosick]

Originally Posted by IceFyre13th

Two reasons, the intake goes through the radiator support and could ground there, the throttle body touches the intake tube. I have no way to be sure the tube is not connected to ground elsewhere.

I have tried something else though tonight and reading your question, now that it is totally isolated I ran a wire to the tabs on the MAF sensor to the area I thought the bolt was grounding the intakes to...........ready for it, it wigged out again like before with the aluminum intakes. Removed my "artificial ground" just created and back to running right......

I suppose u could try it that way. But it still isnt the same intake u had before. But I guess if u wanna call it confirmed testing then. I guess.

[IceFyre13th]

Originally Posted by sosick

What do u mean there is no way? Do u know what rubber is? Or plastic? Maybe u need to buy that first intake system u first bought and make some rubber gaskets then make some zip ties then test ur theory. Arent u some kind of engineeer of some sort? How can u not think of that

Really, you want to know the engineering theory behind flow rates and turbulence.....

Lets say the engine needs 500 CFM, no matter what, all the time, never idles, never changes speed, never dose anything but run at half throttle all the time with no load. Also assume the engine is mounted on an engine stand while running......no bends or turns needed to get to the throttle body, a perfect straight shot.

This would be the only time you could design an intake with no turbulence and flow exactly what you need, in this example 500 CFM. No bends to other things that could change air flow direction and make turbulent air....easy to do.

Unfortunately, our engine is in a vehicle. It has to run slow, and fast, and has variring loads that dynamically changes the CFM (better add what CFM is, Cubic Feet Per Minute). Flow rate at idle could be 20 CFM, under wide open throttle, 1200 CFM.....and every other flow rate in between.

We also have to bend the tubes from one place to another, every bend, twist, turn causes some type of turbulence at a given CFM. Sometimes the turbulence is nothing to worry about, sometimes its real bad.....all depends on the flow rate at the given time in the certain location through the tube.

I added a flow straightener into my design in an attempt to reduce the effects of turbulence in the intake tube. It had to be "tuned" to the right length and size of openings (I used a honey comb version) to give me the best no turbulent flow possible........this made most of the turbulence a "non-issue" for only about 60% of the full range of flow rate the engine actually can do.

The other 40%, either not that bad or worse than no straightener at all......all about compromise, what seemed to work best was what I use based upon a flow simulation (sorry, I do not have a lab to test the real thing or the flow bench that could).

Example, the TRD intake has no flow straighteners, but the factory air box dose.........why, those engineers tested and found out what worked best (but not perfect) for each of those designs, one needed them the other did not.

See my post above, I tested the ground theory in a different way, yet still got the screwed up MAF, STFT, and LTFT readings.......just by grounding the MAF sensors mounting tabs......while not the same method as you said, the same end result.

[IceFyre13th]

Originally Posted by sosick

I suppose u could try it that way. But it still isnt the same intake u had before. But I guess if u wanna call it confirmed testing then. I guess.

Whats different, the MAF sensor is grounded to chassis either way.......if it screws up my MAF, STFT and LTFT grounded with either intake it shows that there is a problem when, on my car, it is grounded this way.....

Sorry if it make no sense to you, but it is what it is........if my MAF is grounded by the tabs my car runs like

If any intake manufacture wants to test my car for this problem they can, but be close to me or pay for my trip to get to them. It maybe something I don't see, it could be something unique to my FR-S, hell it could be ancient aliens......

[Maverick22]

Originally Posted by Urmyson

I haven't seen Your 3in intake, has it been released yet?

You need to look it up, It is pretty sexy, especially in the red. It relocates the filter behind the bumper.

[PERRIN]

Originally Posted by Urmyson

I haven't seen Your 3in intake, has it been released yet?

The 3" intake is not on our web site yet but is purchasable via phone. It is just a few $ more than our standard intake. Remember our 3" intake REQUIRES a tune, we can supply a ECUTEK tune.

[ntaphse]

So you cracked open your MAF to see that the ground is attached to the metal mounting tabs then? Pretty sure this is not true... The MAF uses a dedicated ground wire in the harness and it's one of the five pins.

[OrbitalEllipses]

I don't mean to be rude, but it took you $1000 to figure out that polymer was less thermally conductive than metal?

[s2d4]

Originally Posted by wootwoot

These kind of simple and well informed solutions have no business on the internet. Please edit accordingly.

righto.

[IceFyre13th]

Originally Posted by ntaphse

So you cracked open your MAF to see that the ground is attached to the metal mounting tabs then? Pretty sure this is not true... The MAF uses a dedicated ground wire in the harness and it's one of the five pins.

Multimeter on resistance, connect to tab, touch pins one by one.......guess what it tells you.

[IceFyre13th]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

I don't mean to be rude, but it took you $1000 to figure out that polymer was less thermally conductive than metal?

.......maybe you should of read the whole post........an old commercial from the 70's - 80's, told school kids that "reading is fundamental".

[wootwoot]

Originally Posted by IceFyre13th

.......maybe you should of read the whole post........an old commercial from the 70's - 80's, told school kids that "reading is fundamental".

Man.... It's like you're trying to convince flat-landers that the world is round. Good luck!

[fuddbutter]

I don't know what i like more about this thread, the informative posts by the OP who has done a great job.
Or the slackjaw yokels that keep chiming in with misguided comments..
Keep up the good work all of you