Injen Racing Division CAI Dyno Results for 1.8L
#17
filter
I have an Injen CAI and I'm a little worried about the filter. They do say it out-performs every other filter out there, but did they trade engine protection for this higher flow? There is nothing on their website that mentions particulate size or even remotely talks about the quality of the filter.
If their filter does in fact suck, which I suspect it does, I want to buy a K&N or somethings else to go on the end of that shiny tube that will actually protect my engine.
If you know more than I do about this, please post your comments.
If their filter does in fact suck, which I suspect it does, I want to buy a K&N or somethings else to go on the end of that shiny tube that will actually protect my engine.
If you know more than I do about this, please post your comments.
#18
Did you help or see the removal of the old stock air box and other intake parts? How hard is it to do? Just curious as I may get a CAI and install it myself. Thanks!
I was surprised at the size of the stock intake. It's huge and reaches all the way down to the bottom of the car with some type of resonator box! The Injen techs took it appart in three pieces. They also used the stock MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensor and the Intake Air Temp sensor for the new intake. The installation manual should detail everything, but they are still making that manual, so I haven't seen it.
-Jerry
#19
Originally posted by jstand6
The Injen CAI for the 1.8L is almost exactly the same CAI for the 2.0L motors. I guess the price will be the same at $320 (ouch!). They are debating whether to put a different model number, or the same. They did say they had to mount the coolant resevoir and a wiring/vacuum hose bracket in different places compared to the 2.0L.
I am not sure what the filter is made from (it is hidden in the bumper/wheel well area). Looking from the pics on Injen's website, it appears to be a cotton gauze (or like material) sandwiched between steel mesh. According in Injen, their filters outperform every other filter out there and they back it up with a test performed by Jackson Racing.
I have to check Injen's brochure for more information. I may have one in the car, but I definitely have one on my desk at home. I'll run down and check in a bit and I'll post anything I find.
Here's a cutaway pic of the filter:
-Jerry
The Injen CAI for the 1.8L is almost exactly the same CAI for the 2.0L motors. I guess the price will be the same at $320 (ouch!). They are debating whether to put a different model number, or the same. They did say they had to mount the coolant resevoir and a wiring/vacuum hose bracket in different places compared to the 2.0L.
I am not sure what the filter is made from (it is hidden in the bumper/wheel well area). Looking from the pics on Injen's website, it appears to be a cotton gauze (or like material) sandwiched between steel mesh. According in Injen, their filters outperform every other filter out there and they back it up with a test performed by Jackson Racing.
I have to check Injen's brochure for more information. I may have one in the car, but I definitely have one on my desk at home. I'll run down and check in a bit and I'll post anything I find.
Here's a cutaway pic of the filter:
-Jerry
#20
I have an Injen CAI and I'm a little worried about the filter. They do say it out-performs every other filter out there, but did they trade engine protection for this higher flow? There is nothing on their website that mentions particulate size or even remotely talks about the quality of the filter.
-Jerry
#21
man this totally helped me out i didnt know it used the washable type. im ordering one this week ! that will save me some money in the longrun!!!
is there a place on the web with detail directions on install maby with picts?
reply soon please!!!
installing myself will save me 50.000 bucks
mahalos from hawaii
is there a place on the web with detail directions on install maby with picts?
reply soon please!!!
installing myself will save me 50.000 bucks
mahalos from hawaii
Last edited by twotone; May-18th-2002 at 04:38 AM.
#22
As for the debate on the 1.8 and the 2.0 the 1.8 has quicker revs due to the reduced rod size and gets to its peak power quicker. In all the tests I have seen the 1.8L pulls better numbers than the 2.0 it could be the wheels but i doubt it that much. Americans are obsessed with larger engines being better and they don't look at the benifits of the smaller ones hence why ever 5.0 mustang out there think he can beat anyone when a EG hatch civic with a GSR swap could rip him a new one.
#23
Originally posted by chdesign
As for the debate on the 1.8 and the 2.0 the 1.8 has quicker revs due to the reduced rod size and gets to its peak power quicker. In all the tests I have seen the 1.8L pulls better numbers than the 2.0 it could be the wheels but i doubt it that much. Americans are obsessed with larger engines being better and they don't look at the benifits of the smaller ones hence why ever 5.0 mustang out there think he can beat anyone when a EG hatch civic with a GSR swap could rip him a new one.
As for the debate on the 1.8 and the 2.0 the 1.8 has quicker revs due to the reduced rod size and gets to its peak power quicker. In all the tests I have seen the 1.8L pulls better numbers than the 2.0 it could be the wheels but i doubt it that much. Americans are obsessed with larger engines being better and they don't look at the benifits of the smaller ones hence why ever 5.0 mustang out there think he can beat anyone when a EG hatch civic with a GSR swap could rip him a new one.
The 1.8L does not have "quicker revs" due to the shorter stroke (BTW the 1.8L has LONGER rods than the 2.0L). The shorter stroke gives it higher ultimate rpm potential because of reduced stress on the reciprocating parts, but it has NOTHING to do with how quickly it will rev. More rotating mass (heavier wheels or a heavier drivetrain) will hurt wheel hp and acceleration, which may explain the discrepancy between the 1.8L and the 2.0L. However, I guarantee you that the shorter stroke has nothing to do with it.
BTW the reason an EG hatch Civic with a GSR swap can keep up with a Mustang is because of Newton's Second Law: force equals mass times acceleration. To increase acceleration, you increase force (Mustang) or decrease mass (Civic). It has nothing to do with some "magic" advantage of smaller engines.
Last edited by carguycw; May-22nd-2002 at 04:06 PM.
#24
Originally posted by carguycw
The 1.8L does not have "quicker revs" due to the shorter stroke (BTW the 1.8L has LONGER rods than the 2.0L). The shorter stroke gives it higher ultimate rpm potential because of reduced stress on the reciprocating parts, but it has NOTHING to do with how quickly it will rev. More rotating mass (heavier wheels or a heavier drivetrain) will hurt wheel hp and acceleration, which may explain the discrepancy between the 1.8L and the 2.0L. However, I guarantee you that the shorter stroke has nothing to do with it.
BTW the reason an EG hatch Civic with a GSR swap can keep up with a Mustang is because of Newton's Second Law: force equals mass times acceleration. To increase acceleration, you increase force (Mustang) or decrease mass (Civic). It has nothing to do with some "magic" advantage of smaller engines.
The 1.8L does not have "quicker revs" due to the shorter stroke (BTW the 1.8L has LONGER rods than the 2.0L). The shorter stroke gives it higher ultimate rpm potential because of reduced stress on the reciprocating parts, but it has NOTHING to do with how quickly it will rev. More rotating mass (heavier wheels or a heavier drivetrain) will hurt wheel hp and acceleration, which may explain the discrepancy between the 1.8L and the 2.0L. However, I guarantee you that the shorter stroke has nothing to do with it.
BTW the reason an EG hatch Civic with a GSR swap can keep up with a Mustang is because of Newton's Second Law: force equals mass times acceleration. To increase acceleration, you increase force (Mustang) or decrease mass (Civic). It has nothing to do with some "magic" advantage of smaller engines.
IMO, a shorter stroke will generate less mechanical losses at higher RPM, resulting in a slower drop off of output torque. A close look at dyno graphs of the two motors should show that while the 2.0 makes better low end torque, the 1.8 makes better high end torque, which results in similar peak hp. Also a shorter stroke would normally result in a lower rotational mass at the crank and the motor would rev better. With this in mind I’ve been hunting up a late model 1.8 to build and drop in my Pro5, and I may have located one in a yard on the Jersey coast. Anybody live in the area that get me a visual inspection on the motor before I have it shipped to Florida?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
99dragsi
Parts For Sale or Wanted
10
January-24th-2002 07:52 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)