[eurban]

What's the value as "proof" from a manufacturer's own website vs an independent test??

I am most certainly dubious of a dyno graph that shows gains of around 10 hp at low RPM of 3500, not to mention that the trend in the graph appears to be a proportionally larger gap between stock and an AEM "CAI" as the RPM drops. Really? Is that some sort of magical resonance effect? Do you really think the stock intake is restricting 10hp worth of power at 3500rpm??? If that is legit y'all should buy this intake in a heartbeat . . .Not to mention the 2mpg gain that Devito says you will get. . . .

 

[eurban]

cant wait to hear how install goes, also could you make a short recording of exhaust sound before and after?

Why would the intake change his exhaust sound? It will alter intake noise but exhaust sound??

 

[eurban]

The vehicle will certainly sound different. I can't see how the exhaust note would change significantly, but regardless the VAST MAJORITY of any sound change will be from the sucking end, not the blowing end . . . .

 

[eurban]

I had both v1 and v2 versions of the AEM CAI on my S2000... the change in engine note was quite noticeable, particularly when the cams switched over at the VTEC point. It had a much heavier growl to it. Once I added a different exhaust and straight pipe, it was insane. Changes on the intake side have a surprisingly large and noticeable effect on the exhaust side.

I do wish AEM would post more "average" gains rather than "peak" gains, though... it's not deceptive advertising, per se, but it does lead the uninitiated to a misleading conclusion. The 8% peak gain only happens at a very narrow window of RPMs, a place you'll likely only be at for a fraction of a second, and right at the top of the RPM band... a more realistic figure is the 3-4% gain over the majority of the power band. Not insignificant, but not earth-shattering, either.

AEM's results are verified time and again with reputable shops doing dyno pulls, so you can rest assured their graphs are accurate.

Did you look at their graph posted in this thread? They are showing a 10hp (10%) gain at 3500rpm and a minimum of 6hp gain from 4k to 6K. If this graph is accurate Honda completely F'd up their intake design and the AEM intake will be the cats pajama's of mods. To good to be true??? Then its usually not. . .

 

[eurban]

First off, the stock intake design on GenI and GenII Ridgelines gets its air from outside the engine compartment. Its already a cold air intake. Its not likely that you will get any gains from the "cold" part of the equation.

AEM's intake for the GenI gets rid of the air box but does not wall off the area to prevent hot air from entering. They don't have a Dyno chart for it and probably for good reason as it probably has a negative effect. If you want to hear your stock engine more on the GenI then by all means install an intake. The air box is not the limiting factor on the stock GenI intake setup, the throttle body is.

GenII? AEM's dyno chart for the 16 Pilot is well worthy of suspicion. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the the low RPM results (and the apparent trend that the graph is showing below 3500rpm) is remotely accurate. Suggesting that the stock intake is leaving close to 10hp on the table at 3500 rpm should have anyone's BS meter going off. After 4k the graph shows a consistent gain of at least 6hp through a wide RPM that eventually grows at its high RPM peak. With no cold air advantage over the stock setup again the BS meter is going off. The engine progressively needs more air as the RPM's build yet somehow the stock airbox /filter is choking it consistently up until close to redline where it finally is starts to have an increased effect?? BS!

 

[eurban]

The data at the edge of the graph is not a valid comparison... that's the roll-on ramp up in speed. If that's what you're using to make your claim, you're cherry picking to support your argument, and that dog won't hunt. Move only a couple of hundred rpm up the ladder and suddenly what I said before about 3-4% gains fits across the entire model (except for that one spot right near the end where the gains jump high again, also as I mentioned).

You're free to believe as you wish, but I've been tuning and racing cars entirely too long to know what's bunk and what's real. AEM does not make huge gains, but it does make measurable (and consistent) ones. Those gains are not measurable on a butt dyno, but on a real dyno they are. Combine those small gains with those from a quality header, a quality exhaust, etc. and it DOES become measurable on the butt dyno, and VERY noticeable on a real dyno.

Since these charts are not from a Ridgeline, no one here can say exactly how well the AEM intake does, so arguing about it before a chart comes out is silliness. But to discount AEM out of hand when their reputation for 20+ years has been consistent in netting 3-5% hp/tq gains over the majority of the rpm band is also equally silly (IMHO).

Your ramp up explanation is fine. The problem is that the data is included in their "advertisement" dyno chart. Would they have included this portion of the graph if it happened to show the stock intake making more power? Its irrelevant yet it is included for a reason . . .

One also wonders what is going on in the power band below 3500 rpm. There is plenty of disagreement out there about the value of aftermarket intakes including AEM's stuff. Many independent reviews show some power gains at high RPMS and there is often a similar power loss in the lower rev range. How much of your drive time in our truck is spent at RPM's above 4K? Almost none for many people. Where would would a power boost be most useful? How about at the RPM's where you are cruising in top gear on the highway (less than 2kRPM)? Does a CAI do anything helpful here? It may well even be harmful and you wouldn't know that from the manufacturers dyno chart. Here's a youtube test for an Integra with an AEM intake (from their EPIC 20 year history of producing quality products!)

Applicability of the AEM's dyno chart to the Ridgeline? Its the same part number for the 16 Pilot and the 17 Ridgeline. Its the same engine in essentially the same engine compartment. AEM certainly thinks that the results are applicable, which is why they include them in the Ridge's product page.

If AEM's dyno charts are to believed, a before and after AGGRESSIVE drive should reveal a NOTICEABLE improvement in performance. 4% power gains through 2.5k RPMs worth of power band is definitely butt dynoable. This should result in noticeably reduced acceleration times etc. Easy enough tests for someone to do yet it is rarely done. Proper before and after MPG comparisions? Rarely objectively done as well.

BTW, I'm 48 and have been hot rodding cars and motorcycles since I was 18. I have spent plenty of time dyno tuning, and performance modding. My "fast" bike is 1000cc, heavily modified and makes an honest 150 hp and the rear wheel while at the same time having a wide powerband and lovely driveability. It's worlds better than stock . . .Well engineered performance mods done in proper combination can most certainly make a difference . . . IMHO, AEM's claimed power gains from a "cold air intake" installed in place of a factory cold air intake (on an otherwise stock vehicle) are deserving of suspicion and are most certainly not some sort of irrefutable proof.

 

[eurban]

The AC system on most vehicles uses around 5HP. I sure as hell can tell the difference in performance (highway cruising in particular) when the AC is switched on and off in my GenI. I would guess that most people could do the same . . .

I don't think that you could reasonably argue that the difference in humidity explains the absence of 3-5% improvement in power over a wide and useable RPM range in his real world test. That's stretching credulity.

Here's an S2000 video:

It makes a bit more power with the CAI (Don't know the brand) so for the performance minded its worth doing on that car. It aint a Ridgeline of course and neither is the old integra. . . .

I'm still waiting for the "factual information". Perhaps some of the early adopters of the GenII who decide to install the intake can provide some.

 

[eurban]

It's not about flow as much as it is about air temperature - cooler - - thus higher density and increase in O2 content....

Stock setup draws air from outside the engine compartment. AEM system will allow more engine compartment air to be drawn in. . .It still MIGHT make more power but it won't be because it is drawing in cooler air.

 

[eurban]

No - mechanics that know will tell you even a high efficiency A/C compressor can rob 10, 15, 20... even more horsepower as it's more than just the compressor - it increases the tension on the drive belt which then increases drag across the entire serpentine belt system.....

I'm not sure how a mechanic would know unless they dyno'ed for power loss? I'm sure it depends on the particular application. For what it is worth, Wikipedia says modern AC automotive systems use about 4hp.

When you are cruising on the highway (In a Ridgeline for instance) at 2K rpm or less your engine is only making a small portion of its total rated HP, well less than 100hp. A 5% drop in power is noticeable.

 

[eurban]

If the G2 is anything like the G1. Once you remove the air box and lower half of the stock "Cold Air" intake. There is a rather large opening through the chassis/frame rail into the bumper that allows cool air to enter from the lower valence. My scan tool showed no temperature difference between my stock intake and my custom 3.5" w/6" K&N cone filter setup. It was reading ambient temps while driving.

I believe you. In the case of the Ridgeline and many (if not most) modern cars the stock intakes already draw cold air. Aftermarket "cold air intakes" are not colder than stock. In some cases the area where they draw air FROM INSIDE THE ENGINE COMPARTENT may be at ambient, sometimes not.

 

[eurban]

Does anyone know where I can purchase an AEM cold air intake? It looks like AEM doesn't have any in stock and I can't seem to find any website that has any in stock.

There is no AEM cold air intake. It sucks its air from the engine compartment. Stock intake is the cold air intake.

 

[eurban]

I don't access IATs nor do I plan to. Perhaps someone else can give you the data you are looking for?. . .

Calling any of the available aftermarket intakes for the Ridgeline "Cold Air" is simply incorrect. None of these intake draw their air from outside of the engine compartment. The term "Cold Air Intake" has some genuine meaning in some applications for other vehicles where the stock intake pulls from the engine compartment or poorly from the outside and the aftermarket has developed an intake that gets it's air efficiently from the outside.

In the case of the Ridgeline, as you know, the stock intake pulls its air through a snorkel fitting that opens up high, outside the engine compartment. As such it certainly makes more sense to call it a "Cold Air Intake" than to call something that draws its air in through an open conical filter located inside the engine compartment. Perhaps the term is mostly meaningless now in the way it is used in marketing for any aftermarket intake but there is little doubt about where the terminology originated and drawing air from inside the engine compartment doesn't fit with the meaning.

Is the AEM or other intake's air colder than stock? I think you agree that it is not. Is it the same? With your intake you seem to claim that it is, at least when it really matters. I won't argue that point although common sense urges me too.

I'm pretty happy with the old man appeasing stock intake on my Ridgeline. It filters well and provides all the air my stock motor can use. And for my intended use, it also handles deep water crossings without a hitch. I'm not an old man but I wouldn't change it.

 

[eurban]

6 or 7 HP gain???

 

[eurban]

It's all relative.
On a stock motor yes, maybe.
The bigger the need for air, the bigger the HP gain.
If your motor needs 1500 -2000 CFM the gains will be bigger with a K&N
On a Honda, not so much.
The higher the perormance, the less restriction benefit is realized with K&N.
Top Fuel and the like don't even use air filters. The engine would just suck it in!
But they rebuild it every run anyway.
Back in the day, withbig V8 Carb motors we would remove the air filter on Street racing.
We also used 104 octane thinking that would help, but what did we know as kids?

I understand the concepts. On a stock motor with a KN replacement filter in place of the the stock one I doubt you will make any horsepower gains. Pretty much the same with their "cold air" intake. The air restrictions on a stock GenI motor are not the airbox.