You're still going have to clean it just like a K&N.
21 - 40 of 227 Posts
That price is on par with all of AEM's CAI's, I don't expect to see a change there. Really the only way that price will drop is if they try to sell it as what it really is, a short ram intake, with a "heat shield" deflector on the pipe. AEM really makes great products, but this design puzzles me. Is there no opening in the engine bay for a true CAI? I get they they want to keep the lights on there, but this kit really should be about $100 less than what they are asking for it. My Prelude had an AEM CAI and it was routed through into the wheel well, hence cold air, not warm air from the engine bay. But rant over and once exhaust systems are available, I'll be installing this under the hood.I will wait until the price really drops though.
But you won't have to oil it......You're still going have to clean it just like a K&N.
I just ordered it...
cant wait to hear how install goes, also could you make a short recording of exhaust sound before and after?I just ordered it...
Why would the intake change his exhaust sound? It will alter intake noise but exhaust sound??cant wait to hear how install goes, also could you make a short recording of exhaust sound before and after?
And cleaning it in reality is remove, shake, maybe blow some air through it, done. I could clean mine on my STi in a minute or two. Always did it when i changed the oil. Couldn't be simpler, and you could probably do it every other oil change if you wanted to.But you won't have to oil it......
G1 sounds different with an aftermarket intake, theres a video on youtube of a guy recording the difference in sound from the exhaust i would expect the G2 to be similarWhy would the intake change his exhaust sound? It will alter intake noise but exhaust sound??
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 . . . .
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.
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.
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. . .
You have to take into account that Honda spends a lot of it's time developing these particular vehicles to be quiet, fuel efficient and emissions friendly vehicles. That is because the majority of people who purchase them, do not want a loud obnoxious rice burner that gets 5 miles to the gallon.
However, there is the minority, me being one of them, that likes to hear what Honda engineers really intended these engines to sound like. As soon as you remove the restrictive, emissions friendly, noise cancelling intake and exhaust systems from these engines you instantly hear and feel them come to life. This is where aftermarket companies like to spend their development time!
However, there is the minority, me being one of them, that likes to hear what Honda engineers really intended these engines to sound like. As soon as you remove the restrictive, emissions friendly, noise cancelling intake and exhaust systems from these engines you instantly hear and feel them come to life. This is where aftermarket companies like to spend their development time!
If this increases my MPG by even 1mpg, then it should pay for itself within 7500 miles.
I like mods that pay for themselves so i pulled the trigger and have one on its way.
Can't wait to replace exhaust when that becomes available.
I like mods that pay for themselves so i pulled the trigger and have one on its way.
Can't wait to replace exhaust when that becomes available.
Mine is supposed to ship tomorrow. This should be fun, Plex! I've been searching for an exhaust. I emailed Borla....
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!
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!
Are you claiming false advertising? If so then what they are doing is illegal and i suggest you take them to court over it if you have facts to back up your claims. :wink: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!
Does anyone have any data showing that a Short/Ram Air intake actually causes the IAT's to be warmer than the stock intake w/snorkel?
@ 40-60MPH the Live data on my scan tool is showing that my IATs are pretty much the same as the temps on my gauge clusters heads up reading for the outside temps. Just wondering where all this warm air intake info is coming from.
@ 40-60MPH the Live data on my scan tool is showing that my IATs are pretty much the same as the temps on my gauge clusters heads up reading for the outside temps. Just wondering where all this warm air intake info is coming from.
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).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. . .
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 . . .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).
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.
I challenge anyone to notice less than a 10hp gain on the butt dyno on a 240hp engine... anyone. Our bodies are simply not tuned (no pun intended) to that degree. We may notice a louder noise and think we're going faster, but it's a placebo effect.
I was good friends with a fellow S2000 owner. We both had the AEM installed, but his car was miserable to drive, particularly at the VTEC switchover point. For weeks he was scratching his head. Long story short, it was remedied by taking the AEM off... and in doing so, someone finally realized that he had shoved the pipe so far into the filter, it was hitting the cap and cutting off most of the airflow. The intake design was great, but a failed install caused a major failure in its operation.
If you note in that video, he got the temp the same (bravo), but the humidity was WAY different. Dryer air means bigger hp numbers, and he tested the stock box at a humidity 16% lower than the CAI. I saw nothing in the first half of that video to lead me to believe he's applying any SAE correction to his numbers for the wide variation in humidity... so to claim that's a fair test strains credulity. Here's a decent explanation of the equation:
https://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm
With all of that said, I'm bowing out of this discussion. No amount of discussion or factual information will appear to change your mind, so I will not waste any further breath on the matter.
I was good friends with a fellow S2000 owner. We both had the AEM installed, but his car was miserable to drive, particularly at the VTEC switchover point. For weeks he was scratching his head. Long story short, it was remedied by taking the AEM off... and in doing so, someone finally realized that he had shoved the pipe so far into the filter, it was hitting the cap and cutting off most of the airflow. The intake design was great, but a failed install caused a major failure in its operation.
If you note in that video, he got the temp the same (bravo), but the humidity was WAY different. Dryer air means bigger hp numbers, and he tested the stock box at a humidity 16% lower than the CAI. I saw nothing in the first half of that video to lead me to believe he's applying any SAE correction to his numbers for the wide variation in humidity... so to claim that's a fair test strains credulity. Here's a decent explanation of the equation:
https://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm
With all of that said, I'm bowing out of this discussion. No amount of discussion or factual information will appear to change your mind, so I will not waste any further breath on the matter.
21 - 40 of 227 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Honda Ridgeline Owners Club Forums
Honda Ridgeline Owners Club, forum community to discuss reviews, accessories, performance, care, mods, and more.
Full Forum Listing
