Jump to content

Whether Or Not To Get A Cai


Recommended Posts

Posted

did a search and didnt find an answer. Im worried if i get a gmpp cai that eventually i will get water in it and the engine will hydrolock. I live in saskatchewan so we get bad snow storms and heavy rain sometimes. Will also be doing a little mudding. eventually this might turn into a mudding truck but not for a year or two. so with heavy rain and snow and some mudding will it be safe to get a cai or should i just stick with stock and get a airraid intake tube?

Posted
did a search and didnt find an answer. Im worried if i get a gmpp cai that eventually i will get water in it and the engine will hydrolock. I live in saskatchewan so we get bad snow storms and heavy rain sometimes. Will also be doing a little mudding. eventually this might turn into a mudding truck but not for a year or two. so with heavy rain and snow and some mudding will it be safe to get a cai or should i just stick with stock and get a airraid intake tube?

 

 

 

stay away from their metallic intake tubes...if you want to go the cheap, stock looking route,...seal off the resonating tubes on the stock intake,..or visit a junkyard,..buy a spare,.and cut off the chambers and seal them off.

Posted

I have the Airaid Jr. Kit (just intake tube and filter) and I like it OK. Honestly, if I hadn't found this last one from a seller on amazon.com for $100.00, I probably wouldn't have messed with it. It just sounds a little better, no performance really from stock.

Posted

dont really care what it costs and as long as i dont lose performance i dont care. really looking for looks and sound(got a magnaflow muffler so hoping for even deeper sound and some intake niose) so is it safe to get a gmpp cai? and if it isnt i will just buy an airaid MIT

Posted

i have a k&n CAI and a magnaflow muffler. did the CAI first and didnt notice anything other than a sound difference. then put the muffler on and i got a noticeable increase in bottom end power

Posted

Your question is specific, and as far as I understand from a lot of reading and from observation, these stock Intake buffles are for:

 

- sound reduction...you know when you remove them!

 

- capture heavy objects and liquids...I understand heavy objects, water will drop in the baffles, look at the first buffle after the box?! as far as mudding is concerned, these buffles will serve the purpose to certain level!, after that they are all equal. if you think about it? and if you fill up your filter box and over flow to the tube and fill the buffle, then you will end up with water streaming into your engine. The way I see it, GM CAI tube is bent over as high as possible, which is good design and other than liquids can't imagine anything get beyond the filter......

 

-think these buffles help warm the air in cold areas,,,in my case, my first reason to upgrade is to reduce the air temperature because I live in a warm climate and in the summer performance really suffers...I am curious!

I also notice land cruisers which are real off road have huge buffles in the intake and specifically the the first buffle is similar to the one you have, actually in the landcruiser it is bigger....

 

GM CAI is very popular and personalty believe is the best option for my purpose, let me know if you find a cheap one fro me!!, as far as performance is concerned everyone will tell don't expect any! added hp, may be little torque at low end/or high end!

 

End of story!

Posted

Trucks already cold air from the factory, a MIT would improve the under the hood looks, but your not going to see any performance gains on a stock truck, tune or not, you'd atleast have to have headers and cam work to see the added need for more air. Just my .02

Posted
Trucks already cold air from the factory, a MIT would improve the under the hood looks, but your not going to see any performance gains on a stock truck, tune or not, you'd atleast have to have headers and cam work to see the added need for more air. Just my .02

 

 

IMO, the Volant CAI definitely adds power, but drivability suffers somewhat. My truck ran stronger with the Volant than with the GMPP that I have now, but I lost 2 mpg with the Volant. All of my opinion is based off of back to back tests running on the stock tunes. Granted, we are probably only talking 10-15 hp, but it is an increase. I can tell a difference in power between the 93 octane and the E85 as well. I raced motocross for way to many years, and built my own engines (2 stroke) so I played with a lot of different things trying to make the most power. I am very in tune with whether something is faster, or just sounds like it is based on back to back tests. I only say this because I know there wil be people responding that there is no way to feel a 10-15 hp difference, and that it is all in your head.

 

For what it's worth, I would go with the GMPP intake for the 2007 model truck. The Volant doesn't have the drivability issues with the 2007 models either.

Posted

I would rather take a tune and 2 tanks of fuel over a cai that doesnt really add anything substantial for the same $

Trucks already cold air from the factory, a MIT would improve the under the hood looks, but your not going to see any performance gains on a stock truck, tune or not, you'd atleast have to have headers and cam work to see the added need for more air. Just my .02

 

 

IMO, the Volant CAI definitely adds power, but drivability suffers somewhat. My truck ran stronger with the Volant than with the GMPP that I have now, but I lost 2 mpg with the Volant. All of my opinion is based off of back to back tests running on the stock tunes. Granted, we are probably only talking 10-15 hp, but it is an increase. I can tell a difference in power between the 93 octane and the E85 as well. I raced motocross for way to many years, and built my own engines (2 stroke) so I played with a lot of different things trying to make the most power. I am very in tune with whether something is faster, or just sounds like it is based on back to back tests. I only say this because I know there wil be people responding that there is no way to feel a 10-15 hp difference, and that it is all in your head.

 

For what it's worth, I would go with the GMPP intake for the 2007 model truck. The Volant doesn't have the drivability issues with the 2007 models either.

 

Posted
I would rather take a tune and 2 tanks of fuel over a cai that doesnt really add anything substantial for the same $
Trucks already cold air from the factory, a MIT would improve the under the hood looks, but your not going to see any performance gains on a stock truck, tune or not, you'd atleast have to have headers and cam work to see the added need for more air. Just my .02

 

 

IMO, the Volant CAI definitely adds power, but drivability suffers somewhat. My truck ran stronger with the Volant than with the GMPP that I have now, but I lost 2 mpg with the Volant. All of my opinion is based off of back to back tests running on the stock tunes. Granted, we are probably only talking 10-15 hp, but it is an increase. I can tell a difference in power between the 93 octane and the E85 as well. I raced motocross for way to many years, and built my own engines (2 stroke) so I played with a lot of different things trying to make the most power. I am very in tune with whether something is faster, or just sounds like it is based on back to back tests. I only say this because I know there wil be people responding that there is no way to feel a 10-15 hp difference, and that it is all in your head.

 

For what it's worth, I would go with the GMPP intake for the 2007 model truck. The Volant doesn't have the drivability issues with the 2007 models either.

 

 

 

I can't say that I disagree with you on that, but I have both. The OP indicated that the cost wasn't the biggest concern, and that he wants the looks and sound, with out any loss of performance. So based on that, I have to vote for the GMPP. The design of the intake is such that it is no more likely to get water into the filterbox than the stock one. If a little bit gets in there, it wont reach the filter. If a lot gets in there, the stock baffles won't keep it out.

 

The Volant does have a hole in the bottom where a ram-air tube could connect, so in the water and mud, that could serve as a drain, or as a way for more water to find it's way in. I'm not sure which way that would affect it.

Posted

If you submerge the engine compartment in water/ or if water level is higher than your filter then it will get your engine, in my opinion and if the $$$ are not a factor I will go with GM CAI+safarisnorkel...and enjoy it!.

 

The fact is GM Denali uses the same intake!!!!, where engine is bigger and more powerful.

 

post-26806-1280829682_thumb.jpg

post-26806-1280829682_thumb.jpg

post-26806-1280829682_thumb.jpg

post-26806-1280829682_thumb.jpg

Posted

i always wonder if the statements you guys make about how intakes and exhauts don't make any power is just a matter of perspective. i have searched all around for dyno results of these modifications individually, with no success. but i've found a ton of people that say "it makes no difference." playing with lightweight low horsepower race cars as much as i have, i know that these likely do make some difference, and likely people just can't feel it when they stand on the throttle. be it because of the TM nannies in the ECU, or the fact that the damn thing already has 330 crank horsepower and a 5-10hp bump is only a 2% improvement. comparitavely, when i put a full standalone ECU on the race car and spent an entire day tuning it, sitting in the car i could feel the car pulled stronger through the range, but it was only ~2.5whp on the dyno. and no....that's not just noise.

 

so i guess all this babbling is me saying that i think things like a CAI and exhaust can help power output if done right (i got 18% whp improvement from just a well designed intake and exhaust changes on the race car), but with things like ECU tunes getting you 50hp on the low end by removing TM, maybe it's just not enough for people to care.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I'm not sure if this should be a new topic, let me know if it's out of place. This my first post. Thanks 85077522 - AC Delco GM Genuine Parts Brake Master Cylinders. Anyone else had to replace this brake master cylinder yet. I didn't do any brake work, it looks like new parts and I've had the truck for about 4k miles, 119k total miles.  When it started to throw codes I did the calibrations with a bidirectional scanner and got the codes to clear but they came back so I did the routine; base bleed, automated bleed and final base bleed. All that with Bosch ES16-32N fluid (please look it up). That seemed to fix it but 100ish miles later it failed again so I ran the same process but with a pressure bleeder this time and got the same results, fixed for 100ish miles. The original fluid looked bad and I thought I got most of it out, it could've been the wrong fluid. The codes; P25A2, C05B0-00, C2A1B. I can get them to clear but not for long. The C05B0 indicates a leak in the front circuit (which is bone dry) so I'm thinking of doing the bleed process on that front again today and I don't know if that's taboo to just do the front but at this point it seems like it's worth the try anyway. The new master cylinder/module unit is supposed to get here today. But now I'm pretty much convinced this install is over my head. I've called several shops and some mobile guys that I know but this thing is like radio active material, scary wise. I did get 2 local shops say they should be able to do it, one says he has the SPS2 programing capability. And with the battery disconnected is there supposed to be pedal resistance, mine is to the floor, then if I pump it I can get some resistance. I had a panic stop prior to this issue which may have contributed from what I read. And on the first attempt to bleed and hydraulic test the scanner listed things to look for and one was any gaps between the pad and rotors which I did notice on the RF corner and I removed the outer pad (where the gap was) cleaned it and the hardware and didn't see a gap after that but will re-check it. I read that if pushing the caliper pistons back then you're supposed to open the bleeder so as to not push fluid backwards into the abs module or it will damage it. If that's true then that's also a possibility from the previous owner having the brakes changed before I got it. I'm using an XTool ip500 scanner. Any suggestions, questions and comments welcome. 
    • Next Friday will be my 6 week point from my right knee replacement.  The surgeon says it will be fine if I choose to drive after this checkup.  I know I could drive now but best to do as my surgeon (and my wife) tell me.  Richard compared being 62 to 72.  I remember when I was in my early 60's I was experiencing slow but regular decline in my mobility.  Thanks to good medical support,  i continued to fight the speed and spread of this decline. During my 60's I worked on non-surgical methods and just when I turned 70, my orthopedic surgeon recommended joint replacements.  In a little over a year, I had one shoulder and both knees replaced.  This hasn't been a terribly fun experience, but worth the discomfort as my future mobility health trajectory has reversed.  It is a treat to now be watching my mobility. balance and confidence steadily improve!
    • Grommets with the right cement should be perfectly fine. 
    • This is going to take allot of Assembly    
    • Why do they have the gas 10l80 opening at 145?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...