Jump to content

Whether Or Not To Get A Cai

grizzly700fi

Recommended Posts

grizzly700fi Enthusiast

grizzly700fi

Posted
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?

sboutin Enthusiast

sboutin

Posted
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.

NickS Enthusiast

NickS

Posted
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.

grizzly700fi Enthusiast

grizzly700fi

Posted
  • Author
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

fraiolib Enthusiast

fraiolib

Posted
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

4wd Enthusiast

4wd

Posted
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!

FargoZ71 Enthusiast

FargoZ71

Posted
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

GPSilverado Enthusiast

GPSilverado

Posted
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.

FargoZ71 Enthusiast

FargoZ71

Posted
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.

 

GPSilverado Enthusiast

GPSilverado

Posted
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.

4wd Enthusiast

4wd

Posted
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

tnord Enthusiast

tnord

Posted
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.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • richard wysong
      Gas Prices

      By richard wysong · Posted

      I haven't seen diesel for less than $5.30 anywhere in my area
    • Chuck FB
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      The not as clean as one would assume theme with the new engine oil, that reminds me of comments over the years with mechanics not always being so on board with filling an oil filter, not from the center anyway due to that typically being the clean side of the filter, danger of some contaminant falling into the filter if not careful but the realization now that the oil may not be as pure as one had assumed it would surely be. Yes it would be possible to fill from the small holes but that means messing with something to prop open the anti drain back valve if the filter is so equipped and not damage that valve in the process. Me, I have hardly ever prefilled an engine oil filter however I have prefilled diesel fuel filters with a filter on a fuel bulk tank and for anyone that has messed with diesel engines with filters and units that have a limited or no way of priming them, putting on a dry filter is a bad day to say the least with those crappy systems. But anyway back to not so clean engine oil, indeed perhaps its not so bad after all that I have not made a practice of prefilling oil filters.    As Grumpy Bear commented on keeping things clean, that I really have to wonder what the typical practice is at a dealer or any other shop that changes engine oil, do they make sure to wipe or wash off the oil plug and certainly if it fell into some gunk or onto a dirty floor, or that they wiped the filter mounting flange and didn't go and use some dirty rag and end up adding dirt to the inside of the head of the filter mount. Or be careless in how they stored or handled the new filter and if they were bumping into items under the vehicle with the filter opening facing up and having dirt drop right into the filter and if so right into the threaded center that is on the clean side. The top side, did they clean away the built up gunk that may be around the filler before removing the cap or to be really careful at that point that something right close to the filler hole that was hidden under the caps flange won't fall into the engine. Or did they clean the funnel or was that just laying there covered in oil from the oil change before and dust kicked up from sweeping the floor stuck to the oil and now that will go running into the next persons engine due to just not cleaning the funnel as "they won't know anyway" attitude as that young guy is more worried about taking a break so he can go outside and smoke a joint. Just random points that came to mind when I think about what some hired personnel may do that the shop foreman has no idea of or perhaps the whole attitude of some shops may be "eh ... who cares, they will never know the difference anyway".  
    • CamGTP
      Gas Prices

      By CamGTP · Posted

      $3.69 for 87 octane.   $4.24 for Diesel in town.
    • Atlas
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Atlas · Posted

      On the subject of OLM, Gm's OLM tool may be more "informed" than others brands. I recall OLM's in mid-2000's Chrysler products literally counting down a set number of miles. That's all the OLM appeared to be.    I would actually expect GM to be able to explain the parameters that their OLM takes into account from a high level. No, I would not expect them to disclose their software coding or data analysis around their parameters.   So we're talking about two different topics, so to continue the subject on the other one, I'd be curious to know how much "standard particulate matter" in fresh oil is able to be filtered at first start by a fresh oil filter. How much particulate matter is enough to "matter"?   I.e. how much of a "lever" do we think this equates to (variability in particulate content, in fresh oils, between different makes/brands, some which filter less, and some that filter more).   We can say that more particles = more wear = shorter engine life as a logical statement and use that data with a little marketing to scare people into selecting a more refined/filtered oil. Using a similie, is this like deciding to forego two alcoholic drinks in a lifetime because we're worried about the potential impact on lifespan? Are there numbers which translate the ISO test results into a quantifiable increase in wear for a given engine/use case?
    • chris21
      Brand new to this forum. Questions about re-gearing my 26’ HD

      By chris21 · Posted

      I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually recalibrate the speedometer it just changes the wheel speed sensor inputs to the computer. The truck still thinks it has stock tires.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...