Great Air Intake Challenge, Part 2 (for 3.2L cars) - Page 2

TripleOught · #16 (**permalink**) 11-21-05, 12:52 PM

you're really not out 250 bucks, i mean you have the 3.6L, so haveblue's results are definitely more appealing to a volant. for some reason, besides the engine comp being open...not sure why the receptiveness between the intakes is different from the 3.2 to 3.6

CTSDreams · #17 (**permalink**) 11-21-05, 06:25 PM

Just my opinion, but it would seem to me that the volant is designed to work better with having forced air into the box (more so than the open K&N setup). Wouldn't the volant show a greater HP increase with the air flow that does not show up during a Dyno run??? The Volant still seems like it should be a better setup over the stock version...

odysseus · #18 (**permalink**) 11-21-05, 08:13 PM

I agree. The K&N would do well, if one opened up the rubber flap next to the radiator, and closed off the rear of the filter like the engine side panel does. Then it would benefit from the cold air from outside the engine bay and likely flow just as well as with the hood open. The K&N is a high flow intake, but not necessarily 'cold air' without some mods.

Volant should benefit from some ram air affect, since the snorkel faces straight ahead. That's the problem with dyno runs . . . the car's not moving.

Robert, you didn't waste your money. HaveBlue's runs apply to your 3.6L much more than my 3.2L results. I found that they're completely different animals, and the 3.6L obvously has a larger appetite for air. The Volant had 236 square inches of filter area, compared to 132 on the AirHog (but the K&N had a whopping 330 square inches!).

05CTS · #19 (**permalink**) 11-22-05, 12:25 AM

Was there no fan blowing in front of the car during the runs? I always thought that when you run your car on a dyno, you had one of those indusrtial fans blowing to get more accurate info. At least thats what they do when they dyno vettes at different shows I go to.

RobertCTS · #20 (**permalink**) 11-22-05, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 05CTS

Was there no fan blowing in front of the car during the runs? I always thought that when you run your car on a dyno, you had one of those indusrtial fans blowing to get more accurate info. At least thats what they do when they dyno vettes at different shows I go to.

I think HaveBlue had a fan in his test.

odysseus · #21 (**permalink**) 11-22-05, 09:11 AM

They had two very large fans at the back of a one-car bay. They closed the garage door all but about 4' high to get airflow from the front to the back of the bay. I asked about a fan, and he said they have one, but only use it if a high HP car overheats during runs. The two 4' diamter fans that they had pulled a lot of air. If I had to do it over, (it was my first time on a chassis dyno), I'd close the hood, and put a fan in front to test any ram-air affect. I could have stayed another three hours and played science experiment (shifted to fifth to see if it would break 120 mph on the dyno, do a run in third and correct the data to see if it really was a speedo limit, wired the vacuum valve open, run an open MAF with no filter, etc), but time and money dictated that I stay on my test plan (yes I had one written up . . . I'm an engineer!). They charged by the hour ($90/hr), not by the run, and I was there three hours. They 'gave' me a half hour, since that's how long it took them to hook the car up to the sensor, since there are no plug wires.

70eldo · #22 (**permalink**) 11-23-05, 04:47 AM

Is the US version limited at 120? I am very positive mine limits at at least 150 (245kmh)...

But good to know I can save some money on a CAI. I might go for a modified stock airbox. See if I can build in a K&N

See, this is why I love this forum so much! There's so many people involved that are so helpful!

odysseus · #23 (**permalink**) 11-23-05, 11:39 AM

The base models are limited due to the lower rated tires. The sport model is not supposed to be limited to 120. I had new 'engine calibration software' installed, and the mechanic wasn't versed in the difference in CTS's. I'm certain he installed the software for the base car, which has the limiter. The sport model CTS should do 147mph (according to Road and Track's test of a car identical to mine). The got it to 134 mph in fourth gear. I'm sure this skewed my RWHP numbers since I could not get the motor over 6000 RPM. It definitly had more in it, since I've routinely gone to reline in lower gears.

70eldo · #24 (**permalink**) 11-23-05, 08:20 PM

I topped it at 155 (250kmh) tonight. I posted a picture in another thread

nastymigui · #25 (**permalink**) 09-21-09, 10:54 AM

My experience with a 2004 CTS 2.6 V6 (European version - Engine LY9).

At first, I did the Tony A Mod and I felt a little improvement, but when I installed my dual Magnaflow I lost it and the car became noisy (2200-3000 rpm) and lazy at low rpm.

A couple of weeks ago I went for the Volant 15632C (originally for a 3.2 but it fits on mine as well) and the improvement is remarkable.

It runs progressively and smooth from the start and the sound is now perfect to me. At highs I really feel it has more power but I couldn't say how much was my gain because I'm not performing a dyno test for 600 euros (1000 US $) just to verify I have 20 Hp more (I wish).

Something to argue about:

When I purchased the car I was doing 10.8 l/100 km (21.76 mpg).
After Tony A Mod and Magnaflow I went down to 10.5 l/100 km (22.38 mpg)
Modifying my driving habits I reduced even more to 10.2 l/100 km (23.04 mpg)
After the Volant modification and 2 visits to the gas station I am doing now 10.0 l/100 km (23.50 mpg).

Am I the only one who's improving the mpg by installing a Volant Intake?