CovertRussian's 05 LGT Build Thread

That looks fantastic, so much simpler!

 

Thanks man, your Tee helps a ton too, I was using universal Tee's and it was getting messy real quick

I literally just stumbled on this in ECUFlash, but wanted to post in case I forgot about it.

 

My ROM has an "A/F #1 Learning Threshhold" Min and Max. From the table description, it sounds like you can set the min and max value that learning #1 will be applied to vs. MAF g/s, so you could make it so learning D didn't apply to open loop by keeping learning #1 from being applied above 40 g/s (or whatever your open loop MAF flow is).

 

Mine reads strange in the stock ROM though, so I think I need ROM specific tables. it has -30 as the minimum, and .25 as the maximum.

 

FYI.

 

Tested this out! I went back to stock D learning (40) and set the max learning to 39. Low and behold, D learning was 0 after about 10 miles. Maxing out at 40 is a little low though (I'll cover this more in my next detailed post). Thus I tested it with D learning at 60 and max at 59 yesterday, 120 miles later and D learning is at 0 .

...I'll cover this more in my next detailed post...

 

The suspense is killing me!

The suspense is killing me!

 

I forgot to grab my learning view logs from the laptop, and too lazy to go to the car to get them. Will update it later tonight with some gas mileage numbers

As Mr. Flinkly found, there seems to be a table that can restrict the max mass airflow (g/s) that closed loop will be calculated for.

 

In ECU Flash there is an experimental table named: AF#1 Learning Max Threshold, description says "This determines the maximum mass airflow that AF Learning values will be applied to. By setting this lower than D range, no fuel learnings will be carried into open loop fueling." By default on 05 LGT it's set to 80.00. Which explains why we always had to go to at least 80 on D learning to prevent any learning.

 

I reduced the AF#1 Learning Max Threshold to 0.39g/s and went back to stock AF learning scales, after 10 miles, nothing was learned in D column, which means that this table does indeed stop the learning at the set g/s!

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/ECU/Fueling/D-Learning/LV_Stock%20AF%20Learning_Maxlearn-40gs.jpg~original

 

 

While you could just leave it at that and call it a day, but you would be cutting the closed loop learning range by about half. Here's a highway log with 70mph to 75mph driving, graphed it out using awesome little little tool by RomRaider user vgi, MAFScaling.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/ECU/Fueling/D-Learning/70-75mph_MassAirflow.png~original

 

Gotta compare that against the fuel map:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/ECU/Fueling/STG2%20Fuel%20v1.0.1.png~original

 

As you can see, you hit 40g/s as low as 0.75g/rev, closed loop cells are until 1.40g/rev at 70-75mph (2800-3200rpm ranges). As you can also see 80g/s goes into 1.60g/rev which is already in open loop (cells that are less then 14.7 are considered open loop). For this reason I decided to set my max learning to be around 60g/s (though reviewing the data now going up to 65-70g/s might be better).

 

Changed the learning view ranges to be 5.60, 30, 60 and max learning switchover to be 59g/s.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/ECU/Fueling/D-Learning/AF%20LearningV1.6%205-30-60.png~original

 

Here is the stock AF learning ranges learning view from 122m highway trip last week, I got 30.80mpg mostly highway, with pretty heavy traffic.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Fueling/FPR/05STI-FPR_StockAFLearning_30.8mpg.jpg~original

 

And finally here is the new AF learning ranges, 120m highway (to the same city as above), moderate traffic, got 30.03mpg, which is 2.5% less then last week, but I would say within margin of error.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/ECU/Fueling/D-Learning/LV_AFL1.6_5-30-60.jpg~original

 

 

TL;DR: Setting D learning to 80g/s is too high, you might be learning open loop AFR's. New AF ranges yielded 2.5% less mpg over stock AF ranges.

Edited October 11, 2016 by covertrussian

With Grimmspeed's new Legacy intake getting ready to hit the marketed I wanted to see what I could quickly whip up my own intake from the spare airbox that I had laying around.

 

Stock MAF housing is a good 70mm ID, my aftermarket K&N Typhoon measured at 65mm (they used smaller pipe to reduce airflow to "not require" a retune). GrimmSpeed's intake is supposed to be 70mm ID, thus I wanted to to see what I could do with the stock 70mm housing.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262809&stc=1&d=1520400284

 

I think the stock airbox would be less restrictive if they moved the maf housing to the end instead of having it be halfway in the box. There are too many sharp turns for aiflow to have to make.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262807&stc=1&d=1520400284

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262808&stc=1&d=1520400284

 

Cut it out of the box using an angle grinder and rotary tool

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262810&stc=1&d=1520400284

 

Still not pretty and needs more cutting.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262811&stc=1&d=1520400284

 

I had to shave down the little flow stack to fit 3" coupler, even then it was still a pain to slip the coupler on since the housing is 3.17" OD.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262812&stc=1&d=1520400284

 

Most important part, left the air straighter alone! Also tried to grind down the lip that was against the housing to be a little more gradual.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262813&stc=1&d=1520400284

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262814&stc=1&d=1520400284

 

I don't have any 3" cone filters laying around, thus I used 6" filter with a BPi Flow stack (some call them velocity stacks). Plus flow stacks improve airflow exponentially. I found this image while lurking the web, Ohio Airducting has a document that showed different entrance orifices and their airflow losses for HVAC systems. If it helps this much in hvac systems, it should help with cars at least a little bit

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262821&stc=1&d=1520400749

 

Flow stack installed on the maf housing, the transition is not the smoothest, but not having any 90* ridges is more important.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262815&stc=1&d=1520400566

 

New warm air intake is ready to go, using a flat top K&N filter for this quick test (I have more efficient inverted cone filter on my other car, was too lazy to pull it for this quick proof of concept)

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262816&stc=1&d=1520400566

 

Pulled the airbox and tried to see if there is enough room with stock tubing, nope....

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262817&stc=1&d=1520400566

 

I had a 3" to 2.75" coupler laying around, force squeezed it onto the maf housing, inlet side was was an easy fit on the Perrin Inlet (stock inlet would require some pushing too since it's slightly bigger then 2.75". Intake fits pretty well, but it's not even in the cold zone, remember quick proof of concept

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262818&stc=1&d=1520400566

 

 

Testing and Dyno's

Went for a quick test drive, gunned it a bit and saw dangerously lean AFR's, to top it off I was overboosting by 1psi too. I compared my half pull (stopped it when I saw how lean it was), to last week's log on the same road

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262819&stc=1&d=1520400566

 

Went back home and started number crunching. Boost was about 8% higher with intake, thus I removed 8% from WGDC tables. AFR's were about 23% leaner then with stock intake, GrimmSpeed said their intake only required 12% more fuel, that flow stack must be flowing . Added 25% more fuel to the MAF scaling table and went for another drive.

 

I drove around about 4miles to get some learning going (every time you reset the ecu AVCS takes a few miles before it starts advancing the cams correctly). Then did a log on the straight road that I use for testing. Car made 232whp/234wtq with the custom intake. I was bad and didn't do a preinstall log and since Virtual Dyno doesn't account for humidity, it's hard to compare runs even a few hours apart. Thus I had to see what I would get with the stock airbox, installed the stock airbox, reflashed the old tune (with stock MAF scales). The second run was ~30 minutes later, stock airbox made 206whp/226wtq, that's an impressive 26whp/8wtq gain!

 

 

Here is the dyno from the two intakes logged 28 minutes apart. Keep in mind the new intake wasn't tuned for, only thing I did was add more fuel to make it safe (AFR's are practically identical below) and I reduced boost by 8%, and you can see that stock airbox ran more boost at first but then later new intake with 8% less WGDC still made more boost. Besides that no other tune changes (no timing or fuel map changes) or hardware changes were introduced.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262820&stc=1&d=1520400566

 

Now your gonna say, but CovertRussian you've made 230whp before, well yes on a much colder day with much less humidity. This summer has been pretty hot and humid, most of my virtual dyno's have been showing 200-215whp on this same stretch of road. This is why I did the two dynos side by side (well ~30 min apart due to install time).

 

I now I could improve on the quick design and buy a 45* 3" elbow and move the filter more into the fender well and maybe build an airbox. Or just buy the GrimmmSpeed intake and call it a day...

 

Update: Here is the CAI version of this intake:

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262805&stc=1&d=1520399951

Edited March 7, 2018 by covertrussian

Are there any pics of the new Grimspeed out yet?

 

BTW I admire your engenuity. Well done.

Sopposed to look just like their other subaru one, just a different maf attachment i believe.

 

Sent from my XT1028

Contact derp, he was suppose to have Grimmspeed test the intake on his car this past Friday.

Holy cow!

 

This makes me want the GS intake even more, although your quick and dirrty one is damn decent.

 

Are there any pics of the new Grimspeed out yet?

 

BTW I admire your engenuity. Well done.

 

Thanks! I'm still in a testing phase, if this this keeps up the power over next couple days I think I'll work on improving it even more.

 

GS intake is an awesome looking intake and also gained them 20whp at stock boost levels on the WRX. Their airbox design is also excellent.

 

Legacy prototype:

http://www.grimmspeed.com/content/images/lgt_intake_production1.jpg

 

WRX version:

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server5000/8fmm9av/products/353/images/1664/intake_subaru_0814_wrxsti_21_1600__67684.1431537458.1280.1280.jpg?c=2

 

 

Holy cow!

 

This makes me want the GS intake even more, although your quick and dirrty one is damn decent.

 

 

No kidding it caught me by surprise too! I did some more virtual dyno runs today, power stayed fairly similar too. Analyzing logs right now and will post up the additional data. Also yesterday's run actually made 232whp instead of 242whp, this was an issue with a log file and me bouncing off the rev limiter.

Edited August 16, 2015 by covertrussian

Did some more logs today to verify if I kept the power gains or if there was an error. Ambient air temps being at 89-90F made the IAT's be not friendly in the city, it would spike up to 140F in no time, while I've seen those IAT's with stock airbox it wasn't as fast. Driving on backroads reduces the IAT's but not as quickly as with stock airbox.

 

Since yesterday's custom intake run bounced off the rev limiter I truncated the log in Excel, which made Virtual Dyno render 242whp, I truncated that bounce in Virtual Dyno and thus the power has been reduced to 232whp. Still this means 26whp gain over stock intake.

 

With that in mind, here is yesterday's run, today's run on same exact road, and a 3rd gear run on a different road (very hard to find a road to do a 3rd gear pull around here).

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/WAI%20v1/VDyno%20-%20WAIv1%202nd-3rd%20Gears.png~original

 

Power was lost by 4whp, which could be explained with warmer ambient air. Digging more into the logs compared IAT's and Total Timing.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/WAI%20v1/0816%20-%20Dynos%20-%20%20IAT%20and%20Timing.png~original

 

Today's 2nd gear IAT's were about 10*F warmer, coupled with some knock, plus less timing is ran due to higher IAT (as per comp table). If you look at the IAT Timing based comps you can see ECU starts pulling 2.11* at 104F.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/ECU/IAT%20Comp/05%20LGT%20Stock%20IAT%20Timing%20Comp.png~original

 

This explains why slightly less power today, and also explains why 3rd gear pull made more power. Which might mean that my 242 post trunk power might have not been overly optimistic afterall.

 

TL;DR Intake works very well, even with warmer IAT's still gained 22whp/1wtq, over yesterday's stock intake run.

 

 

Cleaning up the MAF Housing

Since this intake is actually working much better anticipated, I cleaned up the plastic and made it smoother (so that it wouldn't rub a hole in my power steering line). Dremel sanding wheel did the trick:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/WAI%20v1/WAIv1_011.jpg~original

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/WAI%20v1/WAIv1_012.jpg~original

 

Intake installed again:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/WAI%20v1/WAIv1_013.jpg~original

 

The hood stick actually pushed the filter a little down, which is good because it prevents it from rubbing against the frame/headlight

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/WAI%20v1/WAIv1_014.jpg~original

Edited August 19, 2015 by covertrussian

Very nice project mate. Big thanks good explanation all fixes and good pictures. Nice mods and very nice car.. keep it updates coming more

I think I'm starting to understand the real purpose of heat shields and airboxes, it's to reduce heat soak while standing still. Once your moving it doesn't matter as much. With the current warm air intake if I don't stop my IAT's stay 5-10*F warmer then ambient, which is actually similar to what my stock airbox would do.

 

Also another speculation, the stock intake/airbox setup is pretty much a cold air, which is why everyone always says the stock airbox is good enough. While it might be a pretty decent at delivering colder air, it's not an efficiently flowing intake. I will further test this in a few days by removing the snorkel/resonator box, which would make the stock air box into even better cold air intake.

 

Right now I'm testing the fuel economy in the city with the warm air intake, since there is a lot of stop and go, intake temps stay in 110-150*F range. Which means timing is being retarded from 2-5*. We'll see if this has an effect on fuel economy.

 

Very nice project mate. Big thanks good explanation all fixes and good pictures. Nice mods and very nice car.. keep it updates coming more

 

Thanks mate, much appreciated

Something to think about...I devised and installed a ram air snorkel and tube into the bottom of the A/M open airbox on my Lightning. It made a difference in the intake temp. I cannot say in made more HP because a dyna test never show ram air systems improve anything. Seat of the pants I noticed a difference. Just something to think about.

I definitely think the airbox is a must, the car hesitates and struggles in 90*F weather in town, once I get into light boost and out of closed loop all is well.

 

I don't usually expect intakes to make too much power, but seeing GrimmSpeed's 20whp gains it seems like our intakes don't flow great after all.

 

If I decide to stay with the DIY setup I'll definitely build an airbox, but also tempting to just buy GrimmSpeed's intake and call it a day too.

Edited August 19, 2015 by covertrussian

Built a quick cold air intake with a 3" stainless steel exhaust pipe that i had handy. Wanted the car to be a little more drivable in this heat since I can't go back to stock intake (Tactrix cable is dead so can't reflash ecu) and this honestly did the trick for now.

 

SS is not the best material for intakes, while better then steal it still heats soaks. This was another proof of concept and if it worked I would buy an Aluminum elbow. But I wont deny it, I do like the way it looks!

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262803&stc=1&d=1520399951

 

This pipe is a little too long so the filter is actually touching the bumper but it does hide the maf completely in the fender.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262804&stc=1&d=1520399951

 

All done, just needed a few more clamps and a coupler and WAI turned into a fairly good CAI.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262805&stc=1&d=1520399951

 

I gotta say Legacy's are easy to make a CAI for (well besides having to dig out the MAF housing out of the air box). I wish my Infiniti had this much room and easy access to the fender, what a mess right? Seeing the WAI intake temps makes me really want to figure out a way to do a CAI on the Infiniti too.

http://legacygt.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=262806&stc=1&d=1520399951

 

Intake Air Temperature

City driving still saw temps up to 140*F, but I've seen those temps on stock airbox too. Highway driving on the other hand was impressive, the IAT's were 1-5*F warmer then ambient at 80-88*F and at 70*F IAT's were exactly at ambient.

 

Gas Mileage

WAI didn't increase gas mileage at all in the city thus I didn't bother testing it on the highway. With how well the CAI did with temperature control, I wanted to see highway gas mileage. Going to the usual city, same driving styles, same amount of city miles, I got 30.75mpg with some highway standstill traffic, as compared to two weeks ago I got 30.03mpg on stock intake. I was worried that I might loose gas mileage, but this thing caught me by surprise.

 

I'll need to start messing with timing now, with increased airflow efficiency, less timing is needed to reach MBT, thus going over MBT will mean power and MPG loss. This is why my Infiniti is running about 10* less timing then stock and still gets 34-38MPG highway, where on stock timing it got around 31mpg.

 

I'm building a list of parts to buy now to make this a more official intake, it has proven self pretty well so far, city driveability does seem better too. Sadly I wont have any CAI vs WAI power numbers any time soon (at least not until I get my Tactrix cable back).

Edited March 7, 2018 by covertrussian

You have any issues with rain and car washes? I have a AEM w/o the shield and it either gets wet from heavy sidways rain storms into the scoop or car wash undercarriage washes. Maf voltage high CEl would be the code I get when it happened. I loved the sound of the turbo echoing through it but went to the Blitz intake/airbox mod instead. Instead of the eerie howl of a turbo, I have Darth Vader sounds.

It hasn't rained here in a while so haven't ran into those issues. The wheel well mud guards close off the fenderwell pretty well though, thus I'm not sure why you would get that.

 

Just saw your blitz intake:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k280/merc6/LGT/001DD45B-89A8-4312-A5E6-4087FFDC6754_zpshmxbwcar.jpg~original

 

Thing about this setup is, it's still gonna heat soak really badly like my WAI was. This is where I think stock airbox is a better choice (it shields from the heat much better). The biggest issue with stock airbox is maf placement IMO then restrictive front part of the box.

 

Once I get my logging capabilities back, I want to test stock airbox vs stock airbox without snorkle, because removing the snorkel effectively makes it into a CAI.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/Stock%20Airbox/Airbox0010.jpg~original

Just so I'm understanding it right, we talking the piece that goes above the radiator or the milk jug at the bottom? My heat soak was more so the Perrin Top Mount. I have a STi I/c sprayer tank that is going in with the build. besides that I was mostly a turnpike driver Ohio to NJ through PA after I left the NoVa traffic scene. Burke/Springfield would heat the timc up.

 

I also may revisit the AEM with custom shield later on as well. I'll decide before I grab a tune.

I'm talking about pulling the milk jug yeah, basically keep stock airbox, stock ram air plastic, and just remove the milk jug at the bottom so that intake could suck in air from the fenderwell too.

 

I'm far from Nova and it's traffic and my WAI was still heating way up while fighting with stop lights at 90*F. The car ran like crap because of that, with CAI it's been running great, but the weather hasn't been as hot lately.

 

Now this doesn't mean I wasn't still heat soaking, I could be very well. The problem is the IAT sensor is on the MAF and not after intercooler, which means the numbers are not true to what the engine is seeing. But the ECU still does compensations based on the MAF temps, which is what made it run like crap.

Got the Amsoil dry filters! Bought a 3" one that has a built in flowstack with inverted cone top and a 6" one to use with my BPi flowstack.

 

BPi Flowstack with K&N filter vs Amsoil EAAU3050

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/General/Intake/Flowstack/BPi%20Flowstack-KampN%20vs%20Amsoil%20EAAU3050.jpg~original

 

Amsoil EAAU3050 and EAAU6065

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/General/Intake/Flowstack/Amsoil_001%20EAAU3050%20vs%20EAAU6065.jpg~original

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/General/Intake/Flowstack/Amsoil_003%20EAAU3050%20vs%20EAAU6065.jpg~original

 

I wanted to see how the 3" built in flowstack filter stacked up vs the dedicated flowstack setup. Thus I installed both and did a bunch of logs.

 

3" filter, it's definitely more compact in the fender well

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/Custom%20Intake/CAIv1%20Amsoil%20EAAU3050%20001.jpg~original

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/Custom%20Intake/CAIv1%20Amsoil%20EAAU3050%20003.jpg~original

 

6" filter is a little long, was pushing against the bumper, thus If I use this setup would need to cut the intake pipe more.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/Custom%20Intake/CAIv1%20Amsoil%20EAAU6065%20001.jpg~original

 

 

Amsoil 6" filter and BPi flowstack was happy with 25% more MAF scaling from the K&N filter (which means the filter flow characteristics stayed about the same). 3" filter ran a big richer, I also saw MAF scaling being 5% higher (means higher calculated g/rev, which means being in cells meant for more boost thus richer and less timing). Once I reduced the 3" filter's scaling by 5% (20% more then stock), the AFR's and loads were now similar to 6" flowstack setup.

 

After that did some more logs and here are the results:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/Custom%20Intake/Intake%20Filters%20Amsoil%20-%20EAAU3050%2020%20MAF%20vs%20EAAU6065%20BPi%20Flowstack%2025%20MAF.png~original]

 

I gotta say it's really too close to really say that dedicated flowstack is worth it, especially since the 3" filter is much easier to fit in places.

 

Now it's a little unfair since dedicated flowstack doesn't have an inverted cone top (Amsoil doesn't make them) while 3" version does. I have an S&B filter with inverted cone top (Powerstack) though, I might test it vs the K&N with a flat top.

I went back to stock intake, for now (until I build an airbox) or permanently and here is why...

 

Power Gains - The power gains were there, but only if IAT's could be kept down. I found that WAI, CAI, and stock airbox without resonator would have the IAT's rise very quickly, much quicker then stock setup. With raised IAT's ECU would pull more timing to avoid detonation, which meant powerloss to stock airbox levels if not lower. I would have to drive for a minutes to get IAT's down to stock air box levels, only then would power gains be shown. A proper airbox would solve this issue though.

 

I also found that the fenderwell is actually really bad about getting you cold air in the city. With the manifold and up pipe being right there, and the belly pan not fully sealing against the body, there is a big window for hot air to pollute the fenderwell with hot air. This is why even keeping the stock airbox but removing the resonator/milk jug resulted in much quicker rising and higher IAT's then 100% stock.

 

This means that two things need to be done before fenderwell can be "colder", seal the fenderwell from exhaust heat and from engine bay heat (there is a hole right behind headlights), also design the airbox so that the stock snorkel can still be utilized (which is damn good).

 

You can see more detailed posts about this here and here.

 

 

Gas Mileage - I saw mixed results, with gas mileage, but it was mostly negative. Gas mileage tests were performed with the same driving style, to same locations, with similar temps.

WAI City Gas mileage stayed roughly the same as stock, highway not tested

CAI City Gas mileage actually dropped by about 1-2mpg, CAI highway gas mileage was up by .7mpg, nothing to brag about.

 

I think city gas mileage losses come from IAT's being higher then stock, triggering IAT based timing retard which resulted in power loss in the city which could lead to MPG loss. Building a WAI with Airbox would solve this, or going with a GrimmSpeed intake, but I don't have the disposable cash anymore (kids are expensive haha) so stock intake it is.

 

Maybe my tune is not fine tuned enough for an intake to get the best gas mileage out of it. I tried running 5* less timing on highway (went from 45* to 40*), more air efficiency = easier to hit MBT = less timing needed, but that resulted me in loosing 1.2mpg (went from 30.75mpg to 29.56mpg). This is the first car I've had that didn't respond well gas mileage wise to an intake.

 

Rain! After a moderate rainstorm I opened the hood to find my flowstack had puddles of water in it. The fenderwell is not isolated enough from the outside, looks like the safest bet is to have the intake inside the engine bay with an airbox.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t188/covertrussian/Cars/05%20LGT/Engine/Intake/Custom%20Intake/CAIv1_005_Water.jpg~original

Edited October 4, 2015 by covertrussian

Just as a quick note, I run my cobb intake (w/ box) with the stock intake snorkel. Not sure if most folks do that, but I would imagine so. Works great.

 

Curious on the fitment, got any pics?