When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
MAT sensor? Try asking again in actual English & maybe I can tell what your asking about.
'wut' 'im' 'u' are not in the English dictionary & what is 'probes'?
Why are you being difficult? I just spell like that because it's quicker but fine I'll spell properly because I need your help.the mat sensor stands for manifold air temperature and it's very small especially compared to the maf.what I'm wondering is if your intake you got on eBay came with a hole for the mat sensor
hey man does this intake have a hole for the mat sensor?not the maf but the MAT? u know the little one u probes know wut im talking about lol i just wanna be sure
M.a.t. sensor? Like a floor mat sensor? I think you mean IAT "intake air temp"
There is maf and map your mixing up manifold absolute pressure and intake air temp. Your looking for the IAT my good man.
Hmm well that's weird cuz I have the 82-92 Haynes firebird manual in front of me and it says it's mat but it seems like iat is just the same thing so yes can one of u help me? I wanna get this kit and have minimum to no problems installing it
Why are you being difficult? I just spell like that because it's quicker but fine I'll spell properly because I need your help.the mat sensor stands for manifold air temperature and it's very small especially compared to the maf.what I'm wondering is if your intake you got on eBay came with a hole for the mat sensor
Sorry if I'm being difficult, but there is no reason to start spelling out slang just because we are on the internet. Proper English goes a long way. Besides....I honestly did not understand your question but with proper English, I might have.
For a V6, the MAT(v6)/IAT(v8) is mounted in the incoming air tube. For TPIs it is mounted under the upper plenum, but I did relocate mine to the aftermarket tube.
I simply drilled a hole slightly smaller than the IAT & used the IAT itself to cut threads into the tubing. The tubing is aluminum so it was simple to do that.
One issue I would see using it for a V6 is that your throttle body is further back from the radiator, so there may no be enough tubing for it to reach from the throttle body to the radiator before turning.
Ahh I see,so the answer to my question is no.k well that sucks,I guess I gotta drill a hole to.and I don't see the problem with my throttle body being further back cuz I'm planning on just cutting it then extending the wiring with more wire.and also it says this kit is only for 5.0 and 5.7 v8's but I can't see y it won't be compatible with my 2.8
Sorry if I'm being difficult, but there is no reason to start spelling out slang just because we are on the internet. Proper English goes a long way. Besides....I honestly did not understand your question but with proper English, I might have.
For a V6, the MAT(v6)/IAT(v8) is mounted in the incoming air tube. For TPIs it is mounted under the upper plenum, but I did relocate mine to the aftermarket tube.
I simply drilled a hole slightly smaller than the IAT & used the IAT itself to cut threads into the tubing. The tubing is aluminum so it was simple to do that.
One issue I would see using it for a V6 is that your throttle body is further back from the radiator, so there may no be enough tubing for it to reach from the throttle body to the radiator before turning.
Hey man.turns out I have another question.well there are 3 things connected to my airbox.the 2 sensors we talked about before,and there's this small rubber hose,about half an inch wide,that connects to my intake right in front of the throttle body.I think it's a vacuum hose or something? But I'm not sure.it maybe different on a v8 but if this intake doesn't have a hole for it can you tell me what you did?
Hey man.turns out I have another question.well there are 3 things connected to my airbox.the 2 sensors we talked about before,and there's this small rubber hose,about half an inch wide,that connects to my intake right in front of the throttle body.I think it's a vacuum hose or something? But I'm not sure.it maybe different on a v8 but if this intake doesn't have a hole for it can you tell me what you did?
My V8 has nothing but the MAF connected in front of the TB & I've never worked on a V6 Camaro (not sure I even seen under the hood of one in person, just in online pics) so I couldn't help you much there.
I'll take a guess that it may be some kind of PCV valve hose, but that is pure speculation.
Last edited by BlackenedBird; 01-29-2012 at 05:12 PM.
MAT = Manifold Air Temp sensor
IAT = Intake Air Temp sensor
Both technically do the same thing but are placed in a different location which is why the 1st word is changed.
One is in the manifold and other is in the intake tubing.
Our cars use a MAT from the factory.
I think TTAs use a IAT.
MAT = Manifold Air Temp sensor
IAT = Intake Air Temp sensor
Both technically do the same thing but are placed in a different location which is why the 1st word is changed.
One is in the manifold and other is in the intake tubing.
Our cars use a MAT from the factory.
I think TTAs use a IAT.
Logical thinking, but mine located in the underside of the plenum is still referred to, by the factory, as an IAT. I did relocate it to the intake tubing in front of the throttle body & replaced it with an actual sensor, not the water temp-style sensor the factory used.
This would be strait from my factory 89 service manual.
So, again.
MAT = Manifold Air Temp sensor
IAT = Intake Air Temp sensor
Both technically do the same thing but are placed in a different location which is why the 1st word is changed. (it tells you where the air temp sensor is placed, not what it does).
They both tell the air temp
One is just in the manifold and other is in the intake tubing.
Our cars technically use a MAT from the factory.
I think TTAs use a IAT.
OK (still a stupid design) & a bad name. It is in the Plenum, not the Manifold. Now flip your pages until you find the Water Temperature Sensor & tell me it isn't the SAME sensor. Regardless of what you choose to call it, it is a bad design & bad location(V8 stock)
Or take a water sensor & the air sensor & tell me they aren't the same.
But take a V6 air sensor & V8 air sensor look at them side by side (V8 left/V6 right):
Here is the V6 plastic y-piece:
Last edited by BlackenedBird; 01-30-2012 at 11:14 AM.
The plenum is part of the intake manifold as are the runners and base.
They have to be broken down in subassemblys and each part has to have a name and number.
The MAT IAT and coolant sensors are the same, just made from diff material for their diff jobs.
If you grind the side of the small part of the brass MAT and coolant sensor it will open it and look just like the IAT sensor.
The reason the MAT and coolant sensor are "covered" with brass is to prevent pcv oil and coolant from coming in direct contact with the electrical parts.
The IAT can be "open" because it is just in the airflow.
After going over all this,it doesn't even look like I have to connect my mat to my cai tube.it seems that I just have to put it somewhere near the filter,and protect it with something
Any Idea where I can get a cover for where the original air filter went? I saw a few photos of cars with a flat black plate in place of the original intake.
Because it Looks smaller to me, the pipe infront of the maf looks like it would be a restriction on a car with a bit more power.
How would it be a restriction if is it the same diameter as the MAF? Anything bigger is just overkill since it would bottleneck down through the MAF anyways.
Sorry, but that is not true at all. If you have a larger diameter pipe, and it only momentarily goes through the restriction of the MAF, the MAF acts as a venturi and everything moves along nicely. If everything is the same area as the smallest area of the MAF, you loose the venturi effect and everything moves slowly through the entire length of the intake. The distance is it restricted makes a very significant difference in the flow rate.
TA
I had a feeling you were going to come up with something like that. And actually, you are mistaken.
Unless it transitions via a cone, then you cannot get the venturi effect. Otherwise you are geting turbulence because of the wall transition of it suddenly having to transition from large to small.Definitely a cork bottle. Otherwise, we wouldn't be port matching things like intake runners & plenums. We would do sharp transitions from large to small.
Sorry, but your argument carries zero weight. If you had a cone transition, then your argument would be valid. But simply increasing the diameter doesn't.
Wow, there's enough misinformation here to confuse anybody. What we're talking here is fluid flow in a pipe, and if there's anything I know something about, it's fluid flow in a pipe. For a start, everything in bold above is false, and everything underlined is a true statement. One statement is both bold and underlined, as it has some basis of fact, but is not correct for this application. TTOP350 poses an excellent question, and BlackenedBird replies with a statement that is completely false. TA responds with a pretty good idea of what the physics behind this problem are, and BlackenedBird once again jumps in with a whole lot of nonsense based on very little fact and shoots him down. You three, and anyone else who is interested, follow along, and I will explain.
The first statement I take serious issue with here is also the most easily debunked. BlackenedBird states that:
"Unless it transitions via a cone, then you cannot get the venturi effect."
That, is simply . A venturi has nothing to do with cones, and nothing to do with turbulence whatsoever. A venturi is a simple concept based on the principle of continuity (i.e. conservation of mass, momentum and energy). The principle behind a venturi is that mass flow through a system must remain constant (unless there is mass storage, which clearly does not happen in an air intake). Because we are dealing with air at roughly atmospheric temperature and pressure, and at relatively low velocity, it will behave in this case as an incompressible fluid. Because it is incompressible, density remains constant, meaning that mass flow equals volumetric flow. Because volumetric flow must remain constant, the flow MUST speed up as it enters an area of smaller cross section, regardless of whether it experiences a "cone transition" or not.
The more air you push (or pull) through the larger pipe, the faster the air in the restricted area in the smaller section will flow. Flow in the restricted area will continue to increase in velocity until it reaches Mach 1, at which point the flow becomes choked. If you were then to expand the exit after the restricted area, you would get a rocket nozzle, and flow exiting the restriction would go supersonic. This is nowhere near the case here. Assuming an engine of 5.7L displacement, operating at WOT and 80% VE, you would have to spin that puppy up to approx. 10,200 RPM before you choked the flow in a 3" diameter restriction. If anyone is doing that, I'd like to meet the man that built the short block!
Now let's move along to the "loosely based on fact but still false" statement. Right after the last statement explained, BlackenedBird claims:
"Otherwise you are geting turbulence because of the wall transition of it suddenly having to transition from large to small. Definitely a cork bottle."
Yes, a sudden wall transition will create turbulence. The problem with your statement here, is that the entire flow is already turbulent to begin with, so adding a bit more created by a flat wall transition from a large to small diameter pipe isn't going to "stop" the air from accelerating through the smaller pipe to maintain constant massflow. When dealing with fluid flow in a pipe, a Reynolds number of greater than 4000 means that flow has completely transitioned to turbulent flow within the pipe. Once again, assuming a 3" ID pipe and atmospheric conditions, the Reynolds number would reach 4000 when fluid velocity in the pipe is merely .78 m/s. Using the same 5.7L engine described above, this means that fluid flow in the 3" intake piping is fully turbulent at an engine speed of only 93.6 rpm. That means your intake piping is ALWAYS experiencing turbulent flow if the engine is running at WOT. BlackenedBird's assumed "wall transition" adds some turbulence to a flow that is already extremely turbulent, i.e., it has little to no effect in this case. A more layman's explanation is as follows: Each individual air molecule is traveling at a speed equal to the speed of sound (aprox 340 m/s). Only the AVERAGE velocity of ALL the air molecules is moving the speed of airflow down the intake pipe. Because all these little molecules are bouncing around at MUCH higher than the average flow of the intake piping, they easily find their way around such an obstruction and into the smaller diameter section, creating negligible overall flow disturbance. BlackenedBird's loosely based claim becomes even weaker when you realize that every junction in the intake piping is joined by flexible rubber tubing. There is no "sudden" transition like you would find in an intake manifold to cylinder head junction. In fact, the joining rubber pieces leads to a "cone-like" transition that BlackenedBird claims wasn't even present in the first place. And I'm sorry, but what the heck is a "cork bottle"? Perhaps you meant "bottleneck"? You're definitely not putting a cork in the flow of your intake pipe by having a wall transition in there somewhere.
Now let's talk truth. TA made several statements that bordered on explaining the real underlying problem with only having a 3" diameter pipe on either side of the MAF. He was trying to debunk BlackenedBird's previous false statement:
"Anything bigger is just overkill since it would bottleneck down through the MAF anyways."
What TA was trying to explain, is that even having an inlet pipe the SAME DIAMETER as the MAF greatly restricts airflow. The problem lies in a fluid property called head loss. No, this term does not refer to one of the members of this board losing his head frequently in thread replies, but rather to energy lost in a flow due to friction. Head loss is divided into two major categories, major and minor head loss. Minor head loss is caused by fittings, bends, surface roughness, etc., and is often referenced from a table. Major head loss, the driving factor in most pipe flow problems, is a function of Length*Velocity^2/Diameter. Now, lets look at two different inlet pipes, both of the same length, fittings, bends, and material, both moving the same volume of air into an engine. The first pipe is 4" in diameter, and the second pipe is 3" in diameter. The 4" pipe will experience MUCH less head loss, as the velocity will be lower than the 3" pipe moving the same amount of air. In fact, if you crunch the numbers for the same length of pipe and the same volumetric flow (i.e., same engine at same RPM and throttle position), the 3" diameter pipe experiences 420% of the head loss of the 4" diameter pipe. Since head loss is directly related to pressure loss, the 3" diameter pipe is operating at a lower static pressure to pull the same amount of fluid through. What does this mean for your engine? It means it's having to work much harder to overcome the head loss in the 3" diameter pipe than the 4" diameter pipe.
Now, you clearly can't have a straight 4" diameter pipe, because somewhere in there you have to go down to 3" for the MAF. So now lets make 10% of the 4" diameter pipe a 3" diameter section, and recalculate the head loss. The straight 3" diameter pipe still has 320% more head loss than the 4" diameter pipe with 3" section added in. Even if you were to include the coefficient for an abrupt wall transition and velocity change into the minor head loss equation, you would still reach the result that the straight 3" diameter pipe experiences much more head loss than the 4" diameter piping with a 3" MAF section. The 4" piping is simply much more efficient at moving air at these velocities, and the efficiency only increases as pipe size goes up. You're really only limited by the size of piping and filter you can fit in the engine bay and afford with your budget. Of course, at some point you will reach a point of diminishing returns, but that point is NOT at the 3 to 4" pipe range.
So yes, TA's statements that:
"If you have a larger diameter pipe, and it only momentarily goes through the restriction of the MAF, the MAF acts as a venturi and everything moves along nicely." and
" The distance is it restricted makes a very significant difference in the flow rate."
as well as TTOP350's statements that:
"the pipe infront of the maf looks like it would be a restriction on a car with a bit more power."
all hold true. And the science above explains why. BlackenedBird's analogy with port matching of cylinder heads, intakes, and plenums, has almost no applicability with relation to air intake piping. The velocities in the plenum, intake, and cylinder head passages are much higher, hence adding compressibility and shock waves into consideration. Resonance also becomes a key player, along with turbulence, fuel atomization, and a number of other factors which simply aren't present in your cold (or warm) air intake.
And that, in a nutshell, is the science behind air intake piping. I hope everyone enjoyed the explanation, and can take some solid Facts away from a thread that has henceforth been filled with a lot of Fabrication and Half-Truths.
-cal30sniper
Last edited by cal30_sniper; 02-15-2012 at 05:30 PM.
Also, let me add one more thing, based on previous experiences with BlackenedBird's arguing techniques. Before you make some witty reply, trying to change the subject to something I am not talking about in the post above, or mix matching previous posters statements and ideas, go back and carefully re-read the entire thread. Then take careful consideration of the engineering fundamentals that I have provided to answer the questions posed. If you still have a problem with the facts I have presented, then make an educated and fact-supported rebuttal based on applicable knowledge. Unless you can do that, then please do us all a favor and don't post at all.
Folks, anyone running a 3" tube with a Miniram on a decently built engine needs to upgrade to a 4" diameter tube ASAP. It MAKES a difference at the upper mid-range to top end when the tube gets lengthy...
True 3.5 cold air, MAF, sucking air from below the battery tray..3.5" to 3" richporter MAF to3" to 3.5" elbow to 4" TB coupler. I know now the MAF is the restriction, the 3.5 was to provide more of a reservior of air. To a 3.5"x 9" dry filter. Noticed a pickup in torque over the fully modded factory Iroc/K&N set up. And you can feel it on top too. Noticeable. Bigger is better in this instance, would of went 4" but already had the material.
If you've got a camaro, you're not going to do better than the factory set up fully modified. Before I got my procharger I had the factory lid with the baffles cut out and hawks ram air boxes with k&n filters. My car dyno'd 475rwhp. It ran 122-124 mph in the quarter mile at 3600lbs race weight. That more than backs up the dyno numbers. There's a reason nobody came out with an aftermarket intake system specifically for camaros.
Slp made that intake for the firebird which needed it. Obviously not made for camaros because you had to move the battery to install one. The dual snorkel was designed for the firehawk. I've done all the real world testing. 4kpa drop with the modified intake. 2kpa drop with no intake at all. Went no faster with no air filters. Went slower with no intake at all due to radiator heat. Not worth the trouble/expense trying to make something better. Naturally aspirated it's about as good as you can get.
Butt-o-meter disagrees. Dyno Don told me personally that Kevin's car picked up 7hp on the dyno with a "true" cold air over the factory lid. THere was another member here who dyno tested a 30ft-lb improvement on a 383 over the camaro set up. Not saying that the camaro set up doesn't work well when modded. Just I noticed a pick up , in the low end torque and top end breathing with my 3.5in setup. Just like when people raise the factory lid and modify the mouth to a 3.5 or better, they see a pick up. Not saying you gain 100hp, but there is something there.
Worth the effort? it depends, you could agrue for and against almost any mod. For me I like the improvement, but for the cost and time modding it is marginal. The car is stronger no question.
TTOP350, you got any finished pics? I want to go with the same setup on my gta. I will plan on making me a wall to block the engine bay heat from the filter and then running the biggest filter I can on it. You have any issue with the nipple at the radiator neck hitting the tube?
TTOP350, you got any finished pics? I want to go with the same setup on my gta. I will plan on making me a wall to block the engine bay heat from the filter and then running the biggest filter I can on it. You have any issue with the nipple at the radiator neck hitting the tube?
Sorry I missed this, no I don't quite have it finished yet. Had some major comp cam failure issues and other things but I'll be back on it soon.
Going to cut a hole in the tray beneath it and romove the fog light next time I go to the track. I bought some more 4" to fab a pipe to go from the fog light opening to the bottom of the tray. Kind of a ram air type setup. Don't know if it will do anything though.
Sorry I'm a little late to this party. If you are going to use 3 inch piping, the throttle body has a 4 inch diameter. So you would need a 4x3 Silicone Reducer.
Either way, whatever you end up using, one end of the reducer has to be 4 inches for the TB!
I went to pepboys and bought all the components to make this exact one (as I am not handy with bending and cutting metal yet, but i'm learning!!) and it cost me over $90...
I would rather pay $50 off ebay and hope I only have to make slight mods!
I went to pepboys and bought all the components to make this exact one (as I am not handy with bending and cutting metal yet, but i'm learning!!) and it cost me over $90...
I would rather pay $50 off ebay and hope I only have to make slight mods!
There is little to no improvement with that intake. Stock airflow is pretty much the same. You're still sucking warm engine bay air, but you're then using metal tubing, which will retain heat.
There is little to no improvement with that intake. Stock airflow is pretty much the same. You're still sucking warm engine bay air, but you're then using metal tubing, which will retain heat.
I'm only buying it because my stock airbox is broken. The guy I bought it from RTV'd the crap out of it, and duct taped it. Yet, it still had air leaks up the wazzu and it ran like a turd. Instead of spending money on another stock airbox which people want too much money for half the time, I'd rather just go with the cold air intake.
Plus, I have a hole where my old filter used to sit, so I will be routing it down there, and blocking it off from the bay!
My progress on my 4 inch intake winter project. Still need to trim the top edge and add the rubber gasket. It fits very nice. I moved my battery to the driver side after buying a Pontiac postive battery cable. I didn't want the intake pipe next to the upper radiator hose heat. I used prepainted aluminum for making race car panels to build my air box. Also added IAT to intake pipe. Sorry for the bad lighting. I will get finished pics with outside lighting soon.
My progress on my 4 inch intake winter project. Still need to trim the top edge and add the rubber gasket. It fits very nice. I moved my battery to the driver side after buying a Pontiac postive battery cable. I didn't want the intake pipe next to the upper radiator hose heat. I used prepainted aluminum for making race car panels to build my air box. Also added IAT to intake pipe. Sorry for the bad lighting. I will get finished pics with outside lighting soon.
You dont happen to have a template for this? Id like to make one but my car is in winter storage, so cant measure pr make a corrugated template....
I can copy it on construction paper and sent it in the mail if you can give me a couple days. I made the first one out of card board and made it big and then trimmed it down to fit.
I can also post a finished pic of the gasket I put on the edge.
I can copy it on construction paper and sent it in the mail if you can give me a couple days. I made the first one out of card board and made it big and then trimmed it down to fit.
I can also post a finished pic of the gasket I put on the edge.
Hello,
Thats really nice but I was thinking if You already had it, no need for You to do this extra work. If You have time please post the pic of how You sealed against the hood. The "box" looks real good.
It's been my experience that unless you relocate the MAT sensor out of the intake plenum and into the air tube, and then re-calibrate the MAT tables in the ECM, you're not going to get the full benefit of CAI. Also, it'd be better to run a non-metallic air tube.
These setups certainly look cool, but the reality is you have to get the inlet end of the tube out of the engine compartment altogether otherwise, you're not getting that much benefit out of the setup (if at all).
On my 2nd gen, I did a set up similar to what you guys did, (having relocated the battery to the trunk), I cut a hole in the sheet metal where the battery used to reside and routed the CAI tube to the hole and (using a air tube flange) mounted the filter under the car. I then had to put heat shielding around the filter since it was STILL getting hot air from the engine compartment. This experimentation was call carefully monitored using the MAT sensor readout in Tunerpro. In the end, I got the air intake temperature down to ambient temperature during normal driving, and only 10-15 deg above ambient while idling around in traffic.
After relcoating the MAT sensor, you also have to turn off a certain switch in the calibration in order to tell the ECM not to factor in coolant temperature into the air temp vs fuel calculation. With the factory sensor in the plenum the ECM factors coolant temp into the equation...so unless you turn that off, this calculation will defeat a lot of the purpose of a CAI tube. But, with the re-configuring of the intake tube and the recalibration of the MAT tables, there was a very noticeable improvement in performance, along with a consistency of the feel of the car for all operating temperatures.
So bottom line is, CAI tubes are more than just relocating the air filter to a different part of the engine compartment if you're going to get the full benefit.
Also, it'd be better to run a non-metallic air tube.
I've wondered about this. ....not saying you're wrong, just discussing. I've heard numbers as high as 40 degrees of difference between a true, efficient CAI and open element filters under hood. ....even with SOME heat sink, could a metal tube transfer even CLOSE to that much heat in the time it takes to go from filter to TB???
I'm not sure either. Agreed, time in the tube is short and the heat transfer only occurs at the boundary layer of the air against the tube.
But practically speaking, if I'm going to go through the trouble of building a custom CAI, I'm going to go for as thermally insulating set up as possible to maximize the potential.
It's been my experience that unless you relocate the MAT sensor out of the intake plenum and into the air tube, and then re-calibrate the MAT tables in the ECM, you're not going to get the full benefit of CAI. Also, it'd be better to run a non-metallic air tube.
These setups certainly look cool, but the reality is you have to get the inlet end of the tube out of the engine compartment altogether otherwise, you're not getting that much benefit out of the setup (if at all).
I did both as I am running the EBL FLASH ECM, the tunes all are preset for the IAT to be in the incoming air stream and not in the plenum. It made a difference of my 421 with the FIRST intake. I had to add fuel because it was moving more air with the intake change.
Mine uses the SLP air box and factory air fliter. The SLP box pulls its air from under the car through the fender.
With another simple trick the lower bumper/fender area becomes semi pressurized at speed and has gained me a few tenths and mph at the track.
01-26-2012, 10:10 PM
I think you mean IAT "intake air temp" 
. A venturi has nothing to do with cones, and nothing to do with turbulence whatsoever. A venturi is a simple concept based on the principle of continuity (i.e. conservation of mass, momentum and energy). The principle behind a venturi is that mass flow through a system must remain constant (unless there is mass storage, which clearly does not happen in an air intake). Because we are dealing with air at roughly atmospheric temperature and pressure, and at relatively low velocity, it will behave in this case as an incompressible fluid. Because it is incompressible, density remains constant, meaning that mass flow equals volumetric flow. Because volumetric flow must remain constant, the flow MUST speed up as it enters an area of smaller cross section, regardless of whether it experiences a "cone transition" or not. 
Since head loss is directly related to pressure loss, the 3" diameter pipe is operating at a lower static pressure to pull the same amount of fluid through. What does this mean for your engine? It means it's having to work much harder to overcome the head loss in the 3" diameter pipe than the 4" diameter pipe. 
