CX-5 Lowering Springs
- Thread starter Gwynne_
- Start date
The intake on the 155 hp CX-5 is already optimized for that specific engine. An aftermarket intake will not net any power gain or any efficiency gain. I don't care if you put it on a dyno, no independent unbiased testing has ever shown any gains in HP or MPG.
All it will do is increase the intake noise a bit and let more fine abrasive matter into the engine oil.
While i agree with you in this instance and with this engine. I disagree otherwise. This engine was optimized to promote best fuel economy. And certainly, the exhaust and intake were designed well to contend with this and fit within packaging constraints, sound levels, and most importantly cost and ease of replacement/maintenance. Its the later that can effect performance the most as power and cheap usually don't go hand in hand. Its a balance of the two and with a 20k suv cost is paramount to optimum performance.
Thats not to say there's not a few hp to be found with a better flowing intake on this engine. Its my opinion that the 4hp you gain is not worth 180 dollars, or whatever the cost of the intake is.
If you look closely at the published torque curve and hp curve for the intake mod, they do get more hp at the high rpm range but it is at the expense of torque (and hp) at the low end of the rpm curve as the stock air intake had been tuned for low end torque (and low noise). For most drivers your engine is in the low rpm range over 95% of the time but if you keep it reved up you can get a bit more power at the top end with your foot to the floor so if you are racing it is a bit better. Anything less than WOT at high rpm there is no advantage.
I have literally NO idea what that song means. I'm no where near the city.
I've been following aftermarket engine mods offered by various aftermarket companies for motorcycles, cars and trucks for over 30 years. With well-tuned modern engines there is often very little extra power to be had without making big compromises in other areas (most often low end torque, smooth throttle response and fuel economy or range). The one thing that has not changed over the years is the Dyno charts published by aftermarket suppliers are notoriously optimistic. Seriously, how many units would an aftermarket manufacturer or supplier actually sell if the charts showed minimal gain with big flat spots in the torque/hp curves? Their goal is to increase internal profits without messing up the driveability of your vehicle so much that customers start badmouthing or returning their products (and if it makes the engine sound a little louder many will be fooled into thinking it's actually increasing performance).
Many consumers don't even know much about how to read a dyno chart. Let's look at the chart published by CorkSport for their CX-5 intake mod and, for the sake of discussion, let's assume it is representative of adding a straight intake to a CX-5:
http://www.corksport.com/corksport-2010-cx-5-skyactiv-power-series-short-ram-intake.html
The main problem with this chart is not what it shows but, what it hides. As was properly pointed out by GAXIBM, drivers spend 95% of the time in the lower rpm range of their engine. My CX-5 spends a considerable portion of it's time cruising between 1200 and 1800 rpm's in 6th gear. Driveability in this range is very important to achieve the fuel economy that makes the CX-5 stand out from it's competitors. In otherwords, the CX-5 doesn't make much torque or hp here but it is enough to allow the vehicle to cruise in this range and maintain speed on relatively flat roads in the higher gears as long as a burst of power is not needed to make a substantial change in speed or climb a bigger hill. It has just enough torque to pull over small rises or slowly increase speed if needed (without downshifting).
But here's the rub. The dyno chart published by CorkSport truncates everything below 32 hp (keep in mind the first VW beetle had a maximum output of only 25 hp). They don't even want to show you what their product does to the engines performance in this critical region. However, you can get a clue of the lurking disaster by looking at the torque curves (the little bit they show you) between 1800 and 1900 rpm's). Ignore the fact that CorkSport was not interested enough in accuracy to provide a torque axis with correct numbers on the right margin (regardless, you can still see the lurking disaster on the left side of the torque curve). Specifically, the chart shows the stock CX-5 engine as making almost twice as much torque at 1900 rpm's compared to the engine with the modified intake.That means the modified engine cannot be practically run in this region unless going downhill, perfectly level with a light tailwind, gradually slowing down or in a lower gear. What happens below 1800 rpm's, they don't show us and yet there is no good technical reason why the Dynojet can't do this.
It is for this reason I do not believe their claims about increased fuel economy simply by bolting on an air intake that is more crudely designed than the stock Mazda intake (because downshifting would be required much more often to deal with small hills, headwinds or light acceleration).
As to their claims of about 3-5 more ponies between 4500 and 6400 rpm's, that is certainly possible but (as already pointed out) this is of dubious value on such a vehicle and I have no way to verify without spending a lot of time/money. How often do you rev past this? If my pre-purchase test drive of the vehicle did not convince me beyond a doubt that it already had enough power, I would have bought a more powerful vehicle, not slapped on a crudely designed air intake that provides less smooth throttle response, more cabin noise and less low end torque. Air intakes on modern cars are designed using sophisticated sensors and computers to smooth out airflow through the rev range by suppressing resonance that can occur at certain rpm's/throttle openings. The CorkSport Dynochart does not represent any scenario except wide open throttle so it really can't depict all the disadvantages such a crude modification will have in real life.
apexanimal
Member
- :
- 2013 CX5 Sport, 6mt
disagree... take a look at autospeed.com and do some reading on magnehelic gauges, pressure drops, and optimizing intakes...
Not applicable, since we are talking about 2013 CX-5 2.0L Skyactiv and intake. Nothing to read.
Geez we got way off topic with this intake stuff guys and gals. Maybe the subject deserves its own thread? But this one here is about lowering springs. And unless corksport makes some, i'll be buying H&R springs.
Maybe corksport can get a group buy going if they dont make springs. Either way they should get in on it that way they got some data to back up a product they supply.
Maybe corksport can get a group buy going if they dont make springs. Either way they should get in on it that way they got some data to back up a product they supply.
Agreed, beginning of OT discussion.
apexanimal
Member
- :
- 2013 CX5 Sport, 6mt
wow... did you even try? autospeed's stuff is applicable on every intake system out there... but you have to do your own testing and modifications...
they do start with the baseline that most factory systems are better than most aftermarket stuff out there, but that most factory intakes are still a compromise and can be improved upon... some by a lot...
Yes I read it, thanks for link.
Again we are not asking about just some intakes, we are talking about CX-5 (sb lowering springs in this thread actually).
No, I will not be cutting the top of a bleach bottle and making a new improved ram air snorkel placebo intake for my CX-5.
apexanimal
Member
- :
- 2013 CX5 Sport, 6mt
that's fine... figured i'd mention it here since it was being talked about...
and no one seems to have installed these springs yet... getting tired of waiting...
and no one seems to have installed these springs yet... getting tired of waiting...
I assure you we are "hiding" nothing. This comes down to understanding how a dyno and specific dynos work. Dynojet specifically only have a specific load. They can only read one load all the way to redline. All dyno's read nothing when you are cruising. They read the amount the car is pushing against there load. At cruise you are not pushing so the HP and TQ would be read as zero or very close to zero bouncing between positive and negative. The only way you would get numbers as low as 1200 would be if you went full throttle in 4th gear at idle. And then by the time you are actually reading numbers you would be likely over 1200. No one dynos cars like this. Not to hide things but because there is not usable data to be had at this rpm range.
Once the car goes full throttle it makes more than 32hp. This is not an air cooled vehicle from the 60s so 32hp is not a useful data point. Not to mention you can't record it because the car makes more power than that at full throttle.
What you think you see in the graph is again a misunderstanding in how dynos work. The torque difference is only because how and when someone got on the throttle and how many points the dyno reads for torque and power. Dynojets are the worst at this because they can not load the dyno before the run starts.
I still am not sure the issue you see with the toque scale on the right. It should be correct. The readings by the dyno can not be changed in the dyno results.
The increase in gas mileage was recorded not on a dyno but by freeway driving over the same mileage many times over. This has also been reported many times by customers which was why we started testing it in the first place to get an accurate account of how much this would help.
Most of the tuning of modern intakes has nothing to do with power or torque. It is to eliminate sound. The odd shapes and sizes take out frequencies that create sound or miss-measurements through the plastic housings. Much like design of antennas. (The odd shapes weed out frequencies that interfere and capture the ones that are desired)
I am very open to any data you might have to prove this intake was not designed correctly. Broad statements and miss information do not make facts.
Thanks for the informative post, as it is factual.
My gripe for an intake on this engine is what low end torque one may lose to pick up power in the upper rpm's. This is yet to be discovered until you have it on the car because it cant be measured on a dyno.
This topic needs its own thread.
My gripe for an intake on this engine is what low end torque one may lose to pick up power in the upper rpm's. This is yet to be discovered until you have it on the car because it cant be measured on a dyno.
This topic needs its own thread.
I'm still holding out hope (and therefore my wallet) for springs from your company.
hehe, I mean to say, lets get this started:
1. JcanRacer
2.
3.
4.
5.
...
We need more takers!
actually, we're up to 11 names on the list:
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123821652-Corksport-lowering-springs-interest-thread
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123821652-Corksport-lowering-springs-interest-thread
