Mazda 6 Forums banner

41 - 60 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Here's my .02 cents worth in reference to the dynoes. I have ordered a CP-E intake, but am not against other companies who are making products for the MS6. Hell, I think competition is a good thing, and the more folks making stuff for the MS6 the merrier. CP-E has a great track record with the Mazda 6 community and did not blow smoke up my ass when I called and spoke with them in reference to the production of the intakes several weeks ago, so I decided to give them a shot.

In reference to the dynoes, it is my opinion and experience that when driving your car for maximum performance, the optimimum shift point is within a few hundred rpm(past) of the peak HP. When I dynoed my MS6, it peaked HP at 5500 rpm, then fell off DRAMATICALLY on EVERY pull. By 6000 rpm it had dropped almost 30 WHP! So if ANY company, be it CP-E or AEM or whoever claims a huge increase at 6200 rpm, then it's a MUTE point, because if you're spinning the motor that high, you're so far beyond its powerband that you're just pissing in the wind anyway.

The guys that have run the quickest times thus far at the track(1/4 mile) were shifting at or below 6000 rpm. So if you're buying a product(any product), based on its advertised HP claims, make sure you're comparing claims made in the engines most efficient operating range(powerband). Once again just my opinion, based on my experiences past and present.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
you guys seem to be stuck on the powerband. why is everyone ignoring the fact that AEM claims that they can slightly extend the powerband. cmon now. that is why everyone is talking about running more boost, manual boost controllers, etc. AEM seems to be taking a step in the right direction.

i know i know. bad runs. honestly, if it was a bad run and the intake improved the performance after that bad run (or before) there is nothing to say when they got their peak numbers that run wasn't "bad" too.

i guess i am playing devil's advocate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
you guys seem to be stuck on the powerband. why is everyone ignoring the fact that AEM claims that they can slightly extend the powerband. cmon now. that is why everyone is talking about running more boost, manual boost controllers, etc. AEM seems to be taking a step in the right direction.

i know i know. bad runs. honestly, if it was a bad run and the intake improved the performance after that bad run (or before) there is nothing to say when they got their peak numbers that run wasn't "bad" too.

i guess i am playing devil's advocate.
[/b]
Which is why AEM is a lying company.... nothing you EVER do to an intake is going TO EXTEND THE POWERBAND as it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY THE POWER DROPS OFF .... Power drops off because the turbo is at its maximum airflow.... it can't hold 15PSI past 6K...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
Which is why AEM is a lying company.... nothing you EVER do to an intake is going TO EXTEND THE POWERBAND as it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY THE POWER DROPS OFF .... Power drops off because the turbo is at its maximum airflow.... it can't hold 15PSI past 6K...
[/b]
If the air can't get into the intake fast enough at 5500 rpm, you'll have a drop off as the intake will be starved for air.(Stock intake) You can't compress something you don't have. If the piping is larger or just simply has no bottlenecks (aftermarket intake) and can supply that constant air needed, then it wouldn't fall (under the right circumstances). Just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
Yes.... but the problem with the speed is FAR from its poor stock induction... the stock air induction is suffice to run this K04...

I'm gonna call Borg-Warner in a minute and see if I can't get any info....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,217 Posts
If the problem was a physical constraint in the system then it would be reflected in other stock runs on a consistent basis. CP-Es stock car clearly didn't suffer from the same drop in power over 5000RPMs.

Whether you call it a "bad run", a "software error", or a "physical constraint", the fact is that it is a problem confined to AEMs car and that you may or may not experience similar gains depending on whether your car has the same problem. And the CP-E intake may provide the same gains given a car with an equal problem.

Statistical analysis of mechanical improvements on power output, engine longevity, and fuel efficiency is what I do for a living. Except that I work on turbocharged 4000hp locomotive motors and my decisions warrant the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars, not an extra measly $50. This isn't playing favorites (I don't even have a CP-E intake on my 6s), this is just what I do. And I know a bad data set when I see one, I see them every single day; and the stock AEM run is very clearly that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
You're comparing two completely different dynos and trying to draw a similarity between them. You just can't do that. The variance between dynos can be as much as 25%.

Your spreadsheet also ignores the fact that CP-Es gains are focused largely between 3000 and 5000 RPMs while AEMs is largely focused above 4800. CP-Es gains are much larger in the area where it really matters.
Cp-E does have the RPM on the TQ graph and though they were cut off by the screenshot on the HP graph, it's clearly evident where each RPM is at.
[/b]

now see you went and messed up... didn't you get the memo that there is ABSOLUTELY no thinking-of-remotely-trying-to play down CPE products... Just the mere inkling of a mutter that another product MAY be just as good as anything CPE will start a shit storm..... :nono:

The power drop off could be an insufficient WGA as well...[/b]
havent i been saying that.... dabear i PM'd you! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
If the problem was a physical constraint in the system then it would be reflected in other stock runs on a consistent basis. CP-Es stock car clearly didn't suffer from the same drop in power over 5000RPMs.
[/b]
Both intakes dropped after 5500.


Heres cp-e's dyno with aem's also drawn on.

*Note: you cannot draw any conclusions based on this, it was simply a waste of time.*

Jason
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Will AEM's new kit throw CEL's just like their past intakes? I wouldn't take AEM's word for it. Again, look and measure CPE's design carefully and see why it is more application-specific than AEM's made-in-China tube-and-filter.
[/b]
Please don't post mis-leading lies. AEM pipes are NOT made in China. Every single one is made right in Hawthorne, CA. I have been friends with the founder and co-owner of AEM for 15 years. I've been to the manufacturing facility over 100 times. All the CNC bending, welding, R&D, and Dyno happen right there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
Hey... i'm a CP-E Fan too... with AEM's lies in the past i won't purchase anything from them...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,546 Posts
Looks like a nice company, but where does it say "all filters are made in america?"
[/b]
I think it says it on the box. I'll check tonight. All items can be made anywhere these days but checking the box will tell where its made.

People will always have preferences. Hey, what ever makes you happy. CP-E, AEM, Injen, K&N, homemade
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
So none of the parts in AEM's kit comes from china then? Are you 100% sure on that? Because like you, I also know individuals who "used" to work for AEM who state otherwise. Maybe they are just bitter ex-employees.
[/b]
I've watched them make the pipes right in front of me. Now, something like the hose clamps or rubber grommets might come from China, but the pipes and filters are made here.
 
41 - 60 of 78 Posts
Top