Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

MAXX....

Ive got a 1997 Stagea wagon, based on the 1997 series 2 R33. Im here in Adelaide. Ive noticed a few ppl with Stagea's have enquired about the CAI.

These CAI's look wicked.... so, my quesry is, would you consider making up the CAI box to suit Stagea's? You could use my car to make the template up if you wish.

Brendan

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

How well do these CAI boxes keep engine heat away from the POD filter?

I've just put a Blitz pod filter on my NA R33 and may need to order one of these depending on how badly I notice power loss by pod sucking in hot air.

try do a serarch, sk talks about the affect of power loss due to hot air

but i can't tell u how much "exactly" the box is going help

:angry:

Hi max,

Sorry im very much learning right now... is this comment in relation to when using an exposed pod filter? If so, can you or others post a little about your experience from before/after getting these CAI boxes?

Also...if i got one, would the stock bov still give a good sound as it does with exposed pod filter? Or would it be really quiet again as is the case with stock filter setup?

I have one in my car. I couldn't notice much of a difference in performance with before and after enclosing the pod but the noise only got a little quieter. So your BOV will be fine.

Yeah i wouldnt imagine there would be much of a performance diff... although you would think the piped air to the box would have to be superior (ie directly fed and cooler) to just having the pod exposed? Especially on warm days... Correct?

What did you have before you got the box?

Sorry i am quite new to all this, about to own my first car an r33 series 2.

Maxx, thanks for the quick reply.. might have to find a snorkel from somewhere. can anyone hook me up ?

uploading bonnet pics regarding hood panel...

DSC02458.bmp

Edited by Kaza
  • 3 months later...

Maxx - these still only available for Gtst/Gtt? Not R33 GTR's?

If not, I might still get one and modify it myself to fit 2 pods.

Thanks,

Christian

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • No, you're wrong, and you've always been wrong about this. The Nismo has 2 sets of openings. One is a real 2-way, and the other is a 1-way. There is no 1.5-way possible with the ramps that they offer. A real 1.5-way does exist. That Cusco stuff I posted is a prime example. If the forward drive ramps are, say 55°, and the overrun ramps are, say, 30°, then you will get about half as much LSD effect on overrun than you do on drive. It is real, it realy works. OK, you're slightly right. The Nismo has 55° and 45° ramps on the 2-way, so it does offer less LSD effect on overrun. But, I think that just means that they've (probably) sensibly established that you do not want actually equal LSD effect on overrun. You just want "quite a lot, but not quite as much as the drive LSD effect".
    • Just wanted to unearth this and post my baby with the new front ❤️😝 Took her to my wedding rehearsal today. Next up is getting wide skirts (after wedding)
    • Yea, that is what I was getting at in my ramblings too. The nismo one actually is a 1.5 way and a 1 way. They don't do a *2* way because a true *2* way would have equal ramp angles. Or is that a true 1.5 way? Realistically I think a "1.5 way" does not actually exist. A diff can either lock in two directions or one. It also doesn't help that a LOT of people in Australia speak about 1.5 way diffs are referring to their 1 way diff.
    • Well, the trouble with that ^^ is: The configuration shown is absolutely a 1-way, not a 1.5-way. There is no way that a 1.5-way can be said to offer LSD action only on acceleration. If Nismo cannot get that right, then it is impossible to believe their documentation. That ^ is not a 1.5 way setup. That is a 1-way.   And so now I have allowed all doubts to flourish and have gone back to look at the MotoIQ video. I originally made the mistake of believing him when he said "this is a 1.5-way" at the ~6:10 mark. Because what he did was take the gear assembly out of the 2-way opening and just rotate it one place to the left to drop it into the 1-way opening. When he dropped it in there, the cam was "backwards" compared to the correct orientation shown in all other photos of that config. The flat shold have been facing the 1° ramp side of the opening, not the 55° ramp side. And I thought, "gee that's cute", but I was concerned at the time, when he put the other ring back on, that the gap between the rings looked like it was wider then in the 2-way config. And then I said a lot of things in my long post on Tuesday that could only make sense if the guy from MotoIQ was correct about what he'd done. BUT... I have now done my homework. I grabbed a frame of the video with the 2-way config, and then grabbed another with the "1.5-way" config, snipped out the cam and opening of that frame and just pasted it direct on top of the 2-way config. I scaled it so that the triangular opening was almost exactly the same height in both. AND.... the gap between the plates is wider with the cam installed in the triangualr opening backwards. That is.... it cannot go together that way. There would be massive force on the plates all the time, if you could even reassemble it.  So, My statement on the matter? The Nismo diff is actually only a 2-way and 1-way. There is no 1.5-way option in it, regardless of what they say. Here's a photo of a real 1.5-way ramp opening from Cusco (along with the 1 way option). And the full set of 1 through 2 way options from their racing diff, which is not same-same as what we'd typically be using, but...the cams work the same. A little blurry, but it comes from this Cusco doc, which is quite helpful. AND.... Cusco do in fact do what I suggested would be sensible, which is to have rings that do 1 and 1.5, and 1.5 and 2. Separately.  
×
×
  • Create New...