Mazda3 Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
Nice! Over the past few months I put one of those on my daughters car and my sons car. Daughter's car also needed the front splash guard and one of the side splash guards.

It cheeses me off that oil change places will replace all but one bolt....each time....so that after a while the splash guard sags, drags, tears, and eventually they just remove it entirely and throw it away.

I'm a firm believer in these to keep the engine cleaner and free of corrosion caused by salt spray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I replaced the engine shield, the front shield under the bumper, and both rear side shields. The only ones I has that were still intact where the left and right front bumper shields. :(

It was all torn up from a deer I hit back in 2012. I had bought a cheap shield, but it didn't have the metal bar reinforcing it on the back, so it started dragging real bad. I also never replaced any of the other shields, I just had everything zip-tied sorta in place.

I got sick of the dragging about 3 years ago, and during an oil change, just said, "Screw this, I ain't putting this POS back on", and threw it away. It was ripped to shreds anyway from the constant dragging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
So with all the shields in place, do think that water could get into a CAI when raining or going through puddles? I replaced both my front and rear shields under the engine and both side shields and combined with the wheel well shields looks like a CAI would be fine.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
With the shield in place you're probably safe from splashing if you replace the factory CAI with one which inhales from down by the bumper, however, any sufficiently deep puddle and you'll be buying a new engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
With the shield in place you're probably safe from splashing if you replace the factory CAI with one which inhales from down by the bumper, however, any sufficiently deep puddle and you'll be buying a new engine.
I've been fishing for any positive comments from anybody that has run and would recommend a CAI based on performance and dependability from environmental issues. I can say that I haven't received one yet. Either I have been discouraged from getting one or cautiously warned about potential issues if I do.

My car is a street car, not an off road vehicle. Googling CAI hydrolock etc... I found the Injen and AEM CAI filter covers that prevent water saturation. I could see them work to keep water off of the filter. Also, I don't see how a large puddle would cause a large or even small amount of water into that area. That is the purpose of the shields provided they are complete and secured properly as the vehicle was designed. I need to monitor that area after the next big rain we have and see what kind of water saturation it looks like it gets there. You definitely have my curiosity up about the hydrolock aspect.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
Regarding the performance aspect of aftermarket CAIs versus the factory CAI, it is theoretically possible for a low restriction intake/filter system to free up a couple of horsepower up near redline at wide open throttle, however, there is no such a thing as a free lunch; the lower the restriction, the higher the amount of dirt the filter will allow into the engine, fact of life. If you really want to make your car measurably faster, I suggest you look into turbocharging your engine or, possibly a nitrous injection system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Regarding the performance aspect of aftermarket CAIs versus the factory CAI, it is theoretically possible for a low restriction intake/filter system to free up a couple of horsepower up near redline at wide open throttle, however, there is no such a thing as a free lunch; the lower the restriction, the higher the amount of dirt the filter will allow into the engine, fact of life. If you really want to make your car measurably faster, I suggest you look into turbocharging your engine or, possibly a nitrous injection system.
That's assuming low air intake restriction due to poorer filtration. If you can get more air in at the same filtration rate then there is no increase in dirt intake as far as the filtration rate is concerned. For example, if a stock air filter system filters 99.5% of dirt and a higher flow intake system filters 99.5% then you have the same amount of dirt going in per whatever measurement of airflow standard you want to use. The only increase in dirt intake would be due to more 99.5% air going in verses a stock intake. A turbo vehicle by reason of the boost of airflow with the same filtration rate of 99.5% would have even more dirt going in because of the increase in the amount of 99.5% air going in. Following this?

What you said is true if the increase of air is due to less restriction due to poorer filtration. Higher end CAI's have quality filters like AEM. The other increase of power is the cold air benefit which is probably where more power is gained in the setup. Like you and others have stated, there is the water ingestion and hydrolic factor to consider.

I've only had one person weigh in with feedback that actually ran a quality CAI. He noticed a power increase so that isn't the issue. He did have some fuel trim issues without a CEL and now isn't running it. Is the power gain cost effective over stock? Maybe not. I guess it comes down to trying one yourself. I don't know if I want to fork over the money at this point. All of the feedback from you and others is very helpful for sure.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
That's assuming low air intake restriction due to poorer filtration. If you can get more air in at the same filtration rate then there is no increase in dirt intake as far as the filtration rate is concerned. For example, if a stock air filter system filters 99.5% of dirt and a higher flow intake system filters 99.5% then you have the same amount of dirt going in per whatever measurement of airflow standard you want to use. The only increase in dirt intake would be due to more 99.5% air going in verses a stock intake. A turbo vehicle by reason of the boost of airflow with the same filtration rate of 99.5% would have even more dirt going in because of the increase in the amount of 99.5% air going in. Following this?
Sorry, there is no free lunch, if you reduce the intake restriction, you will reduce the filtering efficiency. As for your turbo logic, I don't see the point, 99.5% is still 99.5%.

What you said is true if the increase of air is due to less restriction due to poorer filtration. Higher end CAI's have quality filters like AEM. The other increase of power is the cold air benefit which is probably where more power is gained in the setup. Like you and others have stated, there is the water ingestion and hydrolic factor to consider.
The point you're missing here is the car came from the factory with a CAI; said another way, an aftermarket CAI will not buy you anything.

I've only had one person weigh in with feedback that actually ran a quality CAI. He noticed a power increase so that isn't the issue. He did have some fuel trim issues without a CEL and now isn't running it. Is the power gain cost effective over stock? Maybe not. I guess it comes down to trying one yourself. I don't know if I want to fork over the money at this point. All of the feedback from you and others is very helpful for sure.
I take anecdotal reports of improvements in performance with a huge grain of salt. Unless before and after normalized dyno results are provided, I don't buy any claims of gains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Sorry, there is no free lunch, if you reduce the intake restriction, you will reduce the filtering efficiency. As for your turbo logic, I don't see the point, 99.5% is still 99.5%.
Exactly. Air filtered at the same rate is the same no matter how much of that filtered air is introduced into the intake whether by a turbo or a better flowing intake. Intake restriction doesn't necessarily equate to filtration rate. I think that is the bias that you aren't recognizing. Intakes can offer less restriction without sacrificing filtration. Now, does that equate to noticeable power that is worth tapping into. Like you said, no free lunch. An equally filtering rate intake that allows less restriction due to a design improvement over stock isn't free. Good ones cost a lot and if the gain is only marginal, then it is very costly.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
Okay, I'm done here, we're just going around in circles. Maybe in a year or two you'll understand after discover nothing you've tied provided any benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Okay, I'm done here, we're just going around in circles. Maybe in a year or two you'll understand after discover nothing you've tied provided any benefit.
I'm not necessary disagreeing about it being a waste of money for the power that might be gotten. I'm just pointing out that there can be an improvement in design without compromising the integrity of a system. Two different intakes for a car can have different airflow CFM ratings with the same filtration rate simply based on their design restrictions that allow that filtered air to flow through it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Sorry, there is no free lunch, if you reduce the intake restriction, you will reduce the filtering efficiency.
Sorry shipo but this is 100% wrong. The filtering efficiency of a filter is tied to the media it's using, not the amount of air it can flow. If you have two filters using the same media but one has twice the amount of that media it will flow more air and be less restrictive while having the same filtering efficiency.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
Sorry shipo but this is 100% wrong. The filtering efficiency of a filter is tied to the media it's using, not the amount of air it can flow. If you have two filters using the same media but one has twice the amount of that media it will flow more air and be less restrictive while having the same filtering efficiency.
Once again we will have to agree to disagree. Why? A couple of reasons, 1) you aren't going to find filters for these cars with "twice the amount of media", and 2) low restriction filters for these cars effectively have cavernous holes for dirt to get through.

Granted, maybe I should have qualified my statement by saying something along the lines of, for any given size of filter..., but I would have thought you would have figured that out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I wish I had seen this thread yesterday before posting my question here.

Where did you get the bolts for the shield as well as the U-nuts? Do you have part numbers? I'm trying to get mine all buttoned up now.
These are the bolts I used. They are about as close to stock fasteners as you can get without actually being stock fasteners.

The U-nuts, I just went to my local Ace Hardware and picked some up in M6-1.0 size. I think they were like 60¢ each? Not any more than that for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
These are the bolts I used. They are about as close to stock fasteners as you can get without actually being stock fasteners.

The U-nuts, I just went to my local Ace Hardware and picked some up in M6-1.0 size. I think they were like 60¢ each? Not any more than that for sure.
I picked up seven M6x1.25 crown bolts at Ace, which are to replace the bolts for the large splash shield. The guy in the thread I referenced (can't remember where) recommended those and the phosphate U-nuts because they won't corrode or the threads get gunked like OE. Ace didn't have U-nuts that would fit, so I'll keep looking.

Please chime in if you have input in my thread. I will have more to add later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Just a word of warning on the M6-1.25, you're going to have to change the U-nuts on the side shields as well for those, because the factory U-nuts are M6-1.00.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top