Injen Intake for 10th Gen 2016 Civic Turbo: Huge Power Gains!

[hondabuildquality]

Time to line up with someone and have a go!!!

Yes. Make it happen!

Sponsored

 

[Snoopyslr]

I have it installed and personally can feel a difference in power, there's just an extra kick that wasn't there before but im not an expert just letting you know my experience, might be all in my head for all I know, but I feel the difference.

Can you actually hear the turbo spool at all with this intake? I know it's early, but what about fuel economy boost? Notice anything?

 

[witojr120976]

I just don't understand why they are claiming a +29HP and +25T? By reading the Dyno only shows 5hp gain and by my experience installing CAI in all my vehicles the norm is between +5-7hp, the highest I have seen was on my M5 with the Dinan Box +14hp Dyno tested.

 

[jk147]

Would adding this void the entire warranty or just the air intake warranty?

There is really no "air intake" warranty. If they think it caused a failure to other parts (most likely engine) you are screwed. Say it sucked up some water and hydrolocked the engine, they will surly not cover you for that.

Personally unless you are doing extensive amount of upgrades this is really just a show piece. Even the graph says a modest gain of 5hp. Real hp gains will have to come from remapping the ECU for more aggressive boost.

 

[biffosaur]

I just don't understand why they are claiming a +29HP and +25T? By reading the Dyno only shows 5hp gain and by my experience installing CAI in all my vehicles the norm is between +5-7hp, the highest I have seen was on my M5 with the Dinan Box +14hp Dyno tested.

CAI intakes could get you anywhere from -5hp to like 30+ lol

It's all about the engine and how the new intake design compares to the OEM design.

 

[procivic]

I just don't understand why they are claiming a +29HP and +25T? By reading the Dyno only shows 5hp gain and by my experience installing CAI in all my vehicles the norm is between +5-7hp, the highest I have seen was on my M5 with the Dinan Box +14hp Dyno tested.

Ready my first couple posts for a full explanation on this. If you subtract the very peak #s produced by each before and after runs, it's not an accurate comparison. You need to compare how much power is being made a the same RPM under full throttle.

 

[hondabuildquality]

I just don't understand why they are claiming a +29HP and +25T? By reading the Dyno only shows 5hp gain and by my experience installing CAI in all my vehicles the norm is between +5-7hp, the highest I have seen was on my M5 with the Dinan Box +14hp Dyno tested.

Another big question I haven't seen answered is why peak power comes so far after redline on the stock run.

Does the ECU let the CVT rev past redline? What's going on?

Another one. Why did they arbitrarily pick a point on this graph that just so happens to be the largest gap in horsepower between the two test runs? Why not compare the highest HP output of either of the two runs. Or why not just compare it to the highest HP output from the base run? Any of those points is more reasonable than just taking the largest gap between the two graphs.

Also, why does peak HP come at redline on the base run? Why not look into why the 1.5L turbo is rated at max HP @ 5500RPM and try to make sense of that with respect to what's going on with the test results here?

Since a lot of this doesn't make sense, why not just line up two 1.5l Civics and run them against each other? 29HP is a 17% increase. That's pretty significant and will yield substantial results, if true.

The answer to all these questions is this: Because they came here to sell something. They didn't come here to ask questions, or to enlighten us.

I would believe you can probably get 5HP out of this change. As a bonus, it also looks pretty cool under the hood. Just don't say you're getting 29 "scientifically proven" horsepower but that you don't know why or how. I think that is the reason why so many people are being critical here.

Anyone willing to make a wager with me over the 29HP claim?

 

[17CivicTypeR_Brian]

What I've just realized and found interesting enough to share- since this is CVT, when you floor it and hold it down for max acceleration, it's going to try to maintain a fairly constant engine speed thus making the gains throughout the rev range much less relevant. A CVT car should kinda pull like a muted first gear, then hold that rpm until you let off.
Am I right guys that have them?

 

[J35W2]

Another big question I haven't seen answered is why peak power comes so far after redline on the stock run.

Does the ECU let the CVT rev past redline? What's going on?

Another one. Why did they arbitrarily pick a point on this graph that just so happens to be the largest gap in horsepower between the two test runs? Why not compare the highest HP output of either of the two runs. Or why not just compare it to the highest HP output from the base run? Any of those points is more reasonable than just taking the largest gap between the two graphs.

Also, why does peak HP come at redline on the base run? Why not look into why the 1.5L turbo is rated at max HP @ 5500RPM and try to make sense of that with respect to what's going on with the test results here?

Since a lot of this doesn't make sense, why not just line up two 1.5l Civics and run them against each other? 29HP is a 17% increase. That's pretty significant and will yield substantial results, if true.

The answer to all these questions is this: Because they came here to sell something. They didn't come here to ask questions, or to enlighten us.

I would believe you can probably get 5HP out of this change. As a bonus, it also looks pretty cool under the hood. Just don't say you're getting 29 "scientifically proven" horsepower but that you don't know why or how. I think that is the reason why so many people are being critical here.

Anyone willing to make a wager with me over the 29HP claim?

You are pretty much showing your misunderstanding of the dyno graph here. As it has been stated, several times already in this thread, just comparing the HP #'s at redline are not a true indication of the improvements of performance across the entire power band. If the HP line of the stock run and the run with the intake overlapped each other perfectly, then the intake line pulled away at the very end to give it a 5hp increase at redline, then the intake would be pretty much useless. The real improvement here is the area under the curve as the original poster showed below highlighted in yellow. Injen did not just "arbitrarily pick a point on this graph". This is the point where you see the highest gain in power, hence the term "peak". Peak is referring to the point where the HP gains are the greatest, not at the end of the graph at redline. If you just compare the #'s at the redline, then you are totally missing the point. Would it make sense to pick the point at 4,250 rpms and compare them based solely on that difference? Of course not. They are trying to sell a product here, so it is kind of obvious that they will state the highest difference to show the potential. The area under the curve is what really matters and in this case indicates that there are very good gains throughout the power band which will equate to better performance at almost every single RPM. If you think it is a sham, then don't buy it. If you thinks it's too expensive, then dont buy it. For all of you worried about your warranty, just wait until you hit 36,000 miles (or whatever your warranty is) and then go crazy. If these numbers are legit and I had a '16 with the turbo, I would be strapping this thing on the day my warranty was up. That being said, I have no idea if the CVT has anything to do with the dyno #'s, but I wouldn't buy a car with a CVT any how. I'd be curious to see if these same numbers come up on the manual turbo.

 

[biffosaur]

Can we get a heads up race or a quarter mile or at least a dyno vid? I'm itching to hear this and see how it performs!!!!

 

[jdubau55]

Look at about 4800 rpm and that's what it's about. There's a difference of about 25 hp and that is at a very usable rev range. The difference there is that while cruising on the interstate at 2k rpm and you stomp the gas to pass someone the transmission is going to "downshift" right to that 4-5k rpm rev range. At that point you'll have 25 more HP on tap.

 

[procivic]

Just to further clarify on the most recent comments about the dyno graph and CVT...

CVTs are very hard to dyno in a repeatable way. I think on this car sometimes the ECU tells the CVT to shift near redline, sometimes earlier, depending on a variety of factors. Also if you look at the video I posted earlier of how a factory 1.5T CVT shifts, it pulls up to a certain RPM, then kind of "surges" to a higher RPM, then shifts. I am sure that confuses dynos. Please note though that this behavior should not affect the dyno chart at lower RPMs.

According to Injen, out of all the dyno sessions they did, the dyno graphs with the intake installed ALWAYS produced higher results than the factory ones, even putting the best case factory graph against the worst case Injen graph.

I will be eagerly awaiting some dyno charts of the Manual Transmission 1.5T, with and without the Injen intake.

 

[hondabuildquality]

You are pretty much showing your misunderstanding of the dyno graph here. As it has been stated, several times already in this thread, just comparing the HP #'s at redline are not a true indication of the improvements of performance across the entire power band. If the HP line of the stock run and the run with the intake overlapped each other perfectly, then the intake line pulled away at the very end to give it a 5hp increase at redline, then the intake would be pretty much useless. The real improvement here is the area under the curve as the original poster showed below highlighted in yellow. Injen did not just "arbitrarily pick a point on this graph". This is the point where you see the highest gain in power, hence the term "peak". Peak is referring to the point where the HP gains are the greatest, not at the end of the graph at redline. If you just compare the #'s at the redline, then you are totally missing the point. Would it make sense to pick the point at 4,250 rpms and compare them based solely on that difference? Of course not. They are trying to sell a product here, so it is kind of obvious that they will state the highest difference to show the potential. The area under the curve is what really matters and in this case indicates that there are very good gains throughout the power band which will equate to better performance at almost every single RPM. If you think it is a sham, then don't buy it. If you thinks it's too expensive, then dont buy it. For all of you worried about your warranty, just wait until you hit 36,000 miles (or whatever your warranty is) and then go crazy. If these numbers are legit and I had a '16 with the turbo, I would be strapping this thing on the day my warranty was up. That being said, I have no idea if the CVT has anything to do with the dyno #'s, but I wouldn't buy a car with a CVT any how. I'd be curious to see if these same numbers come up on the manual turbo.

Wow, and no.

There are problems with dynoing a CVT and you should put some effort into understanding that... before you go throwing a blanket statement on someone that they don't understand anything about what they're talking about. You even said yourself that 'you have no idea how dyno'ing a CVT affects anything' in your post." I know you don't. I do know you also told me that I don't understand that either. Nice. That kind of behaviour is not productive.

So you're telling someone they have no idea what they're talking about, and you weren't able to respond directly to any point that they made. You should try to understand the issues people are raising, and then put some effort into understanding the problems I outlined in my post, and what others have said about dyno'ing a CVT. Then, you can respond to those issues directly, next time.

You also randomly started defending against the warranty claims issues.

To be frank with you, it's not that hard to understand the problems with dyno'ing a CVT. I'm sure most people can figure that out on their own, smart guy.

Yes area under the curve matters, that's true, and what you're doing is offering a straw man debate that takes attention away from the questions.

I don't know why you're so strongly advocating this product, or why you are so strongly defensive that you personally attack my intelligence, but that kind of behaviour would go hand-in-hand with people that would lie and manipulate in order to sell a product. I'm done with this thread.

 

[J35W2]

Wow, and no.

There are problems with dynoing a CVT and you should put some effort into understanding that... before you go throwing a blanket statement on someone that they don't understand anything about what they're talking about. You even said yourself that 'you have no idea how dyno'ing a CVT affects anything' in your post." I know you don't. I do know you also told me that I don't understand that either. Nice. That kind of behaviour is not productive.

So you're telling someone they have no idea what they're talking about, and you weren't able to respond directly to any point that they made. You should try to understand the issues people are raising, and then put some effort into understanding the problems I outlined in my post, and what others have said about dyno'ing a CVT. Then, you can respond to those issues directly, next time.

You also randomly started defending against the warranty claims issues.

To be frank with you, it's not that hard to understand the problems with dyno'ing a CVT. I'm sure most people can figure that out on their own, smart guy.

Yes area under the curve matters, that's true, and what you're doing is offering a straw man debate that takes attention away from the questions.

I don't know why you're so strongly advocating this product, or why you are so strongly defensive that you personally attack my intelligence, but that kind of behaviour would go hand-in-hand with people that would lie and manipulate in order to sell a product. I'm done with this thread.

No need to get butt-hurt because I pointed out some issues with your post. Here, I'll address your exact quotes directly:

"There are problems with dynoing a CVT and you should put some effort into understanding that... before you go throwing a blanket statement on someone that they don't understand anything about what they're talking about. You even said yourself that 'you have no idea how dyno'ing a CVT affects anything' in your post." I know you don't. I do know you also told me that I don't understand that either. Nice. That kind of behaviour is not productive.

So you're telling someone they have no idea what they're talking about, and you weren't able to respond directly to any point that they made. You should try to understand the issues people are raising, and then put some effort into understanding the problems I outlined in my post, and what others have said about dyno'ing a CVT. Then, you can respond to those issues directly, next time."

Please enlighten me on the issues that arise when dyno testing a CVT. I straight up said that I don't know how it effects the dyno graph, while you claim to know, but offer no information about that.

"You also randomly started defending against the warranty claims issues."

I did no such thing, read my post again. I said that if you are worried about the warranty issue, then wait until your warranty is up. Pretty simple, not so random and addressing several questions posted about this issue.

"To be frank with you, it's not that hard to understand the problems with dyno'ing a CVT. I'm sure most people can figure that out on their own, smart guy."

I don't claim to be smart, never have, never will, but I would be most appreciative, again, if you would tell me what the issues are with dyno testing a CVT versus a MT or AT.

"Yes area under the curve matters, that's true, and what you're doing is offering a straw man debate that takes attention away from the questions."

You seem to agree with my argument and then claim that it is a "straw man debate" in the same sentence. Sounds like a contradiction, but maybe I misunderstood you.

"I don't know why you're so strongly advocating this product, or why you are so strongly defensive that you personally attack my intelligence, but that kind of behaviour would go hand-in-hand with people that would lie and manipulate in order to sell a product. I'm done with this thread."

I actually directly addressed your questions and even quoted you in my response. I wasn't trying to attack your intelligence, I only responded to your questions and explained to you that you were misunderstanding the graph if you think that the intake is only good for a 5HP gain. If that hurt your feelings, then I apologize. I'm not here to be a smart guy or start fights, just offering my 2 cents. This is your exact quote from the previous post: "I would believe you can probably get 5HP out of this change." That is just flat out incorrect. You can pick just about any point between 4,500 - 6,000 RPM's and see a difference between 10-25HP. I'm not advocating the product, I just said that if the dyno graph is correct, then I would be bolting it on if I had a '16 turbo Civic. I said, straight up, that if you think it is a sham or too expensive, then don't buy it. Why are you being so critical of it?

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence, but I can see that you fancy this about yourself, firing off examples about gravitational waves & such. Maybe I insulted you because I said I wouldn't buy a car with a CVT and you apparently have one based on your profile. I'll say it again, I don't know how a CVT effects dyno results, but please tell me. I assume you know a lot more about CVT's if you own one or at least I hope that you do. I've only ever owned cars with manual transmissions, so I'll be sure not to make any comments about CVT's, unless I'm stating my ignorance about them, which is what I already did.

 

[biffosaur]

I love how relatively new this forum is, but the long and detailed back and forth posts are already rockin

We can argue all day, but we all really need to see how this performs on the manual version to get some solid A to B numbers

Sponsored