Log in
Register
Reply With Quoteohhh. MD?
Hey, I am new to this site and I have an 06 Galant ES and anybody with a 9G galant knows how hard it is to find aftermarket parts that actually work ps. stay out of ebay. I just found out from RREor roadraceengineering.com that the pulley and belt for the 06 eclipse 2.4MIVEC engine will work on the 2.4MIVEC engine for the 9G galant. Also if anyone lives in their area they can make the CAI for the 06 eclipse fit a 9G galant the brackets are different. the pulley gives about 9-11whp the torque is about the same. 8)
ohhh. MD?
Heah I work in Silver Spring
nice. post pics when you can.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kene0525)</div><div class='quotemain'>Also if anyone lives in their area they can make the CAI for the 06 eclipse fit a 9G galant the brackets are different. the pulley gives about 9-11whp the torque is about the same. Â*8)</div>
I've been considering retrofitting an Eclipse CAI, but still no quite sure yet. If the brackets are the only issue, then it shouldn't be too hard of a job, I wouldn't think. I didn't even have to use the brackets on my old M3, since the frame held it in place anyway.
Welcome
Well, you want the MAFS as still as possible to get the best reading of air, so relying on the couplers or it resting somewhere is NOT good.
2004 Mitsubishi Galant LS - 3.8L V6 - "The G" - 14.62 @ 95.52
”Sticks impress high-school kids, autos win races” – Unknown
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tech_Greek)</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, you want the MAFS as still as possible to get the best reading of air, so relying on the couplers or it resting somewhere is NOT good.</div>
I'm not sure I follow. How would vibration alter the reading of air volume? The same amount of air will be passing by the sensor no matter if there's some vibration or not.
I was thinking a couple zip ties could be sufficient to secure it enough so it doesn't wiggle out of the couplers. I guess I could always fab a new bracket, if needed though.
-Davide
One Word = Turbulence
It's not the amount of air it's sampling, it's the accuracy of the amount of air it's sampling - i.e. some MAFS's have diffusers in them, etc, on a Thunderbird you can flip the MAFS upside down so it bypasses the turbulence and gets a better reading and get more HP (dyno proven).
- Tech
2004 Mitsubishi Galant LS - 3.8L V6 - "The G" - 14.62 @ 95.52
”Sticks impress high-school kids, autos win races” – Unknown
OoO your'e from Upper Marlboro. I wonder if you've seen me running around there. but yea, do you have the intake with you already?> i mean if you can make the intake phyiscally fit and just need some way of supporting it, then thats easy.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tech_Greek)</div><div class='quotemain'>One Word = Turbulence
It's not the amount of air it's sampling, it's the accuracy of the amount of air it's sampling - i.e. some MAFS's have diffusers in them, etc, on a Thunderbird you can flip the MAFS upside down so it bypasses the turbulence and gets a better reading and get more HP (dyno proven).
- Tech</div>
I see your point. And I can see how flipping the sensor upside down would alter the reading, since your *physically* manipulating the airway, and inverting the location of the sensor.
But given the high velocity of air, I am still inclined to think that a little wiggle room would produce a negligable net effect to the air reading...unless you have documentation (dyno) to support this.
-Davide
I'm not talking about having it tie-rapped, that would be more than enough, but I'm talking about having it sitting there hanging on via the couplers and just swashing around with NO support what so ever...
I have no personal documentation to prove it, it's just simple physics, you create air turbulence, you're going to disrupt the air flow therefore a meter will not be able to read it as well as it would properly supported....
Like I said before, the sensor can take in a better/accuracy amount of air coming in when the MAFS is flipped up side down on the Thunderbird due to the way the stock intake system was designed, they had silence in mind and not performance so it had a LOT of turbulence.
As for the dyno's, there's no point in dyno'ing everything as I don't personally have the $50 a pop every time I want to try something new, this information has been passed down on TCCoA and mechanic friends alike since I was little.
Think of it like this, you have one BIG tunnel, and one little tunnel, and the little tunnel samples the water coming in, if that little tunnel is getting pounded by waves and the bigger half is getting more steady water, do you think that it would be accurate to say that the same amount of water coming in the little tunnel as the big tunnel...nope!
2004 Mitsubishi Galant LS - 3.8L V6 - "The G" - 14.62 @ 95.52
”Sticks impress high-school kids, autos win races” – Unknown
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tech_Greek)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not talking about having it tie-rapped, that would be more than enough, but I'm talking about having it sitting there hanging on via the couplers and just swashing around with NO support what so ever...
I have no personal documentation to prove it, it's just simple physics, you create air turbulence, you're going to disrupt the air flow therefore a meter will not be able to read it as well as it would properly supported....
Like I said before, the sensor can take in a better/accuracy amount of air coming in when the MAFS is flipped up side down on the Thunderbird due to the way the stock intake system was designed, they had silence in mind and not performance so it had a LOT of turbulence.
As for the dyno's, there's no point in dyno'ing everything as I don't personally have the $50 a pop every time I want to try something new, this information has been passed down on TCCoA and mechanic friends alike since I was little.
Think of it like this, you have one BIG tunnel, and one little tunnel, and the little tunnel samples the water coming in, if that little tunnel is getting pounded by waves and Â*the bigger half is getting more steady water, do you think that it would be accurate to say that the same amount of water coming in the little tunnel as the big tunnel...nope!
Ah, we must have been talking past each other then, because neither was I talking about it 'hanging' there without any support whatsoever. I would never want my intake to be dangling in free space as you describe; that's just asking for it to wiggle off of the couplers eventually. The only reason why I didn't have to use the brackets in my old M3 was because the frame in the engine bay created a support structure that secured fairly well in place, with minimal wiggle.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, the intake on my old '97 Eclipse GS-T (which dyno'd in at 280 WHP on 93 octane) wasn't secured down by brackets either. Just like the M3, the frame in the engine bay and other components created a sufficient support structure. However, the intake of course was *not* a cold air intake; it was short, and it didn't slope down close to the ground. Based on the pics of the Eclipse engine bay, it doesn't look like there is much of anything there to support it.
-Davide
lol, I thought you meant like NO support (which by the looks of MY engine bay, removing all the stupid air silencers would leave you with nothing to hang onto).
2004 Mitsubishi Galant LS - 3.8L V6 - "The G" - 14.62 @ 95.52
”Sticks impress high-school kids, autos win races” – Unknown
Originally Posted by Tech_Greek
So, I suppose I'll go with the Fujita intake, due to lack of alternatives. There's supposedly some AEM intakes on ebay, but it doesn't appear to be the right part number for the 06 Eclipse (looks like it's for an older generation eclipse).
Check it out. I get a hat and traveling bag too, which I'm sure has to add another 15 HP.
(p.s., sorry for highjacking your thread!)
Blessing,
-Davide
Posting Rules
Bookmarks