C&L vs. WMS
#1
C&L vs. WMS
Does anyone know why the C&L Street CAI + tuner makes bigger gains than the WMS CAI + tuner? I'm no scientific genius, but just looking at the two I would assume that the WMS would have greater airflow into the enginesince it is a straight shot and does not have to "turn a corner" like the C&L.
#2
RE: C&L vs. WMS
The engine doesn't need any extra airflow beyond the C&L. It makes more power becasue it is a smoother part (less turbulence) and becasue it is longer. A longer tube has different resonance characteristics than a short one. (just like a long organ pipe sounds different than a shorter one). The C&L is a better resonance match to the engine.
#4
RE: C&L vs. WMS
I don't understand this 100% (it's been years since my IC engines classes back in college), but if I rembember right, it works becasue when a tube resonates, you have pressure waves that travel down it. If these co-incide with when the intake valves open in the engine, it helps the intake charge travel into the engine. It's a bit like header scavenging, but in reverse.
Any pipe will have a resonant frequency which depends on its length an diameter. A short pipe will have a very high resonant frequency. Thus, a really short intake like the WMS would probablybe good for an engine that operated at rediculously high RPM...unfortunatley our engine doesn't do that. A longer pipe will work better with engines that operate at a lower RPM. If someone could build a modular engine that could rev to 12,000 or something crazy like that, then I'd expect to see the WMS with an advantage in the upper portions of the powerband. But for where most of us drive, nope, it's a poor match.
You can see this on many OEM cars. For example, my shop truck is a '91 F-150. It has a 5.0L engine very similar to the Mustang 5.0. However, the truck has an extremely long tubular intake from the factory. Also the intake manifold has very long runners. This is becasue the truck is optimized for power lower in the rpm band (towing and hauling a heavy load).
Any pipe will have a resonant frequency which depends on its length an diameter. A short pipe will have a very high resonant frequency. Thus, a really short intake like the WMS would probablybe good for an engine that operated at rediculously high RPM...unfortunatley our engine doesn't do that. A longer pipe will work better with engines that operate at a lower RPM. If someone could build a modular engine that could rev to 12,000 or something crazy like that, then I'd expect to see the WMS with an advantage in the upper portions of the powerband. But for where most of us drive, nope, it's a poor match.
You can see this on many OEM cars. For example, my shop truck is a '91 F-150. It has a 5.0L engine very similar to the Mustang 5.0. However, the truck has an extremely long tubular intake from the factory. Also the intake manifold has very long runners. This is becasue the truck is optimized for power lower in the rpm band (towing and hauling a heavy load).
#6
RE: C&L vs. WMS
Yes, but the problem is that the WMS isn't actually any better than other CAIs as far as inlet temps go.
I have tested a few different CAIs several months ago, and all the ones I tested showed near-ambient intake temps once the car got moving beyond about 30 mph. The WMS does work at lowering intake temps...but so do the other brands.
See here: https://mustangforums.com/m_2697187/...tm.htm#2712502
I have tested a few different CAIs several months ago, and all the ones I tested showed near-ambient intake temps once the car got moving beyond about 30 mph. The WMS does work at lowering intake temps...but so do the other brands.
See here: https://mustangforums.com/m_2697187/...tm.htm#2712502
#7
RE: C&L vs. WMS
So if the C&L's resonance is good for the stock motor, is there a difference when adding a supercharger? What I eventually want to do is get a Saleen SC, and I have seen a couple of guys on the forums running the Saleen SC with the WMS CAI. Is there a better match for the Saleen?
#8
RE: C&L vs. WMS
With forced inducton, resonance tuning goes out the window and it no longer matters. It's the same for exahust. On an N/A motor you want the intake tract and the exhaust piping to be carefully designed based on the operating characteristics of the engine (hence the tuned longtube headers, etc.) With FI you want the shortest, fattest, piping you can get.
Theoreticallya short,fat, intake like theWMS would be better on a SC application, though I doubt you would see a difference on the dyno. The JLT, C&L, etc, all flow plenty of air even for a blown motor. If you have a SC, that will be able to deliver all the power you could ever want, the intake doesn't really factor into the equation. Why would you worry a about squeezing an extra 2 HP out of your intake when you can simply alter the boost and get an extra 50? Heck, even with the stock intake a Saleen blower can make more than enough power to destroy your motor.
Theoreticallya short,fat, intake like theWMS would be better on a SC application, though I doubt you would see a difference on the dyno. The JLT, C&L, etc, all flow plenty of air even for a blown motor. If you have a SC, that will be able to deliver all the power you could ever want, the intake doesn't really factor into the equation. Why would you worry a about squeezing an extra 2 HP out of your intake when you can simply alter the boost and get an extra 50? Heck, even with the stock intake a Saleen blower can make more than enough power to destroy your motor.
#9
RE: C&L vs. WMS
So I don't know a whole lot about supercharging an engine. Is it the boost that can kill the engine? If that is the case, then wouldn't it be more beneficial to get as much hp out of the other mods as possible in order to keep the necessary boost down?
#10
RE: C&L vs. WMS
It's not really the boost. It's the HP and the quality of the tune that are the most critical. If you exceed approximatley 450 RWHP on the stock engine, the bottom end (rods/pistons/crank in that order) will fail. A saleen blower can make more than 450 HP depending on how you set the boost. You can set the boost low and make 400HP and be perfectly safe. Or you can dial up the boost and make more power, and risk the engine.
Yes, making more power at lower boost is safer. But we're talking a small difference here. My point was that if you have a supercharger, then you don't need to worry about all the little details. The blower will satisfy all your HP needs by itself. Spending extra money on that intake won't make more HP and it won't make your engine safer. (It does look cool though! so if you want one for looks, go ahead and buy it)
Yes, making more power at lower boost is safer. But we're talking a small difference here. My point was that if you have a supercharger, then you don't need to worry about all the little details. The blower will satisfy all your HP needs by itself. Spending extra money on that intake won't make more HP and it won't make your engine safer. (It does look cool though! so if you want one for looks, go ahead and buy it)