Talk:Cold air intake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Engineering (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Is it necessary to promote the manufacturers? Seems like some subtle marketing wars. 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Justin

No, it isn't necessary. Wikipedia is not here to give free advertising to companies. This is a site to give information, not to endorse products. Some companies don't understand this, judging by the reaction to my reverting of a few past link additions.

Jax184 03:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Do-It-Yourself air intake chunk since it was horrible to read. Feel free to restore it if you can fix it.

Lavenderbunny 20:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of short ram intake on an article about cold air intakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the pictured system may get any kind of air but it most certainly won't be cold air. It gets warm air from the radiator and it will decrease power instead of increase. What does it have to do with the 'cold air intake' topic? I don't know and will remove it from here if noone objects. Saying that, the article actually nowhere justifies the title of "cold air intake" since no method of obtaining the actual cold air is mentioned. Moreover, it seems like there is no importance of getting cold air, so how is it "cold air intake" anyway? Looks more like another article about short ram intake than anything. :arny (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

any word on the impact of a cold air intake on fuel economy? -- (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Both warm air intake and cold air intake wiki pages claim to improve fuel economy. That doesn't make sense to me. (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't that good doesn't really talk about the pros and cons of having this. I was really looking forward to seeing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold Air Intake Picture[edit]

The cold air intake photo has the file name "ram air clean" and is used in the Ram-air intake article with the caption matching the file name. Can someone distinguish what part is in the photo? --Rent A Troop (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


This is Theory... Heat equals power, and the power compensated for with more oxygen is not equivalent to the power lost with cold air. The hotter the air, the more power you have. It's basic thermodynamics. The VooDoo Reverend 17:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VooDooReverend (talkcontribs)

It's not, y'know. Colder air is denser, hence more oxygen, hence more power. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Steam engines?[edit]

Why does this article include in the "See Also" links a link to a "Booster Engine", an item used on steam trains? I'm not making the connection here. Perhaps it should be removed? D3matt (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)