[Hyper16]

Originally Posted by 16CamaroSS

Odd that since you were poking fun, you couldn't just say that the first go round but whatever.

And post count doesn't mean squat though I've gotten my thousands of posts over a variety of forums if it makes you feel better. What it really comes down to is basic forum "decorum" which is pretty universal. My guess is the the way you want to talk down to the "new guy" says a lot about you and post counts will never fix it.

So sure, I'll ignore your condescension towards someone who mistook a non-obvious joke for punkish behavior which was followed by actual punkish behavior and you can ignore anything I have to say and call it a day. Cheers.

I guess this entire drama could have been avoided if I had used instead of

My bad.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by central limit

For anyone who considers the sound from the pipe to be fake:

This approach - not fake, but still artificial. You still had to add something to the intake tract that has no performance function whatsoever.

If the actual intake tract was routed along the firewall and bolted to it, that would also make the intake sound louder. Would that be fake too?

Less artificial than a separate tube, but probably more complicated than necessary. I think there's a better approach.

There's racing precedent for actually drawing intake air from the base of the windshield (1960's Trans Am). These days, you'd have to run an intake duct from there to a passenger-side filter box, though that shouldn't be all that difficult to arrange for at the vehicle design stage. That would give you the functionality and the satisfaction of having the sound along a logically and physically correct path.

Back in the 1980's I actually modified one of my previous cars that way, though only for the free-breathing and cold-air aspects. That it was a carbureted engine did not necessarily make it any easier.


Norm

[central limit]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

This approach - not fake, but still artificial. You still had to add something to the intake tract that has no performance function whatsoever.

I'm not following how this is artificial if it is not generated by an ancillary process; it's just a medium to propagate an existing resonance. It's not like a separate sound is being generated just to feed the driver's ears.

I would agree that it does not add performance, though I would posit that it afforded the engineers some flexibility by not imposing additional packaging constraints. I believe it also does this without any consequential performance penalty, and is inconspicuous enough that many would never notice it over years of ownership.

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

There's racing precedent for actually drawing intake air from the base of the windshield (1960's Trans Am). These days, you'd have to run an intake duct from there to a passenger-side filter box, though that shouldn't be all that difficult to arrange for at the vehicle design stage. That would give you the functionality and the satisfaction of having the sound along a logically and physically correct path.

Back in the 1980's I actually modified one of my previous cars that way, though only for the free-breathing and cold-air aspects. That it was a carbureted engine did not necessarily make it any easier.


Norm

This is intriguing.

Would this arrangement still allow for proper tract length while retaining the current rearward (almost FMS) mounting position of the engine? That immediately caught my eye when I opened the hood at the dealership and reassured me that the design team included at least a few folks who care about how a car feels both on the road and in the garage.

While I'm still unsure about the artificial part, I see why you consider the pipe to be a shortcut. I do however, feel it does its job in an efficient and discrete fashion. IMO, the car sounds positively lovely, and I don't foresee that 1.25" tube obstructing any jobs that need doing in the foreseeable future.

Thanks for the discussion, by the way. Learning from this.

OP: hoping you got your answer by now; apologies for topic drifting.

I should probably explain why I suspect that capping at the firewall might not be necessary when removing the tube. As someone pointed out, you don't want un-metered, unfiltered air entering the intake tract where the noise pipe connects. I give the benefit of the doubt that the engineers designed the noise tube and trumpet assembly to be air tight, so as not to cause this exact problem by allowing underhood or in-cabin air to flow back into the intake. I shouldn't hurt to plug at both ends though, but I would be particularly more concerned about an air tight seal on the intake tract.

This type of plug can be adjusted for proper tension, provided the hole is perfectly round.

[sub_ETCS_ret]

I haven't personally considered doing this but after reading this thread I was wondering if it's possible to cap it off from inside the cabin without removing it from the engine compartment? Just a thought.

What's the difference in sound when it's removed? Significant or minimal?

[Hyper16]

I have some high-frequency hearing issues and I used to hear a whining noise. When I removed the tube the whine went away. Also, in my opinion the cabin got quieter.

[sub_ETCS_ret]

Originally Posted by Hyper16

I have some high-frequency hearing issues and I used to hear a whining noise. When I removed the tube the whine went away. Also, in my opinion the cabin got quieter.

I'm curious because my car sounds louder with the window up than with the windows down. After reading this thread I was wondering if I removed/plugged it how much quieter it would get. Could be the crappy run flats though.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by central limit

I'm not following how this is artificial if it is not generated by an ancillary process; it's just a medium to propagate an existing resonance. It's not like a separate sound is being generated just to feed the driver's ears.

Maybe it'd make more sense if I called it a tacked-on, artificial sound path, still a band-aid solution to interiors made too quiet for other reasons, still something that the engine neither needs nor benefits from by its presence.

I'm old enough to not want to add anything to a car that the car does not need in order to be driven in a high performance manner or made faster/quicker/mechanically better at doing so.

Funny thing is, I could actually appreciate it where a savvy racer used the sound tube as, say, part of a hidden nitrous installation. Because then it'd be functional . . . and a bit sneaky to boot (free hint for anybody who cares to experiment along that line).


Norm

[central limit]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Maybe it'd make more sense if I called it a tacked-on, artificial sound path, still a band-aid solution to interiors made too quiet for other reasons, still something that the engine neither needs nor benefits from by its presence.

If someone on the design team insisted on additional induction noise, I'm glad they went this route instead of going electronic or creating a wonky intake path. Imagine how expensive that would have made aftermarket options.

I agree the addition does not benefit the engine. What it does accomplish, for some of us, is to elevate the driving experience without penalty to mechanical priorities--which is what NPP does at the other end.

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I'm old enough to not want to add anything to a car that the car does not need in order to be driven in a high performance manner or made faster/quicker/mechanically better at doing so.

I suppose you could say I'm old enough to simply enjoy a good product without letting small picture stuff detract from the experience. It's almost certain there are countless other design decisions that many would not agree with on this car, just as with any other complex device.

Diversity is the spice of life, eh?

[Hyper16]

Originally Posted by sub_ETCS_ret

I'm curious because my car sounds louder with the window up than with the windows down. After reading this thread I was wondering if I removed/plugged it how much quieter it would get. Could be the crappy run flats though.

They do add to the noise. I just took them off last week in favor of Continental DWS06. The tire 'roar' is gone.

[Glen e]

So if I want to test the noise diff, I got to get a plug for the tube, and a plug for the air cleaner Plenum, and zip tie the tube up, correct?

[Hyper16]

Originally Posted by Glen e

So if I want to test the noise diff, I got to get a plug for the tube, and a plug for the air cleaner Plenum, and zip tie the tube up, correct?

Yes. That should do it.

Not sure how it connects on the V6 but the V8 has a complete assembly that is bolted to the engine. Not just a tube plugged into the CAI elbow. The tube runs from the firewall to the assembly and then a smaller tube runs from the assembly to the CAI elbow. I removed the assembly when I changed CAIs but did not completely remove the tube. Just plugged it and secured it out of the way. Having the tube still connected at the firewall doesn't bother me and it will be a lot easier to replace the stock CAI in the event I have to.

[Motorin Mark]

So does anybody make a simple bolt on kit to eliminate the tube and cap both ends like they do for Mustang gt's? I think I paid like $20 for a simple kit last year for my 2013 GT.

[webberj1]

I just got towards the last post of this thread and then realized I actually just read this entire thread. Feel a little weird about it.

[V8Addict]

Originally Posted by Motorin Mark

So does anybody make a simple bolt on kit to eliminate the tube and cap both ends like they do for Mustang gt's? I think I paid like $20 for a simple kit last year for my 2013 GT.

I asked Roto-Fab if they could produce such a kit and they said that they had not considered it but are interested and will investigate. Hopefully they come up with a cheap kit for owners that aren't ready to pull the trigger on a cai but want to clean up the engine compartment.