Corvette3401
New member
I'm looking to buy one and wanted your input:
Thanks!
Thanks!
Which Intake?
- Thread starter Corvette3401
- Start date
Corvette3401
New member
From what I've been reading on the forums, it seems like DDM has got the best one on the market as of right now.
sx sonic
New member
DDM and ZZP are the two best IMHO for power production.
Looking at this objectively
the DDM is better for a person just bolting up an intake and that's it. The heatshield promotes a colder charge and the DDM doesn't throw CELs and makes more power than stock (with a tune to keep the gains)
The ZZP is better for someone looking for Max Powwaa, especially a DIYer looking for the best intake. Its a good option just thrown on the car as it makes more power than stock and won't throw codes. BUT its not optimized for that. For max gains the insert needs to be removed so it can be the best flowing intake (requires a tune), and a heatshield needs to be added (I think BNR sells the ZZPintake with DDM heatshield for a price).
I picked the ZZP as the best because of the ability to remove the insert and the fact that I'm adding something that's Way better thab a heatshield.
Again if you're not a tinkering or don't want to mess with a removable insert (and mandatory tune that goes with it) then the DDM is the best option. It all boils down to context. Just like the Injen is supposedly best for MPG, seems logical but there hasn't been much evidence to show its better than any other option
Looking at this objectively
the DDM is better for a person just bolting up an intake and that's it. The heatshield promotes a colder charge and the DDM doesn't throw CELs and makes more power than stock (with a tune to keep the gains)
The ZZP is better for someone looking for Max Powwaa, especially a DIYer looking for the best intake. Its a good option just thrown on the car as it makes more power than stock and won't throw codes. BUT its not optimized for that. For max gains the insert needs to be removed so it can be the best flowing intake (requires a tune), and a heatshield needs to be added (I think BNR sells the ZZPintake with DDM heatshield for a price).
I picked the ZZP as the best because of the ability to remove the insert and the fact that I'm adding something that's Way better thab a heatshield.
Again if you're not a tinkering or don't want to mess with a removable insert (and mandatory tune that goes with it) then the DDM is the best option. It all boils down to context. Just like the Injen is supposedly best for MPG, seems logical but there hasn't been much evidence to show its better than any other option
Dave@ddmworks
Supporting Vendor
I have seen this come up a couple times and wanted to give out some information that we have from testing here:
The 2.0L LNF engines also come standard with a 2.75" intake on a car that makes 260hp stock. There have been many intakes tested on those cars and most have found that until you get over 350hp at the wheels, the stock intake will flow just about as well as the aftermarket intakes on that car. On the Sonic we are seeing some gains with an intake, from what we have tested it is mainly because of the size of the filter in the car stock and also the 180 degree bent tube in the fender being the biggest restrictions in the system, but the 2.75" intake tube does not appear to be the restriction.
This is what we have tested here and found -
- A 2.75" intake tube keeps the stock size tube, and therefore, the fuel trims stay consistent with stock and will not throw codes or lose power.
- The 2.75" intake tube will outflow whatever the stock turbo will ever be capable of moving because of the small inlet diameter of the turbo compressor housing.
- Larger intake tubes, do not necessarily produce more power (if this was the case, we would just bolt on a 6" intake tube)
- Reducing the size of the tube while also making a 90 degree bend is not something that is good for flow.
Not sure if anyone else has tested a DDM vs. ZZP vs. Stock vs. Injen but just because the tube is larger does not mean that an intake will produce more power, at least that is what all of our testing has shown. Once the intake tube will outflow the turbo, you will not make more power with a larger tube.
The biggest issue with the ZZP and the CXracing intakes from what we have seen, is that they both use a 3" to 2.25" reducer that does the reduction while also doing a 90 degree turn. So the air has to turn and also neck down at the same time, that is not good for airflow. That is why we kept the bend in our intake the full 2.75" then make the transition from 2.75" to 2.25" after the bend, better for flow.
Here is a picture of the difference for comparison - The DDM is on the left, ZZP on the right.
When the air makes that hard 90 degree bend, it creates a little pocket of vacuum where it can not make the bend that sharp and also reduce in size, so you lose some of the overall area of flow through that kind of silicone reducer, so even though you have a larger 3" tube after it, that silicone 90 becomes more restrictive.
Hope that helps,
Dave
Last edited:
Kuntryboy865
New member
I have the ZZP and love it. Much better than stock.
Swordsmith
242hp/252 ft-lbs BNR EFI
I am astonished SAB is not on that list.
ThatTmoGuy
New member
All hail the Almighty SAB!
I have seen this come up a couple times and wanted to give out some information that we have from testing here:
The 2.0L LNF engines also come standard with a 2.75" intake on a car that makes 260hp stock. There have been many intakes tested on those cars and most have found that until you get over 350hp at the wheels, the stock intake will flow just about as well as the aftermarket intakes on that car. On the Sonic we are seeing some gains with an intake, from what we have tested it is mainly because of the size of the filter in the car stock and also the 180 degree bent tube in the fender being the biggest restrictions in the system, but the 2.75" intake tube does not appear to be the restriction.
This is what we have tested here and found -
- A 2.75" intake tube keeps the stock size tube, and therefore, the fuel trims stay consistent with stock and will not throw codes or lose power.
- The 2.75" intake tube will outflow whatever the stock turbo will ever be capable of moving because of the small inlet diameter of the turbo compressor housing.
- Larger intake tubes, do not necessarily produce more power (if this was the case, we would just bolt on a 6" intake tube)
- Reducing the size of the tube while also making a 90 degree bend is not something that is good for flow.
Not sure if anyone else has tested a DDM vs. ZZP vs. Stock vs. Injen but just because the tube is larger does not mean that an intake will produce more power, at least that is what all of our testing has shown. Once the intake tube will outflow the turbo, you will not make more power with a larger tube.
The biggest issue with the ZZP and the CXracing intakes from what we have seen, is that they both use a 3" to 2.25" reducer that does the reduction while also doing a 90 degree turn. So the air has to turn and also neck down at the same time, that is not good for airflow. That is why we kept the bend in our intake the full 2.75" then make the transition from 2.75" to 2.25" after the bend, better for flow.
Here is a picture of the difference for comparison - The DDM is on the left, ZZP on the right.
When the air makes that hard 90 degree bend, it creates a little pocket of vacuum where it can not make the bend that sharp and also reduce in size, so you lose some of the overall area of flow through that kind of silicone reducer, so even though you have a larger 3" tube after it, that silicone 90 becomes more restrictive.
Hope that helps,
Dave
A technical post but far from accurate.
Air behaves similar to traffic. The worst thing you can do is make fast transitions. Having a reduction coupler like the DDM is certainly the lowest cost method to develop an intake but it does come at a performance hit.
Think of a 3 lane highway with a wall that stops one lane of traffic. What happens? ALL of the traffic grinds to a halt. This is because people don't have time to transition into the 2 lanes gradually. Airflow is the same way.
When you port a head, do you hog it out for as long as you can and then have a small opening at the end of the cylinder port? No. Every performance head you've ever seen has a few things. They turn, they taper, they are smooth and they are as gradual as possible in transitions. Again, this is because maximizing airflow is all about gradual transitions. One intake makes the entire transition in about 1/2" while the other in ~5 inches. There's a reason a more expensive tapered silicone piece was used.
Dave@ddmworks
Supporting Vendor
Great to have some input directly from zoomer at ZZP on this thread.
I am happy to address some of the points that he brought up.
As for the first point -
Air has a mass and like all mass, it will not change direction unless acted on by a force to do so, that means it does take a force to make it change direction rapidly, and more force to compress it and make it change direction rapidly, but I will get to that more in just a sec.
Based on zoomers comments though, I am guessing that DDM and ZZP are definitely using different suppliers for the parts of our intakes. We would of much rather used a 3" tube for our intake with a single bend in it for several reasons. We checked into it when going into production and forming up a 3" tube and using a reducing silicone 90 like the ZZP would have been less expensive for us to make and bring to market and also much easier to find a company to produce it.
In our experience, it is much easier to find a company with mandrels for forming 2.5" and 3" tube then 2.75" tubing and the reason that most companies do not bend 2.75" tubing is because they do not have the tooling to so. We had to do a lot of searching to find a company that can produce good quality 2.75" bends. Most companies usually have the 3" mandrels already, and so it is much easier to find a company to form up a 3" intake tube. Also the cost of the raw tubing in 3" usually slightly less expensive then the 2.75" tubing or very similar in price since the 3" is used much more often. Last, the silicone reducer we use and the reducing 90 that ZZP uses, when bought in bulk is within a couple of dollars of the same price. I would guess in the end, ZZP and DDM have similar cost of the final product (without the heatshield).
We decided in the end, it was worth more paying for the 2.75" tube to be made then a similar 3" tube with a single bend to maintain the correct size for the intake. After testing we have seen no benefit of a 3" intake on the stock turbo over the 2.75" intake. Infact, when the 3" intake is ran without the insert, as we have seen the fueling severely affected in a negative way and a lot of detonation from the poor fueling, the 2.75" intake does not affect fuel trims or have these issues.
Absolutely agree with this, preferably a nice 3" intake all the way to the compressor inlet with a long transition from the intake tube size to the compressor inlet in a reverse megaphone, but since we have to deal with the cast compressor inlet, that can not be done. Although, I am not sure why ZZP is attacking our intake, when using the traffic analogy, the ZZP intake is not only asking the 3 lane highway to reduce down to 1 lane, but also do it in sharp 90 degree turn at the same time. That is really asking the air to do a lot in a very short space and with the traffic analogy, would really cause the traffic to grind to a halt and also cause some accidents.
When FEA (finite element analysis) is ran on a silicone reducing 90, like ZZP is using, the flow is far from optimal and is the reason we keep the much larger radius through the entire turn and then reduce. This is so the air (traffic) only has to do one thing at a time using the traffic analogy.
During testing of the intakes a vacuum pocket can be seen in the silicone reducing 90 used in the ZZP intake because it requires the air to make a very hard turn and also reduce in size. At the speed the air is going in the intake, it simply can not make that tight of a turn. Also, to say that the reducing silicone 90 in the ZZP intake is a smooth transition from 3" to 2.25" is a little bit of a stretch, as the picture in the post above shows, the 90 has a very hard turn in it. If it looked something more like the picture below, then it would flow much better and a much more valid argument could be made.
I know that ZZP has a lot of experience with heads, infact a friend of ours had some of their 3800 heads on his grand prix, and at the same time I doubt that ZZP would hog out the cylinder head, then have the runners make a hard 90 degree bend and reduce in size 25% all at the same time.
Realistically, all of the intakes available at this time on the market are going to be some kind of compromise from what a truly optimal system would be since we are dealing with street cars and limited budgets. I still stand by our intake as the best performing intake available after the testing we have done on all of the available intakes. We are glad though to see other good companies like ZZP in the market as having competition in the market is always going to end up producing the best products for the customer with the best price.
At this time though the ZZP intake is $239.99 and our intake including a 304 stainless steel heatshield is $255 and we just finished developing the bracketry to mount the intake without the heatshield and will be selling that for only $160. :banana:
I am happy to address some of the points that he brought up.
As for the first point -
Air has a mass and like all mass, it will not change direction unless acted on by a force to do so, that means it does take a force to make it change direction rapidly, and more force to compress it and make it change direction rapidly, but I will get to that more in just a sec.
Based on zoomers comments though, I am guessing that DDM and ZZP are definitely using different suppliers for the parts of our intakes. We would of much rather used a 3" tube for our intake with a single bend in it for several reasons. We checked into it when going into production and forming up a 3" tube and using a reducing silicone 90 like the ZZP would have been less expensive for us to make and bring to market and also much easier to find a company to produce it.
In our experience, it is much easier to find a company with mandrels for forming 2.5" and 3" tube then 2.75" tubing and the reason that most companies do not bend 2.75" tubing is because they do not have the tooling to so. We had to do a lot of searching to find a company that can produce good quality 2.75" bends. Most companies usually have the 3" mandrels already, and so it is much easier to find a company to form up a 3" intake tube. Also the cost of the raw tubing in 3" usually slightly less expensive then the 2.75" tubing or very similar in price since the 3" is used much more often. Last, the silicone reducer we use and the reducing 90 that ZZP uses, when bought in bulk is within a couple of dollars of the same price. I would guess in the end, ZZP and DDM have similar cost of the final product (without the heatshield).
We decided in the end, it was worth more paying for the 2.75" tube to be made then a similar 3" tube with a single bend to maintain the correct size for the intake. After testing we have seen no benefit of a 3" intake on the stock turbo over the 2.75" intake. Infact, when the 3" intake is ran without the insert, as we have seen the fueling severely affected in a negative way and a lot of detonation from the poor fueling, the 2.75" intake does not affect fuel trims or have these issues.
Absolutely agree with this, preferably a nice 3" intake all the way to the compressor inlet with a long transition from the intake tube size to the compressor inlet in a reverse megaphone, but since we have to deal with the cast compressor inlet, that can not be done. Although, I am not sure why ZZP is attacking our intake, when using the traffic analogy, the ZZP intake is not only asking the 3 lane highway to reduce down to 1 lane, but also do it in sharp 90 degree turn at the same time. That is really asking the air to do a lot in a very short space and with the traffic analogy, would really cause the traffic to grind to a halt and also cause some accidents.
When FEA (finite element analysis) is ran on a silicone reducing 90, like ZZP is using, the flow is far from optimal and is the reason we keep the much larger radius through the entire turn and then reduce. This is so the air (traffic) only has to do one thing at a time using the traffic analogy.
During testing of the intakes a vacuum pocket can be seen in the silicone reducing 90 used in the ZZP intake because it requires the air to make a very hard turn and also reduce in size. At the speed the air is going in the intake, it simply can not make that tight of a turn. Also, to say that the reducing silicone 90 in the ZZP intake is a smooth transition from 3" to 2.25" is a little bit of a stretch, as the picture in the post above shows, the 90 has a very hard turn in it. If it looked something more like the picture below, then it would flow much better and a much more valid argument could be made.
I know that ZZP has a lot of experience with heads, infact a friend of ours had some of their 3800 heads on his grand prix, and at the same time I doubt that ZZP would hog out the cylinder head, then have the runners make a hard 90 degree bend and reduce in size 25% all at the same time.
Realistically, all of the intakes available at this time on the market are going to be some kind of compromise from what a truly optimal system would be since we are dealing with street cars and limited budgets. I still stand by our intake as the best performing intake available after the testing we have done on all of the available intakes. We are glad though to see other good companies like ZZP in the market as having competition in the market is always going to end up producing the best products for the customer with the best price.
At this time though the ZZP intake is $239.99 and our intake including a 304 stainless steel heatshield is $255 and we just finished developing the bracketry to mount the intake without the heatshield and will be selling that for only $160. :banana:
Dave@ddmworks
Supporting Vendor
We have had a bunch of people ask for this -
Our intakes are up on the site now without the heatshield for only $160 :banana:, you can still add the heatshield at the time of purchase for $95, or we will also have it as an option to purchase seperately later.
We also have new blue silicone connectors along with the standard black, allowing some truly custom one off intakes to be created.
Sonic Cold Air Intake, 1.4L
Enjoy!
Our intakes are up on the site now without the heatshield for only $160 :banana:, you can still add the heatshield at the time of purchase for $95, or we will also have it as an option to purchase seperately later.
We also have new blue silicone connectors along with the standard black, allowing some truly custom one off intakes to be created.
Sonic Cold Air Intake, 1.4L
Enjoy!