2004 to 2020 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all,

Are there any real difference between these two SRI's?
It seems more folks prefer the CS I think, but is there a reason?
From the pics on their sites it appears these are very similar, almost identical with the exception of the MAF housings. However the JBR has an air-straightener thingy that goes inside it -supposed to make the MAF read the intake airflow more accurately. Not sure if the CorkSport one has that?
So what's the consensus, is either one better??

thx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
For the 2.5 skyactiv engine, both designs are good, and have suitable air straighteners.

For the 2.0 skyactiv engine, the JBR version is superior to Corksport's. They both have similar size AEM dry flow filters which have similar flow properties. The design from both is also similar, although Corksport's version has some quality issues, like a protruding screw near the MAF sensor. The main difference that stands them apart, is that JBR took the time to actually develop an air straightener that suits the skyactiv MAF sensor, whereas Corksport just reused a less compatible Mazda 3 MZR 2.0 air straightener for their design. Notice below, that it blocks the MAF sensor inlet port, where air goes into the sensor for measurements of airflow. You can't turn it so that its parallel to the sensor, as the rear fins get in the way. Thanks to @D-Jack for this picture. If you own one, have a look...

Lens Speedometer Camera lens Single-lens reflex camera Camera


The JBR version is parallel to the MAF sensor, the way it should be:

Camera accessory Cameras & optics Lens Black Product


As Corksport's MZR straightener is not designed for the skyactiv MAF sensor, it sets the sensor calibration off, resulting in fuel trims that are highly negative, and even highly positive at certain engine load ranges. The ECU has to constantly fight the bad calibration by adding or subtracting fuel after it receives rich or lean readings from the O2 sensor. This causes a sluggish pedal feel at times. If you already own a Corksport version, it will work fine if you remove the straightener, and get your MAF sensor calibrated. Then there will be no restrictions to the MAF sensor inlet, or entrance to the MAF sensor housing. You can then get it calibrated with a tune. The straightener is held together by a bit of glue. You can twist it out, but I recommend removing your MAF sensor first, or it may get damaged. If you are buying one for the first time, get the JBR version, and you won't have to worry about this air straightener issue. It will also be compatible with a tune.

I tested air flow smoothness and power gains with Corksport's skyactiv 2.0 SRI, with and without the straightener while running an OV tune. The straightener did not smooth out reading of airflow (same air flow graphs), and I actually gained a few top-end whp when I took it out. This is consistent to what Corksport told customers when they first offered their skyactiv 2.0 SRI (posted on older Gen 2 threads on this forum). They said it reduced power on their dyno, which is why they didn't offer one on earlier models. For later versions up to this point in time, they added the MZR version to meet customer demand, but did not bother to design one for the skyactiv MAF sensor.

A properly designed straightener can help with MAF sensor calibration if you are not running a tune, and reduces some intake noises. They can also straighten turbulent airflow, helping MAF sensor resolution, and smooth flow into the air intake manifold. If you are running a tune, its not needed for the design of these SRIs. There is no curved tubing ahead of the MAF sensor which generates turbulent airflow (as with CAIs), and the cone filter entrance is designed to help smooth airflow. I also noticed no benefit in the smoothness of air readings or power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I was actually a little confused (thinking nothing but repeated information) when I saw this thread started, but after skyactiver replied, I was thankful for all the information he had compiled into one reply. I'm sure I've read it all before, but glad it's all in one place right now. And after reading everything about the intakes, I think, IMO, our best bet is to just buy the JBR replacement filter for our factory airbox.

What do you guys think?


Sent from my iPhone 5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
I was actually a little confused (thinking nothing but repeated information) when I saw this thread started, but after skyactiver replied, I was thankful for all the information he had compiled into one reply. I'm sure I've read it all before, but glad it's all in one place right now. And after reading everything about the intakes, I think, IMO, our best bet is to just buy the JBR replacement filter for our factory airbox.

What do you guys think?
The JBR drop-in filter is great for those looking to retain the benefits of colder air intake temperatures from their stock intake system rather than having to build a heat shield separator or cold airbox for their SRI. However, if you are looking to maximize the performance of your intake, go for a SRI with a separator heat shield or cold air box. The stock box is a bit restrictive considering that air is pulled through small diameter intake piping, and flows through a number of bends. Testing on the 2.5 skyactiv showed that more airflow, and hence power was achieved with a SRI compared to the stocks system with drop-in filter or stock system with stock filter. The same would likely apply to the 2.0, as the intake design is similar.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top