Cold air intake advice!!

[JCase]

That is not why efficiency is better with warmer air. It's because a cold air charge takes some energy during combustion to be heated - energy that could otherwise be used to provide mechanical motion. It's true that warm air has less oxygen which is why, normally, a real cold air intake would increase power. However, having a warm intake charge means less energy is wasted during combustion heating up the air/fuel mixture.

Good point too.

Yes, air density, throttle position, thermal conduction/convection all play a role along with other factors effect mpg and efficiency. I apologize for my oversimplified statement.

The air still has to make 2 90 degree turns flowing into the airbox, and out of the airbox. The cone filter removes both of these.

If your counting the air entering the box as a 90 turn, then I can see your point. But I don't think its a factor considering all the points previously made in this thread.

I was referring to fitment and placement of the OEM intake tube and that there is no room to drastically change the design for the better.

 

[2000StreetRod]

Amsoil TS123

I was worried when I saw the poor showing for the Amsoil filter in the Testand results. Then I noticed the filter tested was part number TS123 which is an oiled foam filter. The EAA122 filters I purchased were nanofiber technology filters. Hopefully they would do better in the test.

 

[JCase]

You have one throttle body opened 25% or two throttle bodies half the flow with one opened 50%... There wouldn't be any difference.

What a lot of manufacturers do, is they have two sets of unequal length runners on the intake. At higher RPMs with the throttle open larger, they open the shorter set of runners so the engine can get as much air in as possible. At lower RPMs, these short runners are kept closed so the engine uses only the longer runners to increase intake air velocity. Splitting anything before this point would just complicate the system without really gaining much.

Ah yes, always wish someone would make an intake for our 5.0 like the the one thats on Yamaha's SHO V8. Can you imagine!

I agree installing two of the same smaller throttle bodies would be the same thing, but if you installed a 35-40mm for mpg then had a switch that closed it and opened a 65mm for power. I agree the complication might not be worth it, but as seen in other posts worth is or not depends on the person.

BUT, if you had two throttle bodies that where drive-by-wire, each with there own MAM and intake track (smaller TB would have a WAI and the bigger a CAI) and each with there own tune by way of a dual MAM adjuster found here:http://www.mass-air.com/Products.htm and a SCT multi program switch-on-the-fly chip found here:http://www.sctflash.com/products.php?PID=31, it's possible.

As to how this thread is going, thank you OP for hosting it, even if everything brought up didn't directly answer your original question . I think this has been a good conversation, and no doubt we'll all be having this discussion again next month when this question on filters and intakes comes up again for the 100th time!

 

[masospaghetti]

Well, why don't you go get some dyno numbers with and without the CAI or cone filter?

Verifiable, repeatable tests are friggen awesome. Plus, it is FAR more reliable than any information you can get from someone who is trying to sell you something. Everyone on the forum would be grateful for the information.

I fully agree and I wish I had access to a dyno. I also think real, verified test results showing what mods actually improve fuel efficiency (I suppose also on a dyno) would be a huge help to members on the forum.

I think K&N's claim of +2.8 hp is realistic and I have no trouble believing it. It's not like those GForce "chips" that give +60 hp and +7 mpg.

 

[FIND]

I fully agree and I wish I had access to a dyno. I also think real, verified test results showing what mods actually improve fuel efficiency (I suppose also on a dyno) would be a huge help to members on the forum.

I think K&N's claim of +2.8 hp is realistic and I have no trouble believing it. It's not like those GForce "chips" that give +60 hp and +7 mpg.

2.8 horsepower is WELL within the margin of error you see on dyno runs. If someone is claiming 2.8 horsepower, then they have not had any gain at all. The fact that K&N tells you that is just an insult to your intelligence. They are basically telling you that as long as they make a claim that doesn't sound outrageous, you will accept it as true.

Watch those videos I posted, they have bigger variations than that on consecutive dyno runs. You can get more than a 2.8 horsepower gain just by getting the oil hot.

Anyway, the stock air box with a paper filter will flow more air than a stock MAF if you set them up on an air flow meter.

 

[JCase]

They are basically telling you that as long as they make a claim that doesn't sound outrageous, you will accept it as true.

An Air Filter with a Million Mile Warranty is an outrageous claim, and people still believe that!

 

[FIND]

They are just saying that they will replace it if it breaks within a million miles. Nothing outrageous about that. The wire mesh that holds the media won't rust with the oil on it, and the media is pretty hardy stuff. I mean, there isn't really any part of the filter that should ever fail, aside from the filter's failure to do anything good for your vehicle, and K&N does replace filters that do get ruined from things like their seals breaking down. Just having a million mile guarantee doesn't mean their filter will definitely last 1,000,000 miles, it just means they will be happy to replace it for you when it does get ruined.

Really, it is just like a lifetime warranty on tools. Why don't they say that their tools are guaranteed until the end of time? Because this claim is good enough. The tools won't last forever, but they'll replace them when they don't.

 

[JCase]

lol. I get it FIND.

Tools that are lifetime warranty aren't marketed like: "Our ratchet has a Million Ratchets Warranty" or "Our impacts are guaranteed for 1 million revolutions".

Who can keep track of a millions miles? It's just ridiculous PR nonsense.

They should have just said Lifetime Warranty. But like was said, people will passively believe it if it sounds good.

 

[masospaghetti]

2.8 horsepower is WELL within the margin of error you see on dyno runs. If someone is claiming 2.8 horsepower, then they have not had any gain at all. The fact that K&N tells you that is just an insult to your intelligence. They are basically telling you that as long as they make a claim that doesn't sound outrageous, you will accept it as true.

I don't know their testing methodology, but I would hope they would do more than a single run to determine the amount of gain. If they make those claims based on a single run, then I would agree with you.

FWIW, K&N claims 8.59 hp for the SOHC engine. That's too little to feel seat-of-pants, but outside of statistical noise.

A test with any validity at all would perform multiple run and take the average. Otherwise, what would happen if the first run had LESS power than stock? Do they just keep running the dyno until one run performs higher, than claim a horsepower increase? I would certainly hope not, but again, I don't know their testing methods.

Watch those videos I posted, they have bigger variations than that on consecutive dyno runs. You can get more than a 2.8 horsepower gain just by getting the oil hot.

I did watch those videos, they were interesting to watch. They were testing the extremes though - one was a tiny car with a tiny engine, the other was a high powered turbocharged engine. I have a hard time believing that all air intakes do nothing based on those two vehicles tested.

 

[FIND]

Agreed, believing anything in the absence of proof is ridiculous. That's why I don't believe in aftermarket intakes giving you power, air filters giving you power, the existence of the state of Idaho, or many other ideas promoted by people, culture or society.

I'm not going to believe things until people prove them wrong, I test things, and gather evidence. The material I presented represents a very small sample, but is a proof of concept. Rather, better than that, only negative proof exists for these claims, which leaves me no choice but to disbelieve the claims that air filters can give you extra power.

Besides, those tests aren't that extreme. A small engine breaths exactly the same way as a big engine, and those turbocharged engines produced the same amount of power as our explorer engines, meaning they were consuming similar amounts of air. No change on them implies there will be no change on our engines. Until there is evidence that shows otherwise, aside from marketing claims that are within the margin of error for testing, then I see no reason to continue this particular line of discussion.

 

[Flash]

What a lot of manufacturers do, is they have two sets of unequal length runners on the intake. At higher RPMs with the throttle open larger, they open the shorter set of runners so the engine can get as much air in as possible. At lower RPMs, these short runners are kept closed so the engine uses only the longer runners to increase intake air velocity.

Doesn't the SOHC have this?

The locally made '95 or '96 Falcon had it and people thought it had less power than the previous model.
I actually had more but the power was linear, you didn't get that surge when coming out of the hole that you got with the earlier model.

 

[JCase]

FWIW, K&N claims 8.59 hp for the SOHC engine. That's too little to feel seat-of-pants, but outside of statistical noise.

More nonsense. (Not from you but K&N)

Claiming a HP gain down to the hundredth decimal place is a dead give away that it's bullshit. Just like the guys who say "I'm getting 2.59 more MPG after I installed so-and-so part". Can't possibly set up a test to be that accurate or repeatable in either case. To many variables. Someone farting next to the intake while a car was being dynoed would probably be worth a hp or two.

Lets get real here people.

 

[FIND]

Doesn't the SOHC have this?

The locally made '95 or '96 Falcon had it and people thought it had less power than the previous model.
I actually had more but the power was linear, you didn't get that surge when coming out of the hole that you got with the earlier model.

Did it? I cant remember.

 

[masospaghetti]

More nonsense. (Not from you but K&N)

Claiming a HP gain down to the hundredth decimal place is a dead give away that it's bullshit.

IMO the most plausible scenario for K&N (assuming they have some shred of integrity) is to run multiple dyno runs and then take the average. I agree, for tests with relatively low precision, like a dyno test, it's dumb to include two decimals.

However, being in a seemingly high precision industry (aviation) I know from experience that measurements are often given way too many decimal places for the level of precision. Maybe that's why it doesn't strike me as unusual or fishy.

The difference between me and you is that I give K&N a small amount of credibility and you do not. However, I would love to prove or disprove my theory based on real test data.

 

[2000StreetRod]

Vis

Doesn't the SOHC have this? . . .

Only the 1997 and 1998 Explorers with the SOHC V6 had VIS. See VIS Conversion

 

[jay 2000]

Try this first, replace the air filter with a new one or blow your old one out real good with an air compressor. Then drill some holes in the air box BELOW the air filter. I drilled about six 3/4 in holes in mine. It makes a difference and cheep to boot. K-N filters can get oil residue on the map sensor and drive you crazy, with the check engine light comeing on.

 

[swshawaii]

Try this first, replace the air filter with a new one or blow your old one out real good with an air compressor. Then drill some holes in the air box BELOW the air filter. I drilled about six 3/4 in holes in mine. It makes a difference and cheep to boot. K-N filters can get oil residue on the map sensor and drive you crazy, with the check engine light comeing on.

What "difference" did butchering your air box make? Louder?

 

[02st1989]

Go cheap,on intake upgrade filter later

So i can basically make my own warm air intake with the adapter, cone filter and the stock intake tube for around 50 dollars or less (dirt cheap).

I could get the MAC intake upgrade for 190 dollars with shipping which i cannot find any information on whatsoever, and that makes me a little sketchy to buy it, if anyone has some the specs feel free to share. also if anyone has one of these on their x let me know how it performs

Lastly i found the K&N 57 series intake for 211 with shipping. I dont have any problem throwing down the extra 20 dollars for the K&N if its worth it. K&N also provides a million mile warranty which neither of the others do.

What do you guys think the best choice is?

I bought an intake from intake spot for $70 worked fine for me. I got 2 mpg better. I've bought a kn in the past and would spend that money again

 

[FIND]

Try this first, replace the air filter with a new one or blow your old one out real good with an air compressor. Then drill some holes in the air box BELOW the air filter. I drilled about six 3/4 in holes in mine. It makes a difference and cheep to boot. K-N filters can get oil residue on the map sensor and drive you crazy, with the check engine light comeing on.

Oh, so you have some hard numbers for us? Or are you basing this on the fact you can hear the intake and your butt dyno has been influenced by the "I modified my truck, so it must be faster now" effect.

I bought an intake from intake spot for $70 worked fine for me. I got 2 mpg better. I've bought a kn in the past and would spend that money again

Why don't you get back to us when you have more than one tank of gas to base that assessment on.

 

[JCase]

IMO the most plausible scenario for K&N (assuming they have some shred of integrity) is to run multiple dyno runs and then take the average. I agree, for tests with relatively low precision, like a dyno test, it's dumb to include two decimals.

The difference between me and you is that I give K&N a small amount of credibility and you do not. However, I would love to prove or disprove my theory based on real test data.

Here is a multiple, back to back, averaged dyno test preformed in a climate controlled environment comparing an OEM Paper Filter VS. K&N on a Bone Stock 2013 Mustang GT:

http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...ance-2012-gt-k-n-replacement-filter-test.html

And the same filter test done with a supercharger installed on the same vehicle:

http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...filter-test-part-2-magnuson-supercharged.html

Does that prove or disprove anything for you?

Notice how on even 3 back-to-back runs there can be as much as a 9 HP difference.

Just more proof to back up my opinion that K&N has no credibility and that there filters are indeed trash. Even if they say "The Worlds Best Filter" and have Ford Racing's endorsement on the box!