2006 F-150 4.6 Supercab, 111k mi, needs plugs. MPG before adding just the tube itself, no K&N, 17.25. First fill-up with M. I. T. was about 15.5. Next fill-up came in at 17.9 MPG. Looks like it's still getting better.

Any notes to compare regarding the Airaid M. I. T.?

 

never change my mpgs on my 2006 5.4....stayed the same

 

I've had mine for years and yeah, I can't say I've ever seen better MPG's on my 5.4. It looks real pretty under the hood tho..

 

Have had one on my '07 5.4 for a couple of years now. Have not noticed any difference in mpg.

 

I just put mine on and still need to get my trans work done. (have everything but the space to do it now...). I wouldn't expect a whole lot of MPG improvement with it. Kind of like swapping over to freer flowing exhaust, your right foot is likely to negate any real improvements.

BTW. If you are getting that kind of mileage with the original plugs, count your blessings!

I do expect it should behave somewhat like the Gotts mod did for me, maybe a bit more so. I just swapped the Gotts for the AirRAID due to problems with the PVC pipe gave me concern. My mileage average went up about 1mpg from 14.6 to 15.4 when I did the Gotts and kept my foot out of it. I am a 5.4L 4x4 on 35s for reference...

 

Nupe.

No perf or mileage gains seen when I ran one. Not gonna happen.

Fer 99% of yer driving, it's the throttle plate position that is dictating the degree of restriction at any given point in time. The stocker is more than adequate to supply the engine with all it needs - and more - refer to:

https://www.f150online.com/forums/4739726-post9.html

Something else is in play here. It always is.

MGD

 

Not to pooh pooh the prior posters thread, but I have heavily researched air flow and ducting systems. I can't squeeze the numbers exactly out of my head at the monent but I will endeavor to give them to you eventually...

I find it highly unlikely that at 28" H2O the intake duct of the stock F150 can possibly pull CFM numbers anywhere near what he states. Perhaps with the stub between the fender and the rest removed, but even then it is iffy... There is an inverse relationship between CFM and static pressure. Now your typical shop vac pulls about twice the " H2O that your post lists, and the duct size on those is 2.5" and they flow at ~200 CFM. So cut that SP number in half to your 28 and you double your CFM, of course assuming the same duct size. So at MOST you can pull 400 CFM through a 2.5" SMOOTH duct at that SP. Since it is the engine that is pulling the 28" H2O, that remains constant, increasing duct sizing from, what is the size of the stock opening anyway? I never measured it, but it by eyeball, looks smaller than a shop vac hose, so let's say for argument sake, and being generous is 2" ID, to something, that would at least hold the same amount of intake port surface area of the stock filter box which again unscientifically measured I guess to be 5x the size of the stock intake snorkel end, the air flow HAS to increase. Vacuum will not stay vacuum if unrestricted.

Now given the other factors of the engine, overall displacement, injector sizing, exhaust efficiency etc... I would say that without improved exhaust efficiency top end power gains would be negligible. The "real V8 sound" gained back by removing the stock baffle is actually quite pleasant, and likely to encourage heavy footed driving which might drive MPG numbers down. Real world testing on long trips under constant speed settings such that Cruise Control could be used, would be a better way to measure efficiency variance.

All that notwithstanding. I personally HATED the obstructed look of the engine compartment with that god awful complicated, clunky hunk of plastic that Ford passed off as an intake snorkel assembly... If for no reason aside from Aesthetics, aftermarket CAI is worth looking into. I personally felt the stock airbox was well designed, and loved the look of the AirRAID MIT... Nuff said...

 

So, if I follow you correctly, if I hook a longer flex hose to the intake, I can use my engine for a shop vac?

 

You *could* do so, but that would be how shall I say this? A *special* sort of thing to do...

The concepts behind workshop / industrial dust collection, including shop vacs, aren't all that different from automotive air intake systems. You are moving a compressible contaiminate laden gas (air), and through an enclosed environment and forcing it through a fine filtration media before it reaches its final destination. In the case of automotive intake systems, your engine, in the case of a shop vac, back into the air you are breathing.

 

I bought mine as a young and lightly used well cared for near stock '07 FX4 in August '09, it already had the True Flow inlet tube. I bought a stocker off ebay cheap, tried it, put the True Flow back on because it looks so much better .... and it seemed to run a little better at WOT like in passing situations .... but that maybe was misleading? Tube made no difference in MPG .... still like the looks though. :

No question though, I did get a slight MPG boost with SC FP1865 on 87 perf / light tow .... but not enough to pay for it and it wasn't the reason for getting it, I just wanted better shifting, no hunting in OD at 45-50, and better throttle response .... which I got.

 

Well, all I can offer is to PM Jim to get more details, as it's apparent they used a flowbench for those tests, and Jim is not a novice.

That - and read up on Bernoulli's Principle.

If the stocker did not at least meet the stock engine's intake air requirements, it would be readily apparent to almost everyone by now. And I don't see Ford or anyone else designing it like that in the first place - there wold be no reason to.

Of course, the Factory PCM calibrations never allowed full rated power to be achieved to begin with - primarily by restricting the shift points below where the peak occurs. So intake requirements are even less stringent. If anything, that's why, at the 2004 F150 5.4 3V intro, a lot of automotive pundits were going..."Where is the 300 HP you claim?". It didn't help that ETC was calibrated to Soccer-Mom mode, and Open Loop enrichment was delayed.

Add a programmer, though, to fix those shortcomings, and I can see peak gains happening - not huge, perhaps not even tangible, but there - if yer wiling to drive around above 4,000 rpm a lot ... in all other operating regimes, it's the throttle plate that is yer single largest restriction.

MGD

 

Will have to take a deeper look into Bernoulli's Principle. I suspect though that the numbers shown by the aerodynaics engineers involved in the vacuum industry as well as industrial dust collection are utilizing the same or similar ideas in their designs and charts.

And agreed. The throttle plate is going to be your largest restriction.

I am not arguing that an intake tube / filter, or CAI, or even a programmer is going to end up making a 100 HP difference, but depending on the setup, it should make a difference, albeit slight. And like I mentioned before, even if for no other reason, as long as it doesn't harm preformance or reliability, the aftermarket CAIs anyway, do have a much better / cleaner visual appeal to them. They simply look nicer / less chunky...

 

Never even knew there was another aftermarket tube setup to use the stock airbox on these trucks. That TrueFlow looks great with those red pieces on that red truck!

 

I'm going to give you my opinion on so-called "CAI's" from another aspect.

1. Unless the airbox is sealed with an external inlet, it's actually a WARM air intake. This will actually cause a LOSS in power.

2. The frequently used oiled filter elements do NOT filter as well as a dry paper or nano filter, and also can foul the MAF.

3. Especially on 04+ engines, the MAF relocation can cause you to run excessively lean.

So - for my money (or lack of), the Gotts with an Amsoil filter is the way to go in my opinion. It's cheap, it works, but it just doesn't look or sound cool.

 

I drive like an old man. Wait.... I AM an old man! Not looking for a racer, looking for reliability and MPG. I have read posts on other sites that seem to support my findings. They all seem to say that it starts out worse, and eventually beats the stock intake for MPG, once the PCM learns the new air flow.

I will fill up again in a few days, and posts the MPGs.

Thanks for the input.