No, my opinion is the numbers are not as hard as you and the aftermarket performance kits manufacturers make them out to be. And you still have not countered that point.

A cold air intake is designed to increase power by bringing the colder, more dense air from outside into the engine (instead of consuming the warmer air under the hood which is less dense and will not fill the cylinders to the same density). However, when the cold air intakes are tested on a stationary dyno, the numbers cannot be relied upon because the car is not moving through the air. It could be that a stock intake would start breathing warm air from under the hood instead of fresh air as it might if it were travelling down the road at 40 mph or more. Any increases or decreases in power are meaningless because it does not represent actual driving.

Who cares if the dyno shows you have a few more peak ponies when it doesn't perform any better on the road?

And you have also failed to answer my simple question to you, "Do you believe that MAF sensors provide accurate readings when placed in an air intake that has resonate airflow?"

 

Why would I need to counter the point that intakes numbers are made to look good by the intake manufacturer, I never said they weren't. What I did say was that independent sources, let me reiterate this for the 18th time, independent people have done tests and shown gains. You still haven't clicked on the links I posted huh?

As far as the dyno, the stock intake system and the aftermarket system share the same environment in the test, which usually consists of fans simulating driving conditions. For you to say its bias doesn't make sense when both are under the same conditions. If you're arguing that the CAI has an advantage because of heat soak, well you're absolutely correct!

If they dyno shows power improvements across the band, then would that translate into road performance? Hmm. I don't think that ones rocket science. A CAI alone can produce gains across the band. A CAI and a tune can produce more gains and adjust the curve so its linear and accommodates the modification. Please, don't take my word for it. Take his, who ran this test to see if the BMW (read luxury car, with what would be presumably a more complex FI system then on the Ford) responded to an aftermarket intake system



or this one



More colorful lines and big numbers for you.


And finally for this irrelevant question you persist upon being answered, the maf or whatever intake sensor is going to have differing results. Obviously. Heres a question for you, does this translate to decreased performance. Heres a hint, those pretty squiggaly lines up there mean something.

Oh and heres some smilie faces and winks and the like, since that seems the be necessary for emphasis

 

I clicked them alright, more dyno charts.


Dynometers do not have fans to "simulate driving conditions"!

The fan is there to provide some engine cooling. All it does is blow air on the radiator, it does not simulate the airflow of the car as if it were going 40 mph down the road. The dyno fan will likely make the stock intake perform worse than in the real world because the warm air coming off the radiator and engine likely swirls up into the stock air intake near the wheel well. In real driving conditions the stock intake will be getting cool air.

That is precisely why it is silly to use a dyno to "prove" power gains from using cold intake air.

"Differing results"? I guess I have to give you the real answer. The MAF (mass air flow sensor) is easily fooled by pulsing air in the intake tract (it will think there is more air than there is and therfore cause too much fuel to be injected under those conditions).

What I find really telling is you only post dyno charts from engines that are very different from the ones in our F-150's. If a CAI is so good for our trucks and if you believe a dyno is a valid way to prove it then why post dyno results from unrelated vehicles? The truth is, our trucks already have cold air intakes from the factory! Why have you not addressed that?

Do you work for an aftermarket manufacturer?

Why are you promoting products with no credible evidence of any benefit on a F-150?

Why have users who tried aftermarket CAI's on F-150's taken them off and sold them claiming no benefit?:o

And why do you attack me simply because I bring up some valid points that question the benefits of CAI's on our trucks? I have been totally upfront with you and yet you have been evasive on my points and personal.

Can't we just drink a beer and get along?

 

Haven't attacked you, I've been sarcastic, but held back anything personal imho. Of course, I'm always a fan of drinking a beer and getting along, there aren't any hard feelings.

(I'm not trying to have the last word, promise) My main issue with what you have said from square one is that aftermarket intakes don't produce measurable or worthwhile gains, when in actuality they do. You can argue the velocity of wind resistance and laden wing capacities of swallows all day or nit pick the efficacy of the dynamometer and its measurements but there is a reason you never see high hp builds with the stock air system, because it just doesn't cut it.


I don't disagree that the system in our trucks is good, which is why the gotts mod exists, but if you free up the restriction and get a good tune there are gains to be had. For more air deprived or restrictive applications, aftermarket intakes are even more effective.

As far as gains on our vehicles, heres a decent article, though it smells like sponsorship, it still presents some interesting numbers
http://www.supermotors.net/registry/16162/54602-2


I don't agree with your stance about how they don't work, bottom line, and for someone who knows nothing on the subject to come in and read your scientific this that and the other about intakes could lead them to believe CAI's are useless and a ploy to get their money. My argument is that there are so many real world applications that produce real gains, its misleading to say they don't.

Rebut away, I've said my piece

 

This I believe has been the most relevant part of the whole discussion.

 

 

I've learned a lot from all of you guys. Very good input for most of the part. thx

 

Looked at the supermotors link with the Mac system and the Edge product. All I have to say is are they serious!!!? So you are going to spend 1000 bucks for intake, tuner, and exhaust and gain 9 ft/lbs of torque? What a joke. I know for sure my wallet can't take that. Not a good bang for the buck at all. That is some great selling, and marketing for sure. Whoooo HOOO 9 ft/lbs of torque for 1000 bucks and 3 hours of your Saturday. Whata Baaagin.
I liked all the flashy billet aluminum and cool terms like large diameter pipe and high flow mufflers, in the supermotors article. Heck I almost bought one. I wish they would have ran their dyno runs without the tuner. My guess is(and it is just a guess) the tuner made the difference and the rest of it just made it sound meaner, which isnt a bad thing, just really expensive sound.
If you like the v-8 rumble, then these products have a place in the market. I like the rumble as well and have true duals on my farm truck. It didn't help it on the performance side, but it sure sounds good.

One of those dyno charts was of a cammed up engine with no exhaust. That is not what we are dealing with here, and really didn't help that much. Don't know what engine or vehicle it is either. The BMW chart doesn't really strike me as relevant either, as I don't have any idea what type of air intake it has stock. It could be a super restrictive setup on it.

I think REAL has the edge(no pun intended, well maybe a little) on this one. What you said makes perfect sense to me. From what I understand a MAF uses wires that heat up and the air flowing by them cools them off at a given rate that can be measured. The more velocity of air moving across these wires, the different value that is sent to the ECM. If you have resonance, or pulses coming across the MAF, then the temp of the wires in there will flucuate and give you some weird numbers, and could, (notice I said could) cause some driveability issues, such as rough idle, or maybe a stumble, or something like that. The more consistant the velocity of air across the MAF, the more accurate the readings and thus tuning will be.

Lets face it. We drive these trucks between idle to 3500 rpm tops with most of the rpm at around 2000 to 2500. Keeping that in mind, the stock system flows plenty of air in and out to give us what that engine can put out at that rpm. Is it the best system? Probably not, because it is a compromise. Are there better solutions? Could be, but at what cost? Opening up the intake and exhaust larger is great at 4000 and up rpm, but we don't drive these trucks there.

What it boils down to is personal preference. If you want your truck to rumble and sound mean, then thats cool. Just don't expect much of a power or mpg gain from those types of mods.
My F-150 is a company truck that I drive 1,000/week, so I don't really want any drone and rumble. However my farm truck is a weekender, and I do want the rumble for short drives and trailer pulling. Its fun and makes me smile.

 

Wellsir - be prepared to UN-learn it, as most of what you have read is BS.

Notice that the MAF transfer function was not mentioned - even once. A glaring omission. It's importance was compeletly understated and ignored by those trade rag articles - it's not a 'nice-to-have' sort of thing - it's fundamental to safe, sustainable power.

Note that the PCM is in OPEN LOOP, not Closed Loop, @ WOT ( actually from approx ~80%+).

Note that those odd protrusions on the stock intakes are Helmholtz chambers and thay are indeed intended for noise suppression only. That is why something like an MIT, while far from being a power adder (think in terms of 'engine-bay dressup ') is relatively harmless ( in rare cases - MAF effects can still be seen; the intake tract, from filter to intake valve, needs to be considered holistically). TP's R&D has shown this many times. Some trucks / intake comboes are just more prone to issues than others. Direct measurement of A/F's is the ONLY way to be unequivocal.

Be aware that the MAF is subjected to intake pulses from the ENGINE side all the time with the valvetrain's opening & closure. So no 'resonance suppression' on the FILTER side is going to help with this - and there is no need to in any case. The MAF has a small but crucial time constant, both by virtue of it's design and programmatically implemented in the PCM (call it 'smoothing' if you wish).

W.R.T turbulence and laminar flow - good concepts, but they hit a brick wall upon encountering the blunt-force trauma introduced by that intake throttle-body butterfly valve plate Only at WOT is this minimized - until of course it hits the next obstacle known as the TB/intake interface mismatch, on the way to yet another, known as the intake valve & port. Now you know why the non-N/A fellers are so friggin' happy (TJ - this one's fer you, bud!)

Be advised that the only intake metrics I would trust are those supplied by independent tuning shops - the Reputable ones. Not trade rags, and certainly not the intake manufacturers.

Want more? Here ya go: https://www.f150online.com/forums/ex...ir-intake.html

Happy Canuckistanian Thanksgiving! *** BURP***


MGD

 

I used to be a car mechanic and went to a 3 1/2 year training in germany (yes I'm german but got americanised now, lol). Well, we did these modifications to older cars and bikes but the newer ones are harder because of many other factors. So when I've read the gotts modification, i was like yeah it makes sense but then there are so many other factors in.

Right now, I'm just testing. What u think about the gryphon device?