Lucked out on a K&N intake 77 Series
#76
12-23-2010, 01:33 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High schoolers... I remember my first vehicle... 
Dude, you have to stop taking it all so freaking serious. Its the friggen' internet, everyone on it has an opinion and they're most likely not going to agree with you for the sake of not agreeing with you.
I was just pointing out a simple fact, if you don't want to heed the advice maybe someone who can't go pissing hundreds away on WAI's and wants to add a bit to their truck's performance can. I'm glad you're happy with your WAI, but being stubborn and calling everyone haters is not going to leave you standing around here very long...
Merry Christmas.
Dude, you have to stop taking it all so freaking serious. Its the friggen' internet, everyone on it has an opinion and they're most likely not going to agree with you for the sake of not agreeing with you.
I was just pointing out a simple fact, if you don't want to heed the advice maybe someone who can't go pissing hundreds away on WAI's and wants to add a bit to their truck's performance can. I'm glad you're happy with your WAI, but being stubborn and calling everyone haters is not going to leave you standing around here very long...
Merry Christmas.
#77
12-23-2010, 01:41 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#78
12-23-2010, 03:29 AM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont get me wrong I DONT DISAGREE with the heat, less dense air charge, or that metal sucks argument. All I'm saying is to date none of my 5 5.4's have ever had anything wrong because of a metal intake or a lean issue. NOT TO SAY IT DOESNT HAPPEN. It just hasnt happend to me (yet). So good luck to all and no hard feelings. But you know my engine bay looks good
#79
12-23-2010, 09:22 AM
Cool, I actually graduated in 03 but thanks for noticing. I have no problems on here with anyone so cheers to you! ALso I'm dollared up so a trip to the dealer wont hurt me. Nah just jokin I do all my own work and dont ever plan on anything major as far as repairs go. I've had ***5**** 5.4's with the same metal intake and have never had a problem with any of them so I guess thats why I'm having a hard time with this whole thread.
Dont get me wrong I DONT DISAGREE with the heat, less dense air charge, or that metal sucks argument. All I'm saying is to date none of my 5 5.4's have ever had anything wrong because of a metal intake or a lean issue. NOT TO SAY IT DOESNT HAPPEN. It just hasnt happend to me (yet). So good luck to all and no hard feelings. But you know my engine bay looks good
Dont get me wrong I DONT DISAGREE with the heat, less dense air charge, or that metal sucks argument. All I'm saying is to date none of my 5 5.4's have ever had anything wrong because of a metal intake or a lean issue. NOT TO SAY IT DOESNT HAPPEN. It just hasnt happend to me (yet). So good luck to all and no hard feelings. But you know my engine bay looks good
__________________
Jim
Jim
#80
12-23-2010, 04:15 PM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expedition's and F150's run through my family. Ive never had any problems at all due to a metal intake or a mass air relocation. AGAIN I AGREE THAT THESE MODELS MAY HAVE ISSUES, but I've been lucky or a problem has been so minimal that I've never noticed
#81
12-23-2010, 08:14 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#82
12-24-2010, 02:53 AM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt
#83
12-24-2010, 11:45 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Oklahoma City (405)
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K&N (My first post)
I have the sweetest 06 F150. I bought it a while back for a work truck. I have always been a chevy guy but after this truck I'm not going back. After lurking around here reading what you guys have to say about products, I installed a flowmaster 40 and the edge CS,
I ordered the K&N FIPK because of the HP gain. I just got it from UPS today. I had time to do some research today and have decided to send it back (I didn't even open the box). I read post after post about it messing with the Fuel/Air ratio. Some people have said they even lost horsepower when the ambient temp climbs above 85F. Check engine lights coming on. The oil from the filter migrating to the Mass air sensor (or what ever it was). engine oil filled with contaminants.
I didn't just take this forums word for it, so I went searching. I was reading a forum on Dirt track racers complaining about dirt getting past the filters and getting in their motors. A motocross racer says he held the filter up to the light and could see holes in the filter the size of pencil lead.
I just have the little 4.6 liter and feel like the gotts mod is exactly what I need. I probably wont post much unless I feel the need to say thanks for everyones opinion. Keep up the good work!
I ordered the K&N FIPK because of the HP gain. I just got it from UPS today. I had time to do some research today and have decided to send it back (I didn't even open the box). I read post after post about it messing with the Fuel/Air ratio. Some people have said they even lost horsepower when the ambient temp climbs above 85F. Check engine lights coming on. The oil from the filter migrating to the Mass air sensor (or what ever it was). engine oil filled with contaminants.
I didn't just take this forums word for it, so I went searching. I was reading a forum on Dirt track racers complaining about dirt getting past the filters and getting in their motors. A motocross racer says he held the filter up to the light and could see holes in the filter the size of pencil lead.
I just have the little 4.6 liter and feel like the gotts mod is exactly what I need. I probably wont post much unless I feel the need to say thanks for everyones opinion. Keep up the good work!
#84
12-28-2010, 02:41 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NV.
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rocky, one more warning. Just because someone chimes in with a viewpoint opposite of what you want to hear, they are not haters. We all love the trucks and the purpose of this site is to discuss them and learn. If you do not want to heed advice, that is certainly your perogative, but quit trying to antagonize people with the hater lable. They are just the opposite, and frankly, I'm tired of it.
How would most of you people act if some stranger walked up to your face and called you an idiot and belittled you in public for making an honest mistake, then later tries to say he was "trying to help"? A lot of people would probably deck the dude. Same goes for here. A little respect is all that's needed and this entire thread would have had a totally different tune. Try to talk to and treat people the same way you would in person. Or better yet, would like to be treated yourself.
#85
12-28-2010, 02:47 AM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#86
12-28-2010, 03:39 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: lost vegas
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is telling you that your CAI can make your engine run lean. I'm going to attempt to explain the reason why. First off, a mass air sensor is a critical component, and one of the most important in the entire engine management system. It's purpose is to accurately determine air flow into the engine. The PCM uses this critical data to determine programmed fuel metering and load parameters. If this critical component is providing erroneous data to the PCM, all engine management calculations will be impacted.
So how does this device work? The sensor itself is a tiny heated wire. Air flow over the wire cools the wire and in doing so is correlated to a voltage signal from .5 v - 5 v. Each voltage signal is calibrated to a given quantity of air being inducted into the engine. The PCM deciphers the voltage signal to the amount of air flow used in the various engine management calculations. The voltage signal data recorded in the PCM's programming is called the transfer function. You may come across this term in your research, if you're doing any.
Prior to the 3v engines, Ford used a mass air meter that had its own tube that was actually part of the meter. Regardless what air tube you put before or after it, it didn't have much affect on how the sensor reacted to air flow, since the tube it was installed in was fixed (i.e. never changed around the sensor). Now sharp bends before or after could potentially impact the direction of the air flow over the sensor wire, which could cause a different reading from the way the transfer function interpreted the signal, so it wasn't entirely fool proof.
So here is what's going on with the 3v MAF sensors. With the newer engines, Ford decided to place the MAF sensor inside of a tube that is now part of the air intake systeme. If you take the sensor out of that tube and place it in a tube of a larger diameter, physics alone will tell you that there is no way it could interpret the air flow in the same manner. Air will flow over the sensor wire slower inside a larger diameter tube. If you want to conduct your own experiment use a regular garden hose. Put a smaller orifice nozzle on the end of the hose and open the valve. Now remove the nozzle and notice the difference in water flow. The same volume of water is coming out of the opening, it just comes out a whole lot faster with the smaller opening.
In effect, the sensor is going to react to a smaller volume of air cooling the heated sensor wire when placed in a larger diameter tube. For example, let's say for a 1.08 v signal, Ford has the PCM calibrated to read that signal as 35 kg/hr of air. But now that the sensor is placed in a larger diameter tube, it may actually be taking 48 kg/hr of air to reach the same voltage. Assume for a minute that for a given throttle position the commanded fuel ratio is 13.2:1. Well if the transfer function is 37% off (48-35 = 8, 8/35 = .37), it's going to command what it thinks is 13.2:1, but in effect will be 18.1:1 (13.2 x 1.37). That my friend is dangerously lean. My example may or may not be as extreme in reality, but it's very unlikely that there will not be a difference throughout the entire rpm range. Adaptive controls can compensate for some minor differences in fuel trims over time, but it cannot compensate for differences as large as this example or even half of that variation.
For the guy that claims to see no changes in short term and long term fuel trims, unless you have the ability to turn off adaptive control in your tune, you cannot make that assumption. Trust me, I've had to build transfer functions from scratch back from data logging when Pro-M was the only game in town.
As to warmer air ingested by the intake, it most definitely impacts the tune. The higher the perceived air temperature of ingested air, the more timing that is removed from the engine. There is a sensor that determines that air temperature and it's an Intake Air Temperature (IAT) sensor. Any programmer that is capable of data logging will allow you to monitor IAT temperatures with whatever intake you desire. I have a hard time believing that an open element CAI is going to have the same temperature than one that draws air from outside the engine compartment. Perhaps that is not as true as the summer temperatures down here in the south, but if you've ever put your hand on any components far from the engine itself within the engine compartment after driving for a few hours, you'll know what I mean.
In any event, this is what all these guys are trying to tell you, but might not understand the logic behind what they've learned. You can take this information with a big chip on your shoulder like all the others if you want, but these are the indisputable facts behind the advise you're being given. Your money, your choice.
So how does this device work? The sensor itself is a tiny heated wire. Air flow over the wire cools the wire and in doing so is correlated to a voltage signal from .5 v - 5 v. Each voltage signal is calibrated to a given quantity of air being inducted into the engine. The PCM deciphers the voltage signal to the amount of air flow used in the various engine management calculations. The voltage signal data recorded in the PCM's programming is called the transfer function. You may come across this term in your research, if you're doing any.
Prior to the 3v engines, Ford used a mass air meter that had its own tube that was actually part of the meter. Regardless what air tube you put before or after it, it didn't have much affect on how the sensor reacted to air flow, since the tube it was installed in was fixed (i.e. never changed around the sensor). Now sharp bends before or after could potentially impact the direction of the air flow over the sensor wire, which could cause a different reading from the way the transfer function interpreted the signal, so it wasn't entirely fool proof.
So here is what's going on with the 3v MAF sensors. With the newer engines, Ford decided to place the MAF sensor inside of a tube that is now part of the air intake systeme. If you take the sensor out of that tube and place it in a tube of a larger diameter, physics alone will tell you that there is no way it could interpret the air flow in the same manner. Air will flow over the sensor wire slower inside a larger diameter tube. If you want to conduct your own experiment use a regular garden hose. Put a smaller orifice nozzle on the end of the hose and open the valve. Now remove the nozzle and notice the difference in water flow. The same volume of water is coming out of the opening, it just comes out a whole lot faster with the smaller opening.
In effect, the sensor is going to react to a smaller volume of air cooling the heated sensor wire when placed in a larger diameter tube. For example, let's say for a 1.08 v signal, Ford has the PCM calibrated to read that signal as 35 kg/hr of air. But now that the sensor is placed in a larger diameter tube, it may actually be taking 48 kg/hr of air to reach the same voltage. Assume for a minute that for a given throttle position the commanded fuel ratio is 13.2:1. Well if the transfer function is 37% off (48-35 = 8, 8/35 = .37), it's going to command what it thinks is 13.2:1, but in effect will be 18.1:1 (13.2 x 1.37). That my friend is dangerously lean. My example may or may not be as extreme in reality, but it's very unlikely that there will not be a difference throughout the entire rpm range. Adaptive controls can compensate for some minor differences in fuel trims over time, but it cannot compensate for differences as large as this example or even half of that variation.
For the guy that claims to see no changes in short term and long term fuel trims, unless you have the ability to turn off adaptive control in your tune, you cannot make that assumption. Trust me, I've had to build transfer functions from scratch back from data logging when Pro-M was the only game in town.
As to warmer air ingested by the intake, it most definitely impacts the tune. The higher the perceived air temperature of ingested air, the more timing that is removed from the engine. There is a sensor that determines that air temperature and it's an Intake Air Temperature (IAT) sensor. Any programmer that is capable of data logging will allow you to monitor IAT temperatures with whatever intake you desire. I have a hard time believing that an open element CAI is going to have the same temperature than one that draws air from outside the engine compartment. Perhaps that is not as true as the summer temperatures down here in the south, but if you've ever put your hand on any components far from the engine itself within the engine compartment after driving for a few hours, you'll know what I mean.
In any event, this is what all these guys are trying to tell you, but might not understand the logic behind what they've learned. You can take this information with a big chip on your shoulder like all the others if you want, but these are the indisputable facts behind the advise you're being given. Your money, your choice.
#88
12-28-2010, 03:48 AM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#90
12-28-2010, 01:16 PM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again I agree with the post but whats funny to me is the breakdown of some of the statements in his post. Again not knocking the information but lets use this as an example:
"Assume for a minute that for a given throttle position the commanded fuel ratio is 13.2:1. Well if the transfer function is 37% off (48-35 = 8, 8/35 = .37), it's going to command what it thinks is 13.2:1, but in effect will be 18.1:1 (13.2 x 1.37). That my friend is dangerously lean."
To me that was funny in my mind because I pictured a mad scientist in his basement crunching numbers on a oversized calculator.
"Assume for a minute that for a given throttle position the commanded fuel ratio is 13.2:1. Well if the transfer function is 37% off (48-35 = 8, 8/35 = .37), it's going to command what it thinks is 13.2:1, but in effect will be 18.1:1 (13.2 x 1.37). That my friend is dangerously lean."
To me that was funny in my mind because I pictured a mad scientist in his basement crunching numbers on a oversized calculator.