Whats up guys,
I just got a flowmaster 40 series delta flow SI/DO, 3.5" stainless tips. Not sure what I will do for next mod, but leaning towards an air intake definately. I want more mpg! I heard intakes are bad because they can suck up dust or even water therefore putting it in your engine. Is this true, is there a way to prevent it if it is true. Also my freind jsut got a Ractive Air intake, I was looking at Iceman or Airraid but this looks like the same thing for cheaper.
So whats the word, should I go with an intake, and if so are they not damaging to my enigne, and what brand?

Thanks
Jim

 

I have an Air Force One. I have had it on my truck for about 6 months. I like it alot. I can't tell if it improved my gas milege, since it sounds so cool when I hit the gas hard. My gas milege probbaly dropped since I drive it harder now. It kind of reminds of what the older cars sounded like with a four barrel carb. As for dirt, I was having a ignition problem about a month ago. After reading some posts on this site, I decided to clean the Mass Air Force (MAF) before replacing the plugs and wires. The MAF was clean and the tube for the intake still looked clean. I haven't notice any problems driving in the rain. I don't think the water can get to the air cleaner unless you drive trough some really deep water which could cause other problems. I hope this helps with your decision. It took me almost 2 years to decide which one to get. It seemed that the majority of guys on this site perfered the Air Force One. Good luck.

Anthony

 

Althought alot of folks use the Airforce One, there has been alot of new intakes hitting the market, aluminum, steel and plastic, just recently. You should consider what you are going to do with your vehicle. For looks? The alumunum pipe. For towing (torque) and/or 4x4ing, or just driving on dirt roads or traffic, you may want to cosider a cool air system, that draws air from where the stock system does.

I live in california, so a smog CARB is an issue.

In most cases, under normal operating conditions, Fuel consumption is less do to the simple fact that your engine works less. Less restriction, less work.

I went with the plastic Iceman ( www.ice-man.com), because it met my requirements for towing and 4x4ing...and it really doesnt look bad either!

Happy customer!

my 2 cents.....

 

Air Force One user here and i wouldn't have it any other way! I LOVE the looks of it, and its got a nice big filter and the end isn't capped off like the airaid and k&N is, so it sucks more air.

definately worth every penny! i got mine from truckperformance.com for 230

 

i just re-installed my AiRaid on my '02 5.4 from my '00 4.6. it feels like it really opened it up, and at WOT it sounds AWESOME! this is the first engine mod i have done, and i love it! it is definitely worth doing. i have noticed a bit more mpg, too.

 

When shopping for a FIPK, buy what you like best.

Just did round one of the under hood to fender temps testing, at 35 mpg and over SAME TEMP !! Yes within .8 of a degree F the under hood temp and the fender temp where the stock air intake are at are exactly the same.

When the truck stops, the temp under hood does climb, be once it is moving ( 35 mph zone max 38 mph during testing ) the temps become on and the same again.

Cool air is only cooler when driving slow at the under 25 mph area for less then 60 seconds.

Graph showing driving 35 mph ( taken after truck was running for 1 hour in traffic ). The spike is after the truck was stopped. The other side of the graph once the truck starts moving, the temps drop back down inline again.


So take the cool air being the exact temp as under the hood while driving in city traffic, and add to this an open element filter produces a higher lbs/min flow rate at the MAFS then a closed filter housing.

So if you want the coolest air possiable when your truck is sitting at a red light, get a cool air intake system.

Also an Air Ram kit ( such as the JLP one ) in the under 55 mph area is worse on the flow rate then an open filter FIPK. Found that one out after reading an article at AFM.

So it looks to be air ram doesn't even work that well, unless you are 1/4 ET'ing it all day long.

Temps taken with a data logging probe with a -40 to 212 * F thermocouple with 0.5 sec sampling rates.
MAFS Flow rate taken using AutoTap ver 2.3.

 

Sscully!

HELP ME UNDERSTAND, am i missing something?

Im not sure if im reading this nice graph correctly, but, what i see is that under the hood filter location is 60% hotter than ambient, is this correct? of course this is during a stop light, and up to 35 MPH, right?

Whats interesting is that the fenderwell air temps, has a temp change of 30%, in 60-110 seconds, is this correct? If so, the temps had to be influenced by the engine compartment itself, right?

My question here is; did you have a cool air system or stock installed? wouldnt you think that the stock system would draw air from the actual well wheel compartment, causing ambeint air to replace the air from the wheel well compartment? or did you block the hole that a stock system or cool air system, go's in to.
Im not sure, but, By your test results it looks like you left the hole open. Did you?

Having the under hood configuration; If i am in the city, traffic light to traffic light, this graph shows i would be breathing 30 degrees hotter air (than a CAI) everywhere i went, and 60% hotter than ambient air. This said, you would be loosing 3% of your HP and another 3% of your potinual HP, IF, the air was in a perfect world, once it entered the pipe. 60 Seconds doesnt sound to long. But, under normal driving conditions in the CITY, what's it take to go from one light to the other, in other words, city driving or worse yet, bumper to bumper traffic...staging at the races, 4x4ing...ie.

In the summer, i wish i would see 73 degrees...its gets more like 110 degrees here where i live, anyone want to visit? lol

Although you feel that drawing cooler air has no benefits at stop signs and/or lower RPMs, My 2 cents is; It makes the engine more efficient from start to finish, and the by-product of a more efficient engine is; Performance, fuel saves and reduction on your engine wear, am i wrong?

i am not trying to undermind your test, we are all here to learn and benefit from others experence. We are grateful for your ability to test, and your point of views, but, you are making it sound like you dont use or need HP, under 35 MPH, and i know thats not what you meant, right?

When replying to this post, dont cut out my statements, just add to my entire post please.

 

The post text indicates that the temp spike is AFTER the stop. The other side of the graph that is not in the post, by time ~ 60 seconds or ~ 30 mph the temps are equalized again.

Why would you assume that the engine compartment influenced the fender temps ?
Is it so hard to believe that the temps in the fender are what are shown on the graph ? Did you do the same data logging temp testing that shows other wise ? If so please post the data. This is a swag at best, considering it is contradicting hard test data.

Open element FIPK was installed during the testing.
As for the air flow, the fender that I am taking the temp reading from has a brake duct feeding it via a 3” brake duct hose. Also with the fender opening to the engine compartment, and the under hood temp probe attached to the cruise control cable, I guess I could say that this is a place for hot air to rise from the fender, with cooler air being feed to it from the bottom ?? Maybe some of the hot air from the fender was let into the engine compartment, causing the fender to show still better yet temps then actual with the stock or Cool Air Intake installed ??? Got me that is a SWAG, but you note where the fender temps could be reading better then actual in a CAI / stock filter install.

Ok, when HP is not needed (traffic light to traffic light ) the engine is breathing hotter air. Yes that is true, does it matter ? You don’t need max HP at this time.

To use the fender to under hood temps for max HP, using the track as the test location, you forget to include in the HP loss calculations that the Open element FIPK outflow the closed element FIPKs at the MAFS.
When doing the calculated HP losses, you need to start with the higher flow rates at the MAFS ( using the open element FIPK ), which in turn increase the injector pulse width to deliver more gas to the engine, which should produce more HP. To post that the HP loss of the open element is 3% using the fender temps is slightly skewed. If the open element could draw the same amount of air at the fender temps that would be the perfect FIPK, but you cannot get that large of an opening in the fender.
The graph is noted as city traffic, not a track or 4x4’ing. If I had the test data for the track or 4x4’ing I could actually post that, and comment on it, but I am not going to toss another swag into hard test data.

Chicago gets 100+ temps also, but I cannot command the temps to increase. That was to provide a base line. Don’t know why you noted this.
I would have to guess at this point without having the test data that the temps are going to increase both under hood and fender once ambient temp increases. For a little preview to this, drive your truck for 1 hour, and touch the tire. Is it at ambient temp ? Do you think 100% of this heat is blow away from the fender ?

I have a need for max HP driving in city traffic ??? Don’t know where you are going with this. These statements are again SWAGs posted against hard test data, I don’t know what you logic is for this. Is it meant to prove something ?? I don't know where you can get data to back up engine wear with higher IAT aisde from a guess/theory. As for saving fuel, don't know how this is a valid conclusion. As for performance, again it is not something that max HP is needed in.

Well if you’d like to explain why you need max HP or the most efficient engine running in bumper to bumper traffic, or light city driving where the tach never climbs above 2,000 RPM I’d be willing to listen. This test case is in CITY TRAFFIC. Why is MAX HP important. The truck develops enough HP to move in city traffic, but MAX HP ?
This makes no sense to me why the ability to make more MAX HP while standing still is important ( again with leaving off the flow rate at the MAFS inclusion to the theory of HP development by the engine ).

Tell you what, please provide some info on where this was going.

Just to let you know
FIPKs that I have tested
WMS V-Tube
Ice-Man
K&N FIPK
JLP Air Ram Air Box with WMS V-Tube
Filter from JLP Air Ram Air Box on a MAFS Adapter on K&N T/B elbow

Net results of testing :
Closed Filter FIPK has a lower MAFS flow rate ( including the under 50 mph area for the JLP Air Ram air box ).
G-Tech 60’ times are lower using an open element FIPK vs a closed element FIPK.
Using the 60’ times and speeds, the graph is out the window ( should happen faster, but I don’t know for sure ) but if I use the air flow SWAG the time to reach temp parity between the fender temp and under hood temp, should be shorter, and with flowing more of the same temp air, the open element should do better ( maybe that is why the G-Tech times are better with the open filter FIPK then the closed element / CAI FIPK ) ??

Got any test data yet on the Ice-Man. Last thread we had this conversation in I asked about hard test data, but you didn’t post any.
If so what is your test setup ( SOTP dyno ) ?
If so have you butt dyno’d any other FIPKs aside from the stock intake ?

If you want to keep using theory and guesses to debate hard test data this post will go to the same place as the last time we had this discussion, no where quick. Theory against test data proves nothing ( aside from you have no test data to post, but still need to debate it ).

 

Sscully,

In reponse to your efferts and comments;

Again as i noted on my last post, i do appreciate your efferts on testing and your unbias opinion, although it sounds like you are trying to prove a point that cool air system are only hype.

I just wish i knew how to high light your statements as you did mine, so mean time i will just note your statements.

Sscully: Why would you assume that the engine compartment influenced the fender temps ?
Is it so hard to believe that the temps in the fender are what are shown on the graph ? Did you do the same data logging temp testing that shows other wise ? If so please post the data. This is a swag at best, considering it is contradicting hard test data.

Me: Yes it is hard to beleave that the fender well location would increase 30 degrees and continue to increase over ambient, even during driving, if the engine compartment didnt influence the wheel well compartment then what did, the sun?


Sscully: Chicago gets 100+ temps also, but I cannot command the temps to increase. That was to provide a base line. Don’t know why you noted this.
I would have to guess at this point without having the test data that the temps are going to increase both under hood and fender once ambient temp increases. For a little preview to this, drive your truck for 1 hour, and touch the tire. Is it at ambient temp ? Do you think 100% of this heat is blow away from the fender ?

Me: I'll ignor this statement, but, to answer your question, i would think that the tire would be influenced by the pavement surface heat.

Sscully: I have a need for max HP driving in city traffic ??? Don’t know where you are going with this. These statements are again SWAGs posted against hard test data, I don’t know what you logic is for this. Is it meant to prove something ?? I don't know where you can get data to back up engine wear with higher IAT aisde from a guess/theory. As for saving fuel, don't know how this is a valid conclusion. As for performance, again it is not something that max HP is needed in.

Me: Im not sure where the MAX HP comes in, or where you even drew this conclusion that i felt that MAX HP is required in traffic, my only statement is that an engine that runs cooler is more efficient, therefore helping performance from start to finish. Although you feel that efficiency is not an issue at lower RPMs or at stop signs. I stand to differ. Fuel consumption is more in city driving, Note: if your vehicle is running 30 degrees hotter than stock in the city, 3% less efficient than stock, it would stand to reason that your vehicle would consume more fuel to attain the same amount of energy required for a given speed. This is not theory, this is facts, look in any automotive engineering book.

Sscully: Well if you’d like to explain why you need max HP or the most efficient engine running in bumper to bumper traffic, or light city driving where the tach never climbs above 2,000 RPM I’d be willing to listen. This test case is in CITY TRAFFIC. Why is MAX HP important. The truck develops enough HP to move in city traffic, but MAX HP ?
This makes no sense to me why the ability to make more MAX HP while standing still is important ( again with leaving off the flow rate at the MAFS inclusion to the theory of HP development by the engine ).

Me: I think i answered this question already, but i would like to include, that to some of us that purchase products, based on "hard test Data" should be able to question the test, and how it was performed, so that we all understand and get the picture that you are trying to prove. I am not here to argue your test, i was only questioning your test proceedures and graph, so that we all have a clear understanding.

So, in conclusion to your first test, you are saying there is no difference in performance or efficiency so far (in your opinion), between a cool air system and a FIPK under the hood?

My understanding of your first test, shows that your engine is breathing 30 degrees (3% less efficient) hotter air, under normal driving conditions in the city, and "the same as stock" on the highway, is this correct? I dont understand your logic, of saying that you do not need a more efficient engine or any additional hp at lower rpms, isnt that where you need it most?

I will not question your testing anymore, because it sounds like your affended by "as you claim theories" and all i have to base my opinon on is the automotive engineering handbook, and my old mechanical engineering handbook, and of course my butt dyno.

If a test is not performed or interpeted correctly, then the test itself would be misleading to the public.

PS: To clear things up, i never side anything about needing MAX HP at a stop sign....lol, i dont know where you got that from.

 

No it is not to show that CAIs are hype, but it’s original intent was to show the temperatures of the fender and the under hood area.
You seem to take every post to make a soap box of why a CAI is the best intake.
Now that you have morphed this thread into a CAI vs Open Element thread, let’s continue this for a moment.

Do you feel that the amount of air into the engine is a non issue ?
Just so you know Tuners also have, long ago, figured out that the amount of air that can be delivered to the engine is more important then the temperature of the air. They got to this point via ¼ ETs and for the 3000 RPM and above area dyno pulls.
Less cool air vs a lot of hot air yield a better 60’ time on the G-Tech from my testing also. If the lower amount of cool air is better why are the 60’ times not less then the open element FIPK better ?
So if you want to say that the Open Element FIPK is 3% less efficient for ~ 60 seconds that is correct I guess. But that is for the air temperature part only, again gloss over the air flow part of a FIPK.
Let’s look at some other test numbers beyond the ~ 60 seconds of 3% less efficient air, for the open element FIPK :
G-Tech times : You seem to by-pass this section of the debate. Why is that ? Open Element FIPKs produce better 60’ times then CAIs. I noted above the CAIs and Ram Air units that I have tested, and that the open element FIPK produces a better 60’ time.
AutoTap logs showing that under load the engine can flow more air at the MAFS with a Open Element FIPK then a CAI. Is this a non-issue ?
Couple the 2 together, above 35 mph under load the Open Element FIPK can flow more air of the same temp as a CAI. What do you think is going to happen to engine HP ?

The graph was meant to show what the temp is while driving. Why does it matter where the source of the heat comes from, this is what it is.
If you read the post it does not indicate that I have a means of testing where the heat came from. Don’t’ want to believe the numbers, don’t I got hard test data, you have your opinion, and some books.

If it is not max HP, then why does the under 25 mph area of the hotter air under the hood matter. CITY DRIVING, not ¼ ETs is what the graph shows. So for ~ 60 seconds your engine is not running at peak efficiency. Did the post note better mpg was obtained, did the post note that peak engine was obtained at a stand still ?
If it is not for MAX HP, and no note of max mpg was made, why is this an issue for the posting ? Again the posting was showing Fender temp to under hood temp, and your soap box has turned it into a CAI is the best produce available b/c it will get 3% more efficient air for ~ 60 seconds.

Well if you were to go back and RE-READ the post, it says:
It does not say buy one type over the other. It does not even mention a product that was installed while doing the testing, until you had to ask this ( guess going down the debate hole of CAI vs Open Element FIPKs route again )
The test shows the temperature of the fender ( again with better then stock flow characteristics then stock ) vs the temp under the hood temperatures.
You seem to have some sort of CAI pedestal to stand on, posting that it is the best for Towing and 4x4’ing. Where do you get this from ? Talk about questioning test procedures…. Is this the results of your butt dyno sheet over a stock intake ?

The original post was meant to show that while moving at 35+ mph the air temps are the same in the fender and under the hood, so members had something beyond marketing material and theory to base a FIPK selection on.
I never said there is no difference between a CAI and an Open Element FIPK.
To bring the point to the front, the CAI flow less air under load then an Open Element FIPK. AutoTap shows this quite clearly. Now couple this with the air above 35 mph is the same temp, which do you think is better, more air or less air ?
If you are designing a system around stop light to stop light driving, then the stock system is the ticket. Already paid for it with the truck ( it’s free ), and if you are puttering around at < 35 mph all day in city traffic, why is an increase in HP needed by doing a mod ? Guess this brings the debate around to if you are driving at < 35 mph as a majority of your driving, a FIPK is not needed. Or you can buy a CAI and get the same thing ( spend $ 125.00 + to get to the same point as stock ).

Yes under the 35 mph is where you need HP. If you are doing ¼ ETs. The graph shows the temperature curve in normal city driving, never going above 2000 RPM on the engine.
If I had a graph for a launch, I would guess that the time to get to 35 MPH is quicker then what I did in city traffic, which I guess would lower the time it takes for the temperatures to become equal again, making the 3% less efficient air temp less of a time span, making that benefit of a CAI even less in that area. That is unless you think this type of start up carries over into the entire time the engine is running some how. This is not taking into account that under load the Open Element flows more air at the MAFS. Maybe this is why the G-Tech time at 60’ are lower using the Open Element FIPK vs the CAI ??? More air of the same temp ( after the initial, more air flow of 3% less efficient air ) might equal more HP ( more air = injector pulse width is increased to keep A/F ratio as close to 14.7:1 ).

You can question it all you want to. Might want to bring something else to the debate besides a few books and your butt dyno when debating against test data from the real world testing.
You did not offend me in any way.
I will give you that; you should feel a pick me up with a CAI when comparing it to stock, but if that is your only SOTP dyno sheet you have, you might want to try another FIPK and see what it does.
Like I said you can question it all day long, don’t feel like you are being picked on, when I ask you want makes you think it is wrong, and all you have to back up the debate against real world numbers is a butt dyno and books, and I point out that those are not very useful, and show more misleading information then the test data that I have posted.
If showing the temperature of the fender to the under hood temperatures is misleading some how, then I guess that is what I am doing. But keep in mind that I noted the temperatures of both types of FIPKs, and included the part you always avoid talking about with flow rate in lbs/min at the MAFS between the 2 designs.
I did this to show the other side of my testing on the flow rates at the MAFS to find out what it was.
So being able to flow more air of the same temp above 35 mph is going to produce the same amount of HP according to your books / opinion ?
Just for reference : The last debate I refer to:
https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...threadid=98524

 

I have a K&N FIPK 2nd generation and it works great. The MPG went up also. K&N makes a filter sock that covers the element to keep out excess dust. great for off roading. Most of the intakes perform the same so it's really which one you like best.

 

can I just keep the factory casing for the air filter to keep dust out

 

Can I ask what might sound like a dumb question ?

What filtering capacity is in the front fender ?

I have been trying to find out how the front fender is considered a filter of some sorts, but I have never been given an answer to this.

Any URLs that anyone can provide showing how the filtering capacity is there ( vs under hood ), would be great.

I must just be dense on this or something.....

Thanks

Steve

 

I don't think his comment above is referring to the front fender "filtering"b. He is wondering if that by keeping the stock filter housing if that will protect it like the K&N sock. For example: By having the stock housing it would protect the filter from any debris/particles that may come into contact with via the exposed area in the engine bay to the outside? I hope that made sense. I have a feeling I just jumbled that explanation up.

-Brian

 

That was my question. Can I keep the stock filter housing and put that over a performance filter, if so which ones. And wont this help to keep dust particles out?

Jim