6.7L Air Box

[CKelley1]

ah64id it was not that high but i remember it also. the straightning vanes along with the silencer ring reduce side shear in the compressor side of the turbo increasing efficiency especially in the driving load range. the % efficiency is variable from 0 at idle to a peak at midrange and back to a 5 hp gain at wot. my first pix has a T. A. G. in the coolhose, the truck has a 62-65-13 ss with no silencer ring the T. A. G. has one built in. the second pix is a 03 with a 06 elbow and a airaid muffler remover tube. the 6. 7 filter will not fit the 5. 9 box no matter how bad you wad it up. the 6. 7 tube is larger and more complex. the straightning vane is improved over the 04. 5. i bought most of my 6. 7 boxes complete with tube and filter for $50 each. the stock 6. 7 filter and box is rated 400 cfm and better filtering than the new 4" 5. 9 filter.

#ad


#ad

 

[Prairie Dog]

Well, my overly sensitive restriction meter doesn't indicate any resistance to flow so having the 6. 7 filter and HD CAI works as good as it gets. There just isn't any need to try and do better.

 

[cerberusiam]

The vanes don't add restriction, they are a response to the added restriction created by the NVH initiatives to quiet the air intake, the design of the intake tract, and air available to the stock air box. It was possible to pull the filter minder down some at even the stock boost levels. An added 5 psi guaranteed it was pulling down halfway until the air box itself was modded.



In the stock configuration they aided maximizing the airflow available. That available air flow was still less than a more open intake was capable of. Speed up the flow and the dynamics of the flow change. Did it completely negate the function of the vanes? Hard to tell without so very sophisticated measurments and testing.



Boost rise was quicker, not a huge jump but it was quicker. Evem the SOP meter said gutting the TQ tube, removing the vanes, and opening the airbox made a difference. That was noticeable not only on the dyno but in typical driving situations.



A net overall increase in power on the dyno is almost always going to translate to daily driving. There is little difference between WOT and 3/4 throttle with the way the fuel curves are applied. Its definitely not the same as a 12V and mechanical linkage. The CR's have a more tightly controlled curve based not only on the APPS but also boost and rpm's.



More air faster is going to impact no matter where you are comparing.



There is a HUGE difference between "30% more turbo efficiency" and "30% better throttle response" or even "30% drop in restriction". The only thing they have in common is 2 digits and 1 character. What they represent are totally different areas.



Then you have consider 30% better than what? Stock? No intake tract? A 24V? The HE351 is 30% more efficient than an HX or HY35, maybe thats the comparison they were making. Without a context its just more unsubstantiated noise, not any hard data that can be relied upon.

 

[AH64ID]

the stock 6. 7 filter and box is rated 400 cfm and better filtering than the new 4" 5. 9 filter.

The 5. 9 filter I have indicates 675 with . 36psi of restriction. It's also 99. 6 efficient, not sure on the standard but I'll find out tomorrow.



400 CFM is awfully low for an engine that moves more air than that stock.

 

[Shadrach]

I was going to use an oem 6. 7 box and filter in a 5. 9 until Fleetguard came out with the newer, deeper 5. 9 filter that is pretty much identical to the 6. 7 filter, but is sized to fit the 5. 9 oem box. .

What is the FLG p/n for the deep 5. 9 filter? I tried to cross over the Mopar deep 5. 9 to FLG and it wouldn't cross.



Shad

 

[JPul]

As Cerb indicated, the directional vains were added in response to the restriction created by the noise filter canister. The original air induction system on the HPCR did not have the noise filter but just a straight tube with the required rubber bellows for engine roll. Chrysler's NVH engineers noticed an annoying whistle from the turbo with this system (they must have really sensitive ears ) which they felt would be objectionable by the buying public (not me). They added the noise filter which created added restriction. The company I worked for, which designed and manufactured the Dodge part of the intake system, was tasked with reducing the restriction to pre noise filter levels. The directional vains were the result of CFD analysis and prototype massaging and I believe that the 30% refers to the reduction in restriction of the air intake system from fresh air inlet to turbo inlet. Both my collegue that worked on this system and myself retired about 3 years ago so access to that restriction data is gone.



BTW, the 6. 7 system has a somewhat similar vane at the lower elbow but its part of the guts to the noise filter which of course gets removed when the guts get removed.



Regards, John

 

[AH64ID]

Then you have consider 30% better than what? Stock? No intake tract? A 24V? The HE351 is 30% more efficient than an HX or HY35, maybe thats the comparison they were making. Without a context its just more unsubstantiated noise, not any hard data that can be relied upon.

It was in relation to the 03-04 intake.

 

[EMAC2]

If anyone is looking for a stock 6. 7L intake system PM me for details... .

 

[CKelley1]

the straightning vanes were added to reduce side shear and has nothing to do with the muffler. and there is a huge difference in wot and 1/4 throttle where the T. A. G. or the straightning vanes are at there best

 

[cerberusiam]

the straightning vanes were added to reduce side shear and has nothing to do with the muffler.

Not according to the designer and builder of the air systems.



I quote : The directional vains were the result of CFD analysis and prototype massaging and I believe that the 30% refers to the reduction in restriction of the air intake system from fresh air inlet to turbo inlet

 

[AH64ID]

I read the engineer statement to be in agreement with side shear. Side shear would increase restriction thru turbulence.

But simply put, they improve the airflow, which increases performance of the intake/turbo.

 

[cerberusiam]

I read the engineer statement to be in agreement with side shear. Side shear would increase restriction thru turbulence.



But simply put, they improve the airflow, which increases performance of the intake/turbo.

Your inferring that as it is not stated as an absolute. Yes, that is one aspect that could increase the restriction but not the only.



However, this was with the STOCK configuration. Once you relieve the restriction in the air box and TQ tube you change the flow characteristics.



Again, by inference the hypothesis is the vanes will increase flow but its not proof. The original data is no longer valid so the proof that they increase airflow is no longer valid.



Ticky tack point maybe but thats the difference between a placebo mod and a functional one.

 

[Bernie]

Wow, I just read through all of the discussion. There is a lot of bench racing going on here.

TDR is a big club with a big membership base. For the TDR publication, why doesn't someone with a stock 03 or 04 truck put it on an indoor (read, climate controlled) chassis dyno and try:
-Stock 5. 9 airbox / mopar filter
-Stock 5. 9 airbox / Drop in K&N filter
-Stock 5. 9 airbox (vanes removed) / mopar filter
-Stock 5. 9 airbox (vanes removed) / Drop in K&N filter
-Air Raid airbox with air raid filter
-Air Raid airbox with air raid filter (vanes removed)
-S&B cold air intake airbox with S&B filter
-Any other filter / cold air system that cares to have their parts be evaluated
-Stock 6. 7 airbox / mopar filter
-Stock 6. 7 airbox / Drop in K&N filter
-Stock 6. 7 airbox (vanes removed) / mopar filter
-Stock 6. 7 airbox (vanes removed) / Drop in K&N filter

I am sure there were other configurations mentioned, and we could address them as well.

Each configuration would get six runs:
-Three with the dyno set up for an empty truck (averaged together)
-Three with the dyno set up for a loaded truck towing a 10,000 lb trailer (averaged together)

The rules for testing would be
-All filters will be tested new
-Hood down, 60 MPH cooling fans
-Same room temp from run to run
-Truck oil temp with in 3%
-Truck water temp with in 3%
-Fuel temp with in 3%
-Fuel for the tests would be drawn from a cell. The cell would be filled to the same level, and weighed after each run.

In short, remove every variable we can except for air in to the motor, and see what happens. There is probably 20 hours of dyno time here to do this test correctly. Any club members have a chassis dyno that they would like to donate for a weekend to see how this goes?

 

[Bernie]

The next test would be to put all of the filters (in boxes) on to a vacuum system that can measure flow. Dust would be equally blow around a test rig.

After 12 hours, measure the airflow. The filter flow change will tell you which one operates best when dirty.

When that test is done, weight each filter. the heaviest filter retained the most dirt.

 

[Prairie Dog]

In the earliest days of third gens one of our advertisers was claiming their intake made 50 HP. I called them out on this and challenged them to send me one of their products and I would install it, dyno it and post the results. If it made 50 HP I would pay for it, If it didn't then it was free. I did three runs:

Stock
Stock intake with K&N
Aftermarket intake.

Both the K&N and aftermarket intake made about 9 HP over stock at dynamic Diesel in Monroe Wa.
BTW, I still have the aftermarket intake in a box in my garage.

 

[Bernie]

I really think TDR should consider a once a year controlled dyno test. I know the cost will be high, but I bet one of our supporting vendors with a chassis dyno could help out (lend us the dyno for the weekend, I'm sure members would volunteer their time).

One year we could do intakes / air filters. Another year we could do computer and software. Another year fueling upgrades. This would give us some real world numbers to work from. I know stacking products will have varied results, but the dyno testing will give us a starting point.

Real product testing with control is key to actually figuring out what works. I think sometimes we may be surprised to learn the engineers at Dodge knew what they were doing.

 

[Bernie]

Another idea: Given the cost of fuel some measurable fuel consumption tests on the dyno. These will have to have longer testing periods, but again do them with a fuel cell that can be measured/weighed to figure out actual fuel consumption compared to making certain changes to a stock truck.

 

[EMAC2]

I volunteer time for the testing if it's held within a 100 miles or so of SC.

 

[mwilson]

What is the FLG p/n for the deep 5. 9 filter? I tried to cross over the Mopar deep 5. 9 to FLG and it wouldn't cross.



Shad

Shad,

I don't think that Fleetguard is offering it yet.



I have sent them several e-mails over the last few years trying to coerce them into adding it to the product offerings. .



They will in time, I am sure.



Mike.

 

[NIsaacs]

I think too much emphasis is placed on a dyno test. For a small increase/decrease in performance, you will never see it. I have had all my trucks on the dyno during dyno days here locally. It's a fun day to play, however the testing gives you 3 runs and I always get 3 different numbers with no changes between runs.



With a naturally asperated engine, an intake improvement makes perfect sense. With a turbo, not so much. The factory intakes work so I use them.



Nick