Air Intake Revisited

[JDerbedrossian]

So Bob.

Tell us what gains @ 16-1700 RPM did you see on HP or TQ, And what power level were you running

I know the tag I also showed gains when we dynoed it at AFE



"secrets inside to aid flow" I bet he has something like the tag built in it

Post the dyno run sheet with what level settings you were running:-laf:-laf

I would like to see it done on a stock truck

So Bob, Show us the proof.



David

Dave pull your head out of the sand, who is going to run one of these on a stock truck.

 

[dsherman]

Dave pull your head out of the sand, who is going to run one of these on a stock truck.

Why not on a stock truck.

The air horns dont do much at all but look good:-laf

 

[dsherman]

Air horn

Lets see some numbers:-laf:-laf:-laf

 

[CDonaldson]

I noticed a CFM+ ad in the June issue of Diesel Power, page 233, it has a chart regarding 'bench testing' of intakes. It says stock flow 700 CFM, brand A (in red) about 825 CFM, brand B (in blue) about 875 CFM, and the CFM+ is about 975 CFM. I am sure the color reference is applicable to Banks and ATS as those are sig their colors. Interesting information. I would guess the GDP fits in there somewhere as well. So, if this information has validity, changing out the stock intake horn and replacing it with a better flowing aftermarket horn does have benefits as far as flow/CFM is concerned.



CD

 

[dsherman]

air flow

So, With the increase of air flow will it or can it decrease the HP

Some one here said that adding a air horn droped there HP by I believe it was 12 HP



PS With an increase of air flow will it decrease the amount of black smoke out the back end???

 

[ILIANBG]

I also am interested in running one of those on a stock truck. Why not a stock truck? People install, exhausts, suspentions, bypass oil systems, all kind of coolers- transmission, diff, fuel, oil... , cold air intake kits and thposands more.

It will be helpful to see some real data.

Ilian

 

[CDonaldson]

Good question dsherman. I recall someone here saying that too. I also recall from posts on other sites that the did get a HP gain, and I believe there was dyno numbers to support that as well. I've done some calculations that I got out of Corky Bell's book, Maximum Boost, don't have them handy right now, but basically the only way you would loose HP is if your intercooler was bigger than the stock intercooler and you were running a stock turbo. Best as I could calculate from using the stock turbo and stock intercooler numbers, you WOULD see a hp gain by changing the intake horn. I think the relationship of CFM's of the intake horn actually would be better in HP gains being in the middle of the 700 to 975 ranges rather than the top 975. It may be that the most is not better when used in combination with the stock turbo and intercooler. The top range of 975 is more within the mathematical balances when used in combination with a larger turbo and a larger intercooler. Also, the intake air at the filter inlet comes into play along with the exhaust manifold capabilities and exhaust system.



CD

 

[FPollard]

I installed the CFM+ about two weeks ago, lowered my EGTs and definitely added some pep. No dyno yet, have to wait 'till I get down to Phoenix again, but I am sure it added some HP.



Frank

 

[Bob4x4]

I am trying to get caught up so I can make it down for the Baja 500. I will get a dyno graph posted on here of the AFE intake. Their secret for better flow is 2 fold. Vanes on the inside to direct the airflow arond the radius and a clever way of bolting down the flange. I have not posted any pics yet because my truck has a shock tower brace that inteferes with the dipstick mounting. I don't want any one to think that would be the case in a stock suspended truck.

It does show a gain on a stock powered truck Oo. As well as when the power is turned up. So far on the street it is more responsive. The IAT does not climb as fast under accel. The flow #s are very good compared to Banks and Ats. We could not get a CFM in time for the flow testing. I tryed to get test data from CFM on what restriction level they used for their flow testing,they would not respond. AFE uses 1. 5 in of water.



Bob

 

[Bob4x4]

I noticed a CFM+ ad in the June issue of Diesel Power, page 233, it has a chart regarding 'bench testing' of intakes. It says stock flow 700 CFM, brand A (in red) about 825 CFM, brand B (in blue) about 875 CFM, and the CFM+ is about 975 CFM. I am sure the color reference is applicable to Banks and ATS as those are sig their colors. Interesting information. I would guess the GDP fits in there somewhere as well. So, if this information has validity, changing out the stock intake horn and replacing it with a better flowing aftermarket horn does have benefits as far as flow/CFM is concerned.



CD

With out knowing the restriction level those flow #s don't mean much :-laf



Bob

 

[dsherman]

Thanks Bob

Post the numbers when you can

 

[dsherman]

New player in the intake manifold field ! AFE Oo. The Flow test came out very impressive. 206 cfm compared to 183 on the Banks. The Dyno showed gains at 16-1700 rpm that were better than I expected. The pre-production piece is on the truck now and being re-dynoed. Monday I will get to do some real world testing. As with all AFE products it was engineered not just assembled to to fit. It has secrets inside to aid flow . The design for the mounting bolts is impressive and out of the air flow,without decreasing the area for flow. I am going to have to break out the camera next week.



Bob

("The Flow test came out very impressive. 206 cfm compared to 183 on the Banks. ")

Bob, That cant be . 206 cfm



. 206 in of water right?

 

[JDerbedrossian]

I also am interested in running one of those on a stock truck. Why not a stock truck? People install, exhausts, suspentions, bypass oil systems, all kind of coolers- transmission, diff, fuel, oil... , cold air intake kits and thposands more.

It will be helpful to see some real data.

Ilian

What I meant by stock truck is usually truck owners first put on exhaust, air filter then maybe consider an intake manifold, not intake manifold first. Does that make sense or am I off base here.



Jake

 

[CDonaldson]

Hey Bob4x4.



To the best of my knowledge, they all use the 1. 5 ins of water - industry of standard measurement. And truthfully, if CFM+ is putting out a data chart, it would not make any difference what they used because they would have ALL been bench tested the same by them as their claim is that they tested them all to derive the chart.



In the case of my truck, I have already done the intake air filter to turbo mods, have the muffler elimination pipe and opened up the exhaust, did not mess with the CAT as it only causes 1/2 lb back pressure, not enough to really make any difference. I am running a Smarty/Quad stack. With the Smarty at stock settings and the Quad turned off, so only boost fooling is in play, I have a very noticable difference in throttle response. With just the Quad turned on, much more noticable difference. No dyno sitting in my backyard, closest is Albuquerque which is a 4 hour trip, I do plan to dyno at some point. So, my truck is not stock, and I can feel the benefit of the intake horn change.



Jake.

I get your point, and YES, normally most do the air intake first - filter/mod airbox or remove/replace, then exhaust. Usually you see gauges going in before people move into anything beyond the basics of intake filters and exhaust mods. I would guess that modding the intake horn could preceed the power box additions if someone was trying to avoid using a box due to warranty concerns. Also, somewhere in/around the air intake and exhaust many also do some suspension stuff. There does seem to be a similar pattern in how everyone gets their mods in order.



CD

 

[dsherman]

What I meant by stock truck is usually truck owners first put on exhaust, air filter then maybe consider an intake manifold, not intake manifold first. Does that make sense or am I off base here.



Jake

Jakeypoo,

You need to pull your head out of the sand:-laf:-laf

We know better then that

 

[dsherman]

No credibility

With out knowing the restriction level those flow #s don't mean much :-laf



Bob

Bob,

Here we go again

Just because AFE gave you anther one of their products to R&D doesn’t make it the best on the market.

I just got off the phone with CFM+ and spoke to Kirk for some time and yes he run a fair test on all the other products so please try not to be so bias just because you were given one free for you to R&D for them:-laf:-laf

And you sale all of there products besides

So Bob, You can't give a nonbias opinion can you with any credibility:-laf:-laf

We need to keep it real here.

 

[Bob4x4]

Hey Bob4x4.



To the best of my knowledge, they all use the 1. 5 ins of water - industry of standard measurement. And truthfully, if CFM+ is putting out a data chart, it would not make any difference what they used because they would have ALL been bench tested the same by them as their claim is that they tested them all to derive the chart.



CD

They can't be using 1. 5" of water to get the #s they are getting or AFE engineering is all wrong and I don't see that happening. :-laf



Bob

 

[Bob4x4]

Bob,

Here we go again

Just because AFE gave you anther one of their products to R&D doesn’t make it the best on the market.

I just got off the phone with CFM+ and spoke to Kirk for some time and yes he run a fair test on all the other products so please try not to be so bias just because you were given one free for you to R&D for them:-laf:-laf

And you sale all of there products besides

So Bob, You can't give a nonbias opinion can you with any credibility:-laf:-laf

We need to keep it real here.

Dave as I told you in pm Many dyno tests,and over the road testing does not make a freebie :-{}. I have said over and over again in private and in public I will never recommend a product I have not personnaly tested. Now if you want to make this personal keep it up. At what restriction did CFM do their testing?No one will come forth and say

I wish we would have had one to test also but it did not happen in time.



Bob

 

[CDonaldson]

The REAL question IS - at what restriction level DID DC do their testing? The flow level from DC's information says 700cfm out the intake horn as a stock flow. For CFM+ to use that as a basis in their chart to me means that they duplicated DC's testing and then tested the others using the same methodology. IF, 1. 5 is how the numbers work out at say sea level, then that would be what they used as a basis. The ins of water would change with altitude. So - if the testing was done at 2K ft of elevation there would be a factor used in the mathematics to compensate for altitude to bring the numbers into the standards at sea level.



The theory of ins of water and altitude has been a time tested and proven method used for calibrating laboratory instrumentation, so using it's basis would apply to testing everything because the instrumentation is done that way. You have to align your test with however your instrumentation has been calibrated. Maybe the final ins of water to do the testing to replicate the calibration of the equipment was . 75 or 3. 0 who knows, but ultimately ALL testing should be mathematically adjusted to industry standards of calibration.



Bob4x4.



Since you-yourself have not tested the CFM product at whatever levels you-yourself do testing doesn't make thier claims incorrect, nor does it make their product greater or lesser than their claims. For them to put out a chart that makes claims about other products on the market, well, they have a greater liability to perform their testing with greater accuracy AND test ALL in the same manner for comparison. Regardless, they DO have comparisons and product claims and liabilities would have warranted them to use SOME KIND of a standard in testing them. The ultimate numbers as seen on their charts are a basis of COMPARISON among the groups tested to one another. Flow is flow, and if ALL of them were flow tested with the same, identical set of parameters, the results show their differences under that set of parameters.



While your question about the particulars of testing methods HAS validity, the fact remains that they tested the entire group the same. I am sure they have a publishable copy of their entire testing process and also sure they would provide their data to any company considering their product on a fleet of trucks or a manufacturer. We all know that to try to attempt to isolate one product in dyno testing on a vehicle that already has several modification in line to that product can have inaccurate outcome information. To properly test the 'build' of a complete system is one thing, but to properly test individual products means that we have to rely on 'bench' testing data, an IF all were tested on the same bench at the same time, the comparison data would be of correct value in examining product to product, toe to toe, relationships. It would not be hard to literally R&R each of them to one truck and measure flow at say the inlet of the intercooler using the same engine RPM's and get real-time data with a flowmeter.



CD

 

[hotram03]

CD and Bob you two need to play nicely or I'm gonna have to separate ya, I might just make both of you stand in time out for awhile :-laf.