Testing of 3 intakes CFM+ AFE ATS

[p-Bar]

Hey guys here is a thread of interest on the 3 intakes tested.



https://www.turbodieselregister.com...ly/194051-intake-manifold-tests-complete.html

 

[Bob4x4]

Just read it... ... ... ... Maybe now a few more non-beleivers will do some rethinking.



Bob

 

[MA2LA]

those are some crazy numbers being ad for just an intake.

 

[Heavyweight]

great low-end torque... Guys who tow,,, this is a mod I would do for sure. I also like the CFM... I do not like the look of the AFE... . I would like to see the numbers on a stock truck!

The Tourque will be more then 60%-70% less, but still may be worth considering.

 

[Matt400]

I don't get this... if that much hp was available in such a simple non emission piece it seems to me Cummins would have made this change long ago.



After all, they could dial back the oe 325hp to 268hp for a savings in fuel and emissions then slap on a intake to push the "free" hp back up to the advertised 325.

 

[Erik@LCD]

Its still questionable how much the manifold alone would do on a stock truck, so its pretty hard to tell what cummins would be thinking.
For the guy who does the common bombs, the intake works

 

[LRutigliano]

I wish they would have checked EGTs also. All the manufacturers claim a reduction in EGT, but I have not seen any numbers.

 

[Jetpilot]

The best part of this evaluation is that there are dyno charts showing before and after, same day, same dyno. The numbers may not be much different for max HP but the low end grunt is sure improved... ... .

 

[Erik@LCD]

I wish they would have checked EGTs also. All the manufacturers claim a reduction in EGT, but I have not seen any numbers.

Unfortunately EGTs on a dyno run only briefly spike, and I never saw more than 1280 on the x-monitor. With the Smarty, my EGTs dropped about 100-200 degrees under the same towing circumstances over the EDGE.

Haven't towed the CFM+ and the big trailer yet (14k Tag) so I don't know how it is pulling a hill. But I have to imagine that moving more air is going to have a cooling effect.

 

[donnier]

From the responses on this thread, most of your trucks have been modified in one way or another.

What would be the results with a bone stock truck?

 

[drury]

Most of the testing done with intake filters indicates that the stock truck gets plenty of air for the amount of fuel that it burns. The airflow mods aren't going to do you much good unless you increase the fueling to take advantage of the extra air. For this particular mod, I don't think you are going to see a significant benefit until you've added at least a beefy fueling box and a cold air intake.



It is interesting that the internal vanes on the aFe seem to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick. They are not getting any power over the CFM+ which has no vanes. I'm going to be sticking with my GDP intake which should be pretty close in performance to the aFe and CFM+. It looks good and has bungs for my water/meth.

 

[Bob4x4]

Most of the testing done with intake filters indicates that the stock truck gets plenty of air for the amount of fuel that it burns. The airflow mods aren't going to do you much good unless you increase the fueling to take advantage of the extra air. For this particular mod, I don't think you are going to see a significant benefit until you've added at least a beefy fueling box and a cold air intake.



It is interesting that the internal vanes on the aFe seem to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick. They are not getting any power over the CFM+ which has no vanes. I'm going to be sticking with my GDP intake which should be pretty close in performance to the aFe and CFM+. It looks good and has bungs for my water/meth.

No Gimmick just sound engineering... ... ... . :-laf:-laf If you look at the manifolds the AFE did not have to go with big bulges etc to get the increase. This gives us more room to play with other add ons or make filter changes easy.



I am still waiting for a GDP to flow test to prove what it is capable of.

I talked to Stephan yesturday at DTT,he will be on board for flow testing the intake he will be offering soon.



The Dyno testing I was involved with showed smaller gains on an 06 with stock exhaust and air filter set-up than mine with air flow improvements. All the trucks were dyno'd with stock fueling. It did show GOOD improvements with out having to add fuel.



Where is my GDP to test????:-laf:-laf



Bob

 

[Bob4x4]

great low-end torque... Guys who tow,,, this is a mod I would do for sure. I also like the CFM... I do not like the look of the AFE... . I would like to see the numbers on a stock truck!

The Tourque will be more then 60%-70% less, but still may be worth considering.

I haveposted #s on stock trucks on otherthreads





#ad




This a bone stock 06 no changes other than the AFE intake manifold,under 10k miles



Bob

 

[Jetpilot]

Here is a link to the entire article that shows the testing data. The dyno graphs are published for all three intakes as well as the OEM version. trivalleyperformance.com - Diesel Projects

 

[drury]

Bob, the results you posted in an earlier thread on the flow #'s and the results here both indicate to me that there is no significant advantage provided by the vanes. Which is not to say that I think the aFe is a bad manifold. Based on the tests, it seems to be one of the very best performing manifolds, and given that it has bungs, I would choose it over the CFM any day. In fact, given that I haven't seen any hard numbers associated with the GDP manifold, you could say that the aFe is the only high performing manifold with test results to back it up that also provides bungs (or a place to mount a GDP 2 micron filter!). You certainly can't go wrong putting it on your truck. If I were making my buying decision today I'd definitely be thinking hard about it.



On the other hand, based on the design, I suspect that the GDP, aFe, and CFM+ are all in the same performance class, and given that I am willing to take a few risks with my truck and that I think the GDP is the best looking manifold of the bunch I'll be sticking with it unless I see hard numbers to the contrary. I just can't imagine that GDP's straight pipe design with no bulges whatsoever is going to impede the flow in any way compared to the CFM or aFe.

 

[Erik@LCD]

FYI, the CFM is available with the ports (about $20 extra) and the aFe was the least effective of the bunch that we tested (though it still provided decent performance!)

 

[LRutigliano]

Erik@tvp



Thanks for providing the hp and torque curves.



However, why dont you show 1300rpm on up? I'd like to see the whole curve as some of my OTR driving is around 1500 rpm.



One of the many reasons I chose the AFe was that they were the only manufacturer to provide the power curves. Everyone else just talks about total airflow.



Total airflow is important, but so is velocity and direction. Those intake manifolds must turn the air 180deg from the CAC pipe to the engine inlet. I bet at the lower boost levels and rpm, those vanes really help direct the air uniformly into the manifold as opposed to only flow at the outside edge. Air acts just like a car on a banked turn. It will not fill the entire manifold and you will have dead spots.



I researched the AFe quite a bit and the things that impressed me most about their design were the flow vanes and the fact that its the only true drop-in. Plus, Bob 4x4 recommends it and he definately knows what works... :-laf



It has two holes for the harness attachment and the dipstick doesnt have to be moved to the very outboard side. I tried to move my dipstick outboard before making the decision and it was under alot of stress.



Also, I can't see the total value in the composite manifold vs. the very nice powder coated and polished cast aluminum part. What I'm saying is my perception of the composite is that it should cost less.



I'm definately not trying to say one is better than the other (especially with the power curves shown), only trying to say why I chose one over the other.



Regards,

Louis

 

[Erik@LCD]

No problem, it was a fun test and we are looking forward to providing more data like this on other products (one of the perks of owning your own dyno!)

The reason the runs start where they do is that its pretty impossible to keep the converter locked below about 1500rpm and prevent the truck from downshifting out of D when the run starts.

The flow vanes in the aFe are interesting, but don't appear to do a whole heckuva lot, at least not on my truck. I see them as a restriction, especially in a boosted application. As far as it being "drop in", I documented that it was the oddest installation of the three. I was not a huge fan of the way the outermost bolts needed to be fished through the manifold and the plugs had to be installed. If there was a torque issue with the bolts, it would be much harder to deal with. I did like the dipstick mounting, but the CFM wasn't really too bad.

I do agree that the materials of the CFM "feel" like they should cost less, but the molding process for that material is a little more expensive than aluminum.

I dont think you can go wrong with any of them (or the GDP), and for nitrous applications, the ATS would be my choice. For non-intravenous drugs, the CFM delivers.

 

[Bob4x4]

On the other hand, based on the design, I suspect that the GDP, aFe, and CFM+ are all in the same performance class, and given that I am willing to take a few risks with my truck and that I think the GDP is the best looking manifold of the bunch I'll be sticking with it unless I see hard numbers to the contrary. I just can't imagine that GDP's straight pipe design with no bulges whatsoever is going to impede the flow in any way compared to the CFM or aFe.

From the pics I have seen it appears that the GDP has a very tight radius going into the head,that will kill flow. I would like to see one up close to be sure of the bends.

The intake that DTT is working on is tube also but is supposed to have a larger radius in it's design. Stephan is going to send me one to flow test when it becomes available.

 

[drury]

FYI, the CFM is available with the ports (about $20 extra) and the aFe was the least effective of the bunch that we tested (though it still provided decent performance!)

Glad the CFM finally has ports. Does it have the mounting bosses for the aftermarket fuel filters yet? The aFe and GDP both do.



I was thinking that they were all equivalent based on top end performance, but after looking at your data again, I can see that the aFe is significantly less effective at 1900 and 2150 RPM. I sure would like to see where the GDP stacks up in the rankings.



Top End (ranked by HP)

aFe 396/788

ATS 395/795

CFM 393/791



1900 RPM (ranked by HP)

CFM 57. 7/159. 53

ATS 48. 55/134. 27

aFe 38. 61/106. 75



2150 RPM (ranked by HP)

ATS 23. 74/57. 88

CFM 23. 65/57. 88

aFe 4. 14/10. 11