I remember several years ago, when I used the term “Helmholtz resonator” at work, some of the younger mechanics laughed. I pointed at it and said that is the proper name, and I asked them what they call it
They said they would never use such “fancy” terminology, for fear that somebody such as themselves would laugh at them
Good thing you didn’t talk to them about volumetric efficiency. Their heads might have exploded. {
I
Imagination is a powerful thing,I drove a 88’ model 688 Mack that ran better when the passenger side window was down(sounded like it did anyway) the only real way to determine volumetric benefits is with a flow bench,stopwatch or dyno,most CAIs are worthless wallet lightners.
Even worse, they often introduce operating problems.
I wish I had access to a dyno. My system made a surprising difference, and I’d love to see the actual torque curve. I have the ability to reconfigure it to the OEM configuration, and it’d be fun to see the difference. Of course I’d have to rig up a way to create the air flow through the vent hole, but it’d be fun.
The cleaning solution is an expen$e, the real problem is damage to other (CEL) components. No praise, but current kits do include an instruction on how much oil to use for the "re-oiling.
Might work alright on a Briggs&Stratton engine,but I seriously doubt if they are worth the risk on a modern car.
I fell for the K&N filter a long time ago but began reading about some of the limitations. See http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm I took it out and put the cheap paper ones back in.
Also, I bought a used Ford truck and the previous owner had put some stupid aftermarket air intake in it. All the stock stuff is gone and I HAVE to use a K&N filter because that is all that will fit. It had some cheapo KN copy that you could see through like a screen door so it got replaced ASAP. This air intake has caused several strange issues with airflow metering and such. I would gladly trade this high dollar pain for a factory one.
Perhaps you could get an OEM intake system from a boneyard for a decent price.
The truck is a 1997 Ford F-250 Light Duty. It is one of those with the 7 lug rims and is a strange animal. Unless the air intake on this is the same as the F150 from those years, I am probably out of luck. Anyone here know if they are the same?
I have the VIN number with the 6 in it and not the W engine code. The correlates to a type of engine not seen in but less than 1% of the truck. This has impacted parts I have had to buy and people at the parts store will tell me that according to the system, my truck doesn’t use that part. I have to pretty much bring the old part in using a different car to get the right one. I bought so many parts and came home to see it was totally not even similar to what I needed so ended up going that route.
Talk about volumetric effiecency,the induction system on the old “Red Ram” Mopar was actually 104% efficient,in other words it rammed!.
@cwatkin,kinda senseless for Ford to do that,but I would almost bet money that you can scrounge enough parts off a 150 to work(would even look at the 250 heavy duty) so good luck,I think you are going to beat thisI know these nest of snakes can be a bit convoluted.
Had a K&N on my Camry for 40k miles. It started to idle rough. Maf was covered in brown junk. Cleaned it and put in a paper filter.
@cwatkin It sounds like you bought my brother’s old truck. LOL. He thought he turned his F150 4.6 into a friggen speed demon with the bootleg air intake crap he installed.
Lucky for you, I believe that your Light Duty F250, as weird as it is, is mostly the same under the hood as an F150. The transmission may have a bigger oil cooler, and the radiator may be a little bigger, but the air intake is most likely the same as a 4.6L and a 5.4L in a F150.
I think the big difference btwn your truck and a half ton and the brakes, the tire load range, the gear ratio, the springs, and maybe the cooling system. I would imagine that plugs, air filter, starter, belt, etc are mostly the same.
edit
After thinking about it for a second, I may well be wrong. If you’ve been driving it very long and dealing with that crap, who the hell am I to tell you otherwise. LOL
We have 1997 F150 and 1997 F250 light duty . . . just like yours . . . in our fleet
Our trucks all have the 5.4 V8
I can’t swear to it, but I believe they both have the identical air intake setup
As long as the engine is the same size and vintage, I’d guess that cwatkin would be better off with any replacement induction system than what’s currently installed. I’d speculate that the MAF’s location would be engineered provide the proper readings rather than just stuck on the side of a pipe with a much different CFM capacity than the original.
Mass airflow sensors are proportional measuring devices, used to determine total airflow by calculating it from the MAF sensor reading. Change the size of the pipe where the reading is taken from and you change the proportion. Change the proportion and you throw the end result of the calculation off. K&N seems to me to be designed by other than actual engineers. Additionally, they take the air from the same spaces in the applications I’ve seen as the OEM snouts do… so how is that air to be any colder? And we’ve already gone into the farce of oiled filters in automobiles. Since very few of the kids (their primary target market) understand how these work, the marketing and shiny pipes convince them that it’s an engineering marvel. They’ve built a successful company on good showmanship. At least the creator of Pet Rocks didn’t use smoke & mirrors to sell 'em. Please, I urge you, don’t let the thread drift into a discussion of Pet Rocks. I’m only using them to illustrate my point that K&N CAI systems are all smoke & mirrors.
With government mpg mandates I think the auto makers already put the most efficient system in the vehicles when they were designed. IMO, a total waste of money.
This truck doesn’t get a lot of mileage. So my best bet is to find a 4.6L from 1997 in the boneyard and buy the air intake setup?
The problem around here is when scrap got up so high, anything older than about 5 years got crushed!
I think the truck I got had been used for mudding, drinking and driving, and poaching! Why else would you remove 100 lbs of shell casings, mud, and beer can tabs and bottle caps? Either way, it was a mess.
One of the first things was replacing the clutch. The guy who did it said the old one had been smoked so that it was “dished”. The truck had lived a hard life before. Also, many of the repairs were so rigged and mice had eaten vacuum lines and wiring and made a big mess.
But yes, among all this, someone put in an aftermarket air intake so I have to use a 7 inch air filter on it. I had the same issue as above with the MAF in another vehicle. It became oil covered and I had to clean it off so that the truck would run right. This was when I dumped the KN filter and never looked back.
As far as fuel economy, the auto makers are going to want the best they can get. As for power, there might be some improvement but at the cost of filtration.
I’ve used K&N reusable filters in cars and trucks over the past decade. No increase in mpgs, however, performance VERY FAVORABLY enhanced at all speeds on all vehicles (Rangers, Tacomas, Aleros, Chryslers, F-150s, Chevys). HOWEVER, when they get dirty, it’s a quick trip to the garden hose to clean em out. I DO NOT RE-OIL them because of the MAFS. Never had a problem for over fifteen years in any vehicle. Now, the ones coming from China are way less expensive, and they’re exact copies of the original. And, no “cleaning kit” is necessary to clean these things; just scrub the screen w/some Dawn dish soap and then spray off the suds w/a garden hose. Shake it dry and it’s good for another 10k miles. My info comes from practical, long-term, experience, not guessing.
My truck above came with a China-made KN copy when I got it and the filter looked about as dense as a window screen so it was replaced ASAP. The throttle body and MAF were full of crud. They sell a special MAF cleaner at most parts stores. It is kinda expensive but cheaper than a new or reman MAF.