FarmerFrank
Full Access Member
I bought a truck that had one on it. It was the noisiest thing ever. You can try it but it was hard to talk to someone sitting beside you going down the road from the drone noise it resonated through the cab
Yes another intake question
- Thread starter ammocan
- Start date
I bought a truck that had one on it. It was the noisiest thing ever. You can try it but it was hard to talk to someone sitting beside you going down the road from the drone noise it resonated through the cab
turbo elk
Full Access Member
If my truck was N/A I would use the "gasser" air filter cus. I know I could find one for almost free just to check it out before I bought the one that I wanted.
Sycostang67
Scooty Puff Junior
I have been running the hypermax cowl intake for several years and have not had any problems with water in the form of rain or snow. Noise was not an issue either until I removed the ATS airbox and went with an inline filter. I imagine the cowl kit on an N/A motor would be less noisy than a turbo motor though as the noise I hear is all related to the turbo. While the noise is much more noticeable, it's not what I would call intrusive. I can still have a conversation in the cab and listen to the radio.
79jasper
Chickenhawk
I have a round intake tube that connects to the factory air cleaner and runs towards the grill.
I had it on my 88. with the wide radiator.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
I had it on my 88. with the wide radiator.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
Ok so here is the update. I went with the edelbrock air cleaner. Its like it was meant to be. I assume is was by design but the intake opening is the exact same as a carburetor opening. The edelbrock intake was a direct fit other than 2 small things. First the air cleaner needed spacers to get it off the engine and clear all the fuel lines. About 2 inches and it was in stock at checker. Secondly the hole in the top needed to be drilled out so the stock air cleaner bolt would fit. The air cleaner was $45 at checker and the riser was like $7. I decided to go with this option for several reasons. This option was soooo easy. It took 15 min. It was cheap. Other than the initial cost of about $50 the standard 4" tall filter replacement is $8.00 because its the standard 14" x 4" element that goes on every single carbureted gasser. The air flow is great. It has roughly the same amount of filtering surface as the recommended napa Donaldson filter but it does not require the 4" air hose. While I know it will be getting hot air its no different than the other options that remain under the hood other than this intake has no air hose as I previously mentioned. I liked the idea of getting rid of the air hose because when I was doing my R&D on intakes I noticed that at idle the 4" air hose felt like my shop vac and im sure it was like an F-16 jet intake at 3000 RPM's. The 4" intake hose was a concern since the actual intake on top of the engine is closer to 5". The noise was a concern but it did not change much and is not intrusive however results may vary. If I was concerned about noise I would address the exhaust first since it is straight piped with 3" exhaust. As far as performance I am very pleased. The butt dyno says performance improved and with out a doubt the throttle response improved 10 fold. So long story short, I am very pleased with my choice.
You must be registered for see images attach
Last edited:
79jasper
Chickenhawk
Eh, way over thinking some things.
Your intake hose size argument isn't valid.
Look at the EFI 460's.
Heck my psd has 4" that necks down to about 2" at the turbo.
Long as you're happy though.
I took the air cleaner base on my 6.2 and cut it up, essentially to what you have now. No power or mileage difference, just more noise.
And the opening for the tube on it was way smaller than the ford's.
The air hose is a good thing. With this big of an engine, no matter what size hose you used, it would still be sucking a ton of air.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
Your intake hose size argument isn't valid.
Look at the EFI 460's.
Heck my psd has 4" that necks down to about 2" at the turbo.
Long as you're happy though.
I took the air cleaner base on my 6.2 and cut it up, essentially to what you have now. No power or mileage difference, just more noise.
And the opening for the tube on it was way smaller than the ford's.
The air hose is a good thing. With this big of an engine, no matter what size hose you used, it would still be sucking a ton of air.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
Well your argument is not valid. Your comparing apples and oranges. My truck does not have a turbo. A turbo will just suck as much air as it wants till the straw collapses so to speak. N/A engines do not have that luxury. Try breathing through a straw and see how long you can go before you get light headed then put an air compressor nozzle in your mouth (realy please dont. Just making a point). And how much bigger is the straw opening? Like I said, apples and oranges. And if all this doesnt matter then why is this such a hot topic. The reality is that no matter how big and powerful the engine is, horsepower is lost if the engine has to work for its air. This is why turbos and super chargers are so effective. As for over thinking it, i'm sure the time I have into this is a fraction of what performance engine builders invest in their intakes. Besides im an anylitical person and enjoy tinkering with things like this.
Im not interested in modifications just to "make me happy". so if im realy up in the night about improving performance with an intake then could someone please provide real data on this. While the results vary from amazing to mediocre, the dyno results I have seen are unanimous in performance gains with improved air flow.
79jasper
Chickenhawk
Pull your air cleaner off, stick your hand over the intake. What are you going to do with the intake manifold now?
Just because you can feel it doesn't mean it's being restricted.
Stick your hand over the exhaust pipe...
It's a hot topic because people like to tinker. And when you have Cai companies claiming gains in power...
Now say you've done head work, porting and polishing(which by the way already outflows a 6.0 psd) one of the cams, exhaust work, a real hot pump, then I can see where it can make a huge difference. And I agree that more air is better.
And I'm not saying yours is better or worse than stock, just that your reasoning is a little off, IMO. You're original reasoning for doing something different was under hood heat. Most systems with a hose coming off (factory) aren't drawing in under hood air. But now what is yours doing? Lol
I would like to see your IAT vs a completely factory system with the hose. And say a u tube nanometer to read restriction.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
Just because you can feel it doesn't mean it's being restricted.
Stick your hand over the exhaust pipe...
It's a hot topic because people like to tinker. And when you have Cai companies claiming gains in power...
Now say you've done head work, porting and polishing(which by the way already outflows a 6.0 psd) one of the cams, exhaust work, a real hot pump, then I can see where it can make a huge difference. And I agree that more air is better.
And I'm not saying yours is better or worse than stock, just that your reasoning is a little off, IMO. You're original reasoning for doing something different was under hood heat. Most systems with a hose coming off (factory) aren't drawing in under hood air. But now what is yours doing? Lol
I would like to see your IAT vs a completely factory system with the hose. And say a u tube nanometer to read restriction.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/project-cars/sucp-1010-chevy-chevelle-air-filter-tests/
http://www.lsxtv.com/tech-stories/engine/dyno-test-4-kn-vs-aem-5th-gen-camaro-intake-options/
http://www.gmfullsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=255801
3 different tests, different types of intakes, different vehicles. All consitantly show improvement just with an intake mod. All the tests are independent and only testing intakes. Some tests are on a highly modified engine and some on stock engines. These are real results not just and opinion I have formed. My original reason for changing intakes was not the heat. It was simply a factor to consider. If you read my original post I mentioned several factors considered when modifying an intake and I also recognize that there is not a perfect intake system. I picked this intake recognizing that it would not be a cold air intake however it does allow a greater amount of air with less resistance. Here is a simple physics lesson(im not an expert but...) If a higher volume of air must travel through the same sized opening then air pressure and velocity must increase. To achieve greater air pressure and velocity more energy is required. If your engine exerts more energy to draw air in then your engine sends less energy to the rear wheels. In layman's terms, it requires less energy to draw air through a 5 inch hole than it does to draw the same volume of air through a 4 inch hole. While I dont think a nano meter is the correct tool I do understand your sarcasm however of all the tests I refrenced at the top they are seeing around 10hp gains. I hardly think this is insignificant expecially to a N/A engine. Realy im interested in good information not unfounded opinion. I have provided solid data for what I did and a lesson in engineering. Feed me some data, real information. Im open to opinion if there is sound reasoning, or logic behind it. What I am not interested in is someone just telling me your doing it wrong. I have been wrong before but there was a reason for it not just because some guy said I was. I may be new to IDI'S but im not new to mechanics and simple physics. This isnt my first rodeo.
http://www.lsxtv.com/tech-stories/engine/dyno-test-4-kn-vs-aem-5th-gen-camaro-intake-options/
http://www.gmfullsize.com/forum/showthread.php?t=255801
3 different tests, different types of intakes, different vehicles. All consitantly show improvement just with an intake mod. All the tests are independent and only testing intakes. Some tests are on a highly modified engine and some on stock engines. These are real results not just and opinion I have formed. My original reason for changing intakes was not the heat. It was simply a factor to consider. If you read my original post I mentioned several factors considered when modifying an intake and I also recognize that there is not a perfect intake system. I picked this intake recognizing that it would not be a cold air intake however it does allow a greater amount of air with less resistance. Here is a simple physics lesson(im not an expert but...) If a higher volume of air must travel through the same sized opening then air pressure and velocity must increase. To achieve greater air pressure and velocity more energy is required. If your engine exerts more energy to draw air in then your engine sends less energy to the rear wheels. In layman's terms, it requires less energy to draw air through a 5 inch hole than it does to draw the same volume of air through a 4 inch hole. While I dont think a nano meter is the correct tool I do understand your sarcasm however of all the tests I refrenced at the top they are seeing around 10hp gains. I hardly think this is insignificant expecially to a N/A engine. Realy im interested in good information not unfounded opinion. I have provided solid data for what I did and a lesson in engineering. Feed me some data, real information. Im open to opinion if there is sound reasoning, or logic behind it. What I am not interested in is someone just telling me your doing it wrong. I have been wrong before but there was a reason for it not just because some guy said I was. I may be new to IDI'S but im not new to mechanics and simple physics. This isnt my first rodeo.
79jasper
Chickenhawk
I'll get back to you tomorrow, as I'm going to bed.
But real quick:
You're getting away from what I was saying.
I mentioned would be very useful if you had some worthwhile engine work done. As in the first link, thing had a lot done to it, and they jetted the carb. Obviously could use more air. Apples to oranges with the idi.
3rd link, the open element air filter is not pulling under hood air. It seals on the top with the hood. Pulls in air from the fender where the factory box does, and air flows through around the headlight.
Same thing with the 2nd link.
And again, I never said you were wrong, just that your reasoning was off.
I'll see if I can find something that has closer to a diesels under hood Temps, with hood closed in the dyno. Hood open in the test will booger the results.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
But real quick:
You're getting away from what I was saying.
I mentioned would be very useful if you had some worthwhile engine work done. As in the first link, thing had a lot done to it, and they jetted the carb. Obviously could use more air. Apples to oranges with the idi.
3rd link, the open element air filter is not pulling under hood air. It seals on the top with the hood. Pulls in air from the fender where the factory box does, and air flows through around the headlight.
Same thing with the 2nd link.
And again, I never said you were wrong, just that your reasoning was off.
I'll see if I can find something that has closer to a diesels under hood Temps, with hood closed in the dyno. Hood open in the test will booger the results.
Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
Can30Diesel
Full Access Member
One of the main reasons intake and exhaust modifications are so popular is the generally accepted belief that stock intake and exhaust systems are restrictive relative to what the engine in stock form can actually use. The generally accepted reasoning that OEM has this in place ranges from manufacturing cost savings and emission requirements to marketing intent and product life expectancy. There has been a long standing debate between whether lots of hot air is any different than relatively less colder air. As with most things in the automotive performance world, its all linked together and it has to be established what an engine in its current form really needs for air and fuel. To make more power you need more fuel, to properly burn that fuel you need the right amount of air. Increasing one without knowing if the other needs change is a job half done.
Also, beware of the butt-o-meter, its accuracy is obscured by the sound-o-meter and the spiffy-new guage. Just think of all those little cars running around with coffee can mufflers with the butt-o-meters reading way off reality.
What would be interesting is to find some kind of base line tests of your own. Something I should have done one of these times. Take and pull a load up a given challenging hill with the stock intake, take note of how fast you are going and at what rpm. If you have pyrometer, trans temp (if an auto) and maybe engine temp guages, take note of what they say. Burn through a couple tanks of fuel on a commonly used route like to and from work then record your mileage. Then swap in your modification of choice and repeat. Compare the results. Facts will help calibrate the butt-o-meter and the results will let you know how you did.
At the end of the day, its your truck to do with what you want. I have done the same as yourself many many times because tinkering with your truck or car is just fun. The possibility of finding an inexpensive upgrade to uncover some power lost at the drawing board is exciting. Just don't rely too heavy on what you see for online test results, chances are you are not being given the whole picture.
Also, beware of the butt-o-meter, its accuracy is obscured by the sound-o-meter and the spiffy-new guage. Just think of all those little cars running around with coffee can mufflers with the butt-o-meters reading way off reality.
What would be interesting is to find some kind of base line tests of your own. Something I should have done one of these times. Take and pull a load up a given challenging hill with the stock intake, take note of how fast you are going and at what rpm. If you have pyrometer, trans temp (if an auto) and maybe engine temp guages, take note of what they say. Burn through a couple tanks of fuel on a commonly used route like to and from work then record your mileage. Then swap in your modification of choice and repeat. Compare the results. Facts will help calibrate the butt-o-meter and the results will let you know how you did.
At the end of the day, its your truck to do with what you want. I have done the same as yourself many many times because tinkering with your truck or car is just fun. The possibility of finding an inexpensive upgrade to uncover some power lost at the drawing board is exciting. Just don't rely too heavy on what you see for online test results, chances are you are not being given the whole picture.
Glad you made a choice. Open element filters that sit right on the engine are fine from a filtration and technical standpoint, but your take offs from a standing start at a light on a hot day will be sluggish compared to another setup. The problem is the heat soak and super hot air surrounding the air cleaner when the vehicle isn't moving. It will take a mile or two for the air cleaner materials to cool down. This is why the Hypermax cowl intake is such a good idea. With a constant supply of non-underhood air being draw in, the element and surrounding materials stay much cooler, the atmosphere is more dense, and available power much better. There are no issues with water or noise as was mentioned in earlier posts. This coming from someone who actually has one, as backed up by Sycostang67.
Agnem, while I initialy said I was tossing out the cowel intake I did more research and found that I likely would not have a water problem so it was back on the table but im just not ready to cut into my truck to get to the cowel intake just yet.
So ya this may be a little over thought but here are some interesting numbers. The air density at my altitude is .0634 lb/ft cubed at 70deg. It is lowered to .0519 lb/ft cubed at 180 deg which I approximated as the stagnant under the hood temps. This is a net loss of 19%. I increased the intake size by more than 50% based on the stock snorkel at its narrowest point. I demonstrated it in the picture below where I cut straight through the snorkel at the narrowest point and compared it to the opening of the engine intake size. So while one of my concerns is the heat under the hood I actually get pretty good net gains at least strictly by the numbers. I compared this to a straight 4" air hose and based on the same air density numbers the net gains are not as dramatic since the 5" is only 36% larger with the same 19% loss in air density.
I doubt my butt dyno is very well calibrated and I agree a test of some kind is necessary to prove any real gains however the throttle response I get has without a doubt improved. The power gains are debatable until I have real data and factoring in the fact I want to believe this new intake is boosting my power output but the throttle was a little sluggish with the stock set up and has sharpened significantly with this new set up.
So ya this may be a little over thought but here are some interesting numbers. The air density at my altitude is .0634 lb/ft cubed at 70deg. It is lowered to .0519 lb/ft cubed at 180 deg which I approximated as the stagnant under the hood temps. This is a net loss of 19%. I increased the intake size by more than 50% based on the stock snorkel at its narrowest point. I demonstrated it in the picture below where I cut straight through the snorkel at the narrowest point and compared it to the opening of the engine intake size. So while one of my concerns is the heat under the hood I actually get pretty good net gains at least strictly by the numbers. I compared this to a straight 4" air hose and based on the same air density numbers the net gains are not as dramatic since the 5" is only 36% larger with the same 19% loss in air density.
I doubt my butt dyno is very well calibrated and I agree a test of some kind is necessary to prove any real gains however the throttle response I get has without a doubt improved. The power gains are debatable until I have real data and factoring in the fact I want to believe this new intake is boosting my power output but the throttle was a little sluggish with the stock set up and has sharpened significantly with this new set up.
You must be registered for see images attach
Last edited:
FordGuy100
Registered User
My bet is the factory setup is more efficient. It already has a large filter, probably around the same size as what your new one is.
With the factory "snorkel" it's able to pull fresh air. The velocity through that snorkel will be able to keep the air relatively cooler than an open filter element, as it will have less time under the hot engine bay to heat up.
There is not much you can do for a N/A IDI when it comes to the intake.
With the factory "snorkel" it's able to pull fresh air. The velocity through that snorkel will be able to keep the air relatively cooler than an open filter element, as it will have less time under the hot engine bay to heat up.
There is not much you can do for a N/A IDI when it comes to the intake.
FarmerFrank
Full Access Member
I'm not sure whether to pronounce it tomato or tomato after this conversations.
Just about every one has valid points
The OP didn't just toss this together and say TA DAH! He did the math and said " this seems cheap and effective, ill try it." And he's happy. Hopefully he can fill us in with more information how it performs down the road.
I plan on putting my cowl intake on one of these days and seeing if there is any improvements on performance but now thanks to this post ill probably try one of the gasser filters I have lying around first just to see if there is any mileage increases.
Just about every one has valid points
The OP didn't just toss this together and say TA DAH! He did the math and said " this seems cheap and effective, ill try it." And he's happy. Hopefully he can fill us in with more information how it performs down the road.
I plan on putting my cowl intake on one of these days and seeing if there is any improvements on performance but now thanks to this post ill probably try one of the gasser filters I have lying around first just to see if there is any mileage increases.
