Cold Air Intake . - Page 3

***Power Hungry*** · #21 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 01:18 AM

David,

Glad to have you here!

Make yourself at home.

I think you're right... we both probably did the same mod at the same time. I never posted it because at the time I wasn't really big on the forum stuff (at least on the gassers) so you really deserve the credit for the original release of the modification.

The silly thing, as I understand it, is that you kinda got heckled for the original modification but then a year later Gotts came out with the same modification and now that's what everyone refers to it as. Unfortunately, we do too but only because I could find the DWV thread.

If you'd like, get me a write-up of the modification complete with pictures, and we'll put it in the technical section of the FAQs (which will be there soon...

) so people can see it. We'd like to see you get some credit for the modification as well.

Take it easy.

kd4crs · #22 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 01:55 AM

Thank you Bill, that is very gracious of you. I will put together a write-up with some pictures and send it to you so you can look it over and make any changes or additions you see fit before posting it. The original thread on another forum caused such a controversy that it turned into a nasty argument and I requested the forum administrator to delete it for the good of the site since it wasn't doing anyone any good. Subsequently, I deleted all pictures and references to it in order to let things calm down. I think you deserve credit for the DWV intake mod, though since you actually dynoed it.

Before the original thread went away more than 50 people had tried it and to the best of my knowledge nobody ever got a CEL from it or had any other problems with it.

lumpyf150 · #23 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kd4crs

Thank you Bill, that is very gracious of you. I will put together a write-up with some pictures and send it to you so you can look it over and make any changes or additions you see fit before posting it. The original thread on another forum caused such a controversy that it turned into a nasty argument and I requested the forum administrator to delete it for the good of the site since it wasn't doing anyone any good. Subsequently, I deleted all pictures and references to it in order to let things calm down. I think you deserve credit for the DWV intake mod, though since you actually dynoed it.

Before the original thread went away more than 50 people had tried it and to the best of my knowledge nobody ever got a CEL from it or had any other problems with it.

kd4crs,
I was fortunate enough to see your posting in that other Forum before it was deleted. Did that mod per your instructions a couple years back. Very easy and works well. Thanks.

lumpyf150 · #24 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Power Hungry

From what I've seen on the dyno, yes. Now, if going to a full dual exhaust with high flow cats, the air demands may change enough to make CAI worthwhile but it's something that we'd need to confirm on a dyno.

Bill,
Thanks. One last question. If stock intake provides enough airflow, does stock exhaust provide enough as well? Any need for a higher flow exhaust if you're running a stock intake? Thanks.

***Power Hungry*** · #25 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 10:16 AM

We've seen some benefit to going with a Cat-Back exhaust and the popular choice has been Magnaflow SIDO setups. This setup will usually benefit a little in low and mid RPMs, not to mention it sounds really nice. For some odd reason, Flowmaster mufflers just don't seem to work well in this configuration and have a real "tinny" sound instead of the nice, deep rumble.

As for duals, the thing we've found with full dual exhaust is that it tends to hurt low RPM performance a bit but makes up for it at higher RPMs, especially with high flow cats. However, unless you're really looking for top end performance, we generally recommend avoiding this setup. We've had more than a few customers say that they've actually gone back to the SIDO setup because they didn't like the way the low RPM power felt.

I look at an exhaust change more as a way to change the tone of the exhaust and less as an overall performance modification. There are certainly some gains to be had in each configuration, you just need to decide beforehand what you're looking to achieve with your vehicle.

lumpyf150 · #26 Fri, January 23rd, 2009, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Power Hungry

We've seen some benefit to going with a Cat-Back exhaust and the popular choice has been Magnaflow SIDO setups. This setup will usually benefit a little in low and mid RPMs, not to mention it sounds really nice. For some odd reason, Flowmaster mufflers just don't seem to work well in this configuration and have a real "tinny" sound instead of the nice, deep rumble.

As for duals, the thing we've found with full dual exhaust is that it tends to hurt low RPM performance a bit but makes up for it at higher RPMs, especially with high flow cats. However, unless you're really looking for top end performance, we generally recommend avoiding this setup. We've had more than a few customers say that they've actually gone back to the SIDO setup because they didn't like the way the low RPM power felt.

I look at an exhaust change more as a way to change the tone of the exhaust and less as an overall performance modification. There are certainly some gains to be had in each configuration, you just need to decide beforehand what you're looking to achieve with your vehicle.

Thanks, Bill. I'm just looking to get a little more fun and driveability (and maybe a little better MPG) out of my truck vs. blowing people's doors off or ear-drums out. Great "every day" advice!

***Power Hungry*** · #27 Sat, January 24th, 2009, 01:56 AM

I'm right there with ya! When I was in my 20's, Hooker Super Comps and Flowmasters on a 350 Small Block with a 280º Cam was the coolest thing since sliced bread. It didn't matter if I could hear the radio. Heck, half the time I didn't even have a radio!

Nowadays I'd much rather just be able to have a conversation while driving in my vehicle and getting 18-20 MPG. Man, I'm getting old.

lumpyf150 · #28 Sat, January 24th, 2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Power Hungry

I'm right there with ya! When I was in my 20's, Hooker Super Comps and Flowmasters on a 350 Small Block with a 280º Cam was the coolest thing since sliced bread. It didn't matter if I could hear the radio. Heck, half the time I didn't even have a radio!

Ah, the good ole days...

chappy · #29 Sun, January 25th, 2009, 08:59 PM

Which is the best I do not know.But I can say I have the K&N on mine and it has been good to me but it was on the truck when I bought it.Apperently it didn't give enough of an increase on fuel economy to the previous owner because he traded it in on a Chevy Cobalt

.I don't know if I would run a K&N in real dusty conditions though.I have had issues with them on my Quad letting dirt through into the carbs even with a pre filter.

Mark_123 · #30 Mon, January 26th, 2009, 07:08 PM

Bill, I currently have the stock intake with drop in AEM filter. I don't want to do anything drastic to affect my custom tunes. I've read on some forums that the Gotts intake shouldn't be done on 2004+ models?? What's your opinion? Also, what about the Airaid Jr. Modular Intake Tube? Would the MIT cause enough difference in air flow to cause the need for re-calibration? The MIT is relatively inexpensive compared to the other CAI systems. It looks nice and clean too. Opinions anyone???

Here's something interesting too. I took the intake tube off, and sure enough the snorkel is only 2" wide into the fender. I also noticed 6 small holes drilled into the intake tube near the snorkel. Each Helmholtz resonator had a hole drilled in the bottom as well. I'm guessing this is to assist in airflow at WOT????? I bet this is where the occasional air intake whistle comes from when starting in cold weather. The holes would seem to defeat the purpose of bringing in cold air from the fender. Hmmmmm.......