Power Hungry Performance Forum  

Go Back   Power Hungry Performance Forum > Ford F-150, Expedition, Navigator, Blackwood, Mark-LT, SVT Lightning and H-D Editions (Disabled) > 2004 to 2008 F-150 and Mark-LT

2004 to 2008 F-150 and Mark-LT
4.2L, 4.6L and 5.4L equipped F-150s and Mark-LTs.


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old Wed, March 25th, 2009, 02:01 PM
Jim Allen Jim Allen is offline
Double Whopper
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 30
Jim Allen is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyv13 View Post
I have datalogged many hours of intake air temps with turbo vehicles comparing different intake configurations. One thing I noted, the metal intake tubes almost ALWAYS had a higher intake air temp than plastic intake tubes, in the engine bay or not, regardless of filter or intake routing.
I agree, but what I was saying it isn't a significant amount in the context of an F150. You really are comparing apple to oranges when juxtaposing a turbocharged race engine with a work-a-day F-150 with a few mild mods. Five to ten degrees, even 15 degrees, is really insignificant on a street vehicle and, according to the informed people I have discussed this with, that's the differences we are talking about between plastic and metal. What little info I gathered in a previous search project seemed to bear this out, however, I'm always willing to review contrary data and change my mind!!! FWIW, the metal-tubed AEM I have installed now delivers about 6 degrees cooler IAT than the stock system, as measured by the Gryphon, via the IAT sensor. I doubt that small amount is doing anything much but it's somewhat noteworthy in this discussion, at least.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyv13 View Post
I wonder how a K&N compares to the AEM and stock filter? My stock filter needs replacing and I'm curious if I should get a K&N or a motorcraft? I didn't like the flexibility of the downspout connector and it sounds as if it may be detrimental to the flow if it collapses, so something else is going to go there.
I was long a K&N (or oiled cotton gauze- OCG) guy, but no more. I'm not satisfied the questions about filtering ability have been properly answered... yet... and I proved the (lack of) filtering issues to myself in one situation. On a street vehicle in a clean atmosphere, these may not be serious issues, but my trucks live in dirty environments. When I put a dab of grease on the clean side of the intake on my late-great trail rig (the Bum-V) and it's gritty in 6K miles on the street and trail, it's time for a change! I installed a tractor filter & housing from a 600ci tractor, with a synthetic/cleanable element and a cyclonic feature. But I'd rather have a little less clean air than more dirty air. Plus I get nervous when people start arguing about how much dirt is insignificant.

The AEM, and some others, are significantly better at filtering ability than an OCG design, which are typically at the bottom of that Totem pole... and OCGs rely heavily on the person who cleans and oils them to do it correctly. Other OCG filter naysayers mention the over-oiling/fouled MAF sensor issues, but I think those concerns may be somewhat overstated (and subject to the person applying the oil). I'd run the Motorcraft or the AEM. When we tested the main airbox alone, (#4 & 5) I think that showed the true airflow difference between those filters was minimal. I like the idea of a filter I can clean and run forever, but one that can catch stuff smaller than gravel.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:28 AM.


All Contents Copyright 2008-2024, Power Hungry Performance