Cold Air Intake?

pbmboy · August 31, 2011

Hi I am looking to buy a cold air intake, I had a 05 chev colorado with a K&N FIPK intake on it and it gave mev an extra 25kms per tank plus alot of extra acceleration.

I have a 2011 gmc sierra with the 4.8 V* in it and was wondering what intake to buy< and if its worth it...keeping in mind that im poor aswell haha

Stevens03 · August 31, 2011

If your doing it for mileage, then no. The stock intakes flow pretty well.

If your doing for a little better throttle response and the aggressive growl then I'd suggest S&B Filters or Volant since both are true cold air intakes.

Carder09 · August 31, 2011

What Stevens11 said is correct they are good c/a intakes. If your looking for cheap then go with spectre intakes. They have worked well for me and are cost effective.

RockySierra · August 31, 2011

Nothing wrong with going with another K&N, they've been around the longest and have the best technology. As long as you strictly following the instructions on cleaning and when to clean, you should have no issues.

blackout07 · September 1, 2011

Keep your money.

pistonslap · September 4, 2011

+1

(This is from a well known tuners web page)

Decrease AIR for better mileage!! This flies in the face of what is sold out there today, but if you can decrease the amount of air entering the engine (due to the fact that this is a closed loop system as of 1996 OBD2) you will use less fuel, too. Ideally, you want to maintain the same horsepower required to combat air friction, rolling mass losses, etc...but do it with LESS AIR !!

Let me illustrate. A closed loop system maintains the air fuel ratio at 14.7 lbs air to 1 lb of fuel. This is maintained for idle, cruise and in some cases, even at wide open throttle.

If you have 60 grams/sec air entering the engine at cruise, you're using 4.08 grams of fuel per second. If the cylinder pressures are increased without creating harmful exhaust byproducts, or if these byproducts are controlled by the catalytic converter, we can gain mileage by decreasing airflow through the engine while enhancing the spark curve to maintain the same rear wheel HP.

On the chassis dyno, we can get vehicles down to 45-50 grams air/sec maintaining the same air fuel ratio, and same wheel HP as stock--and the overall result is less fuel consumed ! 45 g/secs works out to 3.06 g/fuel used in the same time period--or an almost 25% saving. We can't gain this in all vehicles of course--this example was resultant data from a 2007 6.0L HD 3500 GM truck.

This flies in the face of every aftermarket product out there claiming that it saves fuel--you will never gain mileage by increasing airflow through a gasoline engine in a mass airflow type system.

Because we carefully remap the spark curve with a remapped ECU, we in effect are increasing cylinder pressure without adding fuel. Increased cylinder pressure translates into more useable torque and power to maintain the power required for 'rolling resistance' of the vehicle down the road. The increase in horsepower often results in better fuel economy--although we do not guarantee mileage gains--as we cannot determine how YOU drive, and what your driving habits are.

Diesels are a different story...we need to stuff as much air in the cylinder as possible--and create maximum cylinder pressure at diesel injection point, use all the heat energy created to maximize pressure while keeping the total combustion event in the cylinder prior to exhaust valve opening. Smoke is wasted energy...in reality, diesels can actually run as low as 100lbs of air to 1 lb of fuel--although there's not enough heat energy created at that ratio. There's no magic air fuel ratio for diesel--leaner operation does not create damage, it just won't make power.

Therefore, you need a balance of fuel, best boost and proper timing to make the diesel efficient.

MikeNH · September 4, 2011

Keep your money.

This. All intakes will do on a GMT900 is make more noise and give you a filter that doesn't filter as good as the stock one.

MikeNH · November 11, 2011

You won't see much, if any HP gain. If there is any gain, it will be at the top end where you'll never notice it anyway. The open-element ones will be louder compared to ones like the Volant that still have an enclosure. You'll spend a few hundred bucks for more noise, little else.

tyhuck · November 11, 2011

And the cheap ones that are made of thin aluminum tubing and some cheap hose clamps have a tendency to vibrate loose. Since it hapens under the hood, you may drive for several miles, or several hundred miles befoer you noticethat your filter is disconnected. Ide rather have a slightly lighter wallet and a little extra piece of mind.

But, having wasted money on intakes on every vehicle Ive had since HS (including the one Im driving now even though everyone on the site said it wouldnt help everyday driving), I wont be buying another one. Just save your money unless the sound and appearance of a CAI is important to you. Iv actually concidered selling mine just to get some of the money back.

elcamino · November 12, 2011

CAI are just eye food and big profits for those that sell them. They will not increase mileage and any hp gain is minimal at best and will only appear at top end.

http://www.fuelecono..._02_26_2009.pdf

Prepared by

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6283

managed by

UT-BATTELLE, LLC

for the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725

4.1 CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this study was to explore the effects of a clogged air filter on the fuel economy of vehicles operating over prescribed test cycles. Three newer vehicles (a 2007 Buick Lucerne, a 2006 Dodge Charger, and a 2003 Toyota Camry) and an older carbureted vehicle were tested.

Results show that clogging the air filter has no significant effect on the fuel economy of the newer vehicles (all fuel injected with closed-loop control and one equipped with MDS). The engine control systems were able to maintain the desired AFR regardless of intake restrictions, and therefore fuel consumption was not increased. The carbureted engine did show a decrease in fuel economy with increasing restriction. However, the level of restriction required to cause a substantial (10–15%) decrease in fuel economy (such as that cited in the literature3,4) was so severe that the vehicle was almost undrivable. Acceleration performance on all vehicles was improved with a clean air filter.

Once it was determined how severe the restriction had to be to affect the carbureted vehicle fuel economy, the 2007 Buick Lucerne was retested in a similar manner. We were not able to achieve the level of restriction that was achieved with the 1972 Pontiac with the Lucerne. The Lucerne’s air filter box would not hold the filter in place under such severe conditions. (It is believed that this testing exceeded the design limits of the air box.) Tests were conducted at a lower restriction level (although still considerably more severe than the initial clogged filter testing), allowing the air filter to stay seated in the air box, and no significant change was observed in the Lucerne’s fuel economy or the AFR over the HFET cycle.

Closed-loop control in modern fuel injected vehicle applications is sophisticated enough to keep a clogged air filter from affecting the vehicle fuel economy. However for older, open-loop, carbureted vehicles, a clogged air filter can affect the fuel economy. For the vehicle tested, the fuel economy with a new air filter improved as much as 14% over that with a severely clogged filter (in which the filter was so clogged that drivability was impacted). Under a more typical state of clog, the improvement with a new filter ranged from 2 to 6%.

Jennabear · November 12, 2011

CAIs can be a good mod, if properly tuned. The stock tuning does not account for the extra airflow.

Jennabear · November 12, 2011

+1

(This is from a well known tuners web page)

Decrease AIR for better mileage!! This flies in the face of what is sold out there today, but if you can decrease the amount of air entering the engine (due to the fact that this is a closed loop system as of 1996 OBD2) you will use less fuel, too. Ideally, you want to maintain the same horsepower required to combat air friction, rolling mass losses, etc...but do it with LESS AIR !!

Let me illustrate. A closed loop system maintains the air fuel ratio at 14.7 lbs air to 1 lb of fuel. This is maintained for idle, cruise and in some cases, even at wide open throttle.

If you have 60 grams/sec air entering the engine at cruise, you're using 4.08 grams of fuel per second. If the cylinder pressures are increased without creating harmful exhaust byproducts, or if these byproducts are controlled by the catalytic converter, we can gain mileage by decreasing airflow through the engine while enhancing the spark curve to maintain the same rear wheel HP.

On the chassis dyno, we can get vehicles down to 45-50 grams air/sec maintaining the same air fuel ratio, and same wheel HP as stock--and the overall result is less fuel consumed ! 45 g/secs works out to 3.06 g/fuel used in the same time period--or an almost 25% saving. We can't gain this in all vehicles of course--this example was resultant data from a 2007 6.0L HD 3500 GM truck.

This flies in the face of every aftermarket product out there claiming that it saves fuel--you will never gain mileage by increasing airflow through a gasoline engine in a mass airflow type system.

Because we carefully remap the spark curve with a remapped ECU, we in effect are increasing cylinder pressure without adding fuel. Increased cylinder pressure translates into more useable torque and power to maintain the power required for 'rolling resistance' of the vehicle down the road. The increase in horsepower often results in better fuel economy--although we do not guarantee mileage gains--as we cannot determine how YOU drive, and what your driving habits are.

Diesels are a different story...we need to stuff as much air in the cylinder as possible--and create maximum cylinder pressure at diesel injection point, use all the heat energy created to maximize pressure while keeping the total combustion event in the cylinder prior to exhaust valve opening. Smoke is wasted energy...in reality, diesels can actually run as low as 100lbs of air to 1 lb of fuel--although there's not enough heat energy created at that ratio. There's no magic air fuel ratio for diesel--leaner operation does not create damage, it just won't make power.

Therefore, you need a balance of fuel, best boost and proper timing to make the diesel efficient.

That is absolutely correct, however, this relates to optimizing engine efficiency and has nothing to do with a CAI. Greater power output per air used equals, less throttle needed to maintain speed and accelerate, thus, lower air flow needs.

Air flow is directly proportional to fuel flow and horsepower. More air you ingest, the greater horsepower potential.

A CAI, specifically a replacement tube, improves airflow potential, especially at higher RPM.

fajitas21 · November 17, 2011

Ha. I always love how someone goes through all the trouble of using scientific fact to prove a point, and the next couple posts are typically something like, "Well my friend did it and got 2MPG more per tank and it is faster too!".

Every time....

Take that science!

Just to be clear I'm not bashing or calling anyone out, I'm just waiting for these posts to appear soon.

elcamino · November 17, 2011

It amazing how many supposedly smart people think that just changing the air filter or the air filter box on a gasoline engine controlled by a computer is going to increase mileage. It defies logic because the computer (PCM) controls the air (at a fixed air to fuel ratio) not the air filter. Its only cleans the air and that is the MOST important thing on the engine.

The makers of these filters and devices love all the misinformation about mileage as many people read about someone getting better mileage with x-filter or X-CAI and run an buy one on hearsay.

ifshinxs · December 3, 2011

+1

(This is from a well known tuners web page)

Decrease AIR for better mileage!! This flies in the face of what is sold out there today, but if you can decrease the amount of air entering the engine (due to the fact that this is a closed loop system as of 1996 OBD2) you will use less fuel, too. Ideally, you want to maintain the same horsepower required to combat air friction, rolling mass losses, etc...but do it with LESS AIR !!

Let me illustrate. A closed loop system maintains the air fuel ratio at 14.7 lbs air to 1 lb of fuel. This is maintained for idle, cruise and in some cases, even at wide open throttle.

If you have 60 grams/sec air entering the engine at cruise, you're using 4.08 grams of fuel per second. If the cylinder pressures are increased without creating harmful exhaust byproducts, or if these byproducts are controlled by the catalytic converter, we can gain mileage by decreasing airflow through the engine while enhancing the spark curve to maintain the same rear wheel HP.

On the chassis dyno, we can get vehicles down to 45-50 grams air/sec maintaining the same air fuel ratio, and same wheel HP as stock--and the overall result is less fuel consumed ! 45 g/secs works out to 3.06 g/fuel used in the same time period--or an almost 25% saving. We can't gain this in all vehicles of course--this example was resultant data from a 2007 6.0L HD 3500 GM truck.

This flies in the face of every aftermarket product out there claiming that it saves fuel--you will never gain mileage by increasing airflow through a gasoline engine in a mass airflow type system.

Because we carefully remap the spark curve with a remapped ECU, we in effect are increasing cylinder pressure without adding fuel. Increased cylinder pressure translates into more useable torque and power to maintain the power required for 'rolling resistance' of the vehicle down the road. The increase in horsepower often results in better fuel economy--although we do not guarantee mileage gains--as we cannot determine how YOU drive, and what your driving habits are.

Diesels are a different story...we need to stuff as much air in the cylinder as possible--and create maximum cylinder pressure at diesel injection point, use all the heat energy created to maximize pressure while keeping the total combustion event in the cylinder prior to exhaust valve opening. Smoke is wasted energy...in reality, diesels can actually run as low as 100lbs of air to 1 lb of fuel--although there's not enough heat energy created at that ratio. There's no magic air fuel ratio for diesel--leaner operation does not create damage, it just won't make power.

Therefore, you need a balance of fuel, best boost and proper timing to make the diesel efficient.

That is absolutely correct, however, this relates to optimizing engine efficiency and has nothing to do with a CAI. Greater power output per air used equals, less throttle needed to maintain speed and accelerate, thus, lower air flow needs.

Air flow is directly proportional to fuel flow and horsepower. More air you ingest, the greater horsepower potential.

A CAI, specifically a replacement tube, improves airflow potential, especially at higher RPM.

+1

And that formula will never change..Engines are air pumps..The more air they pump the more horse power they will produce..CAI and a free flowing exhaust with a proper tune will yield more HP. Back in the day a nicely built Big Block and an 850 Double pumper and I was good to go. Now we need a computer to do what we used to do by ear and a timing light..