Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Check out the Airaid MIT. The truck already has a CAI, you just need the tube and a lower restriction filter to get the same benefits as a $300 CAI. Any HP or MPG gains are marginal at best though. If you check the data, most CAI "performance improvements" happen at 5,000 rpm or above.

  • Like 1
  • 3 months later...
Posted

I saw a video on the airaid air filter system and it looked pretty cool. I don't know much about this so I was wondering..

 

What are the benefits if any?

Which is the best, airaid, KN or another?

Will it void my warranty?

Posted

Zero benefit other than not having to replace a paper filter every 24K. Most dry oil filters actually let larger particulates in the engine....IMO these products are snake oil and the benefits are nothing more than a placebo effect

  • Like 7
Posted

Steve you obviously have been drinking the juice from what other people have said. I did back to back test on a dyno on the same day with the stock setup and a airaid setup on my Vette, 6 runs total and all runs showed the Airaid picked up 8rwhp on average. Cant see where that is hype and does nothing???

 

I have ran a K&N or some similar brand CAI setup for better part of 15 years and never once had an issue with a oiled or dry filter. Once again that is nothing more than old wives tale of them doing more harm than good as a way to knock down the aftermarket industry and push towards OEM stuff. If they were so bad why does GM now offer CAI kits for the Camaro's as well?

 

To the OP I will be ordering the Airaid CAI kit this week for my truck, on the 5.3 model the trucks showed to pick up 25rwhp. Even if I pick up 10rwhp I will be happy with the extra performance.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

Not drinking any koolaid...plenty of empirical evidence to support my statement. Put your vette up on a Dino and remove the air box completely, and you'll see an even bigger output to the wheels. The point is, very little is gained by a CAI, Checkout bobistheoilguy.com, plenty of discussions there on the cons of any CAI. . Also, food for thought, why wouldn't the manufacturers just throw on a CAI if it improves horsepower? Chances are the long term negative affect outweigh the short term benefit

Edited by Silverado Steve
  • Like 1
Posted

Blackbear did some testing earlier this yr and showed adding a CAI does increase overall power. Some more than others but they are not all hype. The details are in the black ear section feel free to check it out.

 

Cold air inductions (CAI) is a popular brand on the camaro side. Definitely can tell a difference with mine.

 

zesagevu.jpg

 

 

Ryan

  • Like 1
Posted

The main reason why mfgs don't add them is due to the extra noise (albeit very small) and cost.

 

 

Ryan

Posted (edited)

TJ

 

I to have some experience with CAI's and although your system did pick up RWHP, you were also dealing with a completely different setup on your vette. The vette system is out in front of the radiator not sucking in any engine heat, almost a ramair system if you will. Ramair systems are the best, you want the engine pulling in as cool and close to ambient temperature as possible and those systems would do that. Not to mention the faster you go the more air is allowed in and wala more hp.

 

Alot of the CAI systems you see on cars are none other then a pipe connected to a cone in the engine bay. These are the systems that suck in mostly hot air and allow for minimal to no peformance gains (it can actually lose power at a stop because of the higher intake temps and timing being pulled). Many GTO owners saw little to no gains with your standard CAI and there were many people that data logged temps to prove it. Worse can be said for the chrome metal intake pipes, those get hot and in turn your cold air gets heated up in the pipe.

 

The vette has a great intake setup, straight in away from radiant engine heat. That is the reason vararam followed a similar path with their intake systems, shortest coolest route. Many vararam (and home made setups that followed the same logic) would see some hp gains on the dyno but it really showed moving and in the trap speeds (just seeing the IAT's nice and low).

 

Best bet for a working CAI would for it to not be metal, sealed off from the engine to not suck in the heat and even better take fresh air from the front of the truck or car. Other wise you are getting a nice sucking sound but no real performance gains.

 

Not sure if it holds true with the trucks since their engine bay is so large but the same concept would apply. If you aren't into off roading something like this would be best

http://www.vararam.com/tri-power/tri-power.html

 

Take it for what you want but I spent alot of time dealing with the GTO & LS community (vette included) and the same principal applies for all motor vehicles.

 

For those wanting to save a few bucks and are only doing a few minimal bolt on mods, many people would get good results just by removing the stock intake pipe and replacing it with a smooth plastic pipe (the stock pipe is restrictive with all the chambers and rough bends) then drilling in a few holes to get more fresh air from the outside air intakes and using a drop in filter. The stock box setup will provide plenty of flow for minimal to moderate mods, it won't be a choking point.

 

Ya'll have a great christmas.

 

Tyler

 

PS, just seeing some of the posts above while I was typing and it shows many use a sealed off set up which is exaclty what I was pointing at. Nice to see one just replaces the pipe with a new filter and gets similar gains.

 

When were the IAT's taken? I wonder what they were at idle after a minute of idling on a warm truck? I am guessing they were taken during the run?

 

Volant was always pretty good because of it being enclosed, many follow the same principle now.

Edited by amxguy1970
Posted

The main reason why mfgs don't add them is due to the extra noise (albeit very small) and cost.

 

 

Ryan

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, when it comes to any muscle car or v-8 power plant noise engine noise is the last thing any buyer would really care about. The truth is a CAI doesn't filter to the same effect as a paper filter, hence manufactures don't want the added liability. Hence benefit vs cost...the added 8 hp doesn't outweigh the cost of advanced engine wear. If your truck sees it's days in a field or dusty road, that's significant vs a muscle car on a road, drag strip or track.

Posted

You can have gains just by replacing the intake tube and sticking with stock air box

Posted

^^ This. In BlackBear's test the MIT did really well. I have just the tube on my 2006 with the stock air box. AFE Pro Dry is a good filter you can replace the stock one with.

Posted (edited)

I saw 11rwhp gain with a CAI with my Cobra Mustang. They are not hype.... They do add HP. Where you see the benifits; if your looking at it from a performance state of mind, a CAI and a tune will net you the most HP.

 

I don't see why a CAI wouldn't add HP to these trucks too.

Edited by haider320
Posted

TJ

 

I to have some experience with CAI's and although your system did pick up RWHP, you were also dealing with a completely different setup on your vette. The vette system is out in front of the radiator not sucking in any engine heat, almost a ramair system if you will. Ramair systems are the best, you want the engine pulling in as cool and close to ambient temperature as possible and those systems would do that. Not to mention the faster you go the more air is allowed in and wala more hp.

 

Alot of the CAI systems you see on cars are none other then a pipe connected to a cone in the engine bay. These are the systems that suck in mostly hot air and allow for minimal to no peformance gains (it can actually lose power at a stop because of the higher intake temps and timing being pulled). Many GTO owners saw little to no gains with your standard CAI and there were many people that data logged temps to prove it. Worse can be said for the chrome metal intake pipes, those get hot and in turn your cold air gets heated up in the pipe.

 

The vette has a great intake setup, straight in away from radiant engine heat. That is the reason vararam followed a similar path with their intake systems, shortest coolest route. Many vararam (and home made setups that followed the same logic) would see some hp gains on the dyno but it really showed moving and in the trap speeds (just seeing the IAT's nice and low).

 

Best bet for a working CAI would for it to not be metal, sealed off from the engine to not suck in the heat and even better take fresh air from the front of the truck or car. Other wise you are getting a nice sucking sound but no real performance gains.

 

Not sure if it holds true with the trucks since their engine bay is so large but the same concept would apply. If you aren't into off roading something like this would be best

http://www.vararam.com/tri-power/tri-power.html

 

Take it for what you want but I spent alot of time dealing with the GTO & LS community (vette included) and the same principal applies for all motor vehicles.

 

For those wanting to save a few bucks and are only doing a few minimal bolt on mods, many people would get good results just by removing the stock intake pipe and replacing it with a smooth plastic pipe (the stock pipe is restrictive with all the chambers and rough bends) then drilling in a few holes to get more fresh air from the outside air intakes and using a drop in filter. The stock box setup will provide plenty of flow for minimal to moderate mods, it won't be a choking point.

 

Ya'll have a great christmas.

 

Tyler

 

PS, just seeing some of the posts above while I was typing and it shows many use a sealed off set up which is exaclty what I was pointing at. Nice to see one just replaces the pipe with a new filter and gets similar gains.

 

When were the IAT's taken? I wonder what they were at idle after a minute of idling on a warm truck? I am guessing they were taken during the run?

 

Volant was always pretty good because of it being enclosed, many follow the same principle now.

 

Actually the Vette is no where near a ram air setup, it is completely sealed off and the air filter sits right on top of the radiator. Only way to even remotely get a "ram air" eccect is to cut open the lower air damn which most wont do in case of running thru water.

 

 

 

Not drinking any koolaid...plenty of empirical evidence to support my statement. Put your vette up on a Dino and remove the air box completely, and you'll see an even bigger output to the wheels. The point is, very little is gained by a CAI, Checkout bobistheoilguy.com, plenty of discussions there on the cons of any CAI. . Also, food for thought, why wouldn't the manufacturers just throw on a CAI if it improves horsepower? Chances are the long term negative affect outweigh the short term benefit

 

Coming from an engineering standpoint, lots of reason as to why GM wont put one on from the factory. NVH test, CARB/CAFE requirements, and every engine setup has to be tested and ran thru EPA testing process to get certified before the engine can be release for production. That all is factored into the cost of production. Why would GM or any other manufacture spend the money when the aftermarket can do it a lot cheaper?

 

 

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, when it comes to any muscle car or v-8 power plant noise engine noise is the last thing any buyer would really care about. The truth is a CAI doesn't filter to the same effect as a paper filter, hence manufactures don't want the added liability. Hence benefit vs cost...the added 8 hp doesn't outweigh the cost of advanced engine wear. If your truck sees it's days in a field or dusty road, that's significant vs a muscle car on a road, drag strip or track.

 

I have yet to ever see any advanced engine wear, I have owned several cars over the 100,000 mile range that had K&N style filters on them with no issues, dad has a 1996 Yukon that's had a K&N filter on it since new and has 500,000 miles on it. Combustion temps are well over 2000° degrees, I highly doubt any small specs of dirt cause any issues at all.

 

 

I saw 11rwhp gain with a CAI with my Cobra Mustang. They are not hype.... They do add HP. Where you see the benifits; if your looking at it from a performance state of mind, a CAI and a tune will net you the most HP.

 

I don't see why a CAI wouldn't add HP to these trucks too.

 

I am with you, pretty sure I will know in the next week or so once mine comes in. Airaid doesn't have a MIT tube yet and for the hook up I am getting on the whole kit I will just use the kit instead.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...