2014+ Intakes (CAI) & Air Filters

[Sierra Dan]

Anyone here tried out a SPECTRE cold air system.

Seems basic enough to get the job done at $155 complete.

No enclosed box though. They also have a filter similar to a K&N for half the price.

[BigBlueLB756]

The  BBP 6.2 DI intake tests:

http://blackbearperformance.com/IntakeTestResults_2016.asp

[jimmyboy8301]

The  BBP 6.2 DI intake tests:
http://blackbearperformance.com/IntakeTestResults_2016.asp

Hennessy found 72hp MORE STOCK.........

291 seems INSANELY low , Hennessy got 363


2017 Chevy Silverado LTZ Z71 6.2L
4.5" Zone w/ Bilstein and Fox
22x10 American Force Grips
33x12.5 Nitto Ridge Grapplers
Instagram @wildchevys

[BigBlueLB756]

Comparing intake tests from different testers is as reliable as comparing dyno tests.  WAY too many variables, especially when the test comes from a manufacturer interested in promoting his particular product.

[NemesisC5]

19 hours ago, Crobinson16 said:

Not sure who you posted this for ? In reguards to the 2014 + 6.2 nothing really. That would have been the older design as well?  

Posted to ask BBP why GMT 900 platform with a 5.3L V8 using Airaid Jr. Kit with MIT and Filter only show to be the top performer according to their dyno results, however the next Gen 6.2L V8 showed zero gains with MIT tube only? The airbox appears to be the same or very close, does the 6.2L V8 not produce improved numbers because lack of the air filter only or was the factory air box modified in original tests with 5.3L V8? If so it seems modding the air box along with better flowing filter in my 2017 6.2L V8 should produce gains somewhere in line with complete systems in 2016 (latest) CAI comparison. Again, in 2016 CAI results the MIT tube only showed little to no gain so it appears 95%+ of gains are from improved air boxes and low restriction filters. Unless BPP has data of others factors to consider regarding their 2016 results it would make sense that either one of the air box/filter combinations from the tests or modified oem air box with high flowing drop in filter would be obvious choice providing the best value.

 

Compare results from the attachment in my post you quoted with results from original test to results from 2016 testing in link below and you'll see why I'm asking. I don't like the extra noise from the aftermarket tubes and although they clean up appearance of engine bay I rarely open my hood so that is not high on of my list of priorities. Power gains, lower noise and best value are my primary interests.   

 

http://blackbearperformance.com/IntakeTestResults_2016.asp

 

 

[Crobinson16]

 I see what your getting at. Although I'm not sure my point is clear. I realize bbp did the test on the 2016 6.2 l with the Airaid MIT and filter. Since then Airaid has redesigned the MIT tube for the 6.2 and I wonder if it now may be better then the previous version tested by BBP on the 6.2.

[jimmyboy8301]

23 minutes ago, Crobinson16 said:

 I see what your getting at. Although I'm not sure my point is clear. I realize bbp did the test on the 2016 6.2 l with the Airaid MIT and filter. Since then Airaid has redesigned the MIT tube for the 6.2 and I wonder if it now may be better then the previous version tested by BBP on the 6.2.

this is true, but the only difference is slightly less of a bend before going into the intake. i can't see that small of a bend being that much of an increase (airaid claims 6hp for the new design). there's no rating from airaid on the old design

 

https://www.airaid.com/search/product.aspx?prod=201-711

(according to airaid fits '14-15')

 

https://www.airaid.com/search/product.aspx?prod=201-751

(according to airaid fits '17-'18) 

 

what i think happened is on the GMT-900 trucks the MIT was a HUGE seller (thanks in part to the initial test BBP did years ago showing the gains from something so simple)  and that when BBP posted the results of the new test showing little/no gains with the MIT Airaid lost a lot of sales and money from the forums. I think AIRAID decided to make a small change in the design and do their own dyno test in order to gain back sales, hence the new design. AFAIK there was literally NO change in the 6.2L from 2014-2018 requiring any change in the tube. Also if you put in a 2016 6.2L on Airaid's site there's no part number for the MIT at all. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by jimmyboy8301

[Crobinson16]

That's correct, you have to look up the new Jr kit for say a 2018 Silverado or similar, and you can see the part number for just the tube. I called them about just ordering a MIT kit with out a filter like they used to offer. They currently don't have a kit persay without a filter . However they were willing to sell you the individual parts. 

[jimmyboy8301]

Would love to know what the results are for redesigned 2017/18 Jr kit with dry filter

I said it, 6hp gain..........


2017 Chevy Silverado LTZ Z71 6.2L
4.5" Zone w/ Bilstein and Fox
22x10 American Force Grips
33x12.5 Nitto Ridge Grapplers
Instagram @wildchevys

[NemesisC5]

I see differences in the tests now that likely explain results. The original test was completed with Airaid Jr Kit, including tube and oiled filter. The most recent test was done with MIT "tube only".  This would imply recent test showed zero gains because the gains likely were from oiled high flow filter, similar to claims by K&N and other filter manufacturers. This seems to be backed up by jimmyboy8301 findings on Airaid website (with associated dyno chart) showing gains of 6hp gain utilizing more recent synthetic "dry filter". In summary, if part number and picture are correct on BPP website they tested MIT tube only this time where original test consisted of Airaid Jr Kit with tube and high flow filter.....not exactly apples to apples. As pointed out by Crobinson16 the MIT has been redesigned however the change appears minimal and nothing likely to yield gains. The 6hp gain likely achieved by high flow dry filter, in line with claims from other manufacturers regarding their high flow drop in filters. 

 

I noticed the S&B CAI was not tested (disqualified) due to removal of factory component which I assume is the metal mounting bracket the air box assembly rests on. The S&B looks to have the largest sealed box with large round filter.

[Austin66]

You shouldn't even bother comparing BBPs two dyno tests on the Jr.  Way too many variables at play here and I'm not even talking about the filter element.

 

You have to take the metal mounting bracket out for the Volant box so I doubt thats what he disqual'd them on but I am curious to know too.  I think the S&B has the best overall design just by looking at it mainly because you can shoehorn the biggest conical filter in there.  It also doesn't have that ridiculous bell-shaped transition trying to increase pressure/airflow before tapering to the TB  (AFE doesn't have it either).  What I don't like about it or any of the enclosed CAI styles is the stupid clear window lid.  Thats a noise/vibration maker.  I cut an 1/8 thick aluminum piece for my Volant lid and smeared sound deadening mat material on it and it improved noise/vibration significantly.  I was going to make a thread on what I did to quiet my Volant down but got some idiot comment right out of the gates in this thread so I thought why bother.

[NemesisC5]

Has anyone performed autopsy of oem air intake tract?

It contains some sort of baffling technology to eliminate noise and I was curious as to the air path and amount of restriction. 

 

 

This piece 

 

 

  

[BigBlueLB756]

More food to chew on:

https://nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

[2018GMC]

Thoughts on the banks CAI?

 

https://www.bankspowerproducts.com/Banks-Products-for-2014-2017-Chevy-GMC-Gas-Trucks-s/235.htm

[Efrizz16]

Anyone running the K&N black series CAI? Do you like it? Looking for an easy install and removal for service plan purposes.