Jump to content

2014+ Intakes (CAI) & Air Filters

GMC-AT

By GMC-AT
in Engines & Drivetrain

 Share

Recommended Posts

Btreyu09 Enthusiast

Btreyu09

Posted
Posted

I did a little bit of searching and couldn't find it what's the difference between the Volant 155536 and the 15553?

  • Replies 915
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Silverado Steve
Silverado Steve

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 no

russ9443
russ9443

Installed an S&B tonight. Install was easy. The air box is a bit bigger than stock, rests pretty close to the headlight plug. Have the butt dyno scheduled for tomorrow:).       Sent from

newdude
newdude

4 dealers left in the US that show stock for the GM one for 2017.  P/N 84533096   ALEXANDER CHEVROLET- GMC - BUICK (DICKSON, TN)   HERITAGE BUICK-PONTIAC-GMC (ROCKWALL, TX)

Posted Images

Flt23 Enthusiast

Flt23

Posted
Posted

I did a little bit of searching and couldn't find it what's the difference between the Volant 155536 and the 15553?

I believe the filter element is the difference. 155536 includes the Powercore filter and the 15553 includes the Pro 5 filter.

liftedSLTsierra Enthusiast

liftedSLTsierra

Posted
Posted

Im still curious if this or any other mod, exhaust, lifts, oversize tires/wheels voids the warranty? I dont think the lift or tires/wheels do, only cause I got it from the dealer with them installed.

 

Do you just have to remove the aftermarket air filter before going to the dealer?

Btreyu09 Enthusiast

Btreyu09

Posted
Posted

Putting a CAI isn't going to void your warranty. The only thing putting exhaust will void is the parts you replaced..

saleen347 Enthusiast

saleen347

Posted
Posted

I am use to exhaust and intake noise, now I just have intake noise...so the answer is yes! it will soon sound like a truck with 420 ponies under the hood.

 

I had the same intake noise when I installed the Volant CAI. I just installed Magnaflow kit # 15269 and the noise is gone. Or at least all I hear now is the sweet sound of exhaust.

losky79 Enthusiast

losky79

Posted
Posted

I have been searching for months for a CAI for the 4.3. Anybody know if they are available yet, I really don't care who the manufacture is.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I have been searching for months for a CAI for the 4.3. Anybody know if they are available yet, I really don't care who the manufacture is.

They come with one from the factory. you could put a drop in k&n or what suits you. You can straiten out the tube behind the air box. But you have cold air now.
  • Like 3
Brock Samson Enthusiast

Brock Samson

Posted
Posted

Any reviews of the K&N 63-3082? I'm looking to get a little more throttle response from a complete stop. I'm not terribly concerned with added a noise. Right now this thing is quiet as a prius.

iCryWheniGoPoop Enthusiast

iCryWheniGoPoop

Posted
Posted (edited)

Any reviews of the K&N 63-3082? I'm looking to get a little more throttle response from a complete stop. I'm not terribly concerned with added a noise. Right now this thing is quiet as a prius.

The K&N will give you no more response & no more HP on these trucks than if you were just to replace the intake tube. It will actually create higher intake temps, and I would also steer away from Oil Type filters with the MAF being so close to the filter housing. Save your money, buy a smoother flowing tube that replaces the boxy looking Intake path muffler that comes on these trucks. Unless you just like the sound, which many do, there will be little if any gains on replacing the factory filter housing and in most cases, you will probably experience negative effects.

 

Just my .02

 

This was edited to clarify no HP gains over just replacing the intake tube vs my original post claiming no HP gains at all. Thank you SooperDave for pointing out my mistake.

Edited by TDT
  • Like 2
Sooperdave Enthusiast

Sooperdave

Posted
Posted

The K&N will give you no more response & no more HP on these trucks. It will actually create higher intake temps, and I would also steer away from Oil Type filters with the MAF being so close to the filter housing. Save your money, buy a smoother flowing tube that replaces the boxy looking Intake path muffler that comes on these trucks. Unless you just like the sound, which many do, there will be little if any gains on replacing the factory filter housing and in most cases, you will probably experience negative effects.

 

Just my .02

My .02 cents....

 

I believe every ounce of the power gained to be true of the dyno chart that was posted by K&N testing the 2014 truck intake. 10rhwp is not a lot but thats a common gain from CAI kits. Is it worth it... depends on whose buying. I was apart of testing several CAI kits(K&N, Airaid, VaraRam, MAC, Steeda and possibly more that i'm forgetting) on domestic applications over the 8 years I worked at a performance shop(gm specialist) and I don't recall one cold air intake not making any gains in power. We did test the infamous "Tornado" piece of crap and that vehicle lost power. Why... cause it was choking the air path. We tested what we sold and we also used on our personal vehicles those that we sold cause they worked. Some might have performed better than others, sure. If given the choice of a metal tube vs plastic tube we always chose the plastic so it did not hold the heat. But when designed properly to draw in only cooler air from outside of the engine bay and is free flowing path why wouldn't it work? Also the oil type filters can be problematic IF not oiled properly(over oiled). There is a method to oiling them and it's quite easy. It's all I've ever used and have never had a problem what so ever. As for doing the tube vs whole intake its just like doing a muffler vs the whole catback. Gain some with partial and even more with a whole system. Just what a person cares to spend their money on. I'll be buying a whole system for sure!

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

My .02 cents....

 

I believe every ounce of the power gained to be true of the dyno chart that was posted by K&N testing the 2014 truck intake. 10rhwp is not a lot but thats a common gain from CAI kits. Is it worth it... depends on whose buying. I was apart of testing several CAI kits(K&N, Airaid, VaraRam, MAC, Steeda and possibly more that i'm forgetting) on domestic applications over the 8 years I worked at a performance shop(gm specialist) and I don't recall one cold air intake not making any gains in power. We did test the infamous "Tornado" piece of crap and that vehicle lost power. Why... cause it was choking the air path. We tested what we sold and we also used on our personal vehicles those that we sold cause they worked. Some might have performed better than others, sure. If given the choice of a metal tube vs plastic tube we always chose the plastic so it did not hold the heat. But when designed properly to draw in only cooler air from outside of the engine bay and is free flowing path why wouldn't it work? Also the oil type filters can be problematic IF not oiled properly(over oiled). There is a method to oiling them and it's quite easy. It's all I've ever used and have never had a problem what so ever. As for doing the tube vs whole intake its just like doing a muffler vs the whole catback. Gain some with partial and even more with a whole system. Just what a person cares to spend their money on. I'll be buying a whole system for sure!

Its hard for me to believe with the HP wars in the last few years that something as simple as the air box that any car or truck co. would have any restriction in air flow. Ten rhwp is a lot. I use to use them too did my share of racing, but I needed more airflow for the increase HP from forced induction. Never saw gains on a stock app. just sound which what I was after.

Sooperdave Enthusiast

Sooperdave

Posted
Posted (edited)

Its hard for me to believe with the HP wars in the last few years that something as simple as the air box that any car or truck co. would have any restriction in air flow. Ten rhwp is a lot. I use to use them too did my share of racing, but I needed more airflow for the increase HP from forced induction. Never saw gains on a stock app. just sound which what I was after.

I hear ya. It just depends on applications. Some are more than others for sure. I don't think K&N would skew their numbers. They have dyno charts on their site that only make 7-8rwhp. LOL They've been in the business for a long time and has always had a good honest rep.

Edited by Sooperdave
TxTruckMan Senior Enthusiast

TxTruckMan

Posted
Posted

I think K&N gains are real (7-10 hp at top of RPM range), but at the expense of filtering performance. If you race, it's probably useful. But how many people race their trucks and NEED 7-10 hp at 5500 RPM? Not many. I don't. I'll take the cleaner air for my engine.

llucas Enthusiast

llucas

Posted
Posted

I just replaced my paper air filter with a K&N oil filter Sunday. Before I was averaging around 18 mpg and after the drop in K&N I am now averaging 20 mpg. Driving habits are still the same. Thought I would share my findings.

soltys Enthusiast

soltys

Posted
Posted

I hear ya. It just depends on applications. Some are more than others for sure. I don't think K&N would skew their numbers. They have dyno charts on their site that only make 7-8rwhp. LOL They've been in the business for a long time and has always had a good honest rep.

 

So Sooper, since you have so much experience with these type of products and by the sounds of things, know a lot of the ins and outs with them, is there one brand that you prefer or find works a little above the rest? If you were to (or have) an intake installed on your truck, which one would you suggest. I know everyone has an opinion, but hearing it from a guy with experience helps a little too.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 504 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      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.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      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. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      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.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...