Jump to content

2014+ Intakes (CAI) & Air Filters

GMC-AT

By GMC-AT
in Engines & Drivetrain

 Share

Recommended Posts

Greco Enthusiast

Greco

Posted
Posted

You could always go with a Spectre kit, they are good (my father in law has one and loves it) and they're affordable as well.

It's about the same price as an airaid MIT and is an open element so its a little louder.

 

Yeah, I was looking at Spectre. They have the whole kit at Auto Zone right by my house. I'll figure something out.

  • 1 month later...
  • 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

  • 2 weeks later...
Almboss Enthusiast

Almboss

Posted
Posted

Has any one here made there own? Was looking through here and thought I could just make my own box out of stainless or aluminum and run stainless tubing over to the Tb. Buy a maf adaptor and one of those boots for the Tb.

NemesisC5 Enthusiast

NemesisC5

Posted
Posted

Stock airbox is well designed, opening is generous in fender and has cold air.

 

Only thing replacement box will do is make more noise....JMHO

 

I believe this will be backed up by Black Bears results coming soon in their thread

Is the opening similar to what many did to modify stock airbox at inner fender union?

 

 

Baffling in the fender must be different as this setup on the '17 is quieter than it was on my '11, but pleasingly so.

no drivability issues at all, weld in Magnaflow muff next

From my 2011 Silverado 1500 6.2 I kept my MIT but left the K&N installed. As a personal preference I didn't like the extra noise on my 2011 however I did open up the end of stock airbox and inner fender to match. Based on your post I will install the MIT on my 2017 Silverado 6.2 and purchase a new K&N down at the local auto store.

powerhaulic Enthusiast

powerhaulic

Posted
Posted

Is the opening similar to what many did to modify stock airbox at inner fender union?

 

 

From my 2011 Silverado 1500 6.2 I kept my MIT but left the K&N installed. As a personal preference I didn't like the extra noise on my 2011 however I did open up the end of stock airbox and inner fender to match. Based on your post I will install the MIT on my 2017 Silverado 6.2 and purchase a new K&N down at the local auto store.

Much less less noise with the '17

I did not modify either opening in either truck

check my post on mods needed to use the '11 tube on the '17

  • Like 1
jjkukla Enthusiast

jjkukla

Posted
Posted

So I just installed the MIT on my 2016 5.3 I went for the initial test drive and it has severely reduced power and acceleration. The SLIGHT touch of throttle and it downshifts. Is this part of a relearn or is something else up?

Not to completely resurrect an old problem, but for future reference it is possible that during installation of new components that the MAF sensor got dirty. Many moons ago I replaced stock air intake on my Mustang and the results were terrible - it was like the car wanted to stall. Took a lint-free cloth and rubbing alcohol to the MAF and was smooth sailing after that.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

 

  • Like 2
tyrich88 Enthusiast

tyrich88

Posted
Posted

The stock filter is not a restriction (provided it is clean), you can run it with a supercharger. There would be no difference.

Strange, seems like the main difference in the full kit and the MIT is only the filter set up. Open element w/ high flow filter vs stock box with high flow filter. So essentially the open element with their high flow cone filter makes all the difference?

Amuro Enthusiast

Amuro

Posted
Posted (edited)

So from the results AFE intake makes the most gains out of the rest that were tested? I would have thought a open intake like the K&N Blackhawk would make more.

Edited by Amuro
.justin. Enthusiast

.justin.

Posted
Posted

Strange, seems like the main difference in the full kit and the MIT is only the filter set up. Open element w/ high flow filter vs stock box with high flow filter. So essentially the open element with their high flow cone filter makes all the difference?

 

The shape of the tube itself is different on the MIT vs the full kit on the DI engines. I would expect that plays a role in the results as well.

 

So from the results AFE intake makes the most gains out of the rest that were tested? I would have thought a open intake like the K&N Blackhawk would make more.

 

Just suggests that the shape of the box(es) permit more than enough airflow around the filter than the engine can consume.

  • 4 weeks later...
99-ls1-ss Enthusiast

99-ls1-ss

Posted
Posted

Has anyone tried the Chevy Performance Air Intake?

Here is the site.
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/silverado-parts.html

Here is what they claim.

P/N 84016022 (Performance Air Intake—2014-2016 Silverado 1500,
Tahoe, and Suburban with 5.3L V8) / MSRP: $550†
Upgrade the performance and look of your truck with the Chevrolet Performance air intake. This system reduces air intake restriction by up to 15% and looks great under the hood. It’s available for 5.3L applications. Rigorously tested to GM standards for durability, corrosion, and performance.

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   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,260 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • 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. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...