K & N Cold Air install

[mctred]

Hey everyone just wanted to let you know that I received and installed the K&N Cold Air Intake for the 5.3L.

 

I would say total install was about 45 minutes and it was easy just using the instructions, after installation was complete I started it up and waited for the engine to normalize, I wrapped the peddle a couple of time, no real notice in tone, front or back. I took it down the street and when I turned onto a road I gave it a moderate amount of gas and it did growl, however the increased cab noise was shocking, lucky as soon as you get off the gas it returns to its normal tone. I will tell you that the throttle response is noticed immediately.

 

If you have the means I would recommend it, just need to pair it with a Borla exhaust and I'll be a happy camper.

 

Cheers!

[GulfTango]

I completed my install the other day, with my daughters assistance of course. I am pleased with the new sounds, I have also noticed about 2 mpg better while driving conservatively on the highway than I was getting with stock air box.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mctred]

Have you heard that when you increase the air flow the ECM will increase gas into the piston to keep the mixture correct thus decreasing MPG?

[SouthernSilveradoGuy85]

I completed my install the other day, with my daughters assistance of course. I am pleased with the new sounds, I have also noticed about 2 mpg better while driving conservatively on the highway than I was getting with stock air box. ImageUploadedByTapatalk1437963497.298428.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Have you heard that when you increase the air flow the ECM will increase gas into the piston to keep the mixture correct thus decreasing MPG?

 

 

My MPGs went down by 1-2 when I added the K&N intake on my '98. I didn't drive it like grandpa though. The only time it didn't really effect it was if I drove like I had some sense while on the interstate where it's not stop and go. I got the K&N just to help save money in the long run on paper filters. But, being that the AC Delco filter in my '14 can last 45K miles I'll stick with the stock filter and just put on an Airaid MIT. I read where someone posted that the Airaid MIT tube with the factory filter actually had better flow than the K&N intake kit. I got the Airaid MIT just to clean up the engine bay some and make things more accessible to get to when I need to work on it. I hate the big ass intake box. So the MIT just replaces that box and lets you keep the stock filter box. I'm glad I got just the MIT instead of a full intake kit.

[GulfTango]

I don't doubt that there should be a decrease in mpg, but my last fill up took me from 18 mpg to 20 mpg with similar driving, on PA turnpike at an average speed of 65-70 mph. That is calculated mpg not realtime on the dash. Perhaps just a fluke...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[chuckl1218]

This might be of interest to this discussion from Banks...

"Some people think that once airflow is increased, additional fuel must be added at all times, and that would hurt fuel mileage. This is not the case during normal driving. Increasing airflow means an engine doesn't have to work as hard to overcome pumping losses. In other words, power that was previously consumed by pumping losses will be available to do work after airflow enhancements have been made. Or, looking at this from the economy standpoint, the same amount of work can now be done while consuming less power (fuel). So in effect, what really happens is that during normal driving, fuel consumption required to achieve equal acceleration or cruising speeds will be less than before the flow enhancements were made."

Read more at: http://www.bankspower.com/techarticles/show/12-Airflow-Equals-Fuel-Economy

[ghgmi]

This might be of interest to this discussion from Banks...

"Some people think that once airflow is increased, additional fuel must be added at all times, and that would hurt fuel mileage. This is not the case during normal driving. Increasing airflow means an engine doesn't have to work as hard to overcome pumping losses. In other words, power that was previously consumed by pumping losses will be available to do work after airflow enhancements have been made. Or, looking at this from the economy standpoint, the same amount of work can now be done while consuming less power (fuel). So in effect, what really happens is that during normal driving, fuel consumption required to achieve equal acceleration or cruising speeds will be less than before the flow enhancements were made."

Read more at: http://www.bankspower.com/techarticles/show/12-Airflow-Equals-Fuel-Economy

 

That seems to make a lot of sense. But given the pressure the manufacturers are under to increase gas mileage, why wouldn't they use a less restrictive intake in the first place if it would increase mileage so easily?

[Jordan18]

 

That seems to make a lot of sense. But given the pressure the manufacturers are under to increase gas mileage, why wouldn't they use a less restrictive intake in the first place if it would increase mileage so easily?

 

 

This is always got to me as well. I think it might be a maintenance thing where they don't what to have people to go under the hood too often on their own, this this case having to clean and oil the reusable filters.

[ghgmi]

 

 

This is always got to me as well. I think it might be a maintenance thing where they don't what to have people to go under the hood too often on their own, this this case having to clean and oil the reusable filters.

 

They could use a larger paper filter. My thinking is that, unless you're at WOT, the butterfly valve is restricting your airflow anyways. So the pumping losses remain the same in normal driving, so mileage is not improved with a less restrictive intake. Phrased differently, it's not really less restrictive unless you're WOT.

 

I understand why they don't use oiled filters. There's the maintenance as you note, but also the possibility of getting oil on the MAF sensor.

[SouthernSilveradoGuy85]

This might be of interest to this discussion from Banks...

"Some people think that once airflow is increased, additional fuel must be added at all times, and that would hurt fuel mileage. This is not the case during normal driving. Increasing airflow means an engine doesn't have to work as hard to overcome pumping losses. In other words, power that was previously consumed by pumping losses will be available to do work after airflow enhancements have been made. Or, looking at this from the economy standpoint, the same amount of work can now be done while consuming less power (fuel). So in effect, what really happens is that during normal driving, fuel consumption required to achieve equal acceleration or cruising speeds will be less than before the flow enhancements were made."

Read more at: http://www.bankspower.com/techarticles/show/12-Airflow-Equals-Fuel-Economy

 

But you also have to think about the amount of air that the filter is letting through. The K&N intake kit filter seemed to have more filter element area thus letting more air though.

[chuckl1218]

One of the main items I've read about when looking at less restrictive exhaust and better intake flow is the noise. Most people want an overall quiet vehicle and this weighs in on the picture. Some time ago I owned a Cadillac CTS-V and was especially surprised to see how restrictive that exhaust was. changed it with a Corsa and gas mileage went up as well as noise. Spoke to the engineers and they emphasized the balance between performance (even on a high performance vehicle) and general customer perception - basically there is a wide audience they cater to...

[cev103]

I installed the K&N Blackhawk CAI about a month ago and it definitely feels like the throttle response is better. I saw an increase of roughly 1mpg.

[Kent2500]

My Internet comments.

 

GM/Ford both spend vast amount of research (ie, money) trying to improve MPG on their trucks, but for a few dollars a simple device would provide 1 to 2 MPG improvement. Wow, how could both GM and Ford miss this?

 

The cleaning process uses oil which just puts a nice coating on your mass air sensor.

 

A filter with larger pores to let in more air == more crap into the engine.

 

If in a dusty environment, more filter cleaning required with a filter with larger pores (and hope it is mounted well with no air leaks). If in a clean environment, a paper filter is going to last a long time.

[jay15892]

Cool thing is K&N makes it for both the 5.3 and the 6.2 with an included adapter. When I traded in my 14 5.3 for my 15 6.2 the whole intake swapped right over. Definitely a bigger sound change in the 5.3..

[cev103]

My Internet comments.

 

GM/Ford both spend vast amount of research (ie, money) trying to improve MPG on their trucks, but for a few dollars a simple device would provide 1 to 2 MPG improvement. Wow, how could both GM and Ford miss this?

I failed to see where anyone on here stated that they specifically installed a CAI to increase gas mileage, but rather some made claims that they noticed an increase after an install. On my 2008 Sierra I installed a Volant CAI and had roughly a 1mpg decrease. I went into my install expecting a slight decrease again on my 2015, but to my surprise I had a slight increase.

 

The cleaning process uses oil which just puts a nice coating on your mass air sensor.

 

A filter with larger pores to let in more air == more crap into the engine.

No messy oil coatings on my MAFS, I specifically bought the K&N Blackhawk CAI because it uses an oilless filter. I don't stand on a soap box and pretend to be a self proclaimed gear head so I can not atest the larger pores = more crap debate.