6.2 with afe intake = 36hp!

SILVER SLED · January 26, 2017

Having just installed a MIT and Green drop-in filter on the 5.3 in the Hoe, I've noticed NO additional intake noise at all from this combination. It really makes me wonder what all of that flat black plastic in the stock intake piping does. It was a nice place to lay tools while installing the catch can, though.

Guess I'm just happy with the cleaner under hood looks.

Mine is very loud. I also have a green filter. I also removed the removable portion of the intake box against the inner fender.

FreeAmerican · January 26, 2017

I could hear more with mine as well. Not as much at part throttle, but opened up, yeah I can hear it.

SILVER SLED · January 27, 2017

The fact(s) still remain that a mild cam will give 40-60hp and definitely needs a tune. Gaining 36hp with simlply eliminating an intake restriction would make for a super lean condition. But the data says no tune needed, while lesser hp gains with other intakes need tuning adjustments.

truckguy82 · January 27, 2017

Gaining 36hp with simlply eliminating an intake restriction would make for a super lean condition.

That is completely false. It's 2016 and I don't see a holley double pumper on top of my engine.

For the last 25 years we've had a government mandated "on board diagnostics." Also known as obd1 and soon after obd2. Thats 25 years of vehicles using sensors to meter air and fuel. Included in those sensors is these fancy pants things known as MAP and MAF sensors. They meter the air coming into the engine. Our trucks, and most other modern vehicles use MAF sensors, which stands for mass AIRFLOW sensor. I'll tell you what it does incase the name of the sensor wasn't self explanatory.....it detects airflow coming into the engine.

So more air coming into the engine, means maf sensor detects more air, and it compensates in the most simple explanation by adding fuel.

But you can confuse this sensor, you can let unmetered air get around it, this is why you need to design the intake well. It's also exactly why Blackbear gave us the timing results and the comments regarding the who much tuning it needs.

Can't believe you are bad mouthing blackbear, the test results, and providing your glorious negative opinions throughout this thread without even a hint of basic understanding of how a modern engine operates. From that comment alone all of your opinions are now worthless.

Edited January 27, 2017 by truckguy82

SILVER SLED · January 27, 2017

That is completely false. It's 2016 and I don't see a holley double pumper on top of my engine.

For the last 25 years we've had a government mandated "on board diagnostics." Also known as obd1 and soon after obd2. Thats 25 years of vehicles using sensors to meter air and fuel. Included in those sensors is these fancy pants things known as MAP and MAF sensors. They meter the air coming into the engine. Our trucks, and most other modern vehicles use MAF sensors, which stands for mass AIRFLOW sensor. I'll tell you what it does incase the name of the sensor wasn't self explanatory.....it detects airflow coming into the engine.

So more air coming into the engine, means maf sensor detects more air, and it compensates in the most simple explanation by adding fuel.

But you can confuse this sensor, you can let unmetered air get around it, this is why you need to design the intake well. It's also exactly why Blackbear gave us the timing results and the comments regarding the who much tuning it needs.

Can't believe you are bad mouthing blackbear, the test results, and providing your glorious negative opinions throughout this thread without even a hint of basic understanding of how a modern engine operates. From that comment alone all of your opinions are now worthless.

I am well aware of how engines operate and are regulated. When I had my TBSS, it was the quickest "intake and tune" only TBSS on tbssowners.com, and I made my own intake for it. I simply made an intake setup that eliminated the resonators so it would sound good. It used the stock intake box. I called it the "SLOWHITE" intake, my stage name on there is SLOWHITE, check it out. I made intakes for some local guys and plastered exactly how I did it and what materials I used on the website. I kept the maf sensor in the same exact location. But it needed tuned for the extra air flow coming in. None of the air "got around the maf sensor unmetered" and none of these intakes tested are either, unless the clamp around the throttle body wasn't tight. Stock maf sensors and stock computer programs have limitations. Your suggesting you can put a blower on a vehicle and it not need tune because the maf sensor will make up for the intake volume. Shows how much you really know about vehicles. Some day you'll grow up and realize there's more to know about cars and trucks than what you read on the internet.

truckguy82 · January 27, 2017

I am well aware of how engines operate and are regulated. When I had my TBSS, it was the quickest "intake and tune" only TBSS on tbssowners.com, and I made my own intake for it. I simply made an intake setup that eliminated the resonators so it would sound good. It used the stock intake box. I called it the "SLOWHITE" intake, my stage name on there is SLOWHITE, check it out. I made intakes for some local guys and plastered exactly how I did it and what materials I used on the website. I kept the maf sensor in the same exact location. But it needed tuned for the extra air flow coming in. None of the air "got around the maf sensor unmetered" and none of these intakes tested are either, unless the clamp around the throttle body wasn't tight. Stock maf sensors and stock computer programs have limitations. Your suggesting you can put a blower on a vehicle and it not need tune because the maf sensor will make up for the intake volume. Shows how much you really know about vehicles. Some day you'll grow up and realize there's more to know about cars and trucks than what you read on the internet.

air velocity effects the map sensor, if you throw a 12" pipe on as an intake and screw the maf in, its going to read extremely low because it doesn't know it's in a larger pipe, it's tuned from the factory in a smaller pipe. This is how unmetered air gets past the maf sensor....you don't need to have a leak. This is also why your homebrew intake needed a tune.

Yes they do have limitations, but it can handle an extra 36 hp without positive pressure no problem. You precisely said it will run lean, and means you don't really understand how they work.

SILVER SLED · January 27, 2017

air velocity effects the map sensor, if you throw a 12" pipe on as an intake and screw the maf in, its going to read extremely low because it doesn't know it's in a larger pipe, it's tuned from the factory in a smaller pipe. This is how unmetered air gets past the maf sensor....you don't need to have a leak. This is also why your homebrew intake needed a tune.

Yes they do have limitations, but it can handle an extra 36 hp without positive pressure no problem. You precisely said it will run lean, and means you don't really understand how they work.

Do yo even know what a maf sensor on a TBSS looks like? It's in a housing, and the intake tubes attach on either side of the housing. I used the stock housing. No extra air can get around it. Keep guessing.

Silver ice 6.2 · January 27, 2017

Guys... fellas... can we get along please..I would hate for a moderater to lock this thread... #afe#36hp#ihaveone

TJay74 · January 27, 2017

I think if you add into the comparison these following things, you will find the 40hp variance from the L86 to the LT1.

- The Corvette air filter box is a straight shot, the truck is not and is more restrictive

- The Corvette intake manifold is tuned for high RPM power, not low RPM torque. The shorter runners in the LT1 intake will allow for more air velocity.

- The Corvette exhaust manifold is less restrictive as is the entire exhaust system on the Corvette versus the truck. It is shorter, is a true dual setup and has electronic bypass valves in the mufflers.

- The Corvette tuning calibration on the engine side is different as well than the truck, once again the truck is tuned for stump pulling power down low.

Truckguy82 hit the nail on the head with the MAP vacuum reading.

I also have a 2016 Audi SQ5. 355hp supercharged V6 SUV. Just like my truck I went after the easy mods of the intake tube (Audi uses a baffled tube along with a muffler in the tube to kill out the supercharger whine) and then started looking for a CAI. They were all super expensive ($500+, I guess it is the German tax) and really basic for what you got. Another member noticed that Audi uses the same part # intake air box on another car just with some slight mods to it. So he modded the SQ5 air box to match the higher end performance model and then he trimmed out some stuff to open the air box up.

He then did road testing with A/F measurements and logging the MAP sensor. The SQ5 doesn't use a MAF as it is a speed density fueling system, basically the ECM references MAP, TPS, temperature and selects the fueling cell info for that information. On a MAF system it uses all of those previous sensors plus the MAF to measure the actual airflow and then reference the fueling info. It is a lot more precise then speed density and can handle minor modifications like CAI, catback exhaust and such provided the airflow data does not exceed what the MAF range is calibrated to read from.

He found on the SQ5 that the MAP was seeing less pressure which meant a restriction was removed. Then he noticed under the same situations the boost was up over 1psi are WOT. The math told him the gains were around 30rwhp at that point for just modding the intake air box.

So with that we know now the stock L86 intake is a restriction, remember GM has to tune for reliability and NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) along with intake noise. While most of us wont complain about a loud intake if we know it is allowing more power, that isn't the consensus from all of the owners that GM builds the truck for, GM has to build it for the masses and not the Enthusiast owners.

I think if you had the same situation in the truck it would make the 460hp the Corvette does, right now we know for sure the CAI gets you close®. Though I like seeing big gains that are repeatable and realistic all the time, it is also the sum of all of the gains as well that you have to see in the long run.

Edited January 27, 2017 by TJay74

evilstevie · January 28, 2017

I don't know how long ago that was, but I've been frequent participant on automotive forums since '02. Back then nobody had what we had at our disposal. 90% of automotive enthusiast still had no idea what they were talking about. They didn't have access to the wealth of information and sharing of ideas we had today. I am very confident BS like that doesn't exist nearly as much.

We have a lot of real evidence at our disposal, and you can't disregard it because of the typical bullshit marketing from the likes of k&n commercials and inexperienced enthusiast. Yeah you're right, most of the time a CAI does jack shit. Infact this is probably he best performance I've ever seen.

We have

-dyno's from a reputal source

-the same exact engine in another vehicle making 40 more hp

-tons of dynos of this engine making big power from simple bolt ons

-vacuum readings from the factory intake vs camaro intake

-Dyno's the show a gradual increase in torque in the upper rpm band indicative of removing an air restriction and not altering the sensor readings.

I challenge anyone calling bullshit to propose valid data, or even solid logic supporting otherwise.

"I've never seen an cold air intake do this" is not data or logic

-We have 1 dyno from a company that sells CAI's. No offense but not exactly unbiased.

-It is clearly not the same exact engine. Cam, intake, exhuast, tune, etc. are different.

-all motors make power with bolt ons. Typically very little from a CAI and no tune

No opinion on your last two points.

These CAI vendors and manufacturers obviously have a vested interest in posting big hp gains. A truly scientific test would attempt to explain the results, using other data, and not just throw things on a dyno and report the numbers. GM probably has 1000000x the R+D budget of all of these CAI manufacturers combined, so it seems a bit absurd that such a hp gain would be possible. Especially in light of the fact that the new ecoboost now out torgues the 6.2. Wouldn't now be the time for GM to "remove the restriction" and reclaim bragging rights for power, if they were in fact intentionally throttling back the 6.2? Air is not the limiting reagent in combustion chemistry, so increasing available air by 10% or 1000% isn't going to make a lick of difference in hp. But it will sell a lot of CAI's.....

Edited January 28, 2017 by evilstevie

wuznme · January 28, 2017

-We have 1 dyno from a company that sells CAI's. No offense but not exactly unbiased.

-It is clearly not the same exact engine. Cam, intake, exhuast, tune, etc. are different.

-all motors make power with bolt ons. Typically very little from a CAI and no tune

No opinion on your last two points.

These CAI vendors and manufacturers obviously have a vested interest in posting big hp gains. A truly scientific test would attempt to explain the results, using other data, and not just throw things on a dyno and report the numbers. GM probably has 1000000x the R+D budget of all of these CAI manufacturers combined, so it seems a bit absurd that such a hp gain would be possible. Especially in light of the fact that the new ecoboost now out torgues the 6.2. Wouldn't now be the time for GM to "remove the restriction" and reclaim bragging rights for power, if they were in fact intentionally throttling back the 6.2? Air is not the limiting reagent in combustion chemistry, so increasing available air by 10% or 1000% isn't going to make a lick of difference in hp. But it will sell a lot of CAI's.....

Can we revoke his forum card...

Sierra706 · January 28, 2017

-We have 1 dyno from a company that sells CAI's. No offense but not exactly unbiased.

-It is clearly not the same exact engine. Cam, intake, exhuast, tune, etc. are different.

-all motors make power with bolt ons. Typically very little from a CAI and no tune

No opinion on your last two points.

These CAI vendors and manufacturers obviously have a vested interest in posting big hp gains. A truly scientific test would attempt to explain the results, using other data, and not just throw things on a dyno and report the numbers. GM probably has 1000000x the R+D budget of all of these CAI manufacturers combined, so it seems a bit absurd that such a hp gain would be possible. Especially in light of the fact that the new ecoboost now out torgues the 6.2. Wouldn't now be the time for GM to "remove the restriction" and reclaim bragging rights for power, if they were in fact intentionally throttling back the 6.2? Air is not the limiting reagent in combustion chemistry, so increasing available air by 10% or 1000% isn't going to make a lick of difference in hp. But it will sell a lot of CAI's.....

If air isn't important than what does a supercharger do?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

newdude · January 28, 2017

The diff is in the intake manifold, the part that GM actually spends time and money trying to match with a particular engine and vehicle is different, and the exhaust manifolds are diff. Those are the two items that actually affect air flow. The exhaust manifolds for a 355hp 5.3 are the same as a 420hp 6.2. Meaning the exhaust manifolds aren't much of a restriction for a 5.3 since they can flow at least 420hp...not to start another argument.

That is not where the difference is. Thats what I thought for awhile, and even argued it with JonA. JonA, who is actually an engineer and did dyno's with different manifolds, intakes, and exhausts was telling me the lt1 intake offers little benefit and the power is made up in the actual intake before the manifold and the exhaust after the manifold. I did not believe him at all, and I actually called bullshit on him. I can even find the thread if you like.

Then a couple weeks later we get a BB dyno test with a whole bunch of CAI's making big power.

Look I hear you, all of my automotive knowledge suggests it must be the intake manifold. I mean the l86 has these long runners and it seems more than obvious that's why it's choking up top compared to the lt1. I've been looking into this for months.

I have plenty of evidence now that I can confidently say it's the intake and not the manifold. JonA was correct.

The intake manifolds are diff though. I ran across an article a while back about what they did to make the Corvette engine more suitable for a heavy truck. The diff's were stated as the intake manifold and exhaust.

I know they are different, but hardly any different when it comes to HP.

Every gear head on planet earth would come to the conclusion thats where the power difference is. It's not though.

This blackbear test seals the deal.....a bottle neck has been discovered. It's officially a fact that l86 owners have an amazingly easy and substantial increase in power by simply upgrading the intake.

So...mechanically LT1 vs L86...same camshaft, heads, pistons, crank, etc. ...the intake manifolds are different, as are the design of the exhaust manifolds ("menorah" style on Vette, Tri-Y on Camaro) and the intake tube/air box.

I can fully see how its really the intake, intake path to the intake, and exhaust flow that allows the LT1 to get the rated extra 40hp over the L86. I'm sure the LT1 intake is set up for HP, and the tunings are probably a tad different, but, they are still 95% the same engine.

Now to me? I can see how an intake can snag up 25hp to the wheels. Add in some headers and full exhaust, that would climb a tad more. Seems plausible. Honestly, I wonder if this is why GM doesn't have a GM intake for the 6.2.

Edited January 28, 2017 by 15HDriver

.justin. · January 28, 2017

-We have 1 dyno from a company that sells CAI's. No offense but not exactly unbiased.

-It is clearly not the same exact engine. Cam, intake, exhuast, tune, etc. are different.

-all motors make power with bolt ons. Typically very little from a CAI and no tune

No opinion on your last two points.

These CAI vendors and manufacturers obviously have a vested interest in posting big hp gains. A truly scientific test would attempt to explain the results, using other data, and not just throw things on a dyno and report the numbers. GM probably has 1000000x the R+D budget of all of these CAI manufacturers combined, so it seems a bit absurd that such a hp gain would be possible. Especially in light of the fact that the new ecoboost now out torgues the 6.2. Wouldn't now be the time for GM to "remove the restriction" and reclaim bragging rights for power, if they were in fact intentionally throttling back the 6.2? Air is not the limiting reagent in combustion chemistry, so increasing available air by 10% or 1000% isn't going to make a lick of difference in hp. But it will sell a lot of CAI's.....

Two points on this.

1) Regarding a vested interest: Might be worth looking into margins on the performance parts industry. If we were to see one intake sale per day, every day for a year, it would cover salary for one employee for less then a month. This is not now and will not ever be a significant portion of our revenue.

2) Regarding air not being a limiting reagent: Air is the ONLY limited factor in engine performance in this discussion. Fuel and ignition timing are easily adjustable and controlled, however both of those variables will only allow you to extract the maximum performance relative to the number of oxygen molecules. A 10% increase in air into the combustion chamber will yield just slightly less than a 10% increase in power.