IF YOU HAVE A 5.3

Ozer · June 23, 2017

Nah player.

Thomcat · June 23, 2017

I'm not "hating" player. I don't want half these guys to go waste their money chasing unicorns. You are the problem. Not me.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

.02

I'll bet that fine piece of test equipment housed in that state of the art facility would even measure a 4% increase in the power of a unicorn if they stuffed a CAI on its windpipe or a 4% increase in foot power once you clothes-pinned baseball cards to the fork of a bicycle. It did produce more noise, but I thought all that stock insulation and double seals on the doors was meant to quiet the rig.

For argument's sake let's assume the results are just as real and accurate as those shown for those gizmos you stick in the fuel line to boost mileage - At $400 for the CAI and I figure at least $200 installation and $5 (if it is able to print a sheet of paper for the test results) the cost is $30./hp. Then the only point proven is that the CAI is a waste of money - if it's hp you want for a vehicle basically designed to haul rocks or manure instead of racing just pay an extra $1400. (now 20% off MSRP) and buy it with a 6.2 l. V8 instead of a pissy 5.3 and you'll get 420hp stock at a cost of $11./hp, with less noise and you'll get the bucks back at trade in time.

Jimmy W · June 23, 2017

Did mine a while back along with a custom tune and best money spent?

2017_whitez71 · June 24, 2017

.02

I'll bet that fine piece of test equipment housed in that state of the art facility would even measure a 4% increase in the power of a unicorn if they stuffed a CAI on its windpipe or a 4% increase in foot power once you clothes-pinned baseball cards to the fork of a bicycle. It did produce more noise, but I thought all that stock insulation and double seals on the doors was meant to quiet the rig.

For argument's sake let's assume the results are just as real and accurate as those shown for those gizmos you stick in the fuel line to boost mileage - At $400 for the CAI and I figure at least $200 installation and $5 (if it is able to print a sheet of paper for the test results) the cost is $30./hp. Then the only point proven is that the CAI is a waste of money - if it's hp you want for a vehicle basically designed to haul rocks or manure instead of racing just pay an extra $1400. (now 20% off MSRP) and buy it with a 6.2 l. V8 instead of a pissy 5.3 and you'll get 420hp stock at a cost of $11./hp, with less noise and you'll get the bucks back at trade in time.

It cost way more than $1400 to upgrade to a 6.2, first of all you would have to upgrade to an LTZ which is thousands of dollars more than a LT. So your cost per hp is assuming you have an LTZ not an LT. And who would pay $200 to have a CAI installed? If you can't install it yourself, you probably shouldn't be driving a truck.

Donstar · June 24, 2017

If a 10-20 hp gain is so easily achieved I question why GM doesn't offer this type of intake as standard equipment? Is there a MPG trade-off?

Brian2015 · June 24, 2017

This kid lives 2 miles from me

Waterfowler41 · June 24, 2017

This kid lives 2 miles from me

Did live two mile or does, he's moved recently

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

djxn40 · June 24, 2017

I believe it. I installed a airaid on mine yesterday and you can definitely feel a difference

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Thomcat · June 24, 2017

It cost way more than $1400 to upgrade to a 6.2, first of all you would have to upgrade to an LTZ which is thousands of dollars more than a LT. So your cost per hp is assuming you have an LTZ not an LT. And who would pay $200 to have a CAI installed? If you can't install it yourself, you probably shouldn't be driving a truck.

You're correct - just me - can't see the logic of buying something that doesn't perform the way you want in the first place. If you want more hp get the LTZ in the first place and pay the extra $2495 MSRP for the engine. After fifty years of driving I've lost all interest in screwing with $hit that is dubious at best while it is available stock for a few extra bucks - want more hp - get the vehicle with a larger engine, want a higher truck - pay the bucks and get the 2500 or 3500. Want both, get one with a Duramax.

And substitution of a CAI gizmo given the air density and temperature measurement functions of the MAF sensor and instant compensation of the ECU and verification by the exhaust sensors to adjust the mixture charge in microseconds to compensate for any changes in air temperature or density renders the whole concept dubious for computer controlled, emissions laden engines. Add the facts that the engine is a 4/8 AFM, and not fully broken in there is no assurance that this aerodynamically shaped as a brick vehicle is responding exactly as it does on static test machinery as it will pushing the weight of the chassis, engine and front axle down the road against a 60+ mph headwind. Also, who revs the $hit out of a brand new engine anyway just for a stupid test?

Do I believe in the concept of a CAI - yes, On a new Silverado - no. Can't see how CAI can possibly work on any computer controlled vehicle designed for better gas mileage and minimum emissions. A custom tune of a Silverado to maximize efficiency at the cost of emissions design to gain hp - yes, but the substitution of a new input pipe minus the Helmholtz resonators in place of the stock pipe (which does nothing to impede flow, only reduce noise) leading to the same diameter throttle body - no.

And didn't need any equipment to verify this on my '60 Impala 348 which had a real CAI, just the seat of my pants. Pop out the inner high beams, convert the outer lows to dual filament lo/hi and run dryer duct hoses from the hi beam cavities to the air filter assembly modified with a second snorkel cut from a wreck and a thin mesh air screen in place of the paper filter, drill out the jets in the carb, advance the timing about 4 degrees and I had an effective CAI/ram air setup. Did I gain noticeable hp with the noise - yes, but only because - no electronics, no computer, no sensors, no cat convertor, no AFM, no CAFE, no EPA for only the cost of $5 bucks in materials, less gas mileage and polluting like a pig.

KARNUT · June 24, 2017

I'm an older dude too, the older cars used to have terrible air cleaners and exhaust. Ford use to be the worst. It was easy to get gains out of exhaust and air cleaners. Now flow really good. As far as the 6.2, you can get an E-85 option 5.3 and get within 40 Hp. Buy an all star or Texas package truck and save 15K plus for mods.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

soltys · June 24, 2017

After the several years that I've been on this form, I still don't get why people complain and "suggest" on how you shouldn't buy this or don't install that Everyone has a personal preference to make their vehicle their own.

Donstar · June 24, 2017

I appreciate hearing peoples' opinions whether they are positive or negative. Often the negative convinces me I want something even more! I find this particular modification harmless and if it adds some power, bonus!

JeremyW426 · June 24, 2017

Just because people are interested in this doesn't mean they didn't buy the truck they wanted. I WANTED a WT truck for the mechanical 4wd. If I could have gotten the 6.2L on it I would have but that isn't an option. I'm more than happy with my 5.3L truck and it pulls just fine but I don't understand what's wrong with wanting to make it better. The company has dyno charts showing the HP gains, true or not, they're posted. Now this individual seeming did his own independent test showing very similar results. I put the GM borla on my truck, I have a sprint booster on order, and I'm very interested in this CAI for my truck. I'm interested not because I NEED it, but because I think its neat and want. So I don't understand so much negative press towards a product on a forum with a whole section dedicated to modifications and improvements for people who love their truck and just want to make it their own and better in their own eyes.

SWOYER · June 24, 2017

When you get it. Please provide accurate testing data, ie similar conditions during both tests, to prove the results that you in a factual manner gain OR loose power and if you did OR didn't feel it was worth the money.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk