Jump to content

AirAid Jr

Bob2C

Recommended Posts

Bob2C Enthusiast

Bob2C

Posted
Posted

Does anyone have any experience with this device? Pros/cons/worth it?

 

9c1a429899377ec34ead20a2242ee6d4.plist

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TXGREEK Senior Enthusiast

TXGREEK

Posted
Posted

Does anyone have any experience with this device? Pros/cons/worth it?
 
9c1a429899377ec34ead20a2242ee6d4.plist
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Id avoid it unless you’re getting a tune and exhaust, they’ve been know to cost you a couple mpg’s and are “WORTHLESS” without tune and exhaust. I installed a K&N filter and later found out it was rated one of the worst in capturing dirt. Not one person has ever posted anything positive in MPG’s or HP. I’ve heard they do make a louder air intake sound though lol


Sent from Above
BlackBearPerf Enthusiast

BlackBearPerf

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Bob2C said:

 

Does anyone have any experience with this device? Pros/cons/worth it?

 

9c1a429899377ec34ead20a2242ee6d4.plist

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The Airaid Jr (201-796) did the best when we tested intakes in 2009, so it would apply to 07-13 vehicles only. For the 14 and newer vehicles the AFE momentum GT Pro (54-74104)did the best in our 2016 testing. 

TXGREEK Senior Enthusiast

TXGREEK

Posted
Posted
The Airaid Jr did the best when we tested intakes in 2009, so it would apply to 07-13 vehicles only. For the 14 and newer vehicles the AFE momentum GT Pro did the best in our 2016 testing. 


With a tune and exhaust correct?


Sent from Above
BlackBearPerf Enthusiast

BlackBearPerf

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TXGREEK said:

 


With a tune and exhaust correct?


Sent from Above

 

I wasn't here for the 2009 test, but for the 2016 test GM factory tuning was utilized. I would assume the same for 09. The vehicles are stock for testing as well. That's just for testing purposes, aside from that, a tune can help, some intakes require more tuning than others. 

CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted

I've used two of those already. On my 2012 and 2016 trucks.

 

Never had any MPG loss and horsepower gain was not something you could even notice. To me the loss in stock intake baffling may help with slight throttle response and the intake noise will get louder because of that too.

 

The stock intake is also freaking huge, so the much smaller intake tube makes doing things in the bay easier.

TXGREEK Senior Enthusiast

TXGREEK

Posted
Posted

IMHO, if you’re not going to tune, exhaust etc then I’d leave it stock, your stock intake is already forcing air into your intake, tune it and be done with it. I used a SuperChips tune that considerably woke up my engine, other than that, completely stock power train. Ok, I do run about 7-8 gallons of E85 mixed with 93 but that’s for cleaning purposes [emoji6]

 

 

Sent from Above

 

 

T1Kaiju Enthusiast

T1Kaiju

Posted
Posted

I had one on my avy and it did improve throttle response IMO. I picked up one for the burb off this deal simply for the bad ass discount. I know its only 10hp gain if that, but the sound and reusable filter make it worth it. Cant get an exhaust this cheap...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

txab Senior Enthusiast

txab

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

As for me and my house, someday I'll just get the tube as I like running the high capacity paper filters.

 

That's what I do. Tube only, use stock box/filter. But this deal is pretty good. At quick glance the tube alone will cost more than the combo with the discount. Anyone buying it but not wanting to use the filter, simply sell it on ebay for a buck or two

T1Kaiju Enthusiast

T1Kaiju

Posted
Posted

I like it. Couldnt pass up 50 bucks off. Sounds a little better and responds a tad quicker. c1342e1f82bbf2d9024099e3cd3d9d62.jpg

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.3k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,737
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Christopher Miller
    Newest Member
    Christopher Miller
    Joined

  • Who's Online   4 Members, 2 Anonymous, 1,529 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • txab
      2001 GMC Sierra - Banging feeling in steering wheel

      By txab · Posted

      Without knowing how bad your banging is, one suggestion is the intermediate steering shaft on the steering wheel. These used to be a problem on 800 and earlier series. The feeling/sound was sometimes described as "clunking" and was felt in the wheel. Also there is a plastic piece in the lower column that is referred to as a bearing. Not your traditional looking bearing though. Your ball joints, bushings and tie rods or steering rack (if equipped) are the main point of issues. You never mention total unit miles, only that you've put 60k on it.   You can search the site for help on the ISS description. Plenty of these have been replaced   https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=site%3Agm-trucks.com+intermediate+steering+shaft&ia=web
    • GAMark
      Road Master Active Suspension

      By GAMark · Posted

      Yes I have is set with the 1mm disk (Minumim Tension), for spring spacing and I raised my truck in the rear 1.5". You can go 2mm  and I think 3mm if you need.Minimum. We are on our way to TN from GA.. My wife is driving and stated she cannot believe  and   stated she can not belive the difference.
    • GAMark
      Road Master Active Suspension

      By GAMark · Posted

      Most 1 ton trucks come with the factory overload spring, which need to be removed for installation of RoadActive Suspension. Removing the overload allows proper fitment and ensures the system works as intended. The RAS® Mega-Duty kit will reduce squat and provide significant improvement vs the factory overload spring.
    • No1UKnow
      Transmission Woes :-(

      By No1UKnow · Posted

      I wonder as well, why they would send me a text message with links to these suggested procedures totalling over $10,000 without even the slightest hint of how they arrived at these being necessary.
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      https://precisionlubrication.com/articles/oil-filter-efficiency/     For them it is a problem of $$$$ and compliance. To cover both they have to lie from the heart.    Government wants low waste oil numbers so the bar needs to be very low on contamination to met that requirement.  Consumer wants cheap maintenance (perceived cost). Again requiring a low bar.  OEM wants high margins at a cost effective warranty rate and lots of repeat customers. More low bar.  Filter manufacture wants the same thing the OEM wants. See the pattern?   Consumers are fickle and also want perfection requiring a HIGH bar. Inconsistent with all of the above. Consumers can be, when the put their minds to it, inquisitive, love winning arguments which requires some useful information to be available to support them. And this is where it gets sticky and the lies begin.    Information needs a solid well grounded point of reference if we are to compare in a useful way. There is a standard for this.  ISO 4548-12. This standard sets the particle size at a specific Beta ratio and darn few are faithful to its intent.    If they don't state the test method they change the particle size or the Beta ratio to hit a perceived favorable standard. They obscure the information in a way as to prevent direct comparisons leaving the consumer with one method. UOA's with an ISO 4406 test result. Pricey and not allot of labs willing to do the work. Lobby work happens everywhere, not just at the seat of government.       

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...