Jump to content

Cold air intake

wisconsin1259
 Share

Recommended Posts

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted

IMO, save your money.  Its more eye food than substance. 

  • Like 2
Railroad_Jim Enthusiast

Railroad_Jim

Posted
Posted

I put a generic cold-air kit on my 2000 Silverado (5.3 liter engine) back in 2010 when I was commuting 150 miles a day mostly highway miles, and I did notice a fuel mileage improvement of about 1.5 MPG.  

 

Now that fuel prices have skyrocketed, I'm considering a cold-air kit for my 2020 Custom Trail Boss with the 5.3 liter engine, if it would also get a fuel mileage increase.  My commute is "only" 50 miles a day, but it's non-highway.  The truck only gets around 15.5 MPG and it's painful.

 

Anyone have any experience with fuel mileage increases from a cold-air kit on this T1 platform?

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Railroad_Jim said:

I put a generic cold-air kit on my 2000 Silverado (5.3 liter engine) back in 2010 when I was commuting 150 miles a day mostly highway miles, and I did notice a fuel mileage improvement of about 1.5 MPG.  

 

Now that fuel prices have skyrocketed, I'm considering a cold-air kit for my 2020 Custom Trail Boss with the 5.3 liter engine, if it would also get a fuel mileage increase.  My commute is "only" 50 miles a day, but it's non-highway.  The truck only gets around 15.5 MPG and it's painful.

 

Anyone have any experience with fuel mileage increases from a cold-air kit on this T1 platform?

Regular air filter (OEM) vs. a CAI or performance filter will have no effect on fuel efficiency.  The ECM is programmed to adjust Air/Fuel (A/F) ratio to predetermined spec’s., so increasing air will mean the ECM will adjust the fuel to the programmed A/F ratio.   Basically cold air intakes and performance air filters make minimal HP increase and give the illusion of more HP simply because they make more noise over factory setups and people tend to justify their silly purchase by embellishing the performance and fuel economy.  Defies logic as more air = more fuel.

  • Like 1
Silverado4x4 Senior Enthusiast

Silverado4x4

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, elcamino said:

Regular air filter (OEM) vs. a CAI or performance filter will have no effect on fuel efficiency.  The ECM is programmed to adjust Air/Fuel (A/F) ratio to predetermined spec’s., so increasing air will mean the ECM will adjust the fuel to the programmed A/F ratio.   Basically cold air intakes and performance air filters make minimal HP increase and give the illusion of more HP simply because they make more noise over factory setups and people tend to justify their silly purchase by embellishing the performance and fuel economy.  Defies logic as more air = more fuel.

 

100% correct, and to buy a CAI to save on fuel mpg is just not thinking and your not saving. Think about it you spend a few hundred bucks on a CAI to save on fuel it will take you 10+ years to get your money back on the price of the CAI in fuel savings with the little bit of mpg gain which your not gaining. Fuel mpg will change from tank to tank fills based on driving style and conditions. I used to check my mpg just for the hell of it and it would very anywhere from 2-3 mpg better to the same mpg lower based on driving and my truck is totally stock.

Railroad_Jim Enthusiast

Railroad_Jim

Posted
Posted

On my 2000 Silverado, I really did see a measurable increase of about 1.5 MPG after adding the cold air intake kit.  The truck already had a Borla cat-back exhaust on it, and I was driving a repeatable, 85% highway, 150 mile daily trip, fueling up daily at the same Sunoco station.  (BTW, that was pure hell, and I was glad to find a closer job after a few months!) 

 

Maybe on the 2000, the filter was restrictive, and the cold air intake kit slightly improved volumetric efficiency?  I don't know the reason, but I saw a measurable increase in fuel mileage.  (And a few weeks later, I lost second and fourth gear in the transmission, and my mileage went to crap without overdrive....)

 

On my now 50 mile daily commute on non-highway roads, I definitely see my fuel mileage vary by two to three MPG, depending upon how aggressive I'm driving.  My 2020 Custom Trail Boss with the 5.3 / 6-speed only gets an average of around 15.5MPG, which is pretty crappy in my book.  I guess that you guys with the 8-speed and 10-speed transmissions are probably getting better mileage.  I'm sure that the lift kit and big mud tires on the Trail Boss aren't helping matters. 

 

My highway fuel mileage is usually worse than my around town mileage, which is something that's I've never experienced before in a vehicle.  I read that the lift of the vehicle makes more air drag, and I'm rarely going under 80mph on the highway.  I made a 300 mile trip last month and kept the speeds down to around 75mph most of the way and got around 16.5 MPG, so speed seemed to make a difference.  Whatever the reason, highway fuel mileage sucks on my truck.

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted

To quote a tuner;

Quote

Decrease AIR!! This flies in the face of what is sold out there today, but if you can decrease the amount of air entering the engine (due to the fact that this is a closed loop system as of 1996 OBD2) you will use less fuel, too. Ideally, you want to maintain the same horsepower required to combat air friction, rolling mass losses, etc...but do it with LESS AIR!!

Let me illustrate. A closed loop system maintains the air fuel ratio at 14.7 lbs air to 1 lb of fuel. This is maintained for idle, cruise and in some cases, even at wide open throttle.

If you have 60 grams/sec air entering the engine at cruise, you're using 4.08 grams of fuel per second. If the cylinder pressures are increased without creating harmful exhaust by-products, or if these by-products are controlled by the catalytic converter, we can gain mileage by decreasing airflow through the engine while enhancing the spark curve to maintain the same rear wheel HP.

On the chassis dyno, we can get vehicles down to 45-50 grams air/sec maintaining the same air fuel ratio, and same wheel HP as stock--and the overall result is less fuel consumed ! 45 g/secs works out to 3.06 g/fuel used in the same time period--or an almost 25% saving. We can't gain this in all vehicles of course--this example was resultant data from a 2007 6.0L HD 3500 GM truck.

This flies in the face of every aftermarket product out there claiming that it saves fuel--you will never gain mileage by increasing airflow through a gasoline engine in a mass airflow type system.

 

  • Thanks 1
Byrds8 Enthusiast

Byrds8

Posted
Posted

Correct me if I am wrong, but since having a different filter or a CAI doesn't change how open the throttle is, it really doesn't increase any air flow? Wouldnt a different filter or CAI etc only make it less restrictive and allow the air to flow easier but still be the same volume?

  • Like 1
richard wysong Senior Enthusiast

richard wysong

Posted
Posted

cold air is denser than hot air thus will create more hp but still needs more fuel to do that. it won't increase fuel economy. stock air cleaner systems draw air from the fender well (colder air than engine bay) 

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Byrds8 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but since having a different filter or a CAI doesn't change how open the throttle is, it really doesn't increase any air flow? Wouldnt a different filter or CAI etc only make it less restrictive and allow the air to flow easier but still be the same volume?

Correct.   The ECM will adjust the air to the programed air/fuel ratio via the mass air flow sensor even if the filer is restricted, mileage will not change.  Less air = less fuel, more air = more fuel.  

 

You don't see K&N making any mileage claims, they know it CAN"T be backed up and would lead them to false advertising claims.

 

GM engineers must be dump as rocks to invent active fuel management, dynamic fuel management to gain tenths of a mile in fuel economy if these after-market CAI intakes and performance filter gave them over a mile per gallon increase.  Think about it.

Edited by elcamino
  • Like 1
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

Strangely and puzzling a few years ago Motorweek did a segment on performance intakes. They claimed a slight increase in mileage. Not enough to cover the cost of the intake. 

It's Tim Senior Enthusiast

It's Tim

Posted
Posted
On 3/14/2022 at 10:32 PM, elcamino said:

give the illusion of more HP simply because they make more noise over factory setups 

Better choice:

https://www.amazon.com/SoundRacer-Realistic-SuperCar-Engine-Effects/dp/B0030IQK30/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

 

SoundRacer SRV8 Realistic SuperCar V8 Engine Sound Effects

 

  • Race car sounds through your stereo.
  • Imagine starting up your modern, boringly silent car and the interior is filled with the thrilling sound of a powerful Super Sports Car engine.
  • The SoundRacer Plugs into your cars cigarette lighter and uses an FM transmitter to play a choice of V8 engine sounds through your car stereo
  • It's an incredibly simple device to use - plug it into your car's cigarette lighter socket.
  • The SoundRacer plugs into your cigarette lighter and transmits rev-matched fake V8 engine sounds via FM radio making your car sound.

 

😉

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Byrds8 Enthusiast

Byrds8

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, elcamino said:

Correct.   The ECM will adjust the air to the programed air/fuel ratio via the mass air flow sensor even if the filer is restricted, mileage will not change.  Less air = less fuel, more air = more fuel.  

 

You don't see K&N making any mileage claims, they know it CAN"T be backed up and would lead them to false advertising claims.

 

GM engineers must be dump as rocks to invent active fuel management, dynamic fuel management to gain tenths of a mile in fuel economy if these after-market CAI intakes and performance filter gave them over a mile per gallon increase.  Think about it.

About what I thought. When I changed mine out, I had no misconceptions about a tremendous increase in HP or MPG. I did it just for it being a bit more free flowing. Much like when I removed the muffler and flapper off the exhaust. I did it more for sound than anything else. Yes, its less restrictive and allows it to flow better which means the engine doesn't have to work as hard but didn't expect any real gains. I have gotten better gains changing my driving habits. I threw on my tonneau cover and slowed down from 75 to 70 in the interstate and so far have gained about 2mpg on the DIC. Granted that in itself is a chore because I like to drive... LOL

  • Like 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Byrds8 said:

I threw on my tonneau cover and slowed down from 75 to 70 in the interstate and so far have gained about 2mpg on the DIC. Granted that in itself is a chore because I like to drive... LOL

 

:thumbs:

  • Thanks 1

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jsdirt
      2010 Avalanche 5.3 not running correctly after engine swap.

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      If everything checks out at the MAF, then the MAF is BAD, new or not.   You don't need a signal generator to troubleshoot this. PCM needs ALL powers and ALL grounds able to light a halogen headlight bulb - if it can light the bulb bright, then the wiring is good enough to run the PCM.   Best thing you can do for yourself is spend some time here: scannerdanner.com - Check out all his YouTube videos on similar issues. If you decide to subscribe it's the best bang-for-buck ratio in the automotive world, hands-down. He's got TONS of free vids on YouTube, too.
    • Tyler Gibbs
      PF63 Oil Filters Going Away?

      By Tyler Gibbs · Posted

      You got that Hengst D110??
    • contrabombarde
      2010 Avalanche 5.3 not running correctly after engine swap.

      By contrabombarde · Posted

      Yes, I used my multimeter to probe all of the wires at the MAF, both with the sensor connected, sensor disconnected, key on engine off, key on engine running, etc etc etc. I probed all of the wires again at the PCM, at the connectors, etc. All voltages are what they should be according to the service manual/wiring diagrams. All grounds are good, less than 20 millivolts from the battery negative under load. Both at the connector of the MAF, at the PCM connector etc.      I know this throws a pretty big wrench into things, but this truck was acting up before the swap. I don't have very much information, if any on what was causing it, but if you cleared all of the dtcs it would do the same thing where it would crank, fire, then die. And it would do the same thing a dozen or so times, and eventually it would start and run, but the difference is that it would run and actually be drivable. Whereas now if you can drive it at all, it goes into reduced power mode almost immediately, and even then it's not running correctly. When you come to a stop at a light it stumbles down to for 500 RPM before catching itself and returning to the smooth idle. And if you go more than about 50% throttle then it immediately goes back to doing the misfire thing.    Like I said, I know that throws a wrench into things, and unfortunately I was not able to pull any data or anything like that before I did this work, so I don't have much to go on.    I'm trying to not fixate on one particular thing as the cause of the problem, but it seems like all avenues are pointing me towards the PCM. Like I said I have tested the wiring extensively (see above), and during cranking the sensor does produce seemingly legitimate values at least according to my multimeter, but as soon as the engine fires those values quickly descend into gibberish. I've tried it with multiple different known working sensors, I have done literally every test I can think of multiple times on the wiring (probing the signals, probing the pins with the sensors unplugged, probing the pins at the PCM, voltage drop, voltage drop under load, continuity, ohms, and double-checking everything against the wiring diagrams/ proper values in the service data.)    Another thing that pushes me towards a possible PCM failure is, I have noticed in troubleshooting a little bit taking a break and coming back, that when I leave the truck to sit for a while and cool off, it starts and runs smoothly when I first start it up. However once it warms up. It starts having problems. For example, when I went out to the truck this morning after it had been sitting overnight, I was actually able to drive it down the block. And then once I got on the throttle a Little bit after going about a thousand ft, it started misfiring again. I pulled it back into the driveway, shut it down, and started it back up. It idled smoothly. As soon as I touched the throttle it did the misfire thing again. From then on as soon as I started it it would misfire. I shut the truck off and went to go get a coffee and do a bit more research. When I came back out I started the truck up and it immediately went into the smooth idle. After a couple of minutes of playing around with it, it would not idle smoothly anymore. Let it sit a couple of hours, rinse and repeat. This makes me think with temperature change something is going wrong inside the PCM. I have the PCM out of the 2007 donor vehicle and I'm thinking of getting a one-day subscription to the ACDelco programming service to try and program that and see if it helps.   Like I said, I'm really trying to not fixate myself on one potential cause, but it seems everything is pointing me towards PCM failure. I would really like to try to confirm that, but unfortunately I don't have an oscilloscope or a signal generator to do the GM service procedure where you feed 5 khz into the signal pin. 
    • Jsdirt
      2010 Avalanche 5.3 not running correctly after engine swap.

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      Ahh, sorry about that - I got some bad info. Newdude is correct. That's what I get for working 13 hours straight ... on my "vacation", lol.   Should've checked the files I had instead of the internet.   Anyway ... this is GREAT news, since this would've been an absolute friggin nightmare to get working.   I don't think the lack of VVT is causing this - you've got another issue. Wiring, I'm betting.   I'm telling you right now, your computer isn't bad. If it worked before the swap, it's working now. You need to do some more (better) diagnostics and figure out exactly what you're missing. Did you test every wire directly at the MAF? Have 5V reference? Ground? If you're reading ZERO g/s, your Hz isn't much use - it's going to be the wrong value anyway. The MAF is not working, and you need to find out WHY.   I got this off the net, so VERIFY first: Pin A: Black (BLK) wire, Circuit 552, serves as the Sensor Return (Ground).  Pin B: Tan (TAN) wire, Circuit 472, carries the Intake Air Temperature (IAT) signal.  Pin C: Yellow (YEL) wire, Circuit 492, is the primary MAF Sensor Signal output to the PCM. Pin D: Pink (PNK) wire, Circuit 339 or 539, provides Ignition 1 Voltage (Power).  Pin E: Tan/Black wire, Circuit 552 or similar, often associated with the Intake Air Temperature ground or signal return.  Global-A list: https://postimg.cc/KKJnQC85    
    • parthery
      GM Hard Folding Tonneau by REV review

      By parthery · Posted

      Correct....the end user can't reach to Realtruck directly like they can if they purchase a Bak, Undercover, etc...  It has to go through a dealer.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...