Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
12 hours ago, 64BAwagon said:

The 2024 L8T air intake setup is light years ahead of anything GM has previously produced on a gas truck. Before I got my SG3 I had wondered how efficient the gas intake system was. During my 4k trip I monitored air intake temp regularly. City and highway both towing and non towing and found the IAT to be within 1 degree of ambient temp in all situations. To me that indicates air intake efficiency I have never seen before in a stock setup. After seeing this I abandoned any thoughts of working on improvements.  As a comparison. My 2005 LLY Dmax when stock and no mods always showed at least 20 degrees higher than ambient at highway speeds, in traffic sometimes 30-50 degrees higher. After modifying the airbox and adding a ducting kit for more outside air I was able to improve it but never got it anywhere near the numbers on this gas intake. 

I believe that trying to use the diesel setup on the hood scoop could end up disrupting the gas airflow and might actually pack air where you dont want it on the gasser. I admit I had the same thoughts on making that intake on the hood operative but after spitballing it in my head I didnt think I could get any positive results from it. 

I think the only reason that trim piece exists on the gas trucks is because GM needed something to occupy that space on the non diesel applications. Rather than create two hood designs they used the same piece blocked off.  

Not doubting what you are saying but It would be interesting to see an apples to apples comparison with a '20+ diesel vs the L8T for IAT.  I wouldn't think GM would add the cost of the scoop/plumbing if it wasn't a benefit.  The bean counters would have eliminated it otherwise or they would all be just for show.

Posted

The nature of the design is really that good on the L8T though. Isolated from everything else, in its own sealed air "tray" at the leading edge of the hood, direct shot to the sealed air box. 

 

I think the scoop is for the demand of extra air needed to feed the 900+lb tq of the big D. Also because it's a sales gimmick in a very competitive market. Gas trucks are mostly fleet purchases. Cost savings on the hood stuff over 100s of thousands of trucks is a big deal and fleets don't care that it's not there.

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Crazy Canuck said:

Not doubting what you are saying but It would be interesting to see an apples to apples comparison with a '20+ diesel vs the L8T for IAT.  I wouldn't think GM would add the cost of the scoop/plumbing if it wasn't a benefit.  The bean counters would have eliminated it otherwise or they would all be just for show.

Just out of curiosity I would also like to see the flow ratings on the diesel vs gas. I assume (probably shouldnt) that the CFM capacity of the L8T intake is sufficient for its maximum requirements. I am glad to see the air temps are at or very near ambient but flow numbers (which I doubt we will ever have access to) would tell the whole story. 

No matter, this setup is way ahead of any of the other GM trucks I have owned or worked on.

 

@Epsilon Plus  I am seeing a lot more gas engine HD trucks in the RV world than I ever saw before. In the past it was dominated by the diesel. Now I am seeing a lot more gas engines. I had a number of people ask me about my truck and the gas engine. Based on my conversations a lot of people are growing tired of the DEF, cost, low reliability and complexity of the modern diesels

Edited by 64BAwagon
Posted (edited)

I think money might saved on the vent with some elbow grease. If you look close between the closed and open on the back, it looks like the closed could be an overlay fastened to an open one. Might try to chop mine up with a Dremel or blade in the front to open it vs spending over $150 on essentially what I have already. If I mess it up, oh well I needed to get one anyway.

 

640X640.jpeg.b86da4423b95a372faf18edbd2ec8ea1.jpeg

 

s-l1200.thumb.webp.02e07b1716a822b6f45b5b0273acbce8.webp

 

 

Those bolts listed are outrageous at $10-14 each and some sites say unavailable. I'm going to try some Amazon ones that are a touch shorter. GM uses zinc M6x1.0x30mm. I got like 20 of them dog nose with the washer on them like stock for peanuts in comparison, although they are M6x1.0x25mm. Also the nut retainer things they screw into. So far with the bolts/nuts, hood blanket, push pins, air box, and front duct cover thing I'm into it $206.05 with 15% off and everything but the Amazon bolts/nuts shipped to a dealer to avoid the massive shipping costs on the various discount sites. The scapped OEM version of this posted by newdude lists for $800+. 

 

If I can mod my stock hood vent, get the airbox to sync up and collect the main and upper duct I could get this done for half of that potentially. 

 

Stay tuned.

 

 

Edit: After looking at my vent from the front up close I think it would be too much work to cut clean. Sickening to spend $112 + shipping on a new one but it is what it is. 

 

20240416_063007.thumb.jpg.9fa812503459a54109a5a7b2810b3f64.jpg

Edited by Epsilon Plus
Posted (edited)

Found a lower duct. Out of stock everywhere except a single dealer (tons of dealers around here). However, I doubt they have this "in stock" on the shelf. It let me order it though even though dealers less than 10 miles away it would not. GM parts research and ordering is such a laborious and confusing mess.

 

 

Edit: I'll be darned. Was on the shelf I guess. Got a ready for pickup email lol. Dunno why they would have that laying around, but there ya go.

 

After some tail chasing and gathering from 3 different sources, I've got everything ordered. Beyond what may be required to mod the airbox to TB connection, and relying on those ducts coming with the insulators and drain plug attached, I'm all in right now at $598.21. Compare that to the unreleased GM version at a discounters listed price of $809.68 pre shipping ($995 MSRP). If I can get this all to work I'll post a list of exact parts needed for the full swap.

 

$600 isn't chump change to spend on a non-performance adding intake but at least I won't be embarrassed by the Toyota-like giant fake hood scoop any longer (barring that all this works!).

Edited by Epsilon Plus
  • 1 month later...
Posted

After an annoying process involving GM corporate and phantom missing parts I finally have all the things I need to keep going. Upon brief inspection it looks like the diesel airbox might be a direct swap for the gas one. That has me considering returning the GM box and getting an S&B dry to eliminate the Hemholtz resonator. I can't imagine the throttle bodies are in the same spot though and the aftermarket intakes have solid formed tubes. It might involve cutting and making a custom silicone intake tube like I thought I had to do anyway. So, on third thought, if this is drop in, I'll stay with GM.

 

Stay tuned for results and a complete part numbers needed list if this all works out. Looks promising though.20240607_114814.thumb.jpg.358f46b9c387bee31dce654613506140.jpg

Posted (edited)

Front intake feed tube is different.

 

Gas is ~6.25x3" OD

 

Diesel is ~4.5x2.75" OD

 

When newdude mentioned a separate box PN for the cancelled gas intake kit, a larger lower opening to match the stock gas feed tube was probably it. Everything else like MAF placement and bellows looks to line up though.

 

The saga continues...  84670713 Intermediate Intake Air Duct ordered. Should be the last part.

 

17177998547316433751557984817188.thumb.jpg.f4385377caadfc720dad311a484454ec.jpg

Edited by Epsilon Plus
Posted

The one thing that will be nice when you get this done is not having water spraying up onto the windshield while raining or after washing the truck. 
 

I use my leaf blower on high after washing the truck to blow out the fake scoop throughly 

Posted

I am not sure I see the point of doing this other than seeing if it can be done or not. 

Posted
1 hour ago, bruceb58 said:

I am not sure I see the point of doing this other than seeing if it can be done or not. 

Ssshhhh!  We don’t say that here.  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Good idea to get this ~$15.00 hood insulator sent to a dealer for pickup or get killed on shipping: 

 

20240609_145634.thumb.jpg.f525bd98172b130b7fe7338d4c2ef386.jpg

 

On a side note, crazy how cheap it is. There's singular bolts (that I substituted with Amazon stuff) that GM charges more for.

Edited by Epsilon Plus
Posted
47 minutes ago, Epsilon Plus said:

Good idea to get this ~$15.00 hood insulator sent to a dealer for pickup or get killed on shipping: 

 

20240609_145634.thumb.jpg.f525bd98172b130b7fe7338d4c2ef386.jpg

 

On a side note, crazy how cheap it is. There's singular bolts (that I substituted with Amazon stuff) that GM charges more for.

Lucky you got it. It wasn't long ago that was some trucks had it omitted due to supply line issues. 

Posted

The bones underneath. Almost done, just waiting on that front feed pipe to drop the box in and finish it all up.

 

20240609_145343.jpg.50c90458e22deaf24501257cdf6c2ccc.jpg

  • Like 1
Posted

Is this basically turning the air flow into a RAM Air type of delivery which was popular on muscle cars when I was a teen .   Oh its got RAM Air !  Question . Did RAM Air add Horsepower . 

 

Posted

Love this thread i been fallowing along . Cant wait to see finished product and some updates 

  • Like 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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...