Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="6.7Bison, post: 1543455, member: 32432"] Installation: I watched the installation video the morning before I started the replacement. It all looked pretty straight forward. I had a couple buddies over for some beers while they watched me. I did my MAF data run for the before. I grabbed numbers shortly after start up, 2000 rpm, 3200 rpm and back to idle. I then started the tear down. Taking out the old air box was a tighter fit than I thought but I didn’t unhook the positive battery cable out of the way of the mounting tab. The intake tube was very easy to remove. The old mounting bracket was easy to remove as well. In order to take the intake “funnel” behind the headlight the video had me taking off the grill to get the headlight out to access it. I didn’t bother with this and just removed it from the inside. It took a bit of prying but wasn’t terrible. Looking at the inlet size of the stock air box I can see why it would be a limiting factor to air flow. The intake tube with its corrugated flexible portion and large resonator also didn’t look great for airflow. Removing the “funnel” not only made lots of room for the giant filter but also opened up the front of the truck for airflow. Can’t say at this point I’m too concerned about needing to make modifications for more fresh airflow. If other open filter intakes don’t instruct you to remove this piece in the instructions, I would recommend it for more fresh airflow. Fitting up the new mount bracket and adjusting it around the coolant and condenser lines was easy. Assembling the intake was easy. Installing the whole thing was easy. The notch in the tube was to avoid some of the condenser and coolant lines. Looks cleaner under the hood than the stock unit. Upon fire up for my post installation MAF data run, I noticed a little more growl and a little more turbo whistle. Looking at the data and comparing between my two runs I’m not sure I got an exact apples to apples comparison. I also have data for boost so I will include that in an attempt to explain what went wrong. The data is as follows: Before: Start up: 158.29 kg/hr 1.02 psi, 2000 rpm: 618.41 kg/hr 8.06 psi, 3200 rpm: 1120.5 kg/hr 10.75 psi, idle: 144.79 kg/hr -0.05 psi. After: Start up: 146.03 kg/hr 0.7 psi, 2000 rpm: 675.68 kg/hr 7.26 psi, 3200 rpm: 1048.39 kg/hr 8.15 psi, idle: 80.89 kg/hr -.15psi. So the numbers look to be all over the place for mass flow of air. Some cases show more air flow, some show less. I believe that my data snapshots were not perfectly timed to be exactly the same as shown by the boost pressure. I also am dependent on what the engine is needing at the load it’s under. My rpms were the same and my ambient conditions were as close as I could get them, but my turbo was messing with me depending on where it was on spool when I took my data. Assuming volumetric flow is the same as displacement didn’t change and rpm was the same, I could use a kg/(hr*psi) scalar to compare between before and after. The problem is I don’t know the temperature after the turbo which is the missing piece to the ideal gas law. The best I can determine is that at 2000 rpm it appears that after the intake upgrade I was flowing more air at a lower boost pressure indicating more air flow. Everywhere else I was running less air flow and less pressure. I’m not sure what that would indicate. Less power loss maybe? In summary my test was flawed and my MAF data doesn’t really tell me anything. At this point I can’t confirm or deny real world similarities to S&B’s claims on airflow. But installation was simple, the engine bay looks a little cleaner, and I get a little more intake sound. [/QUOTE]