SSAlaska Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 I have been wondering if anyone has tested other types of intakes. Wouldnt we all be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didnt put as much effort in to testing more then just the Outlaw and Volant. There are several other intakes out there (K&N 77 series, AEM Brute Force, TruFlow, ect ect) and no one seems to give them any credit. Everyone seems so bent on Volant and Outlaw that no one that I know of has even looked into testing any of the others. Who is to say that the others dont produce better performance. Have we all just become so focused on the whole closed box theory that we have given up on open element straight tube intake systems? I think it would be interesting to see how some of the others perform. Dylan did some interesting testing of the Volant VS. Outlaw, Anyone else wonder how the Brutte Force would hold up? Now I am no expert, But does the volume of air that is moved by a closed box system compair to the volume moved by an exposed filter with a straight 4 in. tube? Are we cutting the actual volume of air for temperature? I understand the air will not be as cool as with a closed box system, But how big of differnce in temperature are you going to get? Is it significant? And if we are getting cooler air but less of it, Is that better then warmer air and more of it? If you do some reading it takes substantial heat to reduce oxygen content in air. I would test them the same way Dylan did, Myself. However, I do not have access to a GTECH or the right conditions. Would anyone be interested in testing this theory for us. I am sure this is going to raise many questions. Or if you think I am a fool, and should just shut up and color tell me so. I hope I am being clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vtodd82 Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Well before I bought my intake, I called K & N to see if they have tested on a SSS. The best choice that I concluded was the K & N 77 series. When I called K & N, they told me that they had a 77 series and FIPK that would fit for it, and have been tested specifically on a 2004 Silverado SS. The gains on a dyno were 13.4 HP for the 77 series and 13.6 HP for the FIPK (give or take a tenth HP- I kow the FIPK was only a couple tenths more than the 77 series) so I went for the 77 series due to that it was a tad cheaper than the FIPK and Iam wasnt too concerned about the .2 HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big O Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Well before I bought my intake, I called K & N to see if they have tested on a SSS. The best choice that I concluded was the K & N 77 series. When I called K & N, they told me that they had a 77 series and FIPK that would fit for it, and have been tested specifically on a 2004 Silverado SS. The gains on a dyno were 13.4 HP for the 77 series and 13.6 HP for the FIPK (give or take a tenth HP- I kow the FIPK was only a couple tenths more than the 77 series) so I went for the 77 series due to that it was a tad cheaper than the FIPK and Iam wasnt too concerned about the .2 HP. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you concerned with the notion that K&N lets dirt into your system? I have heard arguements on both sides of the fence, just wondering if you asked them about that or not?. I always liked the K&N products until I read more about them ... my brothers boss races on the weekends and says he dynoed a $3 fram and the K&N and said there was no difference. Anybody heard if K&N has done some redesign or counter information to some of these concerns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSAlaska Posted February 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Well before I bought my intake, I called K & N to see if they have tested on a SSS. The best choice that I concluded was the K & N 77 series. When I called K & N, they told me that they had a 77 series and FIPK that would fit for it, and have been tested specifically on a 2004 Silverado SS. The gains on a dyno were 13.4 HP for the 77 series and 13.6 HP for the FIPK (give or take a tenth HP- I kow the FIPK was only a couple tenths more than the 77 series) so I went for the 77 series due to that it was a tad cheaper than the FIPK and Iam wasnt too concerned about the .2 HP. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Great information, Thanks. Now to raise another question Todd. What size is the tubing on both of those systems? I am curious if the FIPK uses a larger diameter tube then the series 77. If so could it be determined that a larger diameter tube is better? I know other makers use a 4 in. tube and a slightly larger filter. Does any one else have any information similar to Todd's on other systems? If so I am sure we would like to hear it. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 I had a Street, Performance & Electronics Air Max on before the Outlaw. It was a straight tube type and was fine. I see alittle gain in milage with the outlaw and its hard to tell as far as performance go's. I am happy with the outlaw and I wasn't unhappy with the Air Max just felt like trying somethin else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan06SS Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Testing the other intakes on the market is a great idea, but you guys need to understand I didn't do the test on the OUTLAW on my own... the testing was conducted using my truck and I was only there as an impartial witness. I don't plan on buying 77 series intake just to see if its good for 1-2 more/less HP than something else. I'm sure they would like to test every intake on the market, but it is asking a bit much. The OUTLAW was tested against the Volant b/c of the similar design and the popularity of the Volant (up untill CHP's HP loss findings). To ask the guys at OUTLAW to buy a setup from each manufacture just to test it is asking too much. I know that if I were in that position I wouldn't do it... it leaves the door open for customers to ask for data on all the intakes, then the info on all those intakes tested on all engines. You can't expect a company to do comparitive testing for every single possible variable... theres too many combinations of engine, vehicle, intake, moded or not moded, etc. Best bet is to go off of what data you have and the recommendations of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_w Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 I've been doing a lot of thinking about intakes lately... I'm not convinced that many intake companies did their homework, with the Outlaw aside. I had these posts up on LS1Tech recently. After running an AFE cotton gauze filter for about 25K miles now (first mod to the truck) - I figured it was time for a cleaning. I dropped my stock paper filter back in the stock airbox, last Friday night. To my surprise, the truck's power "feels" to have changed everywhere but WOT. Throttle responce and power off idle to 2K feels improved. The thing is, I'm not scanning any difference between this filter and the old one. (delivered engine torque, and MAF readings). I do not believe the differences to be PCM/learning related... I've already driven over 250 miles - everything has been consistant, and my STFT's are not straying any more than normal. (0's and 1's in the frequently visted cells) So I started to wonder if this engine just likes a little more vacuum in the intake system for better (more accurate) MAF readings or some odd theory like that. I scanned "Manifold Vacuum PSI" last night. At WOT, I'm seeing as low as 0.23psi (if that's accurate) in the intake system. My short WOT blast from 3,600 - 4,700 had readings of 0.23 to 0.64 psi. Average is 0.40psi I know every little bit counts in some applications, but is that enough of a restriction to warrant swapping filters, nevermind a complete intake system? (for the sole benefit of getting more airflow) I understand things may be reading different at 6,000rpm. I would never expect to see "0" psi on a N/A engine without some ram-air system helping. My little tests here are pretty far from being done - but I was real surprised with what I saw so far. This weekend I'm planning on making some short WOT runs scanning/comparing the MAF, manifold vacuum, and delivered engine torque with both filters. Maybe I can find a way to at least run the airbox without the bottom half, to simulate a free flowing intake setup if anyone things the bottom of the airbox is a restriction that's holding everything back. That's strange... My paper filter had the truck running AWESOME for about a week, and then it just turned pretty lousy. I wonder if it was because I did my little SD tune here with the cotton-gauze in there? I don't know... I was able to get out and make two little 1st gear runs this weekend. Unfortunately, there were a few variables that came out of it. I'm not sure how conclusive this is, but I'll post the results... Runs were from 4,000-6,000 rpm. 1st "run" was with the paper filter. Full 100% throttle. IAT, 39*F. There was a tickle of KR up top - 0.4*. Max MAF - 40.95 @ 6036rpm. Average timing - 23.32*. 2nd "run" was with the CG filter. For some reason I only saw 98% throttle. IAT, 45*F. No KR. Max MAF also 40.95, but at 5750-5850rpm. Average timing 23.18*. The paper filter only allowed me to hit the .84 g/cyl range. The CG filter took the motor up to the .88 g/cyl range. The KR in the paper filter run actually took the timing down to the same range as the CG filters, because the CG filter was in the next higher g/cyl range which happened to provide less timing. The vacuum in the manifold during the paper filter run was a tenth or so of a PSI higher throughout the run. average was 0.66psi. CG filger only saw 0.51psi. Scanned/Calculated "delivered torque" was an average of 10ft/lbs more with the CG filter. (379.23 vs 389.75.) I do not have any info on the WOT fueling. I want to setup another test with a "very" free flowing design - like removing the bottom of the airbox, removing the filter completely, or fabbing up a little "velocity stack" to slip into the MAF and run with no filter and no airbox. Something to that effect. I'm intrigued by intake mods, but I'm not really convinced that these trucks need them just yet. I want to see what I can dig up about helmholtz resonators, and try to find out why the ones on the stock intake tube are they way that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan06SS Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 I've been doing a lot of thinking about intakes lately... I'm not convinced that many intake companies did their homework, with the Outlaw aside. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think many companies take the time to do any REAL reseach and development on their product... just seems that they go w/ a "BIGGER IS BETTER" philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vtodd82 Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Well before I bought my intake, I called K & N to see if they have tested on a SSS. The best choice that I concluded was the K & N 77 series. When I called K & N, they told me that they had a 77 series and FIPK that would fit for it, and have been tested specifically on a 2004 Silverado SS. The gains on a dyno were 13.4 HP for the 77 series and 13.6 HP for the FIPK (give or take a tenth HP- I kow the FIPK was only a couple tenths more than the 77 series) so I went for the 77 series due to that it was a tad cheaper than the FIPK and Iam wasnt too concerned about the .2 HP. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you concerned with the notion that K&N lets dirt into your system? I have heard arguements on both sides of the fence, just wondering if you asked them about that or not?. I always liked the K&N products until I read more about them ... my brothers boss races on the weekends and says he dynoed a $3 fram and the K&N and said there was no difference. Anybody heard if K&N has done some redesign or counter information to some of these concerns? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i was worried about the dirt thing too before i bought a k and n. after a little reading, and asking around, i found that the k and n is great, and most of this dirt thing is exageration. the trick is to always keep your filter with a light layer of oil on it -WD 40 was reccomended. the dirt will stick to the oil. i have checked my filter and my MAF screen many times since i have had it on, and have never found any sort of debris or dirt of any kind. i love the k and n, and everybody i know that has them on their vehicles love em as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion :: SS Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Yeah, K&N is pretty good...read here for one test, or seach google for "air filter test"...good way to spend an evening on the computer! http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm - Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion :: SS Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Here's one more good one, with graphs: http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm - Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSAlaska Posted February 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Interesting stuff....... But I was thinking more about actual Intake system design. Thank you for the insight. Does anyone know what brand of filter comes with the AEM systems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haynss Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 hey Alaska, I used to have the TruFlow CAI, and then tried the outlaw. I dont have numbers as to tell you which was better, but to be honest i didn't notice a difference in my performance. Both seemed to be the same as far as my driving experience. I kept the outlaw and gave my inlaw my TruFlow. I also have no ties to Outlaw, they dont pay me, and I owe nothing to them. So my opinion in the difference between the 2 is based on exprience via driving. I don't know if it was really worth it or not, since it feels the same and I dont have those numbers. makani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion :: SS Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 ...But I was thinking more about actual Intake system design. Hehehe...sorry, misunderstood. - Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSAlaska Posted February 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 hey Alaska, I used to have the TruFlow CAI, and then tried the outlaw. I dont have numbers as to tell you which was better, but to be honest i didn't notice a difference in my performance. Both seemed to be the same as far as my driving experience. I kept the outlaw and gave my inlaw my TruFlow. I also have no ties to Outlaw, they dont pay me, and I owe nothing to them. So my opinion in the difference between the 2 is based on exprience via driving. I don't know if it was really worth it or not, since it feels the same and I dont have those numbers. makani <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for the reply. I have been wondering what your signature pic is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.