Cold air intake, need some advice.

[Bob Ayers]

really... because when i had no k&n i ws getting 18-20 mpg. when i got the k&n, i was getting 20-22 mpg. my truck was also MUCH peppier after the k&n.

BUTT dynos are not accurate!!!

Do you not realize that the OEM paper filter used in the 2.3L is the same filter used in the 3.0L and 4.0L? So, it is WAY over designed for the 2.3L,
and it IS NOT what is limiting the airflow into your engine!!

 

[rangerpimpn84]

wow do these ppl actually try these k&n filters or do u all just speculate cuz if thats the case keep ur pie whole shut till uk what ur talkn bout. better mpg and more power from mine to so.

 

[fastpakr]

wow do these ppl actually try these k&n filters or do u all just speculate cuz if thats the case keep ur pie whole shut till uk what ur talkn bout. better mpg and more power from mine to so.

A lot of them have tried them. Others have looked at the tests of particulate matter they allow through. Others have noticed that the factory air filters don't create a vacuum at WOT even on much larger engines - they are not remotely restrictive on stock motors. You are not getting more mpg or more power from yours. It's in your head.

 

[rangerpimpn84]

50$ filter for couple yrs or paper pos for every other oil change u tell me. no one ever said that it wont suck enough air thru a stock filter. k&n s suck more efficiently. wow everyones a friggin critic on here. more efficient means what everybody

 

[Bob Ayers]

A lot of them have tried them. Others have looked at the tests of particulate matter they allow through. Others have noticed that the factory air filters don't create a vacuum at WOT even on much larger engines - they are not remotely restrictive on stock motors. You are not getting more mpg or more power from yours. It's in your head.

We have another victim of "Placebo Effect"!!

 

[fastpakr]

50$ filter for couple yrs or paper pos for every other oil change u tell me. no one ever said that it wont suck enough air thru a stock filter. k&n s suck more efficiently. wow everyones a friggin critic on here. more efficient means what everybody

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. K&N's require maintenance too, so you're paying for a filter as well as periodically pulling it and cleaning it. Yes, they will eventually pay for themselves, but at that point you're talking about a difference of just a few dollars a year one way or the other over the life of the truck.

If by 'suck more efficiently' you mean that they allow the engine to make more power, that 's simply not the case. Unless you can measure a vacuum in the intake at wide open throttle that doesn't exist with the filter removed, it will make no difference at all in power or fuel economy. If it's not a restriction (and the stock filter design isn't) then changing it won't effect the engine at all.

 

[rangerpimpn84]

so bob what u r saying is all of us wit k&n are just trippn and not in reality or we r right ????

 

[BlackBII]

It might be me, but it seems a lot of folks have a hard time putting a sentence together...

The paper filters do just fine, and are not restrictive. Therefore, a K&N won't give you any power/effciency gains.

I run a re-useable filter on my trailrig, for the mere convenience of being able to clean out all the crap that gets caught every time I go wheeling.

 

[fastpakr]

It might be me, but it seems a lot of folks have a hard time putting a sentence together...

The paper filters do just fine, and are not restrictive. Therefore, a K&N won't give you any power/effciency gains.

I run a re-useable filter on my trailrig, for the mere convenience of being able to clean out all the crap that gets caught every time I go wheeling.

Agreed, sounds like they're "just trippn and not in reality".

 

[rangerpimpn84]

ok well hows this i will buy a new filter and clean my k&n this week i will run a stock filter.Then next week i will run the k&n to c witch one gets better mpg's.i will also check to c if i have the same power and throttle responce on each. Just so im not being biast on this whole thread.

 

[fastpakr]

One of these days I'll try to figure out what people actually mean when they use the term 'throttle response'...

Your ass dyno is WORTHLESS for measuring power.

If you want to measure your fuel economy over a few thousand miles with both filters, be my guest. Measuring over a week's worth of driving is meaningless (for that matter, so is the whole test given the available information).

 

[feellnfroggy]

Welcome.

I'll tell you what I did..everyone has their own ideas though. I have a 1993 2.3. From factory you essentially have a cold air intake. But they put restrictions on it to make them run quiet. You also have alot of componets running into and out of your factory air intake that are there for a reason. So this is what I did....

Take off the intake tube between your throttle body and air box. Inside of that tube will be a cone insert. Remove it. Can be done by hand or persuaded with a pliers. Put the tube back on. Change out your OE filter with a K and N (some people don't like to use them but thats up to you.)
I did notice a difference when I did this mod and it only costs you a 50 dollar filter. You will also get the cold air intake sound with that baffle removed from the tube. I also freed up my exhaust quite a bit and noticed a big difference compared to everything that was stock. Anything helps when you only have 98HP to work with.

Good luck!

This is the only one I have to agree 100% with. There is no need to do anything more than what was posted above. However if you want a cold air intake, look at the mac website. They have CAI for everything from hondas to v8 stangs. I have a mac true CAI in my 3.8l v6 mustang. It runs down into the fenderwell and works pretty good. But once again, modding the factory intake with the K&N flat filter should be enough. REad the directions about cleaning and oiling. When you do maintenance on these fitlers its improper application of the oil that causes most maf problems.

By the way the advantage of K&N over paper filters isnt HP. Its the ability to save money in the long run by cleaning and re-using instead of buying a new filter every 12000 miles. (anywhere from 3-12k depending on who you talk to)

 

[a-5 freak]

I think my ass dyno knows the difference between 100 horse and 107-8 horse. im not trippin or am victim to any ''pleacebo effect". i dont tell me that "the stock air box is plenty for a 4.0l v-6!" all i know is that K&n provides a good product.

 

[fastpakr]

This is the only one I have to agree 100% with. There is no need to do anything more than what was posted above. However if you want a cold air intake, look at the mac website. They have CAI for everything from hondas to v8 stangs. I have a mac true CAI in my 3.8l v6 mustang. It runs down into the fenderwell and works pretty good. But once again, modding the factory intake with the K&N flat filter should be enough. REad the directions about cleaning and oiling. When you do maintenance on these fitlers its improper application of the oil that causes most maf problems.

By the way the advantage of K&N over paper filters isnt HP. Its the ability to save money in the long run by cleaning and re-using instead of buying a new filter every 12000 miles. (anywhere from 3-12k depending on who you talk to)

I agree - if you're going to point to any legitimate advantage of an oiled filter, the only possible choice is cost. However, at (my 2.3 Ranger as an example) $47 for a K&N plus $5 for a bottle of oil vs $7 for a paper filter. I'm looking at anywhere from 3.5-7 years before I'd break even. There are a lot of places to try to save money in your budget, but $7-14 a year that only starts 3-7 years down the road isn't a great one.

 

[fastpakr]

I think my ass dyno knows the difference between 100 horse and 107-8 horse. im not trippin or am victim to any ''pleacebo effect". i dont tell me that "the stock air box is plenty for a 4.0l v-6!" all i know is that K&n provides a good product.

So your calibrated ass dyno was the source of your 107-108hp measurement?