intake, stock box +k&n, or the maf adapter + cone k&n

[RumpRanger98]

what do you guys prefer for intakes on the 3.0 ranger? i have a 99 ranger and i love the intake on my maxima, its full cold air tho. It possible to get a full cold air intake on 99 ranger? whats your opinions? im learning here, thanks

 

[rurouni20xx]

stock box and drop in filter. dont overoil the filter as it will stop up the maf, causing problems (poor idle, stumbling etc). the full cai is nothing more than a hot air intake, your pulling air from the hot engine bay which hurts performance. the stock airbox pulls air from the side of the headlight mount, meaning its a true cold air intake. if you wish to do a larger tube etc and make your own cold air intake you can use the cold air intake you get from whichever company you choose but add more plumbing and have the filter mount in front of the fenderwell away from the radiator or underneath the headlight somehow away from the engine bay. im not sure how this can be done as i have never tried but thats really the only way to pull in cold air. the easiest route is drop in filter. be careful in dusty conditions as i have seen in many cases on atvs and dirtbikes that k&n filters do not filter sand and heavy dust, the proof is the sand/dust in the intake tract of the head you see when you go to service the filter. just a thought to keep in mind when offroading. personally unless you port the engine install high lift rockers or cam (the 1.7 rockers are a popular upgrade on here as well as underdriving) w/ a full exhaust you really wont see a gain. the cai plus exhaust w/o engine work is good for noise maybe 1 or 2 horse, not worth the money w/o the rest of the work or boosting on a 3.0. if you want a better seat of the pants feel try the 1.7 roller rockers, underdriving and regearing your rear end (3.73 or 4.10) you will def see a seat of the pants dif then. hope this helps you.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

stock intake.

drop-in K&N panel filter if i plan on keeping the vehicle long enough that the K&N's re-usability will pay for itself in paper filter savings.

snorkel if i plan on crossing water over the top of the bumper.

there are zero performance gains to be had from messing with the intake system upstream of the throttle body.

 

[RumpRanger98]

im so suprised not much if any at all is to be gained with intake. But when I look at the intake design and how it flows into the motor compared to my maxima. I guess you would have to port/polish the heads first they look so constricted. The intake on my maxima 3.0L is 2x as big. Oh well, I didn't buy the truck for racing, just for doing work!

 

[MikeInIdaho]

In my own personal experience, oiled filters don't make any kind of difference performance-wise and cause more problems than they're worth. Depending on your intake setup and location of sensors (MAF, IAT, TPS, etc.), the k&n may cause problems even if oiled properly. That's what happened on the Chevy; cleaning the intake tract and throttle-body thoroughly and dropping in a FRAM tough-guard filter (which is a damn good filter btw) solved the problem immediately.

IMO, my vehicles perform better with paper/oil free air filters. Also, as noted earlier in this thread, OEM-style filters do a better job of getting all the dust and pollutants out of the incoming air compared to k&n's.

 

[JohnnyO]

A 3.0 doesn't flow enough air that an intake will make much difference except at high rpm.
The stock airbox basically is a CAI. Open cone filters under the hood are Hot Air Induction. Unless you want the speedy looks, just remove the silencer in the airbox, put in a K&N drop-in, and call it good.
$350 for a Gibson cat-back exhaust will get you a lot more value for your dollar than $230 for a K&N intake.