For $15 and the minute it took me to install with no tools, I am happy with it.

 

I was happy with the Gotts mod I did on my old 2005 King Ranch too, and am convinced it improved the gas mileage by about 1/2 mpg. The cost in my case was what I paid for a 2-foot section of ABS tubing and the time it took me to grind down the outside a bit so it would fit into the fender opening. Replacing the OEM intake with the ABS pipe increased the cross-sectional area by 300%. Yes, the engine MAY be able to pull as much air as it needs through the stock opening, but the flow velocity will be higher, which reduces the static pressure (density) in the intake path.

Later, I replaced the ABS tube with a flexible aluminum 3" tube I bought from Home Depot. It seemed to fit a bit better and the cross-sectional area was the same.

- Jack

 

Jack, come on now!
1. Your 05 has a different intake system design than the 97-03 models and is more sensitive to intake mods and wire throttle control.
2. A larger area will slow the air velocity down "over that length". Where are you getting an increase in velocity from?
3. Density is related to air temperature and barometric pressure at any given moment, as you drive.

 

1. No argument about the differences between the intake systems in my old truck and the OP's. I was not saying they were the same, I was simply giving my own observations regarding my truck when I did the Gotts Mod.
2. A larger area will slow the flow velocity down regardless of the length of the choke point, and a smaller cross-sectional area will speed it up. Let's take it to an extreme: Think of a hose nozzle. The restriction is very short, but for a given volume of fluid to get through that restriction, it comes out at a very high velocity, compared to what you would see from the end of an unrestricted hose. Yes, I know water is an incompressible fluid, and air is not, but you can "see" the effect with water easier. For air, you just have to think of a compressor and the nozzle you have at the end of the tube to power sweep.
3. Yup, density IS related to temperature, PRESSURE, and humidity, The speedup of air through a restriction will reduce the static pressure through the length of the intake tube. Again, take it to an extreme: Reduce the opening to the size of a dime, but still try to "pull" the needed air through it to provide near Stioch mixture at normal acceleration and cruise. You will see a partial vacuum in the intake under those conditions - lower pressure = lower density. Of course, the OEM intake does not cause that much pressure reduction, but an intake that has three times the cross-sectional area (A = pi r*2) will certainly minimize ANY pressure loss seen there.

Ideally, a normally aspirated engine should be able to simply "absorb" the needed air without resorting to an intake system with its efficiency losses. And, a restriction in an inlet path will produce turbulence effects that effect flow efficiency too. I believe the Gotts design reduces that turbulence, leading to a flow pattern that is more laminar than turbulent.

For these reasons, I believe the Gotts design is superior to the OEM design.

- Jack

 

Jack, the hose example doesn't work. With the hose (either water or air) your example is pushing the water or air through the opening. In the case of an intake system the air is being sucked through the opening. The velocity will be no different because it is the engine that is creating the velocity. Your example might be revelant for a blower or a turbo.

 

fIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

 

Not only that; air will compress passing through a restrictive passage and change speed example carburetor venturies. It still amounts to a flow loss at some point in flow speed.
Where water cannot compress.such that volume reduces with increased speed through a restriction.
Example putting your thumb on the end of a water hose 'stream' causing it to increase speed and distance but 'lose' volume. Pressure rises but volume reduces.

 

No Discuss, Read, Learn !

 

 

It doesn't matter if you "push" or "pull", if you restrict the opening in a flow tube and still pass the same volume of a fluid (air, water, whiskey, blood, whatever), the speed of that fluid will increase as it passes though that restriction. Mr. Bernoulli determined the static pressure measured at that restriction would decrease. The effects of that pressure loss will be "felt" throughout the length of the tube.

Yes, the throttle WILL determine the volume of air needed, no argument at all there. At idle, I'm sure the OEM opening is perfectly fine. But, as the demand for more air is commanded, the speed of that air through the opening MUST increase. Does it ever reach a point where the engine becomes "starved" for air? No, of course not. But, why, oh why is the rest of the intake path larger than the choke point at the intake's entry? Why not eliminate this choke point? It can't hurt anything, and, if there IS any pressure loss through it, eliminating the choke point will help. The choke point creates a stagnation ring in the walls of the intake that produce a turbulent layer which extend the effect of the choke point down the length of the intake tube.

I've never said that a Gotts mod will provide even "butt-dyno" detectable effects. However, even a tiny loss in the number of oxygen molecules available for combustion reduces the amount of fuel that can be burned, or results in a slightly less efficient fuel/air mixture ratio. This, in turn reduces the power that is delivered to the wheels.

I think these effects ARE measurable, and seem to recall that Bill Cohron, at Power Hungry Performance DID show that the Gotts mod produced better dyno results way back in the 2007-2008 time frame.

- Jack

 

Jack, you cannot pass the same volume through a restriction, in, through or out with a fluid, at the same moment in time, period.
You cannot compress a fluid.
If that were so, brake systems would never work.
That's why we have to get the air out of brake systems.
As I stated, air is compressible a fluid is not.. Big difference.
.
As far as fighting, there is no fighting.
It's a discussion.
If one see this as a fight he lives in a black and white world of thinking. Not good way to live.

 

Jack, I only addressed your first line in your last reply.
I could take issue with some of your other points but I'm letting it go.
Good luck.

 

Just for grins. While gains are small, anything on these weak Tritons is a plus.

 

I believe it.
Also the PCM changes the fuel curve and timing especially towing a good load a length of time for the tables to be modified.
Then they revert back to normal in a couple drive cycles running with no load.
Opinion is it's not all the GOTTS mod doing this.
It happens in any event.
The curves back up the position that on the road in OD at 60 mph and 1800 rpm, there is no gains from the intake mod.

 

Bluegrass - I agree, at cruise there is little to no gain. The load on the engine is low then. But, you DO have to accelerate from a stop, and you have to climb hills now and then, which puts the demand up. There's where the rpms are higher and the gains are apparent. I don't believe the PCM will ever bring those curves together. If there's more air available, it can supply more fuel to maintain the desired AF ratio.

And, I use the term fluid to mean any non-solid. In aerodynamics, air is considered a "fluid". You are absolutely right that water does not compress. But you CAN pass the same volume of water through a restriction in an increment of time - you just have to speed it up. It does not need to compress. You WILL, of course reach a limit, where to pass the same volume, you'd HAVE to compress it because you can no longer increase the flow speed. But, I'm not talking about this situation.

And I totally, agree - we are NOT fighting, Just having a discussion and in discussions there are often misunderstandings. I believe we are working though these in a completely civil manner.

There was also a test performed by one of our members way back when that showed the OEM intake provided all the air the engine needed, regardless of RPM. I suspect that test may have been flawed, or unable to measure the (admittedly) small change in air volume observed between OEM and Gotts intake designs. I think the graph Labnerd posted is the one I remember that convinced me the Gotts mod idea had merit.

- Jack