2004 - 2008 F-150

Another Gotts Mod [Review]

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 02-21-2012, 09:26 AM
McGregorMX's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another Gotts Mod [Review]

After looking through all of the forums on which CAI I should get, I stumbled across the Gotts Mod. For the cost, I decided it couldn't hurt to give it a try. I followed this how-to

https://www.f150online.com/forums/ch...l?ref=esp-link

Here is what I have noticed so far:

1. My throttle response is slightly faster, I still have that temporary, ugh, then it gets up and goes.

2. Higher RPM feel like they are easier for the truck to maintain. Before it really felt like the truck struggled to maintain speed if the RPM were required to be above ~2000. Now, even 4000 RPMs feel effortless.

3. I did the mod over at my parent's house (my dad has all those, "odd" tools) and while driving there (original intake still on) at 70 MPH I was doing roughly 2200 RPM, and the truck always seems to fight to maintain speed. After the mod, the truck sat at ~1800-1900 RPM at 70 MPH. I found this to be the biggest surprise because it felt effortless to the truck to stay there. Before this mod, the truck would always fight at that speed.

So, overall, I would highly recommend this mod. There isn't anything to lose because of how cheap it is. The longest part for me (like everyone else) was sanding/grinding down the replacement pipe.

As a side note, I'm still using the stock filter and after a few miles (enough to get all the little plastic bits that may find their way in) I will replace it with a new one (that is already on order). Instead of a new stock filter I decided to go with a K&N. I've had a great experience with them in the past, just need to keep the MAF clean!
 
  #2  
Old 02-21-2012, 10:07 PM
sblue's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I didn't know the Gotts mod would bring your RPM's down that much, or even down any for that matter?
I'll have to see what my rpm's are t 80 now?
 
  #3  
Old 02-21-2012, 10:21 PM
tbear853's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,031
Received 45 Likes on 44 Posts
The gott's mod ain't gonna reduce RPM (2200 down to 18-1900) related to speed (70) as it still takes same HP to move the vehicle and the transmission and TC don't know about a gott's mod.

Now, if you live in Kansas and your parents live in Denver, then you are climbing and maybe against a wind and using more throttle going and coming home, you are coasting and the "now" tail wind is pushing.
 
  #4  
Old 02-22-2012, 09:10 AM
McGregorMX's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What I think happened is, my truck is not working as hard to maintain 70 MPH, and was able to shift into the OD gear, where before it was not able to shift because it was unable to maintain speed without being in the higher RPM range.
 
  #5  
Old 02-22-2012, 10:22 AM
Big Slick's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The question I've had about this since it's been out is, why didn't the engineers design the intake like this in the first place? There is always a balancing act between two things when a truck is built:

1. Cost
2. Performance

Changing the diameter of that short piece of tube isn't going meaningfully impact cost, I would imagine so why not? Are we smarter than they? Not likely.

There's a phenomenon called the Venturi effect that no one seems to think about when they remove that smaller neck in the intake.

 
  #6  
Old 02-22-2012, 10:57 AM
sam1947's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Big Slick
The question I've had about this since it's been out is, why didn't the engineers design the intake like this in the first place? There is always a balancing act between two things when a truck is built:

1. Cost
2. Performance

Changing the diameter of that short piece of tube isn't going meaningfully impact cost, I would imagine so why not? Are we smarter than they? Not likely.

There's a phenomenon called the Venturi effect that no one seems to think about when they remove that smaller neck in the intake.

My guess would be it has something to do with emission factors relevant to air flow.......just a guess..!
 
  #7  
Old 02-22-2012, 02:54 PM
shifty219's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sault,ontario,CaNaDa
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Venturi effect would happen in the bottle neck of the stock tube but in reality there is no need. The Venturi is used in carburetors to speed the incoming air, causing a low pressure. The low pressure is used to suck fuel out of the bowl of the carb into the intake tract.
My guess for the downsized tube would be noise reduction of the intake. There is some crazy people out there that like a quite truck
 

Trending Topics

  #8  
Old 02-22-2012, 02:59 PM
Bluejay's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Burleson/Athens/Brownsboro, TX
Posts: 26,019
Received 68 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by shifty219
The Venturi effect would happen in the bottle neck of the stock tube but in reality there is no need. The Venturi is used in carburetors to speed the incoming air, causing a low pressure. The low pressure is used to suck fuel out of the bowl of the carb into the intake tract.
My guess for the downsized tube would be noise reduction of the intake. There is some crazy people out there that like a quite truck
Those are probably the same ones that want a smooth, slipping transmission shift.
 
__________________
Jim
  #9  
Old 02-22-2012, 06:13 PM
Big Slick's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by shifty219
The Venturi effect would happen in the bottle neck of the stock tube but in reality there is no need. The Venturi is used in carburetors to speed the incoming air, causing a low pressure. The low pressure is used to suck fuel out of the bowl of the carb into the intake tract.
My guess for the downsized tube would be noise reduction of the intake. There is some crazy people out there that like a quite truck
Noted. I just wish there was better data than "it feels better/faster/smoother...etc" from those that had done it. Butt dyno's and the need to believe that a $10 part made a noticeable difference make me skeptical.
 
  #10  
Old 02-22-2012, 06:40 PM
otto457's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Big Slick
Noted. I just wish there was better data than "it feels better/faster/smoother...etc" from those that had done it. Butt dyno's and the need to believe that a $10 part made a noticeable difference make me skeptical.
There are real dyno results out there. Good for about 7-8 hp:

https://www.f150online.com/forums/20...ts-2009-a.html
 
  #11  
Old 02-22-2012, 06:45 PM
tbear853's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,031
Received 45 Likes on 44 Posts
Oh yeah, the factory small venturie inlet is about noise reduction. They make them quiet to suit the majority of customers, they know you can make it louder.

If they made it louder, they'ld sell fewer trucks.
 
  #12  
Old 02-22-2012, 06:48 PM
tbear853's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,031
Received 45 Likes on 44 Posts
Originally Posted by McGregorMX
What I think happened is, my truck is not working as hard to maintain 70 MPH, and was able to shift into the OD gear, where before it was not able to shift because it was unable to maintain speed without being in the higher RPM range.


A gearing change or just the difference between TC Lock and unlock will result in the drop .... or increase. Take note next time you''re driving to your Dad's tools.

Glad it helped too .... we can all use help saving RPMs and $$$. The "Gott's Mod" maybe one of the few mods that pays off in the long run thanks to it's near zero costs .... you don't loose if you maintain, any savings is a plus.
 
  #13  
Old 02-22-2012, 10:21 PM
graphite675's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was thinking the same thing. I did the GOT's mod and noticed NO increase in performance. I actually think it got worse? I removed it and went back to stock.


Originally Posted by Big Slick

There's a phenomenon called the Venturi effect that no one seems to think about when they remove that smaller neck in the intake.

 
  #14  
Old 02-23-2012, 08:35 AM
Big Slick's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by otto457
There are real dyno results out there. Good for about 7-8 hp:

https://www.f150online.com/forums/20...ts-2009-a.html
That's for a 2009 F150, which has a completely different intake system.
 
  #15  
Old 02-23-2012, 11:56 AM
McGregorMX's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I did notice a noise increase (my wife even commented on it). It isn't enough that the radio doesn't drown it out at very minimal volume (on a volume scale of 0-100 I couldn't hear the intake at ~24, which isn't very loud, if you were to talk at that volume, you would drown the radio out).

Update on the RPM comment made earlier: I did a bunch of mixed freeway/city driving yesterday and got an MPG average that I haven't ever seen in this truck. Before my average was < 14.5 MPG. It is now at 18.2...I'm going to leave the MPG average on there for a few tanks and see what it ends up being in ~2 months. So far, this mod is going to save me way more than it cost.
 


Quick Reply: Another Gotts Mod [Review]



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:05 AM.