The fault with that is that you don't know that everything is functioning as it should. When I first installed my AirForce1 intake and custom tune, I thought my truck was driving great! Throttle lag decreased, etc. When I put it on the dyno it turns out I was running extremely rich at WOT (off the charts rich, less than 10). Over time that could have caused damage to various components. We fixed that problem and I picked up significant HP and TQ.

The very same could have been true but instead of running rich, I could have been lean. Even more room for damage as the combustion temps rise. If you don't want to test it on a dyno, use a wideband AFR sensor.

Most of the people who run "the Gotts" mod run it on the pre-2004 2V engine, not the new 3Vs. From my understanding the 2 motors are fairly different regarding their ability to take in extra air.

Now, all that said... The change you made was pretty minor, so there's probably no issues, but as an engineer, you should know that you can't say that "there were absolutely NO adverse effects" when you don't really know if that's true.

- NCSU

Again, nothing personal. I just like proof.

 

Interesting that your truck was running "off the charts rich" with the custom tune and the AF1. I'd have thought the tune would have been written to compensate for the effect of the CAI. Who wrote it?

Since the Gotts version makes no changes whatsoever to the MAF sensor or its environment, I'm confident that the A/F ratio is the same as before at or near WOT, which is really the only place this mod has any effect.

My ONLY concern with this mod was that since fluid flow is a very complex issue, there was a chance that the engine might have been getting less air rather than more, due to turbulence effects. If that were the case though, I imagine it would have been pretty obvious under load, but there was no noticeable loss of power. An overly lean condition might have manifested itself in increased CHT and a tendency to ping under load, neither of which happened.

And, while I can't say for certain that the mod has no adverse effects on my truck, Bill Cohron dyno tested a similar setup on a 2004+ MY truck and reported an increase in airflow, an increase in HP, and no change in the A/F ratio. It was his discussion of this approach, along with a post about a similar approach that was done by kd4crs on a 2004+ truck that led me to try my implementation.

I suppose I could spend $300 or more on a wideband sensor, but I don't really feel the need to do so.

- Jack

 

I've got Troyer Performance tunes, written by Mike Troyer. The original tune he e-mailed me did increase the amount of fuel to account for the new CAI, why mine ran so rich is still a mystery. He sent me a revised tune and when I got that tune checked while on the dyno, it hit the AFR dead on.

My point with that story is that even though the truck "feels" ok, that's not empirical data and I really doubt many members here could take a truck out on the road and determine its AFRs. If some can "feel" the difference between an AFR of 13 and 11...

Confidence is nice, but it's not data, nor proof.

I guess that'll depend on what you consider overly lean. You can be running lean and not ping. Sure you're engine won't self-destruct tomorrow, but over the life of the engine you have appreciable damage, burning out sensors, valves, etc.


That's cool, I'd love to see that chart. That's also valid for his truck, not everyone's truck (I know, I know, then why ask for a dyno?). If every engine were the same, everyone would be putting out the same HP/TQ, some people wouldn't have lean/rich problems, etc. Some 04+ MY trucks are borderline lean from the factory. It's these trucks that run the biggest risk from adding an untested/researched/designed intake.

It's your engine, you can do as you see fit. For me, it was well worth the $ for the intake that actually gave me more power, and a safe AFR. The $75 for dyno pulls to verify that my $35k+ truck is running safely was more than worth it, to me.

- NCSU

 

OK, NCSU, you've made your point and I'm happy to concede that my original "no adverse effects" statement was a sweeping, glittering generality that has no empirical basis and therefore, is without merit in your view. People are free to form their own opinion and I'm sure they're tired of our prolonged "back and forth" on this.

Happily, no one is forcing anyone to do anything your way or my way.

- Jack

 

Geez.


Engineers are ****.

 

We are, aren't we? (Sometimes)!

- Jack

 

Hey Jack and NCSU, I'll make sure there's a place for both of you on Survivor mathletes! We'll have to make sure you have ziploc bags so the chalk doesn't get wet when you jump off the boat.

 

Thanks - I'm just sorry I allowed myself to get sucked into a discussion that had no bearing on the original intent of the thread, which was a DIY mod that was both fun and inexpensive too. That was very infantile, and it shows I still have some "growing up" to do. :o :o

Oh well, guess I can't be perfect, even though I'd like to think I am.

- Jack

 

Jack,
I couldn't help myself after almost getting lost in those posts.Your write up was terrific; clear and concise. Regardless of the fine tuning aspect of A/F ratios, which rarely need to be addressed on the street unless you're looking for that extra couple of ft/lbs in a 3 ton truck, which won't be felt anyway(not incl tuners/supers/turbos or any other big boy mod),more air is always better. If it turns out it's not, like NCSU states it could be, I would look for that weak aspect and correct it prior to restricting airflow. Great write up.

 

As long as the the location of the MAF/MAS doesn't change and the intake tract, both aft and before a couple inches stay the same. The MAF/MAS will automatically take in account for the increased amount of air it can pull through the greater section Jack installed.

/thread

 

they are correctly named helmholtz resonators

 

I was wondering how long it would take for you to give me the correct term. Although you just told me i'm sure i'll still forget.

 

blk450er - I got distracted and never answered your question, did I? Using Bill's analysis of this mod and, noting i.ride.suzuki's timely post (thanks Anthony), I'd have to say the mod is a good idea. Because it doesn't mess with the MAF sensor, it will not run lean, even though it DOES let in more air, which allows more fuel, equaling more power (at high RPMs).

At least this is the way I understand the process, and it makes sense to me.

(Oh, and there's far more than just an inch of air added - the intake area is increased by more than double! 7.07 sq inches for the new intake instead of just 3.14 square inches in the original).

- Jack

 

I was at the beach for the weekend

 

He's been like that since I originally made the mod a year and a half ago.