If you look at the overall results page, it refers to restriction having lost power, but then later added power and mileage.

The "myth" of reducing restriction is further evidenced by flow overcoming temp, as in the K&N vs closed box.

As for relearn procedures, this isn't myth and we're got serveral tuners resident to the site that have explained this many times to users here.

Your post in no way answered the question asked in the thread. Instead it took the often used approach that you have all the answers while taking a caustic attitude against other opinions.

 

Signmaster,

You are very close. If I remember my physics classes, an 11* F drop in input temperature is a gain of about 1 hp. A 60* drop would bring about a 5.5 hp gain.

A minor point over 8 hp.

-Lance

 

...and that question was:True. I did NOT define the expression "drill out the airbox". [sarcasm]I humbly apologize for omitting that vital info.[/sarcasm] If you look REALLY closely, you'll see that he already KNEW that answer. My post addressed the LAST sentence in the original post: how NOT to mess up a good air box. That was what I saw as the crux of his post. I take the liberty of addressing ONLY that part of any question that I have some input on. I don't attempt to answer EVERY question or EVERY thread, and it was not my intention to suggest or imply that my post was the "final answer". In fact, I knew it would only be the first: this is a public BBS, and I realize that others will have input. Do YOU recognize that fact? Do you realize that some of us will have different opinions from YOURS? The original poster didn't appear to have any problem taking the info he wanted & ignoring the rest (including mine, apparently) which is IMO the way it should work. Why are you having such a problem with it?A) No, I don't have "all the answers" as I just explained.
B) To what "other opinion" was my post "caustic"? My post was the 2nd one in the thread. The only other post at that time was the original question. Are you just trying to stir something up?

The ONLY point that my post (or link) addressed was the MYTH that letting more (dirty, hot) air into the bottom of the filter box will increase engine performance. (I assumed that anyone reading a thread about modifying an air filter box would go to the AIR FILTER results page at the link.) That's all the original post was about - that's all the info I provided the link for. I wasn't saying EVERYTHING else at the link was perfectly correct. You brought up relearning adaptions & dyno corrections - those aren't necessary for the results to prove the airbox mods are a myth. I didn't say there was no reason to ever relearn or correct, but they're not relevant to the ORIGINAL purpose of this thread (like most of the posts in it, including this one).

Can an air filter box be modified to improve performance? Yes.

By cutting/drilling? No - not if it was designed properly at the factory, and IMO, all Fords were. (Yes, Regis - that's my final answer.)

 

thanks EVERYONE, it was all helpful and all my questions were answered. thanks again for all the input.

 

It means: "find someone else to teach you about working on a vehicle."


"Give a man a fish...
Teach a man to fish..."

But I guess you don't understand THAT, either.


There's your fish for the day.



Now how could someone possibly take any of those statements as caustic, especially when the original question wasn't addressed?

Skaterbro and anyone else can make their decision based on provided facts and opinions, but don't get yourself in a wad because the link you provided disputes your statements. Both removing restriction and the system pulling underhood air provided more power. I never disputed that insulating any system would hurt it, but you disputed facts shown in your own link.

Often the most facts are presented during disputed issues, but most of us manage to do that without resorting to being arrogant ******. And if I wanted to start something I'd fish up the thread about mechanical fans being more efficient than electrics.