I get the idea and technique. But are there any negatives to doing this?

Check eng lights, failed emisssion tests, or reduced engine or engine component reliability?


Love to hear your thoughts and comments.

THX Butch

 

if done properly, nope

 

I did this mod about 9 months ago and no issues.

 

x2.

 

you don't even have to do it properly its pre filter and pre maf in all the trucks.

 

^unless you take out the silencer in the elbow... but still. as long as you dont go anywhere near the MAF ull be fine.

 

even if you take the silencer out it wont matter. 97-03 trucks with the barrel style MAF wont change. The 04+ with the slot style MAF it wont effect wither because it does not change the diameter of the tube and/or the orientation of the MAF. The only way taking out the silencer would effect anything on the 97-03 trucks is if you either A) put a hole in the outer housing or B) leave a chunk of loose plastic in the pipe. On the 04+ trucks the only way it would effect anything is if you left a hole in it and started drawing warm air off the rad.

 

I did the mod on my 5.4 and love it. Maybe a little power increase no better gas mileage, but response is much better, also the sound is nice...

Recommend to a friend that has the 4.6l he did the mod and removed the silencer (5.4 didn't have them atleast mine didn't) He noticed all 4, power gain slight gas mileage increase around 1mpg or so better responsiveness and engine sound.. Won't hurt your engine in anyway.. May actually help it.

 

I did some flowbench tests of the F150 air filter in several configurations, including something similar to the Gotts... at least the version Bill Cohron uses) (silencer not removed). Here are the averaged results and a coupla pics.

Stock w/ snorkel- 621.58 CFM @ 28" H20
Stock box only, no snorkel- 656.83 CFM @ 28" H20
Stock Box w/Gotts- 597.3 CFM @ 28" H20 (See note 1)
Stock box w/Gotts- 637.5 CFM @ 28" H20 (See note 2)

Note 1- The rubber pice at the end sucks in (see pic) unless trimmed. Beware!
Note 2- With the rubber pieced trimmed it picked up 50 cfm.

I also ran this version on the dyno but any gains were in the margin for error... within about 5 hp in the 5000+ hp range.

The calculated airflow (CFM) requirements for a stock 5.4L are:

429 CFM @ 5250 with a 85 percent VE (probably the real world at peak power)
504 CFM @ 5250 with a 100 percent VE (not bloody likely)

... So, a stock engine has more than enough air with the stock setup, even accounting for some dirt loading of the filter.

Other mods would change the equation, of course. Most mild bolt on things, catbacks, canned tunes, etc. don't amount to much on an increase in airflow requirements, maybe 10 percent ,but raising the rev limit will need more air.

449 CFM @ 5500 with 85 percent VE
489 CFM @ 6000 with 85 percent VE

Also tested an AEM Brute Force for the 3V- 733.30 CFM @ 28" H20

My opinion is that airflow increases in and of themselves won't deliver any useful power until you've run out of air. A more or less stock engine has more than enough air with the stock air cleaner setups.

Aftermarket CAIs deliver more air but that's not why they produce more power. The MAF is relocated and that leans out the mixture a little, producing a little more power. FYI, many canned tunes acheive some of their power gains the same way, by leaning out the mixture in the power band. If you combine a CAI with a programmer, you are going too lean and can get deadly detonation. That's why many programmers have a modified tune just for people combining a CAI with a programmer.


The setup tested from a parts list found on the Gryphon website.



What happened to the rubber endpiece at full flow if it was not "Circumcised."
This "foreskin" cost 50 CFM.

 

did ya'll do any testing on two valve setups???

 

Jim thank you very much! "In god I trust all others bring data" is what I live by.

"My opinion is that airflow increases in and of themselves won't deliver any useful power until you've run out of air. A more or less stock engine has more than enough air with the stock air cleaner setups."

My setup is all stock so I will keep the OE set-up as is.

Thanks much

 

Hmmm. I think "cfm's are not the only equation we need to look at. What about the time/delay it takes that amount of air to travel from the opening to the intake to the throttle body, as the gas is pressed. It must be less without these restrictions. The higher cfm, the larger amount of air moving through the intake tract allows faster times for it to reach the plenum right? Or am I missing something. Not just cubic feet per minute air flow, but the throttle response that is gained by having a higher amount of air to pull from. I thought someone has some dyno tests of the "gotts mod" which does not alter the MAF's location and there were small gains?

 

ding ding ding






now that we have someone looking at reality and real worlds gains

 

I see a lot of speculation in the above statement. As I said, I ran this setup on a dyno and could see about 5 hp at the upper end. On a chassis dyno, that's within a margin for error. You can see that much change from one run to the next. Bill C. saw about 8 hp or so (it's on the Grypon website somewhere). If it does deliver 5-8 hp, then it certainly is as cheap-as-it-gets hp. The power it gains, if any, just hasn't been proven to me yet.

Throttle response is a different element than CFM and doesn't create power in and of itself. I think what you say is more true when you have a massively restrictive system. As it is, the engine has 30 percent more flow than it needs for the stock power output. I drove my truck around for six months with that setup and I couldn't tell anything had changed except a slight increase in intake noise. It certainly wasn't any faster 0-60, as tested on my programmer. I have been around performance testing enough not to be fooled by the placebo effect too much. Got no horse in the race at all and would like to know one way or another, but I've gone about as far objectively as I have resources to go. If I ever get a chance to get a 5.4L on an engine dyno, where small power changes show up better and more reliably, you can bet this will be on my hot list of stuff to check. It's a beautifully simple mod... KISS personified.

 

I was wondering. Yesterday I finally decided to remove the noise reducer in the intake tube as per the gotts mod Never did it before because it was glued like a you know what, anyways after a couple of jabs from the screw driver and a cut thumb I got it out, but I noticed that its the same diameter as the opening of the throttle body. So really what increase in airflow would you gain by removing it due to still being limited by the same diameter throttle body?

I understand the snorkel seeing how it was much smaller though.