Air Intakes

Mike H. · Post by **Mike H.** » Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:25 am

HenryJ wrote:Muhahaha

What goes around , does come around

I'd like to add that is is also Mike's fault , all the ranting about how great the FIPK is .....I ordered one

Just have to try it , I am pretty happy with my modded box, but I still have to see if all the talk is more than just that

It SMOKES the box mod. I did that first, so I've had both.

Split this topic by request -HJ

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:44 am

I have swapped out KN filters on every car I've owned. But the FIPK that they have for the 4.3L looks like garbage. After reading some posts on ZR2.COM and S-Series.org my fears were backed up by a FEW cases (a few, not everyone).

There is no flex pipe at all on the FIPK, everything is hardened plastic. It connects to where the old airbox used to be. Soooo... the engine moves, the frame doesn't, and now you have a hardened tube running between both. This thing has and most likely will (given enough time) work it's way OFF of the throttle body. Not good.

Something about larger filters, your opening your breathing into the throttle body vacuum. This will lower your low end torque, not much, but it will. Every mod out there has it's downsides and upsides. As for me... I swear by KN filters, but I will be building my own system to mount my cone filter on. That solid tube just doesn't look good to me.

Anybody ever had the problems like the ones on ZR2/S-Series? It makes sense... the tube is solid and the engine is going to move.

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:47 pm

marks10cc wrote:There is no flex pipe at all on the FIPK, everything is hardened plastic. It connects to where the old airbox used to be. Soooo... the engine moves, the frame doesn't, and now you have a hardened tube running between both. This thing has and most likely will (given enough time) work it's way OFF of the throttle body....That solid tube just doesn't look good to me.... the tube is solid and the engine is going to move.

I had my concerns along those lines , also, but after seeing it first hand...I think it is just fine.

There have been some changes made from the early models , that did have problems.

The rubber sleeve that clamps the intake tube to the throttle body is now a natural (black) rubber based hose. The early model was that silicone based orange hose, that is still used for the MAF connections.

The hole in the heat shield appears to be a little larger than earlier models too.

There is some room for flexing. The two attachments to the MAF allow for a little and the support clamp is mounted with a nylon washer at the pivot point and a rubber grommet w/washer on the post. This allows it to move with the engine better than a solid mount.

I do believe that with a broken motor mount there may be enough movement to dislodge the FIPK.

All,in all, I think it is a pretty well designed unit.

Something about larger filters, your opening your breathing into the throttle body vacuum. This will lower your low end torque, not much, but it will.

I have to disagree with this statement when referring to this application.

While that is true when you are talking below the throttle body , it does not apply above it. There "ideally" should be no registerable vacuum between the aircleaner and throttle body for best performance. If there is it is considered restriction. If your vehicle runs worse after installing a low restriction air cleaner you need to richen the mixture. The high restriction air cleaner was acting like a choke. Since we have a MAF the correction is made for us

The stock filter/intake has some flaws. The corrugated flex creates turbulence when air is passed over it, basically it serves to reduce the diameter by the depth of the corrugations. With the bends it makes there are areas that are 2.5" at best (probably less).

Next , velocity is lost everytime a direction change is made and there are quite a few transitions.

All that being said, how much air do we really need? The stock system seems to perform pretty well most of the time. It is quiet and does a pretty good job of filtering out debris.

I can't say that I have noticed a HUGE difference over my modded airbox, however I have not had a "response" call yet.

The Difference I did hear is that it is indeed louder at full throttle. Not unbearable, but it does make it sound like there is more ....sumthin

I did add a piece of Reflectix insulation to the heat shield , attached with large diameter "xmas tree" insulation fasteners. (Can't hurt)

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 pm

And how exactly do you insulate your christmas tree, and why?

honestly though--if the K&N may have an issue with the rigid tubing -- what about the Volant intake?

I havent researched them, but the design seems good.

Price is about the same -- so I dunno.

I ran an AEM intake on my Z24 and liked it a lot -- Now AEM makes a "Brute Force" line for trucks--anyone heard anything about them?

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:02 pm

adrenalnjunky wrote:And how exactly do you insulate your christmas tree, and why?

Carefully and so it won't get hot

honestly though--if the K&N may have an issue with the rigid tubing -- what about the Volant intake?

I don't know for sure , but I think it still retains the corrugated flex section. The airbox is a big turbulence creator, and eliminating it would smooth the airflow to the MAF, but you'd still have the flex restriction. Would it really matter for anything other than WOT? Dunno.

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:05 pm

Ok I got off my lazy butt and did the research for myself -- www.aempower.com has dyno charts for stock and with their kit on a 98 4.3L blazer.

HP gains they say are 8hp at peak with a greatest gain of 11hp at 5500 rpm.

torque was something like 4 ft pounds at peak with about 10 at 5200 rpm or something like that.

Neither graph showed the AEM system dipping below the stock readings, and for 99.9% of the RPM range it made power.

What kind of Gains do K&N and Volant quote?

Henry--might be time to split this into a new thread too.

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:13 pm

Yeah volant's site shows a differnt part# for a 94 s-series vs. a newer one --

I like the older one:

Much better than the newer ones:

IMAGE

Linked due to oversize-HJ

Wonder if the older one can be adapted....Probably not since the injection systems are different.

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:30 pm

That looks like a pretty good set-up on the earlier model. Too bad that they did not build a tube for the TB on the late model one.

The only "glitch" that I see for an offroad vehicle is...how to you see if the aircleaner is in need of service with out total disassembly?

Mike H. · Post by **Mike H.** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 3:31 pm

From reving the engine and watching it flex, I think there is plenty. It can flex a little at the throttle body, each side of the MAS, and at the lower mount.

The only thing I did to mine was to cut out that small piece of shield directly above the tube penetration hole. That makes it way easier to get in and out without disassembling the tubes and/or filter off the end.

I noticed a difference between stock and the box mod. But I noticed more of a difference between the box mod and the FIPK. Noticable improvement across the entire RPM range.

Oh, and HenryJ, that "more ....sumthin" you hear now when you mash the throttle down is your properly-ventilated engine's B.A.L.L.S. (Ballistic Authority and Low-Level Sound)

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:38 pm

Mike H. wrote: that "more ....sumthin" you hear now when you mash the throttle down is your properly-ventilated engine's B.A.L.L.S. (Ballistic Authority and Low-Level Sound)

Here's a link from the archives of the old forum

And here's the dyno sheet for an earlier model S-10:

Post by **HenryJ** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:30 pm

HenryJ wrote:I can't say that I have noticed a HUGE difference over my modded airbox, however I have not had a "response" call yet.

The Difference I did hear is that it is indeed louder at full throttle. Not unbearable, but it does make it sound like there is more ....sumthin

Well I had a "response call" this weekend and there does seem to be some improvement. I picked up almost 10 mph in just over a 1/4 mile and it seems to pull a little better in the mid to upper rpm.

Is it worth $250? Hmmm...I'd say probably, especially if you do not have all the modifications that I have added. I'm sure that the improvement is much more apparent when changing from a completely stock set-up.

Boy , it really does roar at WOT now

FYI- The K&N FIPK reduced the intake temps to very close to what my relocation of the IAT did, so the 180* stat works well with it (no SES with the larger radiator)

EDIT: Threw a code today (9-10-03), so the IAT is reading a little too warm to run the 180* stat afterall Back to the 195* stocker

smokinjoe · Post by **smokinjoe** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:37 pm

hey fellas i was wondering what the k&n part # is for our trucks im lookinh but im never exactly sure if i get the right one

Post by **HenryJ** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:42 pm

smokinjoe wrote: i was wondering what the k&n part # is for our trucks...

KN-57-3017-2 (that's what mine is)

Mike H. · Post by **Mike H.** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:19 pm

HenryJ wrote:Boy , it really does roar at WOT now

And its a really cool roar, too

Did you oil yours before you put it in? I have heard it both ways. Apparently when you just buy the filter, it needs oiled first. But mine seemed to be oiled out of the bag it came in, from the kit. So did you, or didn't you?

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:55 pm

Great responses! Now I can put my fears to rest. Good to know that the FIPK doesn't come dislodged from the TB, the way the 'complaints' sounded, it was as if it was a small tragedy waiting to happen. The loss in torque was from my personal experience with dyno testing. When I worked at a garage, I had unlimited access to a dyno. The four installations I did with KN filters all lost low end torque (below 2000 RPM). But after thinking about it, it was a stale air run (no fans), I didn't use FIPK's, just a replacement cone on the end of the MAF (heat). So I probably had engine temp leakage (which is why I was excited about the FIPK, it has a heat shield! But at $300, I'm skeptical, which is why I'm asking)...

All five KN's I've bought have been pre-oiled. I re-oiled a KN and put it in before it dried (5 hours) and threw an SES light. So over-oiling may not be real good.

So has anybody entertained the old plumbing/heating home made kit? And while on the subject of intakes, anybody try this before?

http://www.vararam.com/products03.html

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 1:31 am

I never pre-oil or oil them. It'll just clog them up. Had the same one on my Harley for 13 years, 67k miles, works great!

Mike H. · Post by **Mike H.** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:36 am

marks10cc wrote:So has anybody entertained the old plumbing/heating home made kit? And while on the subject of intakes, anybody try this before?

http://www.vararam.com/products03.html

Plumbing/heating home made kit? Not quite sure what you are talking about, but I'm all for home fabbing new parts.

That intake cone looks cool, but I don't remember what our 4.3's look like. (Too lazy to go look right now.

) Are our throttle bodies distorted like the one pictured on that site? Might be good $49 investment.

Justin · Post by **Justin** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:51 pm

will the fipk void the warranty? i know some dealers won;t bother . Obviously if a code is thrown regarding intake than it wont be but for any other engine cases, will it void?

thanks

Mike H. · Post by **Mike H.** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:39 pm

It sure won't if you save the OEM intake and reinstall in case of problem.

Post by **HenryJ** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:20 pm

Justin wrote:will the fipk void the warranty?

I would like to refer you to the federal Consumer Product Warranties law, often referred to as the Magnuson-Moss Act, which states, in part, in Title 15, United States Code, Section 2302, subdivision (c), as follows:

ìNo warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the [Federal Trade] Commission if ñ

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor.î

Under this federal statute, a manufacturer, who issues a warranty on your motor vehicle, is prohibited from requiring you to use a particular brand of air filter, oil filter, or other service or maintenance item, unless the Federal Trade Commission waives this prohibition.

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:03 am

I've heard of cases that expand upon the Magnuson-Moss act to the point that anything 'down line' can not be considered un-warranted. The case referred to a turbo-charger that was added. Within the 7 year warranty on environmental parts, the cat blew. The manufacturer lost the case and had to replace the cat because they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the turbo-charger produced conditions outside the operating standards of the cat. The only warranty you void by replacing your air filter, is the warranty on the air filter. If you change your heads, you loose the warranty on the heads. The only way the manufacturer can win is if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the damage was caused by the add-on part or by a fault in installation of the add-on part by non-qualified service technicians (in other words, anybody who isn't an authorized dealer). But then, you have a case against the manufacturer of the add-on part for a product made with such neglect it damaged other components.

With major name brands, your more protected. As those companies would NOT be favored from claims that they're equipment damaged engines. They will protect their name, an advantage to us.

I believe that Ford and K&N are currently in disagreement over their MAF sensor. K&N claims that when the filter is properly oiled and let to dry, that the oil will not come off the filter and clog the MAF sensor. Ford claims they have found oil residue on the MAF and will no longer warrant the MAF if a K&N (or similar) air filter is installed. I was made to read the article and sign it as proof of being read after getting the Windstar inspected, we have a K&N drop-in for it. I will be 'flagged' if the K&N is installed next time I bring the van in (just a warning this time) as having a non-warranted part - MAF. The article mentioned that they met the requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Act to void the warranty on the MAF (and ONLY the MAF) because they can directly trace the failure of the sensor to the oil build up off of the filter.

The Magnuson-Moss act has brought billions of dollars of revenue into the after-market community, which then dumps alot of money back into the pockets of the automobile manufacturer as these add-on companies buy technical specifications, test equipment, and even cars themselves to advertised. After a few years, everyone realized the win-win situation at hand, except the mechanic at your dealership who can't charge you $20 to change your air filter anymore.

Scott03 · Post by **Scott03** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:26 pm

Volant aslo has another intake, w/o the box, its a little further down on the chevy page. Looks like it might be a little better

Post by **HenryJ** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:52 pm

Scott03 wrote:Volant aslo has another intake, w/o the box, its a little further down on the chevy page. Looks like it might be a little better

Is this the one?

Installed image

I'm thinking it might be worse, the heat shielding of the box would be the better advantage in the first one.

Still retains the stock flex section and TB adapter.

I think you could do as well with the "hardware store S/D pipe", build your own sheetmetal heat shield and a cone filter.

Conman · Post by **Conman** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:53 pm

HenryJ wrote:
smokinjoe wrote: i was wondering what the k&n part # is for our trucks...
KN-57-3017-2 (that's what mine is)

How long does it take to swap the KN in and out? Just thinking if someone needs to take it in for dealer service, it's still a good idea to keep the look of stock just to not have warranty work problems fixed.

Con

Scott03 · Post by **Scott03** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:49 am

Sorry, I should have put a link up. But not that one.

This one http://www.volantperformance.com/Produc ... /25643.htm

Post by **HenryJ** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:21 pm

Scott03 wrote:Sorry, I should have put a link up. But not that one.

This one http://www.volantperformance.com/Produc ... /25643.htm

That is the same one that I linked above

I just linked the image of it installed.

Conman wrote:How long does it take to swap the KN in and out?

Don't really know, since I have not done it.

I'd say well under an hour though.

Scott03 · Post by **Scott03** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:40 pm

, my bad I was to quick to judge, I thought that was a pic of the old set up installed