Clux my filter minder hadn't even moved. But I was amazed at how much dirt was accumulating in the pleats and I like a nice clean filter. After about two months of this I decided that I wanted to increase the surface area of the filter, flow rates not even accounted for, that would just be an added benefit. I am planning to use this truck to pull my 5th wheel around the country while on vacation and you can use up 1000 miles in less than a week. Not acceptable filter life for me.

 

Check with Dale @ Tymar. The filter setup I bought from him has been tested and he has all the data.

 

Your original question really got me to wondering about these aftermarket filters as well. I, like some of the other posters here have always assumed that the stock air box in itself was a restriction, and tht switching to the large open element filters would result availability so much greater that would overcome any negative effects of the air being warmer.

I spent a quite a bit of time searching the internet in general and reading posts over on The Diesel Stop trying to find out information about how much air our engines flow, and if any comparisons had been conducted to determine the relative restrictiveness of the various filter setups. what I have learned, if I understood what I read correctly (in case anyone else is interested):

The early Powerstrokes were rated at about 548 cfm intake flow @ 2600 rpm, and 1600 cfm exhaust flow @ 3000 rpm. I would assume that the newer engines might have increased that, but havn't found any numbers yet.

The Ford AIS or severe duty intake system's filterminder is set to fully trip at about 25 inches of water negative pressure. That is lower than the stock filter minder for my truck with older style factory filter system, but I havn't been able to find out what the factory filterminder trips at.

If the guys over at The Diesel Stop are to be believed, Donaldson engineers compared the Donaldson B085011 filter (what I understand to be the basis for the Tymar intake) to the Ford severe duty system at a 500 cfm flow rate. The B085011 tested in the open air took 10" negative pressure differential to flow 500 cfm. The Ford severe duty AIS with the powercore filter took 8.3" negative pressure differential to flow 500 cfm tested in it's snorkel and housing!. Evidently, the filter housings, at least with the powercore filter, aren't as restrictive as we think they are.

Remember, Donaldson is the tester and the manufacturer of both these filters, so I don't see what interest they would have in the outcome either way. So, my question now is, at higher flow rates, would the larger B805011 filter eventually surpass the smaller powercore filter?. If so is it a realistic flow rate for our engines?

 

I read the post and what caught my attention was the [QUOTE] entire AIS system. If they are useing the intake tubes of the AIS versus stock that would be the diff. Apples don't make orange juice.

 

If by intake tube you mean the tube from the filter to the turbo, it is the same as stock. The severe duty AIS upgrade kit consists of the snorkel from the grill, filter box, filter, and replacement battery tray, because you remove the stock plastic battery box that is part of the stock filter box. Nothing changes from the filter box on into the turbo, the factory intake tube clamps up to the new filter box just like the old one.

 

Clux:
What you describe as the severe duty AIS is what I seem to have on my 2002 4x4 off road superduty. What does the other stock filter box look like, and are the filters different?
BTW, thanks for your extensive post on the pressure drops and flow rates; very interesting and useful.

Warren

 

I think it was in the model year 2003 with the 6.0 litre that ford switched to a stock system with the Donaldson powercore filter. The severe duty AIS filters are made of the same media, have similar flow rates, but are not interchangable. Your 2002 stock system, unless it has been upgraded (or perhaps it was offered as part of the off-road package), as far as I know should still have the old rectangular pleated paper filter, same as my 2000 came with (there's hopefully someone here that knows more about it than me and can correct me).

The severe duty system uses a filter that has rounded corners, is approximately 6" thick, and is blue colored. The filter media itself has a honeycomb appearance. The severe duty box and snorkel look very stock on the outside, it is just made to accommodate the powercore filter, and has a snap latches at each corner of the lid (total of 4) instead of the plastic tabs on one end that the stock system has. The filters themselves sell for $60-$80 from what I have seen. Donaldson claims a 99.9+% cleaning efficiency with the powercore filters.

 

Thanks, clux for the post. I DO have the stock system on my 2002, and replaced the rectangular filter just last month. It looked pretty well oiled up after 16000 miles, but a before and after changeout check over the same route at the same speed (35 miles at 70 on the cruise control) yielded identical mileage; 15.6 mpg on the onboard computer display. Backing off to 60 gained almost 2 mpg. Doesn't mean I might not gain mileage with a different filter though.

 

Don't trust the on board computer too much--As far as I can tell it's a pretty rough guess as to your actual mileage. My computer consistently reads 19+ miles/gallon, but the math normally proves out at a little bit either side of 17. I have found that through driving habits I can make the computer mileage increase by 2-3 mpg, but when I actually do the math it only works out to a few tenths. As far as getting a mileage gain out of a different intake filter, I wouldn't expect too much there either. I only mathmatically check my mileage occasionally and don't really trust the computer, but when I changed filter systems there was not anything that really jumped out at me as far as increased mileage by either method. If you run in a very dirty environment (my reasoning for shelling out the $180 to change) or have seen something that concerns you about the effectiveness of the stock system, then by all means change to a different system. But don't expect it to pay for it's self in increased fuel economy unless you plan on a very long term.

 

This is not a flame, but you need to not put words in my quote. I said,"I can feel the air move just bairly at idel". What that indicates is that the air is less restricted and moving with less speed and probably more volumn. Sorry I did not hookp the vacuum meter before the test and I don't want to reverse all that foam work now. However I could take some readings at the air box at various speeds and see what that shows. I would suspect that the vacuum will vary a little depending on throttle position and vehicle speed. It is real hard to get every thing you want exactly when you want it to happen. In this case a tun of cold air rushing in exactly when the throttle plate opens. I might get close when moving at 15>20 mph and then standing on the throttle. Just depends on how good the therory and the practical application are. I will let you all know what the vacuum meter shows in a future post.

PWRPROD

 

Just a couple of more thoughts. If I do this right it will show vacuum and pressure in the air box, and thus restriction which is what we are after, less restriction and more cold air. Two, one of you said that on you 02 the air intake was at the top of the radiater. Mine is along the driver side and at the bottom of the radiater. The top is covered by a ruberized flexable material. Thus I closed with dense foam the bottom of this column in order to achieve some ram air pressure into the intake tubing and the filter box. The new opening is through the fiberglass material next to the radiater. A 2" circle saw works very well to open this up. Blow any saw dust out backwards from the filter housing to the frount of the truck or suck it up with a vacuum. Use the can of foam spairingly just enough to round things up nice and smoooth paint black and it all disapears.

Ken: I am having a little trouble getting to the parts store the log on won't take my info and let me in to spend $$$$. I now this will upset you so do take care and have a nice Turkey day.

PWRPROD

 

Clux, you said: "Don't trust the on board computer too much--As far as I can tell it's a pretty rough guess as to your actual mileage. My computer consistently reads 19+ miles/gallon, but the math normally proves out at a little bit either side of 17."

Several people warned me that when I use an aftermarket programmer the mileage calculation of the on-board computer gets messed up. I found that to be true of the Superchip. When I changed to the Towsafe program the indicated mileage jumped way up. I thought I'd died and gone to PSD heaven. It turned out the manually calculated mileage actually went down a tad. I was towing the same load, but I took advantage of all the extra power on the hills!!

My mileage check on the filter change was on the Stock program, and I have found that the onboard computer appears to be consistent in that mode, and quite close to the manually calculated mileage. I suspect some of the differences I found were due to inaccuracies in the manual calculation due to variations in how completely I filled the tank. The on-board computer is measuring the injector flow, and doesn't care how full the tank is, but it's calculation is apparently messed up when the Programmer changes the injector characteristics in the tow-stage injector system.
Warren

 

I have heard that ford has issued a notice about the on board computer being in acurite. I have not seen it as I don't have one in my 02. Maby one of the Ford tecks that inhabit this forum will elaborate soon for the edification and enlightenment of all of the rest of us.

PWRPROD