AIS vs. NAPA 6637
#46
12-10-2005, 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by johnny8
true... but on most v8 engines two or more cylinders are firing at the same time... i do not know about the 7.3...
Warren
#47
12-10-2005, 05:52 PM
#48
12-10-2005, 06:53 PM
#49
12-10-2005, 11:02 PM
Originally Posted by SpringerPop
I think the numbers, as given, would be for the filter alone, not in a housing. If you have the housing modified with the sleeve, you should be able to get a real appreciable percentage of the figure quoted.
But the figures given are for restriction, in inches of water, across the filter media, not raw flow. They are more significant in making a comparison of two filters.
In a test environment, given enough suction, one COULD (I suspect) suck 1000CFM through a filter for a Pinto, but the restriction would be very high, leaving you with a very high intake vacuum when used in the real world. Not conducive to making any power.
Use the numbers for making a comparison, not absolute flow capabilities.
Pop
But the figures given are for restriction, in inches of water, across the filter media, not raw flow. They are more significant in making a comparison of two filters.
In a test environment, given enough suction, one COULD (I suspect) suck 1000CFM through a filter for a Pinto, but the restriction would be very high, leaving you with a very high intake vacuum when used in the real world. Not conducive to making any power.
Use the numbers for making a comparison, not absolute flow capabilities.
Pop
#50
12-11-2005, 12:15 AM
Right, didn't get all the information here at FTE.
Given the FilterMinder sucks up a bunch quicker with the AIS housing, and given that the sleeve mod is almost a requirement to get good air flow, it would seem that the housing is restrictive, so I wonder about this.
The only wild card is that FilterMinder makes different units with different springs for different applications. Maybe one with a real light spring gets installed in the AIS housing. If it's the same one as the original housing has, then I just don't see it outflowing (actually "under-restricting at 500cfm") the big kwik-sized filter.
Pop
Given the FilterMinder sucks up a bunch quicker with the AIS housing, and given that the sleeve mod is almost a requirement to get good air flow, it would seem that the housing is restrictive, so I wonder about this.
The only wild card is that FilterMinder makes different units with different springs for different applications. Maybe one with a real light spring gets installed in the AIS housing. If it's the same one as the original housing has, then I just don't see it outflowing (actually "under-restricting at 500cfm") the big kwik-sized filter.
Pop
#51
12-11-2005, 02:13 AM
#52
12-11-2005, 10:05 AM
#53
12-11-2005, 10:45 AM
Originally Posted by SpringerPop
Given what we've seen, that would almost HAVE to be the case, a lighter spring.
That's the only way the observations could be reconciled with the numbers given.
Pop
That's the only way the observations could be reconciled with the numbers given.
Pop
#54
12-11-2005, 11:12 AM
Sorry, I didn't read that one over there. I don't go there very often.
I VERY rarely exceed 2750 rpm with my engine. Assuming something like 85 percent volumetric efficiency, the way I do the math, a 444 cu in engine should take in just 300 cubic feet of air per minute at that RPM.
IF that's a good assumption, I suspect I'm not excessively restricting my intake.
This could all change under high-boost conditions, I just don't know.
Thoughts?
Pop
I VERY rarely exceed 2750 rpm with my engine. Assuming something like 85 percent volumetric efficiency, the way I do the math, a 444 cu in engine should take in just 300 cubic feet of air per minute at that RPM.
IF that's a good assumption, I suspect I'm not excessively restricting my intake.
This could all change under high-boost conditions, I just don't know.
Thoughts?
Pop
Last edited by SpringerPop; 12-11-2005 at 11:55 AM.
#55
12-11-2005, 12:07 PM
Fleet Owner
A note for thought: Ford thought that the flat panel air filter was adequite for the task, so I'm thinking that the 6637 is going to be overkill as it is.
Another point to ponder. The AIS has the same footprint as the factory flat panel, yet flows more and filters finer too. And the 6637 if laid out flat is about three times as large. I need to be educated here as to how the AIS flows nearly twice as much.
Another point to ponder. The AIS has the same footprint as the factory flat panel, yet flows more and filters finer too. And the 6637 if laid out flat is about three times as large. I need to be educated here as to how the AIS flows nearly twice as much.
#56
12-11-2005, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Kwikkordead
A note for thought: Ford thought that the flat panel air filter was adequite for the task, so I'm thinking that the 6637 is going to be overkill as it is.
Another point to ponder. The AIS has the same footprint as the factory flat panel, yet flows more and filters finer too. And the 6637 if laid out flat is about three times as large. I need to be educated here as to how the AIS flows nearly twice as much.
Another point to ponder. The AIS has the same footprint as the factory flat panel, yet flows more and filters finer too. And the 6637 if laid out flat is about three times as large. I need to be educated here as to how the AIS flows nearly twice as much.
Last edited by clux; 12-11-2005 at 12:19 PM.
#57
12-11-2005, 12:25 PM
Postmaster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=clux]With a filter media that is 10 times more efficient. Don't know if this site is allowed through censors, so you may have to copy and paste. http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/support/datalibrary/001220.pdf[/QUOTE]
It's a go on the link
...good info!
It's a go on the link
...good info!
#58
12-11-2005, 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by SpringerPop
Sorry, I didn't read that one over there. I don't go there very often.
I VERY rarely exceed 2750 rpm with my engine. Assuming something like 85 percent volumetric efficiency, the way I do the math, a 444 cu in engine should take in just 300 cubic feet of air per minute at that RPM.
IF that's a good assumption, I suspect I'm not excessively restricting my intake.
This could all change under high-boost conditions, I just don't know.
Thoughts?
Pop
I VERY rarely exceed 2750 rpm with my engine. Assuming something like 85 percent volumetric efficiency, the way I do the math, a 444 cu in engine should take in just 300 cubic feet of air per minute at that RPM.
IF that's a good assumption, I suspect I'm not excessively restricting my intake.
This could all change under high-boost conditions, I just don't know.
Thoughts?
Pop
#59
12-11-2005, 12:41 PM
#60
12-11-2005, 12:44 PM