OMG... dont get him started on the whole TAG thing again!!!...lol


btw, i have had an airaid (oiled cotton/conical filter) with pre-filter on my truck for 65,000 miles with no problems. the intake track is clean, blades are smooth as a babys but and the turbo shaft has the same in and out and side to side movement (or lack there of) it did when i put the filter on

 

Hey ernest, I always pay attention to the threads you start because I know I will always learn something. Be carefull though with the "sacred cow" comment though. The uproar you are talking about was not about a "sacred cow" as much as it was about personal attack on people that, in my short time on this forum, are not normal FTE 7.3 fair. I think your viewpoint is much needed, as it brings new thought to improving our trucks. just understand, when you put your ideas out there for others to view, you set yourself up for others to discount and/or agree with them whether or not you like it.
Anyway keep up the good work and if you can prove it I'll listen. My $.02

 

there are as many reactions to medicines as there are people. the same can be said for engines and the modifications that affect their operations. how else do you explain the variances in fuel mileage and performance with the exact same mods? just my .02 I really like this fourm great info from everyone!

 

Let's assume that my hearing wasn't good enough to hear those "faint noises" with my stock air box, which was an upgraded 99.5 with a flat K&N in my early 99 truck. My conclusion is that since the turbo spooling up sounded about as loud as before, and those other "faint noises" that I couldn't even hear before were now very loud, the mechanism that was making those "faint noises" must have been intensified by adding the free flowing symmetrical air filter! Consider that the only difference in sound muffling before and after the cone filter was added, was the thin plastic lid of the stock air box, and that the new and very loud sounds I was now hearing after the cone filter was added are also traveling through the sound absorbing material on the hood and/or on the firewall to get to my ears.

My conclusion is that under certain conditions the spinning compressor blades cause a "vortex effect", but due to the convoluted flow path imposed by a filter box, this "vortex effect" is somewhat attenuated (say an EF-1 on the new tornado scale), and only produces "faint noises", and consequently small impulsive loads on the bearing. On the other hand, the addition of a very free flowing symmetrical air filter drastically changes the inlet flow path so as to intensify this "vortex effect" (say an EF-5), thereby causing louder noises, which signify a higher level of impulsive loads on the bearing, and more wear and tear.

 

I don't care for people trying to put words in my mouth, especially when I never said them to begin with! Please find in any of my posts here where I've said anything like this statement which you're trying to attribute to me, and quote it back for all to see it in my own words, not yours. That's why we have the "quote back feature" to avoid things like this.

 

As you probably remember from my several threads on that subject, I thought that it would, which is why I installed it after my turbo failure. But when I had to pull the 99.5 wheel that came on my early 99 replacement turbo, to replace it with an original OEM version, and I saw the dust damage to the brand new 99.5 wheel after just 300 miles of towing, I decided to switch to an AIS at the same time, so I can't say for sure which change cured my previous problem.

However, I can say with certainty that I no longer hear the noises, and my new air flow gauge shows no indications of any fluctuations in air flow when under the same loads (towing grades) as I was hearing the noises with the cone filter, so my tentative conclusion is that either the TAG or the AIS or a combination of both solved the problem.

 

Hey ernesteugene, what kind of air flow gauge do you have and how/where do you have it installed, and where did you buy it? I looked in your gallery and think I understand your setup but I am not sure. I'm interested in installing one myself so we could compare numbers, even though mine isn't an early 99..

 

The WiFi at my campground got knocked out by a thunder storm about the time I got to the bit about sacred cows, I'll have to get back to it and see what all I missed. However, I always try to poke holes in as many sacred cows as possible, but only if they deserve it, and only if I've got the ammo to do it with.

In my generation (before PC speak) we'd call "to discount and/or agree with them" an argument, and as I recently stated in my post #73 here https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/631407-i-want-600-hp-5.html in response to this ...And I apologize if I've started any arguments in the process..., I think they're a good thing to have... ... but your point is well taken, and I'll try to chose my words more carefully when having one.

 

Hey ernest, that other thread really got to me, but don't in anyway think that I steer clear of a good argument. I agree with your last statement. I hate having to be PC. I come from a big family, so PC is never included in our coversation!! So don't think you offended me. Stay safe in you travels.

 

Actually, I'm getting plenty of CFM data on my early 99, I want some on a 99.5 to help calibrate my PSD model for that air inlet configuration. Did you notice the pics here https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/631407-i-want-600-hp-5.html , of the early 99 vs 99.5 plenums, and my analysis there indicating that my plenums are my current bottle neck to getting more CFM?

As you can see here Click for full size image , I installed a fitting in place of the air restrictor gauge on my AIS box, and the hose runs through the firewall to this gauge Click for full size image , which is + and - 15" H2O. According to the data you provided, and some other I've found, a full scale reading is about 650 CFM. The highest reading I've seen so far is 10.5" or about 450 CFM, but I haven hit the mountains yet with the new gauge installed.

Since you've got the 6.0L version of the AIS, I'm not sure where you'd install the fitting, but anywhere down stream of the filter element should work. It's very interesting to watch CFM and boost build up as you load the engine. I'm developing some theories to explain these readings, but I need to get some measurements on long mountain grades.

The reason I went with the more expensive gauge that reads both + and - was to monitor for any small pressure fluctuations at the turbo inlet that would indicate surge, no matter how small the effect might be. If you don't have any such concerns, you can just use a gauge that reads a vacuum.

Here's the exact info on my gauges, the first is for CC pressure and the second for CFM.

<SMALL><SMALL>Phone:(609) 259-8900 Fax:(609) 259-3575 Internet:www.mcmaster.com</SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL><SMALL>E-mail:nj.sales@mcmaster.com</SMALL></SMALL>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=middle width="5%">1 </TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=middle width="6%">1

Each
</TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=middle width="13%">4026K251 </TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=left width="46%">Low-Pressure Diaphragm Gauge 1.5% Accuracy, 1/4" NPT Center Back, 0-10" of H2O (Same as 4026K5)


</TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=right width="10%">$49.65 </TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=right width="11%">$49.65 </TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid" width="2%"></TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top noWrap align=middle width="9%">Monday morning


</TD></TR><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=middle width="5%">2 </TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=middle width="6%">1

Each
</TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=middle width="13%">4021K47 </TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=left width="46%">Low-Pressure Differential Gauge +/-2% Accuracy, 1/8" NPT Fem, -15 to 15" of Water (Same as 4021K51)


</TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=right width="10%">$75.55 </TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top align=right width="11%">$75.55 </TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid" width="2%"></TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #edefed 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" vAlign=top noWrap align=middle width="9%">Monday morning</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

I got to thinking about it this afternoon, I'm sure I have an automotive diagnostic vacuum gauge somewhere. I found it when I got home, measures from -30" h2o to +10 psi. All I need to plumb it in is a few more feet of vacuum line and a hose barb to go in the filter minder hole, which can be seen in this photo just behind and to the right of the red positive battery terminal cover. Since I already had the gauge I wish I had taken some readings when I still had the AIS, would have been an interesting comparison.

 

One thing to consider, I did have the opposite effect on my truck. Prior to switching to the AFE Stage II, I had upgraded the turbo to the ball bearing unit. The scream from the turbo with the 6637 filter was insanely loud, especially going up mountain passes. When I switched to the AFE, the sound was greatly muffled in the cab and my wife can now stand to ride with me There is still that extremely high pitched whistle that's very audible, but the engine noise and other turbo noises are muffled. The AFE is still an open element conical filter, but it does have a shroud around it. So any kind of box, shroud, barrier, whatever seems to make a big difference in noise level, even though more than likely it's flowing the same as with the 6637.

Also, to create this vortex at the turbo, wouldn't the intake tube need to be straighter in order for it to originate at the filter? Otherwise at lower boost situations, you would have the same airflow with a stock box as you would any others. The only difference would be at higher boost situations where the stock box might be a restriction. But by this time the truck is probably chipped and pushing the turbo near the edge of the map anyway.

 

I apologize this is off topic a bit, but what is the "sacred cow" thread being referred to?

 

The BTS transmission thread that got locked a couple of days ago. Big fight over the honor of Brian and his transmissions.

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth, nor am I trying to pick an argument. I'm merely stating that far too many people have these types of filters for lots more miles than you did without problems. This gets back to not seeing the forest for the trees. You can measure your own scenario until pigs fly, but none of it changes the fact that you're one data point in a very large sample. That's what I meant by "your terms". I also believe that turbos fail. Do you not think it could possibly be coincidence that yours did when that filter was there?

Touche on the part about hearing from folks WITH problems. I would LOVE to take you up on your offer myself, but unfortunately, I'm busy working to do my part to pay for your retirement. Well, to be honest, it's that, and I'm just not that interested in seeing what I consider a non-issue. I think the "forest" of folks out there with these filters without problems speaks pretty loudly over your one tree with a problem. To the extent that I'm willing to take the "chance" & gamble my engine & turbo on it. The only other problem I heard of with the 6637 was the guy with the one that got a chunk of it sucked through the turbo......and who KNOWS why THAT happened.

I know this sounds argumentative and like I'm trying to belittle your efforts. I'm really not. I'm just stating what I see and what I think (and yes, feel to a certain extent) about this. It's not a sacred cow at all. It's a $40 air filter. If the AIS was half as expensive as it is, I'd consider it. It's not, and no hard proof is out there that 6637s cause damage. Sorry, but that's my take.