When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Ernest, I just noticed in one of your posts (the one that shows the airflow data on the different filters), that the stock 6 liter box is much less restrictive than the 7.3 ais. Has anyone looked at using the 6 liter box on the 7.3? Granted, It's been a while since I looked uner the hood of a 6 oh, so I have no idea what the 6 uhoh box looks like.
That is an excellent question.
The Donaldson filter (6.0 L OEM) at 775 CFM gives 4.9 inches of H2O
The Donaldson filter (7.3 L AIS) at 700 CFM gives16 inches of H2O
That just doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever to me unless it can be explained by the larger dispacement/volume demanded by the 7.3 but that doesn't bear out either because the rating of the 6.0 is at a higher CFM. Makes no sense to me with the same type filter media.
Makes me want to question those numbers.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Ernest, I just noticed in one of your posts (the one that shows the airflow data on the different filters), that the stock 6 liter box is much less restrictive than the 7.3 ais. Has anyone looked at using the 6 liter box on the 7.3? Granted, It's been a while since I looked uner the hood of a 6 oh, so I have no idea what the 6 uhoh box looks like.
The 6.0L AIS element is made from the exact same material as is the 7.3L AIS element. The reason the 6.0L has less restriction than the 7.3L is discussed at length in the link above. Here's another link below. Basically, the restriction of an AIS depends on the entire volume of the element, not just on the transverse surface area like for a conventional filter, and the 6.0L has a larger volume element.
http://www.donaldson.com/en/about/news/005525.html This corrugated media is constructed by layering alternating rows of flat sheet and corrugated media.The result is a dense, honeycomb-like structure of filter media. The resulting media pack consists of parallel rows of flutes that are open at only one end. To create a filter from this media pack, the ends of the flutes are sealed at alternating ends with an adhesive bead. This bead of adhesive creates a barrier to air on the upstream side of alternating flutes within the media pack, and a corresponding barrier on the adjacent flute at the downstream end. The result is that when placed in an air stream, the air is allowed to enter half of the flute chambers on the upstream side of the media pack, but blocked from exiting those flute chambers on the downstream side. Because of the permeable nature of filter media, the airflow passes through the media fibers and gets cleaned. Once in the adjacent chamber, it exits on the open downstream end and is directed to the turbo inlet.
... That just doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever to me unless it can be explained by the larger dispacement/volume demanded by the 7.3 but that doesn't bear out either because the rating of the 6.0 is at a higher CFM. Makes no sense to me with the same type filter media.
Makes me want to question those numbers.
The restriction data is obtained from bench tests employing a standard air flow test stand, and the CFM vs inches of H2O pressure drop are absolute, and have nothing to do with the displacement of an actual engine. Check this link for more details... The 6.0 filter: If I stop by the Banks place this year, I'm going to show them my AFAFG=Air Filter Air Flow Gauge as motivation, to see if they'll give me their detailed AIS air flow measurements. I know from a reliable source that they made them, but last time I was there I'd just installed my AIS, and they gave me the run around when I asked for them.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.