NO! 40lbs with all others. 45lbs with 6637 and no filter. LESS RESTRICTION???

 

Are you recanting from this prior statement?

Cowboy Steve

 

Steve, he's saying the 6637 had the same results as no filter, which was 5 more lbs. of boost better than the others. I understood him both times.

Joe

 

Any restriction will show up as lower numbers on the dyno, don't you think? Blowing out a filter with compressed air is like putting all your weight on a tip of a nail. Standing on the ground you walk just fine -- take all that same weight, put it on the tip of a nail, and you'll sink it into the ground. Does that mean you should wear snow shoes all the time?? Blowing out any filter will likey damage it. Saying something "could" happen doesn't make it true. A meteor "could" fall on my head when I walk out to my truck to go to work, but I still go.

Joe

 

Sounds like a good enough reason to quit work to me

 

The 425 comes direct from Wix's website. Click on the filter # HERE

 

To paraphrase an earlier post, I don't give a rats butt about some low level of restriction, I want a filter that cleans. That's why I run the filter I use.
To continue with your snow shoe analogy, the shoes that will keep a guy on top of the snow just fine will fail if you put a 120 lb backpack on him. I also have no doubt that a lot of people "could" run their engines for years with no filter at all. That doesn't mean I am going to do it.

I agree with Gene that at least sometimes new users here virtually get the 6637 shoved down their throat. I really don't care what filter people actually use, just trying to bring some balance to the discussion. The 6637 is really an unknown quantity, a mystery filter of varying quality depending upon the supplier that was originally designed to supply air to a pretty low horsepower Cummins B. I think readers here deserve to know that.

 

I was reading about the AFE stage 2 today, and saw that it says "Airflow Increase
582 CFM vs 277 CFM for stock @1.5" Water. I have one now, and my AIS is in the mail, Ive experienced what Dan said a while ago I would have, with the drone going down a mountain loaded, unloaded. And since my tranny is going to be rebuilt ill be downshifting to decelerate downhill more.

 

Here is what I posted! "I don't give a rats but what the filter is rated at." I don't see where I have said anywhere about the filtering ability of the 6637. Seems that every time flow is discussed and can't be discredited the poor filtering is brought up.
I haven't seen anything proven yet!

 

Users ask the question, and people respond with their preferences. 6637, AIS, and AFE are usually the top responses. Why? Because lots of people use them with great success. I guess in that same respect, everyone gets DP-Tuner, BTS, MBRP, and other shoved down their throat too...... Satisifed customers will spread the word, and word of mouth advertising is the best there is. Disatisified customers will also destroy a product's reputation. Want to find out if a product works, ask people who use it.

I don't agree with Gene on this topic. Why? Because this whole issue with the 6637 filter has jumped from one side of the spectrum to the other. Just recently in another thread Gene was referring to the 6637 filter and other similar ones as being too free flowing and causing a turbo destroying vortex (link to thread here). Now suddenly in this thread the exact same filter is too restrictive. There's quite a few folks here that are quick to jump the bandwagon just because a few mathmatical calculations are thrown up on the screen. Me personally, I look at real world results. The "fuzzy math" can always be manipulated, but some of those computations and theories make no sense, or are completely different than what is seen on the street, drag strip, or pull.

It's a valiant effort and takes a lot of knowledge to do the calculations that Gene does. I hate math, and I'm not very good at it so I won't even try. Engineering is not for me. However I can tell when something doesn't make sense and when something isn't relative. Like the other calculation at the beginning of the thread with humidity and the air intake. Name one single instance where that has ever happened in real life. But the calculation is there, and it's presented in a way that makes it look like the 6637 filter will be destroyed just by daily driving.

Everyone also seems to be forgetting in this thread that the 6637 is a paper filter. Guess what? Stock trucks come with a paper filter. They have the same filtering characteristics, respond the exact same way to water, dirt, whatever. Now look at the surface area of the stock paper element compared to a 6637. Common sense will tell you that the 6637 flows more. However, where's the calculations of the stock filter and airbox airflow? I guarantee it won't flow more than a 6637 filter. But so far what has been posted seems that the 6637 is so restrictive that it won't even flow enough air for a stock PSD. See where this thread has been going?

 

I have followed this tread for some time now and I have to ask some questions.

- In talking with Dale Isley from Tymar he told me his filter is far better than a 6637 bc NAPA bids it out and it could have about 100 diff filtering ability's/cfm ability's. His is a Donaldson which has the best filtering out there. Dale also said his has some sort of special layer that won't allow water through while the 6637 has been known to rust up turbos etc. (Fearing personal attack, this is just a paraphrase from a 45 min conversation with Dale. I neither confirm, nor deny any of this info. As said, this info was my paraphrase/understanding of what Dale was saying. I may have misunderstood.)

- Mech, nice vids. That track looked like crap on the first daytime pull. The truck never got a bite.

- Clux, you never stated what air filter setup you were running. I assume it is still the 6.0l that is in your gallery.

- Cowboy Steve, what's up! I haven't called you in over a week! I am making progress. I am going to send a PM at you.

- To the Rest, Excellent discussion. Keep up the good debate. I still have to decide which intake to go with and this is only helping.

Scott

 

The three napa 6637 filter I have bought in my 4 years of powerstroking have all had the Donaldson logo with the Duralite sticker on it. So every filter I have gotten from Napa has been a reboxed donaldson. Also while researching the water repellant nature of the donaldson filter I don't think any of us are using the correct filter to repel water. There are two different filters and one is made for marine use. The part number that everyone says Dale uses is not a water repellant filter. I posted the PDF file some time ago from Donaldson stating this info I will see if I can dig it up again.

 

here's the thread I started about the donaldson filters
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/6...lter-info.html

 

Part Number: 42326
UPC Number: 765809423268
Principal Application: Various HD Marine; For High Moisture Environments
CFM: 280

 

mech2161 where are you doing dyno runs in Oct ? You going to Baytown ?