Who jumped in your face, Gene? Seems to me like just about everyone has stated a well-established respect for your knowledge, but some have also said clearly that the way you present it is often difficult to follow. Besides, your offerings are very often referenced back to the work YOU did without much (if anything) in the way of substantiated real world data from someone other than yourself. When what you say and calculate flies in the face of someone else's experience, I think you're going to need more than your own self-generated model to prove them wrong.

You did provide an external link in your post, but I have to say that it is pretty weak in the "helpful information" department. I looked and looked and cannot find a link to that page from the Filterminder websites, and there are no navigational buttons to link it with anything else. Besides, it is only a single graph that has some serious TECHNICAL weaknesses....

1) no explanation about where it came from
2) does not identify who did the testing
3) does not identify what filter elements were used
4) offers nothing to demonstrate repeatability
5) does not identify the testing conditions
6) does not show how much restriction was applied, AND
7) only shows Hp at a single rpm of 1500 (not where MY engine normally runs).

Sorry, but that's not good enough info to change my mind about anything.

 

Ernest, we don't always agree, but right now I will play devil's advocate for you.

The reason why you meet so much resistance on this subject is because your theories and calculations do not match up with the real world results that everyday users on this forum are seeing. When people are putting on the 6637 and having better results with it than a stock intake, they are naturally going to be happy with it because it's so cheap. Are there possibly better intakes out there? Sure there are, but you're going to spend hundreds of dollars more. Let's face it, most people can switch from a 6637 filter to a high priced top of the line aftermarket intake setup, and will never even notice a difference.

So in this case, when real world results clashes against mathematical formulas, calculations, and theories, no one is going to side with you. I'm sorry, but it's true, and I don't know of any way to word it so that it's more black and white.

On top of that, I know that in many examples you use data from Banks Power. Most people here are going to take that data as being skewed and biased, and will be much less inclined to believe a single word of it.

If the 6637 was really that bad, we would see a rash of turbo failures, high EGT's, dusting, and other issues. Does anyone have that sort of problem with the 6637? If so, we would have seen it a long time ago. Instead, the worst complaint we ever hear about the 6637 is the noise from under the hood, since it doesn't muffle sound like the stock airbox does. Instead, most are generally satisfied with the filtering capabilities, the performance of their trucks, and the EGT's they see on a daily basis. Numbers on paper stand zero chance against something like that.

Last, I think what really gets some people the most is that you have never used the 6637 filter setup on your own truck, yet you continue to try and prove how bad it is. Yet, those who have used or currently use the 6637 don't report any of your findings. I personally used the 6637 for several years and never had an issue. At 85K miles I finally yanked out my old stock turbo for an upgraded 38R, and the stocker was in perfect condition. Zero dusting, no play, and worked just like new. In fact, I sold it to someone else who is very happy with it.

These are the roadblocks that keep everyone from universally accepting your position on the 6637. This is why it's such an uphill and ongoing battle. Until your theories are seen in the real world, people aren't going to believe it. It's one thing to see something on paper, and a totally different thing to see it with your own eyes.

Ernest, please don't take my post as bashing. I'm just trying to give you insight as to why it seems you are battling the world with this subject.

 

Nice post Curtis, tried to rep you but I'm in jail.

 

I apologize for sticking my nose in yet another one of these. The poor OP just wants to know if the 6637 is a good mod. Yes, it's a good mod. But as you can see, there are a few that simply don't believe in it for various reasons (which you can read about yourself). For about $35 (the cost of pizza and a movie for the family) from Clay at Riff-Raff, you can come to your own conclusions. Try it out -- you'll either like it or not.

 

well, i was planning on doing it anyways, but just wanted to know if i needed clamps/ect to do this. I thank you gene for posting, which i read and see where you come from. I never like the stock air box on my truck with so many ways dirty air can get through. I drive in terribly dusty conditions, and with 270,000 on the clock, i see its working ok, but there is some dirt that goes through, i'd like to completely eliminate this. I think the 6637 mod will do this, along with giving me peace of mind, i wont worry if the filter is sealed with this, because i know it is. My other question is the foil mod, will it make it so i can hear the turbo whistle more, that is what i have heard before. does anyone have a before and after of the foil mod?

 

If you decide to go with it, it comes with everything, filter, clamp and filter cover from Mr. F_250 himself.

 

What if I quoted the members on this forum who've reported that their 6637 clamp came loose and allowed their 6637 filter to fall off the intake tube and let their engine suck unfiltered air for some unknown number of days until they finally noticed the problem? Well of course I'd immediately be accused of employing "scare tactics" which is exactly what you've done here!

If you compare the number of stock air box clamp failures with the millions of stock air boxes in service and do the same for the number of 6637 clamp failures with the perhaps thousands of 6637 filters in service I'm sure that the 6637 clamp failure rate is much higher than for a stock air box! Yet as can be seen below the "stock air box is no good" mantra that's been hyped by the 6637 advocates on this forum for years has convinced people that just the opposite is true!

As I've posted several times my research indicates that the newer FA-1750 (Ford P/N 2U2Z-9601-AA) fixed that issue... "I couldn't see much if any difference between the FA-1720 and FA-1750, but probably has something to do with a better seal in the air box.".

When using a stock air box it's very important to adjust the tension of the clamps like I show below for my AIS box to get a uniformly firm clamping force around the entire perimeter of the lid. You pop the clamps out of their grove, bend them with pliers, re-install and lock them in place, and then test the tension by starting to unlatch them and it should take an equal force to unlatch each clamp. It also never hurts to smear some petroleum jelly around the seal and I always used enough to leave some on the outside so that I could see if there were any leaks which would disturb the jelly.

 

Just what "numbers" would you quote, Gene?

Number/percent of 6637 users who had a "loose connection"?
Number of "loose connection" events per 6637 user?
Number/percent of users who have experienced multiple "loose connection" events?
Number/percent of 6637 users who NEVER had a loose connection?
Percent of time each filter ran under "loose connection" conditions?
Number/percent of miles driven under "loose connection" conditions?
Percent of 6637 miles operated under "loose connnection" conditions?
Percent of "unfiltered air volumes" while running under "loose connection" conditions?

... etc.

Those would all be some gloriously interesting data points, but there's not an ice cubes chance you'll ever be able to get accurate numbers on any of those things, even if you got 100% accurate participation from every member in this forum... there are just too many users elsewhere. Then you'd also have to get the same data for every other type of filter operated in order to make true comparative statements.

I'm through with this thread, though.... just feels too much like !

 

Actually, the difference here is Failure vs. User Error.

Any intake is subject to both. However, I'm willing to bet that most issues with the 6637 is due to user error rather than failure. The stock Ford intake is subject to lots of user error (eg: breaking tabs and clips off during filter replacements, forgetting to buckle a clip, etc), as well as failure due to lid warpage, cracking, etc. If you can significantly reduce the chances of total failure (while retaining a relatively same amount of user error), then you've made statistical improvements to the reliability of your intake.

Not all stock intakes fail. Let's all make this clear now. However, the failure rate is significant enough the people have seen it first hand. Even Ford went back and created the AIS as an upgrade option for us 7.3L guys. The AIS is much less prone to total failure than the stock airbox, but still carries with it the same chance of user error.

 

Gene... please look at the picture of my stock airbox lid and comment. Anything that lets that much dirt through is a total piece of crap, IMO. And, I would argue that the 6637 users that have had any problems at all are the ones who forced the factory intake tube over the 6637 filter rather than using an adapter (4" exhaust tubing or 3" ABS coupler).

 

It seems to me that the "burden of proof" is on the person who is advocating that members scrap their OEM Ford design that's been proven on millions of trucks in favor of your 6637 recommendation and that you're the one who should "back up your stuff with real numbers"!!!

I sure wish you'd post your analysis showing how a given OA report proves that a given weight of particulate matter hasn't passed straight through your 6637 filter and gotten ground up in your engine! How many grams of dust and dirt need to pass through an air filter before the 4 gallons of oil in a 7.3L engine plus the oil that you add due to usage gets sufficiently saturated with contaminates to cause an adverse indication using OAs?

The quote below is the recommendation I gave on a recent thread to either leave well enough alone or upgrade to something that's been actually proven to be better and please note I provided some "real numbers" to back up that recommendation!

 

I assume by "dyno-proven" you mean that someone did a series of dyno runs with his stock FA-1750 filter and then ripped out his stock air box and installed a 6637 filter and did another series of dyno runs and consistently saw more HP with the 6637 filter after correctly adjusting for changes in factors such as atmospheric temperature, atmospheric pressure, the temperature of the engine and driveline fluids, and how tightly the truck was tied down which effects the rolling resistance HP absorbed by the tires?

Well until you post the "numbers" to back up your "dyno-proven" claim all we have to go on is my following explanation of the "Physics" for how an air filter might increase HP! They're only two possible mechanisms by which an air filter can increase HP... #1 provide a lower air filter Inches H2O restriction vs CFM curve or #2 provide a lower air filter intake air temperature. Since no one can possibly claim that mechanism #2 is in play for an "open element" 6637 filter configuration that just leaves mechanism #1!

Well it's been hyped for years by the 6637 advocates on this forum that the stock FA-1750 filter is much more restrictive than a 6637 filter to the point where almost everyone but me and the member I quote below thinks it's actually true...

...and here's a quote from a member who listened to and believed the hype and a quote of my reply to his concern...



After I posted the above comparison curves I received this question...

...and my reply was...



Well the comparison restriction graph above was enough to convince at least one member...

...and I didn't even need to mention that if you put a cover on a 6637 filter it's slight restriction advantage at higher CFM all but disappears!

Even if you still think that a 6637 filter is much less restrictive than a stock FA-1750 filter how do you explain the Cummins dyno testing data here... http://www.filterminder.com/bulletin...estriction.pdf ...which says that air filter restriction doesn't effect your engine's HP in a measurable way? Hopefully not by saying that test was done on a Cummins and you drive a 7.3L power stroke!

 

Well since you won't post your measurements or even your reasons why removing the thermal insulation from the driver's side CAC tube won't hurt performance I'll give my arguments why removing this thermal insulation will hurt performance so that members can decide for themselves if they think it's a good idea to remove this thermal insulation!

As they say "seeing is believing" and if you look at the picture below which is from the Banks installation manual for their early 99 power pack kit you'll see that Banks used a heat shield to insulate the driver's side CAC tube so that it didn't pick up additional heat due to its close proximity to the exhaust manifold on that side. There's a lot more clearance on the passenger side so evidently Banks didn't think a heat shield was all that helpful there.

Well the early 99 trucks didn't come from Ford with an insulating wrap on the driver's side CAC tube so Banks provided one in their kits but on the later trucks Ford was nice enough to install a heat shield on the driver's side CAC tube that was evidently as good as or even better than the original Banks version because Banks stopped providing their version of the heat shield in their power pack kits for the later trucks.

Now it doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to realize that having a non-insinuated CAC tube about 2 inches away from a 1,200 F exhaust manifold isn't the best idea for achieving optimum performance! So why did Ford wait until the 99.5 trucks came out before adding their insulation? Because unlike Banks who added their heat shield to the early 99 trucks to gain performance Ford added their insulation to help the later model trucks pass the EPA NOx test which the early 99 trucks had failed to pass!

Many people on this forum seem to be very proud of their "foil delete" mod which removes the very functional Ford heat shield so that their CAC tube will look pretty or so they can hear more turbo whine but removing this shield can only hurt performance not help it! I guess if you believe in the saying "if it doesn't go fast anyway you might as well chrome it to look pretty" then the "foil delete" mod is a good one to do!

 

The driver's side CAC is the hot side anyways, and I really doubt there is enough heat transfer from the manifold to the air inside the CAC tube to affect it much. Care to run that experiment for us?
Oh, and just because Banks does it doesn't make it right...

 

The only question I have is why is there all that dirt and dust in my stock airbox? Thats why I replaced mine. On the 6637 after 25k the inside of the filter was spotless!! I was really surprised.

Now in my simple mind (lol) no dirt means a better filter.. Am I wrong about this??

My best friend's father is a ME and he works for a craftsmen truck series (nascar trucks) and he spends a ton of time designing race stuff and wind tunnel applications. I usually do alot of DIY mods... and he told me that a huge percentage (50-75%) of the stuff they try does not prove HP or less drag in the dyno/tunnel tests even tho mathematically is says it should...

I think this is why there is such argument over the stock air box vs. 6637.

Ernest, I understand your argument and i'm pulling for you.. gotta cheer for an educated man.