I'll trust a proven Banks design over your idle speculation... "I really doubt there is enough heat transfer from the manifold to the air inside the CAC tube to affect it much" ...all day long!!!

I've already explained that ..."The driver's side CAC is the hot side anyways" ...isn't the issue it's which side is the closest to the respective exhaust manifold because a 1,200 F exhaust manifold is much hotter than either CAC tube!!!

 

Wow, Gene... you must be getting pretty desperate when you resort to taking information and comments completely out of context. Is it that hard to validate your propositions?

The graphs you snagged from one of my earlier posts were not even remotely related to your perpetual banter about airflow capacities of the 6637 or any other filter. If you'll go back and re-read the thread you stole that from you'll see that it was purely in relation to the best place to measure vacuum and why you can't get the proper vacuum reading at the dead end of the filter.



I would also like to know where your data is for the above statement. Yes, I said DATA - the stuff that is based on facts and real world information. I have data showing that the 6637 has less than a 1.5% reduction in airflow with a cover on it. The differences you show in your air flow curves indicate 10-13% higher flows with the 6637 (at > 7" WC), so I just simply fail to see how you can say that less than 1/5% "all but offsets" 10-13% differences.

Gene... you're getting really sloppy and putting yourself in a foolish position when you take things out of context, make statements with only assumptions and no data, and then toss in myriads of equations and graphs and diagrams as a "baffling" technique. As smart as you are (and at your age, no less), I thought you'd have learned better than that by now.

Sorry... I'll go back to my corner now.

 

Find me some data from anyone other than Banks that says no foil on my drivers side CAC tube will have an adverse affect on my engine's performance if you would.
And while you're at it, please comment on my photo of the inside of the lid of my "perfectly functional" factory airbox. To save you looking, I'll post it again:

 

I just posted this on another thread and it includes my $20 offer to kick off a 6637 testing fund so I sure hope someone steps up to the plate to lead the effort. If Tenn (Mike) was around I'd hit him up to volunteer because being from TN that's what those folks are supposed to do anyway!

 

I don't much care for being mocked by your use of cartoon figures so from now on just consider me to be the "soup ****" on the Seinfeld TV series... "No more soup for superduty4x4" so don't be holding your breath waiting for me to reply to any present or future inquires!!!

 

Again I say
I'm done trying to be respectful of anything you have to say.

 

Gene... you continue to make silly absolute statements that do not get properly qualified.

You've piqued my interest with your offer, though. I have called two separate ISO certified air filtration testing companies who have absolutely nothing to do with the automotive industry, so they have no dog in this hunt at all. Both offices were closed for the day, but I have left my direct number and hope to speak with them on Monday to investigate the potential costs of performing the kind of evaluation you want (and others of us) would like to see.

If this thing can actually get arranged and accomplished, I would be more than happy to have you review and even help us define the testing parameters for this little project. However, if we take this forward, it will have to eb contrained to a real world approach with real filters that we're using, and I commit to making every effort possible to ensure apples-to-apples evaluations based on the real conditions our engines are seeing.

In the meantime...

When you say, "There's no such thing as a "magic" air filter because you always have to eat more dirt to get a lower restriction at a higher CFM period!", you are COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that a filter element with LARGER surface area of the EXACT SAME MEDIA will ALWAYS give you better filtration (read as "eat less dirt") than the smaller one due to the simple physics principal called "passing velocity" and the resultant impact forces on particles being carried by those velocities.

Regardless, I have to wonde rif I am completely invisible to you since you have yet to ever respond to anything I've ever mentioned. Have I been disrespectful or mocking towards you? you'll have to answer that one. I know that I have tried hard... very, VERY hard to not take that approach with you... I've been straight forward with real rational thinking and real science and real data on my side, as has Curtis in his comments, and Andrew in his, and others as well...

What gives??

 

 

I'll throw in $5.. this is a good idea.. ohh.. and also, I have set up a fund to see exactly how many beers I can drink during my gauges install.. so PM for donation info

 

Probably 99% of the people who have used a stock filter have liked it as well. Probably 99% of the people who drive a Dodge like it. Just because the people who use it like it doesn't make it good.

 

You can see in your picture where the dirt was coming past the seal on the stock filter. So is this a case of user error from an improperly installed filter?

I'll commit to a $50 contribution.

 

I stole your smiley, Chase!

 

I will volunteer the 6637 filters for testing

 

I'll dispense with your insulting remarks above by simply saying they're not appreciated, not called for, 100% untrue, have no basis in fact, no technical merit whatsoever, and even though pettiness and name calling are counterproductive to reaching an understanding of what's a fairly straight forward technical issue I'll take the time to explain this issue to you again in several different ways!

But first of all let me make it perfectly clear that when you say something like... "the thread you stole that from" ...to a Ph D such as myself who's published his original works in "professional society journals" your remark is about as low a blow as you can deliver because your accusation is called "plagiarism" and that's the worst sin a Ph D can comment.

Now the part about... "it was purely in relation to the best place to measure vacuum and why you can't get the proper vacuum reading at the dead end of the filter" ...is exactly why I quoted your work and gave you proper credit for it as I've been trained to do.

The reason... "you can't get the proper vacuum reading at the dead end of the filter" ...is the same reason I stated here...

Please note the part about... "even though the 6637 is large its dead end cylindrical design doesn't allow all of its surface to be used any one time" ...because this is the key point which explains both 1) the reason why... "you can't get the proper vacuum reading at the dead end of the filter" and 2) the reason why... a larger cylindrical dead-end filter has about the same restriction as a smaller flat filter does.

The 6637 filter CFM vs Inches H2O restriction curve in my comparison graph with a stock 7.3L FA-1750 filter shown below is based on OEM Donaldson data for their version of a 6637 filter and on Tenn's measurements for his 6637 filter.



The 6637 CFM vs Inches H2O restriction curve shown above has nothing whatsoever to do with your graph or with your quote both of which I used and gave you proper credit for.

Your quote and graph were cited immediately following my quote because your quote confirms mine and both quotes were cited to help explain the answer to this question...

...as you correctly stated...



...your above observation that... "At the "dead" end of the filter there is not nearly as much air volume flowing through the surface" ...confirms my previous quote that... "there's not much flow through the dead end part of the element that's farthest from the inlet" ...and both of these quotes say that... "even though the 6637 is large its dead end cylindrical design doesn't allow all of its surface to be used any one time" ...and this is the answer to the above question as to why a smaller flat filter which uses 100% of its surface 100% of the time has about the same restriction as a larger dead end cylindrical design which doesn't allow all of its surface to be used any one time.

Well I'm not trying to ruin your business here but there's no such thing as a "magic" air filter cover that can collect and hold enough dirt to be worthwhile using and not have the associated Inches H2O restriction necessary to hold that dirt!

Yes I've heard the argument that K&N uses which is that as the pores in their cover begin to clog with dirt the cover flaps in the breeze and the dirt shakes loose but this is for an off-road application with a filter cover that's exposed to an outside air stream. My concern with this argument is that even if it's true the flapping of the filter cover against the rather delicate cotton mesh underneath might be degrading the cotton enough to compromise its filtering capability.

Since a turbo will suck whatever Inches H2O restriction is necessary to flow the CFM being demanded by the driver the way OEMs spec air filters is by providing the Inches H2O restriction that's required to flow a given CFM through their element. So I need to convert your specification of "a 1.5% reduction in airflow with a cover" into an equivalent Inches H2O increase in restriction with a cover at a given CFM airflow.

From the graph above if you look at a 15" H2O restriction and move up vertically you see that the stock filter has a CFM=580 ft^3/min and that the 6637 filter has a CFM=640 ft^3/min which is a 60 CFM advantage or a 10.3% higher CFM for the 6637 filter.

Now you're claiming "a 1.5% reduction in airflow with a cover" so that for an initial 15" H2O restriction and 640 CFM 6637 airflow without a cover adding a cover reduces the 6637 airflow by an amount equal to (0.015)(640)=9.6 CFM so now at a 15" H2O restriction there's only a 640-9.6=630.4 CFM 6637 airflow compared to a 580 CFM airflow for a stock filter.

So with a cover how much additional Inches H2O restriction is necessary to regain the initial 640 CFM 6637 airflow? Well for the 6637 curve the slope at a 15" H2O restriction is 25 CFM per Inch so to regain the 9.6 CFM lost due to the cover the restriction needs to increase by (9.6)/(25)=0.38" H2O.

The wife says I gotta go now so let me know if an additional 0.38" H2O restriction at a 640 CFM 6637 airflow with a cover agrees with your results and if this additional 0.38" H2O restriction at 640 CFM is for a clean cover or for a cover that's fully loaded with dirt and needs to be cleaned?

 

Apparently a few are starting to take things a little personal. Hopefully we can continue the discussion on a more respectable note.

Not necessarily. The lid on my factory box started to warp. I switched filter set ups as soon as I saw any sign of dirt making it past the filter. Pretty sure it's not operator error on my part. The cheesy plastic tabs and a couple of snap in clips on the OEM set up does leave something to be desired.

I'm interested in the testing of the 6637 as well, but want to discuss (or at least listen to) the affect on filtration capability in regards to different level of boost pressures and their corresponding intake CFM, vacuum pressure, or any other pertinent data.