Common guys.. let's respect others views.. I think someone needs to think outside the box on this whole convo.. How many times are we gonna go over this subject???

What about a 6.0 intake?? Would that be a good option w/ minimum modification??

 

Yes. The only down side is the filters are kind of pricey. On the other hand, they can go a loooooooooooong time before needing replacement.

You've seen the pictures from Clux on what it looks like, and heard what modifications need to be done, what other questions do you have?

 

I have a 6637 with about 500 miles on it or less with Pete's cover, and a short 4" piece of exhaust pipe that I would donate to the cause if it could be of use. Seriously. And I can promise no matter what the result I don't want it back.

 

Wow, the mighty 6637 has a dissatisfied user.

Who'da thunk it?

Does this mean unicorns exist as well?

 

hey clay you can donate to my filter testing on my truck lol

 

The 6.0 filters can be had for around $55 plus shipping, where the 6637 filters can be had for $28 plus shipping. Just to put that out there for anyone that was interested. I am curious to see the flow rating on these 6637 filters also. I like my 6637, just the noise is getting to some people......

 

I agree. If this thread continues on the path that it is going. I may have to close it.

With that being said. In my experience some of the best electrical engineeres that I have worked with are the ones who worked in the trade 1st then got their degrees. They have the "real world" experience of what works and what dosen't. I'm not saying this is 100% the case, a few of the guys that I have worked with that never worked in the trade did pretty well, but I did find it much easier to work with the ones that did.

 

With the dusty conditions, definitely get one of Pete's filter covers - it will help the filter element last longer in your environment. I have installed the 6637 with Pete's cover on a couple of farm trucks (7.3L's) running the stock air box and K&N- the silicon levels dropped from the 35+ ppm down to the single digits. Also, on my own truck I have run the Ford AIS and 6637 filter. Both have shown similar results on my Used Oil Analysis Reports. The 6637, For AIS, and AFE systems all keep the silicon levels in the single digits. I'll post some of them up here when I get the chance to upload them to FTE.

Don't spend too much time contemplating the foil delete issue. I noticed a slight (I mean slight) increase in turbo whistle and the the manifold air temps showed no increase in temp. It sure cleans up the engine bay nicely.

 

Some additional info FWIW.

Here are my last 4 oil analysis reports. The top 3 reports are with running the 6637 filter and the the last is with the Ford AIS. For those unfamiliar with a UOA, silicone is a measure of sand, dirt, dust injested into the system. Now, having said that - silicon is also used by some oils as an anti-foam additive. No big deal, as long as the lab knows the type of oil sample it is they can subtract the baseline - if that type oil uses silicon as an anti-foam additive.

The 6637 has shown results that are just as good as the AIS in my application. 0-20 ppm is considered normal, 20-50 ppm is abnormal, 50-100 is severe and 100+ is extreme.

The 6637 works well for me, and the intake is nice & clean when I inspect it during filter changes.

 

Good info rich.. I just shipped off two oil samples.. i'm excited!

 

OK... I'll try to do better.

Gene... I believe I need to apologize for letting your manner get the better of me. I should have been less abrasive, and I do apologize for it. I honestly did not intend to accuse you of plaigerism - just carelessness- and I apologize for my own careless use of the word "stole" in my comment. As a side note, I am in the same ranks as you in terms of being "published", and have a very clear appreciation for the issue you were so offended over.

As to our differences, I expect they may always be there to some degree, but I also believe we could make a good team working on this 6637 filtration project. We BOTH have the kind of pig-headedness, tenacity, and insistence for technical accuracy required to make this effort truly beneficial and valuable.

It won't work, though, unless you're willing to listen openly to opposing views. I will honestly commit to offering the same to you from my own position, and will seriously consider what you bring to the table. The bottom line is this... just as much as I'm willing to admit that I have room to learn, you ned to be equally willing to recognize that you're not always right, regardless of your PhD, age, experience, knowledge, etc.

Those are my terms for continuing to pursue and participate in this filtration project (which I honestly believe is an excellent concept). So, what do you say... are you willing to work with me on this or not? Who knows... you might just end up being able to teach me something in the process!

 

Excellent post Pete. Thank you for being a gentleman about this.

 

Here, I'll lighten the mood with some math humor:

 

Well the short answer to your question is that the "intake CFM" used for air filter testing has a big effect on the "filtration test results" and by using a lower non-standard "intake CFM" some air filter OEMs cheat the test to make their products look better than they would've if they'd properly adhered to the correct standardized testing protocol.

I'm not sure how many people have read and studied the link I gave for testing air filters to the ISO-5011 Air Filtration Standard so I'll summarize the procedure below. According to this standard any air filter that's intended for use on any 7.3L turbocharged diesel which makes its maximum HP at 2,800 RPM should be tested at an "intake CFM" of 628 CFM! Here's the equation used in the standard...

CFM={(CID)(RPM)(VE)}/{3,456}={(443.1)(2,800)(1.75)}/{3,456}=628 CFM

...and the standard says to use the RPM for maximum HP, and for any turbocharged diesel VE=1.75, for any supercharged diesel VE=1.3, and for any naturally aspirated diesel VE=0.8.

The VE=1.75 accounts for turbo boost and for an actual PSD the exact BP which corresponds to a net VE=1.75 depends on the PSD's turbo efficiency, IC efficiency, and air filter inlet temperature. For a bone stock 7.3L operating at RPM=2,800 WOT full load the maximum BP=17 psi and the maximum CFM is well below the 628 CFM specified by the standard.

Tenn's testing showed he got a maximum CFM of about 580 CFM using a chip with a stock turbo and stock injectors. With his GTP38R and larger injectors he now see's a maximum CFM of about 650 CFM. So it appears testing at the 628 CFM given by the standard will cover a BP of about 28 psi to 30 psi depending on air filter inlet temperature.

If tests on a 6637 filter are going to be compared to the ISO-5011 test data for a stock FA-1750 filter then the 6637 filter tests must be performed in the exact same way they as they were done for the stock FA-1750 filter!

The tests on the stock FA-1750 filter included "CFM vs Inches H2O Restriction", "Dirt Filtering Efficiency", and "Dirt Holding Capacity", and all of these tests were done under controlled conditions of temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure.

The "CFM vs Inches H2O Restriction" test was performed on a clean filter and these are the measured data points for the complete stock air inlet system including the air box and FA-1750 filter element.

CFM......Inches H2O Restriction
000.0.. .0.000
314.5. ..4.436
471.1.. .9.598
627.7...16.660
786.5...25.775
929.8...35.705

As shown below the complete air inlet system is connected to a suction chamber and the resulting CFM airflow is measured at various values of Inches H2O Restriction.



Below is the S&B 7.3L Cold Air Intake and I'm wondering if anyone's tried it?



Now look at the first picture again and imagine a 6637 connected to the vertical pipe directly above the suction chamber. Testing a 6637 in a truly "open element" configuration like this allows the filter element to suck in an unrestricted airflow equally from all directions.

However in an actual PSD installation the filter is in such cramped quarters that it's almost touching the roof and fender well so the lab testing Inches H2O Restriction at a given CFM will be lower than in an actual PSD installation. Users who put a box around their 6637 will see more Inches H2O Restriction at a given CFM than the lab test indicates. Same for anyone using a cover. So I'm not sure how relevant the lab tests of "CFM vs Inches H2O Restriction" will be for real world users of the 6637!

The tests for "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" and "Dirt Holding Capacity" were done by establishing a constant 628 CFM airflow through an initially clean filter and then introducing into the input airflow stream a controlled amount of "standardized dust" at a controlled Dust Feed Rate =17.58 grams/min. The "standardized dust" meets an ISO-12103 standard which has a specified distribution of particle diameters ranging from about 0.5 um to 150 um and the peak of the particle distribution curve is at a 60 um particle diameter.

As can be seen in the above "CFM vs Inches H2O Restriction" table a 628 CFM airflow through an initially clean filter requires a suction which causes a 16.66" H2O Restriction across the filter. As the filter does its job of filtering out the dust that's been introduced into the input airflow stream the filter becomes progressively more restricted and the suction is increased so as to maintain a 628 CFM airflow through an increasingly dirtier filter.

When the Inches H2O Restriction increases to 10 Inches above the initial 16.66" H2O Restriction for a clean filter the test is terminated and the results are tabulated. The "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" represents the amount of dust that was stopped by the filter during the test and the "Dirt Holding Capacity" measures the dust holding capability of the filter. These tests are then repeated three times and the results averaged.

In the link I gave 4 different filters were tested. The stock FA-1750 filter had a "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" of 99.76% which was higher than for any other filter including the S&B filter which seems to say that S&B ran an honest test! The "Dirt Holding Capacity" of a stock FA-1750 filter is 542 grams and that's a factor of 5.1 to 8.1 higher than the capacity of the other 3 filters tested!

The above test results mean that to get the lower restriction offered by the other 3 filters you have to sacrifice some "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" and you have to service the other filters 5 to 8 times before you have to buy a new stock FA-1750 filter! In other words getting a lower restriction filter than stock means your engine's eating more dirt and you're doing 5 to 8 times more grunt work cleaning those lower restriction filters!

 

It makes sense on paper that the 6637 will draw most if it's air from a limited number of spots, but visual inspection of dirty filters seem to show an equal distribution of dirt (I know the eyeballs aren't a proper test of dirt distribution). Also, I don't think a box around the 6637 will add any restriction in airflow. It may change where the air comes from, but as long as the box allows the proper CFM to flow, it should be fine.