Dad's Air Cleaner
 

As an aside to Dad's Truck Build I'm wanting to have some dialog about my plan for the air cleaner, which is to make a dual-snorkel air cleaner using an HO air cleaner and grafting on an extra snorkel. But, there are a few details to work out and some ideas to document in case someone else wants to do this.

One of the questions is around the inclusion of a Cold Weather Module, which sits between the temp sensor (technically an Air Cleaner Temp Sensor) and the vacuum motor. Here's my understanding of how it works:I'm thinking that I don't need the CWM as my carb won't be as lean as the factory settings and I probably won't have the stumble. Or I just won't nail it when the engine is that cold. But, is my understanding correct? And, do you see any reason why I need the CWM?

And now to document some details. I've realized that the HO snorkels are almost identical to the non-HO snorkels. The main part of the snorkels appear to be exactly the same, with the difference being the adaptor that's added to attach the snorkel to the body of the air cleaner - which is shown in the pictures below. Here are some differences:

• The HO snorkel angles down more than the non-HO unit such that the outer tip is ~3/4" lower than the non-HO unit. I think I'll use the non-HO unit so it will clear the valve covers better.
• The HO snorkel's adaptor is on at an angle such that the HO snorkel angles toward the rear of the engine compartment. But the non-HO snorkel doesn't angle. So, if you want the snorkels to stick out symmetrically you'll want to use two of the non-HO snorkels.
• The snorkel's are identical in length as well as both inside and outside openings.
• Both snorkels take the same vacuum motors.

Here's the difference in the adaptor part of the snorkels, with the HO unit on top:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/p...ctureid=147071

Side view:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/p...ctureid=147078

If it's only a single check valve...why *wouldn't* you add the CWM? Even for such a minor system as this, I'd far rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

Oh, boy.... here we go yet again....

}>

That's a very good question, and the answer is that I want to simplify the system. And, I want to "pretty it up".

On the simplification, I would like to leave off things that aren't needed since they could go wrong. For instance, I have a CWM that I'm pretty sure is bad. When will the next one go bad?

On cleaning things up, I'm thinking about running the vacuum lines inside the air cleaner. I'd come off of the ACTS, which has its connections under the base, with a short piece of vacuum hose and connect to a piece of brass tubing that projects through the base. That tubing would run inside the base and go down both snorkels. It would project through the snorkel close to the vacuum motors where short pieces of vacuum hose would make the connection to the vacuum motors. The tubing would be soldered or brazed to the base of the cleaner to ensure it doesn't move around. But the CWM doesn't play nicely with that scenario as its connections are both on the outside.

Gary......I wonder if two frontal intakes, at higher road-speeds, could lower the vacuum in the venturi & give a lean condition? I guess you have your AFR meter to watch.

interesting..
 

I would be curious to do a little reading about the overall success of the addition of this CWM when used "back-in-th-day". I also would love to get a senior (possibly even retired) Ford Sop technician's opinion on this particular Ford's "Better-Idea" in practical use during it's service life.

The next question, will just one acts work properly driving two vacuum motors? I think I may want to do some testing in rubber hose before going all copper and then sealing with paint. But then I DO sometimes over-think stuff..:-X0A6

I do want to do this. Thanks for posting. I picked up an HO air cleaner and snorkel that was already removed from the truck. The plastic piece that attaches to the core support appears to fit on the driver's side and there's a spot on the '81 6 cyl DS core support that could be cut out for it. Is that where the HO intake was?

It looks like the 6 cyl had, at one time, a plastic intake on the passenger side. If so, I should be able to use a 6 cyl intake for the passenger side. Sound right?

Ken - I hadn't thought of that, but will watch for it on the AFR meter. However, what may compound that is that heretofore the air cleaner on Dad's truck has been sucking hot air from under the hood since the cold air ducting wasn't there. I read on a web site last night where a guy had measured the underhood air at 220 degrees but the air in front of the grill was like 90.

John - I, too, would love to hear from someone that has experience with the CWM's as well as the vehicles w/o them. That's one of the reasons I started the thread. As for one ACTS operating the vacuum motors, while I'm sure one will I do agree it would be wise to test it first. Thanks for pointing that out.

Mavsprint - Dad's '81 w/the M had the cold air duct on the passenger's side. But the radiator support had a blank spot on the driver's side that I cut out to use for the cold air there. Go to the link in my first post in this thread and it should take you to a discussion in the main thread about the options for ducting. But, I'm pretty sure even the HO had the ducting on the passenger's side. You should be able to tell how the base goes on the carb by where the PCV filter went - driver's side.

This is awesome, I am excited to see how it turns out

Sorry, I missed this last night. Or, ignored it. (What was it Dad said about ignorance? :)) Anyway, you are just jealous that you don't think of such trivia. :p

If you've not followed the link above you might do so to see some of the discussion we've already had on this topic, replete with several pictures of a mockup I did. And I have several other pictures in my album called, oddly enough, Dad's Air Cleaner.

I understand there's a ballpark 1% power gain, for every 10*F drop in intake temperature - which should convert to mpg, if that power is not used.

30+ years ago I had a book on turbocharging which had guys fitting chiller units to the intakes of their engines to condense the air more than it naturally would be at sea level, & tuning their carbs accordingly.

My thinking was that the extra power is potential power because you can get more oxygen & fuel into the cylinders. Sorta like a turbo or supercharger, although it doesn't have to do with high pressure to pack the mix it - the colder air has more oxygen than hot air so, assuming the correct AFR then there is the potential of more power at WOT.

Here's a link to the stuff I was referring to re air temps. In it he says 7.2 degrees for 1% gain, but provides no source for that spec so I'll go with your 10 degree instead. In any event there is a bit to be gained in cooler air. This is an excerpt of the part telling about temps:So, one of the questions to be answered is what temp ACTS to install. In one way of thinking I'd go with one of the cooler ones to get the coldest air possible. But, in summer the temp would go up and the AFR would be off. So, maybe the better way is to go with one of the 105 degree units as that would give fairly constant air temps at all times, even in the summer. Thoughts?

And, there is a problem with going dual-snorkel since that cuts the air flow in half and give the air longer to heat up from the underhood heat. But, it looks cool and there's a tradeoff for everything. ;)

I'm still trying to get to the bottom of the cold air intake issue.

These guys are pretty funny and seem to do a recently comprehensive test on there particular car.


Not trying to hijack but it made me at least put it on the back burner.

As with most of Gary's threads I'll have to do a lot of googling when I get off so I can follow along at home lol.

This is a great thread. It would be good to have this info in a sticky.

Think you're right, the HO duct went to the passenger side, based on the position of the dent in the bottom of the air cleaner (for the distributor, I assume) and the nipple for the connection to the oil fill cap.

However, the ('85?) HO snorkel (E5TE-9C675-FA) fits very nicely on the driver's side. (Its tight because of the tool box mount.) The bolt that holds it in place would be on top where the core support seems to want it. But, I wonder if the angle up is going to be a problem or an advantage to clear the Sanden compressor.. I'll find out when the Windsor goes in.

When this E5 snorkel is placed on the passenger side, the mounting bolt is on bottom while the '81 6 cyl piece had the bolt on top. Guess the mount changed between '81 and '85. Just nits but maybe worth mentioning.

If under hood temps can be maintained at 24-25 degrees C, its not too surprising to see no significant gain. Now try that test with under hood temps 100+ degrees C.