Problem with these installs...I can't link to this so I just copy and paste'd What Dale said....more info at psn...
" (Cary) had asked me to comment on this a while ago and I’m just now getting around to it. There seems to be so many forums these days, each with their own numerous categories, both local and national. I found it impossible to keep up in any detail years ago. I’ll try to keep an eye on this thread, but if anyone would like comments from me, I would appreciate a link to the thread and I’ll pop in and see what’s up.
I’ll take things in the order posted with quotes to what I’m referring to…
“…best intake of the 7.3”
Of course, I think ours is (Tymar Performance). If I didn’t, we would change it to make it better.
“ …but I just have the tymar (4" piece of exhaust tube with napa 6637 filter attached) intake on my truck...”
Tymar is a company name and not a style of intake or type of modification. Tymar Performance makes numerous items for diesel trucks and any of the comments I will make concerning out intake will only apply to the actual Tymar Intake that we designed and manufacture. There are numerous design flaws and measurable performance differences between the actual and the imitation. I would like to make a clear distinction between copies, Do-It-Yourself attempts, and guys making things look similar to what we have designed.
“Best? There is no "best", because that term can be relative…”
I will somewhat agree with this. However, you can whittle the field of viable options down significantly by defining minimum standards. After all, a filter should filter, otherwise it is nothing but an under hood ornament. If you don’t obtain some minimal amount of protection for the turbo, I don’t care what the flow rate is, you shouldn’t consider it an option for a non-race application.
As well, once filtration efficiency minimum standards are met, you can effectively identify restriction amounts in a specific application. The reason I termed this “in application” is because it doesn’t make too much difference what a filters abilities are if, in the configuration for the applications it is intended for, it cannot reach those results.
Pricing is fairly straightforward. Some will be more, some will be less, and all will have ongoing costs of operation. Running those numbers and deciding if they fit in your budget is uncomplicated.
Noise is going to be very subjective and ill defined. For instance, some will be more “in tune” with different sounds. Just because they hear something different does not make it “louder”, but maybe “noticeable” would be a better word. However, if I significantly reduce restriction to the turbo and the turbine is working more efficiently at a lower rpm, you would hear the turbine come in at a lower rpm, where it hadn’t previously. This is a function of better performance, not intake design.
“I've…run the 6637 and the AFE Stage II w/PG7…I can't tell a difference between the two”
Which doesn’t surprise me. In application testing show virtually no difference, with a slight nod going to the open element. However, as previously stated, since the 6637 modifications do not incorporate the design parameters that would maximize the intake abilities, I would say that there is a clear measurable advantage given to the Tymar Intake.
“I haven't noticed any performance loss or boost loss,,,”
“Ok, I must report....a new purolator blue filter, it will suck the filter minder thing shut.”
This is going to be the problem with subjective testing. Although you may not “feel” or “think” there is any substantial differences, there can be definite measurable differences that actually affect performance.
This is also why so many opinions will vary. It seems that marketing and advertising are more important that measurable results. One of my sayings,” Opinion stated as fact is still only conjecture. Fact stated in any form is still irrefutable.”
“I want ambient air not engine compartment (hot) air.”
This is probably the most misunderstood concept in diesel intake systems. Engine compartment air vr ambient air. Permit me to explain why I don’t think this is a viable concern.
The first point to make is that there is little difference between the two once the truck is moving forward at 30 to 35 mph. We measure less than 45 degrees overall difference on a hot (95 degree) day. Even under severe load under stress we measured less than 80 degrees difference. These are at maximums and not under normal driving conditions.
That said, understanding that diesel engine theory is different from gas engine theory is beneficial. Gas engines burn an air fuel ratio. Gas (as a fuel) is not flammable. Gasoline fumes, once mixed with oxygen, are highly volatile. Diesel does not burn an evaporated mixture; it burns an atomized liquid in an air volume. The belief that density is needed for a diesel to make more power or burn better is a little misguided. As long as you have enough air to burn your injected mass your burn rate will not be affected by additional density, like it would be in a gas engine.
However, the whole density issue will resolve itself when there is an understanding of the relationship between temperature, pressure, and density. As temperature increases, any gas (as a science term, not the liquid fuel) expands. In this case, your density would decrease, since the same volume of air would contain less oxygen. However, you can think of your turbocharger as an "air densifier" (if you allow me to use a word I made up). The more added volume you create in your intake, the more oxygen molecules you have the opportunity to consume. So, the real question is, "Is the increase in temperature, and the corresponding drop in density, made up for by the additional volume created when you lower the restriction to the turbo compressor?"
To compute the values you will need to know the specific increase over ambient temperature, the decrease in density between the ambient condition and the corresponding density loss for the intake air temperature, and the associated volume increase afforded by the intake in question.
In short (too late for that, eh?), for about every 80 to 100 degrees in increased temperature, you can compensate for it with about a pound of increased boost. This was done in the summer with my truck and (of course) your specific numbers would need to be forwarded to me to give you your specific differential.
Since we can create more than a pound of boost increase through the installation of our intake system, you could conceivably take in about 100 to 150 degrees hotter air over ambient and run approximately the same density in the intake manifold as a lower temperature ambient air and reduced boost. This is why the "homemade open elements" do not work as well as our intake system. Without a minimal radial clearance on the filter you will impede on the ability of the filter to ingest air and supply low restriction volume to the compressor - but that gets into a whole different discussion on flow requirements and packing (saved for another time). So, if I compensate for the density with volume, you are actually better off taking hotter air in if you get the additional volume.
The problem with most "cold air" (should really be termed "ambient air") systems is that they have to direct the air flow to receive the ambient air. Any time you direct airflow, you increase restriction. Increasing restriction will reduce volume. They shoot themselves in the foot by directing the flow and not allowing unfettered access to the large volume of air.
Knowing that volume will dissipate heat regardless of density, you are actually better off with higher volumes of air moving through than you are with lower volumes of less hot air for lowing egts, but that turns into a different discussion.
Some of this will be dependant on the modification level of your truck. A 4 inch exhaust will have a larger impact on the ability of the filter to ingest air than the stock exhaust, etc, etc. However, “hot” air vr ambient air will quickly become a non-event once you run the thermodynamic calculations using in application testing.
“...I like the…diy one with a filter cover”
Running an open element with a filter cover will pretty much reduce whatever benefit you had to a level where you are better running the stock intake. Any time you add a layer of filtration you are adding restriction. Decreasing restriction is the goal. Filter covers came into existence because reusable filters do not provide sufficient filtration efficiency. The cover provided added protection, but no one ever thinks about the decreased flow caused by it.
A side note would also be the capacity reduction that takes place, as well as the significant reduction in surface area you are pulling air through. I could see using them if there were some benefit, but you will not increase filtration efficiency substantially if you are using the proper hydrophobic element and the down side is performance and longevity of filter. Just not worth it.
“for a show truck I would say…”
and I’ll add, for a race truck, etc…
What I’m talking about here is daily drivers. From grocery getters to trailer pullers to work trucks. I’m not concerned with race applications or show applications per se, because you will have different sets of circumstances with a dedicated race vehicle or something that outward appearance is the major concern.
It is obvious that once you get into relocating batteries, custom enclosures, etc, the sky is the limit and you can do all sorts of cool things. I’m addressing removing a stock intake and replacing it with an intake that will provide better filtration and better flow that will result in lower restriction to the turbo once installed in the application.
We have a dual element intake if you are willing to relocate the driver side battery for high volume needs such as twin turbochargers, but this is not the normal request or customer base.
“…best bang for the best all around performing filter is the AFE stage II with Proguard 7”
I would respectfully disagree. The AFE II is both more expensive and less performance. Most of this can be understood with surface area of the intake elements. The two most popular, K&N uses stacked gauze (also the Pro GUARD 5 & 7) and AFE (earlier versions) use types of foam, which are both fairly thick medias. The problem with a thick media is the pleat count will be compromised given the same diameter.
A K&N RD-1460, which is one of the elements available in the FIPK kits for these models, only have about 44 pleats in them. The Donaldson element we use has 202. If you were to take the media out of the elements and lay them out flat on the ground, I have somewhere between 5 and 8 times more surface area depending on which filter you are comparing.
This is why I don’t have to sacrifice filtration efficiency for air flow. It is also why I can reduce restriction and provide better filtration efficiency; I simply have more surface area to work with. As long as you supply minimal radial clearance and take some precautions with engine vibration, mounting locations, etc… you just end up with a better designed and more applicable intake.
All of this is still considering that the testing, efficiency, and flow rates of all of these aforementioned filters are all OUT of the application where you can get the maximum benefits from unfettered access to air. Once inside the box, installed in the engine compartment, or with air routing or heat shielding, you will reduce the effective benefits, which is why all of our comparative testing is done in an application.
“…I'm not an intake engineer…I would think that most the major brands (AFE, S&B, AEM, ect.) would only provide negligible gains over each other.”
This is somewhat true. Of course, there are some differences in efficiencies and flow rates. However, any of them compared with equal footing to our Tymar Intake don’t come close to reduced restriction and better filtration efficiencies. Especially once you get into the higher volume air requirements of modified diesel engines.
Enough for now… with all the new forums and numerous categories in each, I gave up on following all the posts a long time ago. I’ll try to pop back into this one just to clarify any additional questions if you have them for me. Otherwise, if you would like me to comment on something in the future, shoot me an email or give me a call and I’ll try to address whatever your concerns are.
Peace to all and enjoy your rigs… whatever choices you make!!!"