Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum banner

Time to buy a REAL intake!!!!!

6K views 45 replies 17 participants last post by  veach3 
#1 ·
Alright guys, simple as this, my budget is MAX 400$, I want an intake that will do the job and then some...

My plans after that are gauges, then tunes. Figured the intake should come first.

Throw some good intakes at me!!!
 
#2 ·
come on it's only 1:28 in the morning :rofl:
 
#3 ·
Save your money and stick with the NAPA 6637... can't go wrong..
 
#4 ·
Think so?...I've seen a few around the forum...what kind of maintenance do they need, how long do they last, good air flow?.. I really am a noob when it comes to performance upgrades LOL
 
#5 ·
I have an S&B and I love it. Noticed a slight EGT drop (not really much) but I did it right before the exhaust and that had even more. I definitely am happy with my S&B though. I like the fact that its in an enclosed box, helps out here at 29 with all the sand (that and the pre-filter). No regrets on that filter though, and simple to install! :icon_ford: If you do exhaust I would tell you to delete the muffler off the bat, I have a few friends with deleted mufflers really not that much louder but one heck of a difference!

~Phil
 
#6 ·
:hehe: it should last you a while, it has great air flow, and good filtration. It should last a while and get a filter sock for it. Can't go wrong with the price. I didn't know any better and spent 450 bucks on an AFE stage 2... :hehe:

I am pretty sure there is some serious discussion on here about the difference between this filter and all the others...
 
#7 ·
True cost on the NAPA is unbeatable. I bought my S&B on sale for 240...but still happy with it. Every week I take the pre-filter off an wash it, every month or so (2k miles if not every month) I will wash the filter itself and re-grease it. Very happy with mine, but I know you will get unlimited praises on the cost effectiveness of the NAPA. I wouldn't have minded doing so, but I did want an enclosed box with all the sand. If not think Ford AIS, for mass filtration and hardiness.

~Phil
 
#8 ·
Thanks for the tips guys...it's looking like a 6637 is goin under the hood...and then I can save for the rest:thumb:

So just go into napa and order one of these? is it easy to fab up adapters for this thing?
 
#10 ·
Well I guess it's a done deal. Thanks for that pic BGJ...a picture is worth a 1000 words, thats for sure.
How much did yours cost?
 
#13 ·
I bought the AFE Stage II. I didn't know about the DIY intake until it was too late. But I am very pleased with the peforamance.
 
#14 ·
This truck is probably up around 600HP. And it usses the 6637 what more proof of a filter system do you need?
 
#16 ·
DIY all they way, all i had to do was cut a bottom corner off of the plastic air box so the filter would lay down and it was good to go
 
#17 ·
like my napa filter also. Got mine through Fleetfilters.com gettting them at napa it was 2twice as much.

 
#18 ·
I have the TYMAR, and love it!!
 
#19 ·
6637 on it's way!! Can't wait to get it. It's been long overdue.
 
#20 ·
I bit too and got the AFE 2... its been modified and modded and changed and...

Do the tymar!!!

Whats left of it now is the heat sheild and the filter...LOL

 
#21 ·
Will the 6637 NAPA air filter fit onto the AFE II intake??? Cause i have had my AFE filter for about three years an atleast a dozen washes an she is to say the least getting a lil tired...lol
 
#23 ·
No, it has a 5.5" inlet, and the tymar types are 4"... You would have to build an adapter.:thumb:
 
#24 ·
Good to know, thanks for getting back to me, sure wish that i would have kept the original intake tube... Has anyone else ever tried running the Napa 6637 filter with the AFE set up?

Sorry for the High jack...

Thanks...


-Henry
 
#25 ·
There is more to this intake than what u see. There is a battery box, and a Coolant Filter mount. I will see if i can get a better pic for u.
 

Attachments

#26 ·
Its a nice set up, but for the cost of the filter and a piece of pipe I would not get the true Tymar... Just me but...
 
#27 ·
X2...


quote:
“have a used AIS…couldn’t find a filter for it…got a FIPKI K&N system cheap…should I put a tymar on or put the AIS back on??? I was thinking of mounting a tymar to the K&N tube…what do you guys think”

The K&N element should probably be avoided in turbo-charged applications. The initial filtration efficiency is not high enough to protect the compressor impeller.

The phrase “mounting a tymar” sounds kind of like Tymar is a filter. The filter we use is a Donaldson B085011 and Tymar is a company name. Tymar Performance makes all sorts of items, one of them being the open element intake kits.

That said, the element we use would not fit on the end of a K&N FIPK system. I guess you could technically modify things to get it in, but you wouldn’t have minimal radial clearance around the filter, which should be considered very important to providing low restriction air to the turbo. Without supplying minimal radial clearance, you won’t get the positive benefits the open element system should create.

The AIS will provide excellent filtration efficiency, but will not improve overall restriction or allow much additional air flow in the configuration that Ford uses. The Tymar Intake will provide excellent filtration efficiency as well as decrease restriction to the turbo and add significant air flow.

quote:
“Tymar is going to give you better flow but AIS is going to give you unmatched filtration…the AIS plus it will last a LONG time, like 60K miles…”

Although the AIS will give better filtration efficiency, you are only talking about 1/10 of a percent over the filter Tymar Performance Intakes use at initial filtration efficiencies. Not enough of a difference to really differentiate between the two.

For the longevity, you have to start talking about restriction ranges in both stock and aftermarket applications and how dirt will affect them. AIS has a larger capacity, but not across the restriction ranges once installed on the truck. Because of the configuration you are not lowering restriction significant over stock levels, but you are receiving better filtration compared to the stock intake.

The Tymar Intake will allow lower restriction levels and lasts approximately 15K miles in a restriction range LOWER than stock. If you want to go with longevity of filter, you can continue using the same filter and will simply not experience the positive benefits of lower than stock restriction levels.

We supplied the intake systems for Granite Construction and used them as a severe duty use test. They were rebuilding Power Stroke engines at approximately 60K miles because of the fine silt in the mining beds. After changing to our system they were using the same filters with 28K mile change out intervals and only experiencing 32”h2o of restriction (yellow on your stock restriction gauges) and they eliminated the necessity of engine rebuilds and were selling the used trucks with over 180K miles on them.

quote:
“I'm using a tymar because it's cheap to setup and offers good filtration.”

Although I agree with you, your listed intake is a DIY 6637, which is neither a Tymar nor a recommended system by us. The WIX/NAPA 6637 is not a hydrophobic (water resistant) element and using it as an open element should be avoided. There are other concerns such as providing minimal radial clearance, isolating engine vibration, positioning away from rain drip channel, etc. But, I just wanted to draw a clear difference between copies, DIY efforts, and our product.

quote:
“…be sure your Tymar-type filter includes the PowerCore filter media and not some lesser media material.”

Although the PowerCore ® media is far superior to most other media, there is not a PowerCore media filter available for use as an open element. They are inserts for intake boxes and are not configure for use as filter alone applications.

The filter media is not the main attraction, but the filter configuration. It is NOT true that you cannot get the same filtration efficiencies or flow rates from other Donaldson products. It will just simply have to be larger. The PowerCore configuration allows for compact applications that have flow rates and filtration efficiencies of filters much larger. So it is the compactness of the element and not that the media processes some magical qualities.

quote:
“IMO, the FIPK tube with the heat shield and the Donaldson (aka #6637) filter combination is hard to beat for the money.”


I would probably respectfully disagree. The problem is the thickness of the stacked gauze media will not allow for a high pleat count and severely restricts the available surface area. A typical RD-1460 that is used in a FIPK system only has about 44 pleats. The Donaldson we use is not only a larger filter overall, but the thinner media allows for 202 pleats, leaving us over 5 times the surface area to pull from. This is why we can outflow and out filter a re-usable element as long as minimum radial clearance is maintained.

The problem with heat shields and routing air through intake boxes is that whenever you direct air flow, you increase restriction. Low restriction is the goal, so using a filter that has the ability to flow large masses of air and then enclosing it in a box yields very poor results. Heat shields do literally nothing. Air flow under the hood is dynamic and not static. It is moving all the time. Hot air will move right around a heat shield at the same temperature and be ingested and the only thing you have caused is turbulence.

Aside from impeding minimal radial clearance and isolation of engine vibration, a serious cause for concern is placing the filter, especially a 6637 element, under a rain drip channel for the hood. Beyond the ambient moisture that will cause restriction as it is absorbed into the non-hydrophobic media, you will be directing water towards the filter anytime the rain drip channel flows more rain than it can hold or spills over the retainer during left turns.

I’ll try to check back in and address further comments in the days to come and can hopefully shed some light on why we do what we do using the configuration we did.

Peace to all, enjoy those rigs!
__________________
Hydroscopic means it absorbs water. Hydrophobic is water resistant. Easy to remember because "phobic" comes from phobia, meaning to be scared of or to repel.

Anyway, both of those filters are hydrophobic. The 085046 filter is for high humidity applications. This has little to do with the hydrophobic capabilities and deals with micro biotic growth since constant high humidity, think of boats that are always in the water moored to a dock, will have greater abilities for mold and such to develop on them.

It should be noted that the 085046 filter is a LOT more expensive and there is no air flow or hydrophobic benefit over the 085011.
 
#28 ·
Alright guys I got the 6637 in today...Holy SH!T what a difference, when I'm getting lots of boost and let off...sounds pretty crazy.
Is it ok if I was able to get my 4" intake tube onto the 6637 collar? Is that proper installation? (seems great to me) but you guys seem to talk about using extra piping...


Anyways, love the mod; another item off the list:thumb:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top