Intake noises - anything to be gained?

[Tbone289]

More AIR = More Fuel = less MPG??
There are no free lunches.
You can't put more air through an engine to achieve more power and not use more fuel.

Glen, you should develop an intake restrictor for folks who just can't control their right foot.

Sponsored

 

[Tbone289]

Even with a tune, the OEM intake system will flow more air than the engine is capable of using. OEM's tune these parts for pass-by testing (noise), while still surpassing engine requirements. An aftermarket system will only alter the sound, everything else is placebo.

The volume of air that the intake is capable of flowing to the engine is not the only performance/efficiency consideration. Reducing intake restrictions or impedance to flow reduces the vacuum load in the cylinders (and turbo if equipped) and improves volumetric efficiency.

 

[F150 2.7 TT user]

I have to assume the Maverick intake and tune are engineered the same as other Fords. Aftermarket CAI will only add power when tuned to use more. On stock tuning all they do is look good and maybe sound cool. I monitor exhaust air flow on my 2.7 and have played with some CAIs all combinations from no filter to twin tube aftermarket CAI all flowed to a fraction of the same max airflow thru my 2.7. I have read flow tests done on F150 stock CAIs and they flow enough to support 550 HP. The ECUs only produce power to a demand point and stop there, all the extra air flow is unused.
Want sound and/or better looking engine bay go for the fancy intake just do not think it improves power or mileage.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

Glen, you should develop an intake restrictor for folks who just can't control their right foot.

It has nothing to do about me controlling the right foot. They can use as much gas as they want I don't care.
It's their logic of getting more horsepower (unproven where the dyno on the EcoBoost?) and getting better mileage just by putting an less restrictive air filter on. I would believe them if they said, it feels like I'm getting more power and better throttle response, but my mileage sucks.

 

[Chops]

The volume of air that the intake is capable of flowing to the engine is not the only performance/efficiency consideration. Reducing intake restrictions or impedance to flow reduces the vacuum load in the cylinders (and turbo if equipped) and improves volumetric efficiency.

Well said!

But the aftermarket intake improving the volumetric efficiency of the air flow is just icing on the cake - the cake of cool sound

 

[Tbone289]

I have to assume the Maverick intake and tune are engineered the same as other Fords. Aftermarket CAI will only add power when tuned to use more. On stock tuning all they do is look good and maybe sound cool. I monitor exhaust air flow on my 2.7 and have played with some CAIs all combinations from no filter to twin tube aftermarket CAI all flowed to a fraction of the same max airflow thru my 2.7. I have read flow tests done on F150 stock CAIs and they flow enough to support 550 HP. The ECUs only produce power to a demand point and stop there, all the extra air flow is unused.
Want sound and/or better looking engine bay go for the fancy intake just do not think it improves power or mileage.

You can't measure volumetric efficiency or pumping losses by monitoring exhaust air flow. In other words, the energy spent by an engine to draw fresh air through the intake into the cylinders is independent of the amount of air that the engine is pumping. If you reduce the intake restriction, you are pumping the same volume of air, but using less power to do it thus reducing pumping losses and increasing volumetric efficiency.

 

[Ecorydr]

If your gonna impress..... how about adding a "Godzilla Roar" horn tune to replace the OEM horn sound......and maybe even a set of mini truck nuts tied to the rear bumper too! Atleast theyll hear you comming as they are a going.

And the truck nuts will help tell the story to all those VWs in the rear....

https://www.boomblasters.com/produc...D-th3kVKlomNi7JcOqHAONtEeebrWEFRfz3Wvs9RXBsSH

 

[Tbone289]

It has nothing to do about me controlling the right foot. They can use as much gas as they want I don't care.
It's their logic of getting more horsepower (unproven) and getting better mileage just by putting an less restrictive air filter on. I would believe them if they said, it feels like I'm getting more power and better throttle response, but my mileage sucks.

Please read my comments about volumetric efficiency. The point is that you're increasing the efficiency (and thus performance) of the pump, not necessarily that you're moving more air and fuel through it. The ideal situation is zero impedance to air flow through the engine, regardless of how much air the engine is flowing. If there's less impedance to intake air flow, the engine isn't working as hard to pull in fresh air, and thus less power is being wasted on that task.

 

[Chops]

If your gonna impress..... how about adding a "Godzilla Roar" horn tune to replace the OEM horn sound......and maybe even a set of mini truck nuts tied to the rear bumper too! Atleast theyll hear you comming as they are a going.

https://www.boomblasters.com/produc...D-th3kVKlomNi7JcOqHAONtEeebrWEFRfz3Wvs9RXBsSH

Don’t be silly. The intake sound is a subtle sound that only the person inside the car can hear. Like listening to classical music on the stereo

 

[dalola]

The volume of air that the intake is capable of flowing to the engine is not the only performance/efficiency consideration. Reducing intake restrictions or impedance to flow reduces the vacuum load in the cylinders (and turbo if equipped) and improves volumetric efficiency.

There are no meaningful restrictions to the OEM system. As is, it is capable of efficient performance to at least +50% of the current rated 2.0EB specs. This is not 1970 anymore...

 

[Tbone289]

There are no meaningful restrictions to the OEM system. As is, it is capable of efficient performance to at least +50% of the current rated 2.0EB specs. This is not 1970 anymore...

I don't know if there are or aren't meaningful restrictions as I haven't seen any data to support that. Because I don't have that data, I'm not making any claims that any particular intake is less or more restrictive than another. All intake systems present restriction to air flow. I have no idea how the stock intake compares to various aftermarket solutions.

You stated that the OEM intake system will flow more air than the engine is capable of using. I'm only pointing out that the maximum amount of air that the system can flow is not the only consideration for performance/efficiency gains.

Either way, I'd be interested in seeing any data you have showing the efficiency of the stock intake in comparison to various aftermarket intakes. All of this discussion is theoretical without any supporting data.

 

[Automan21]

I see swapping the intake like this:
Inhale through a straw(OEM airbox)
Inhale with your mouth wide open(aftermarket intake)
Which brings in more air.
That’s how a 21 yr old parts associate explained intakes to me years ago before I got into modding my vehicles.
Same theory goes for exhausts
….makes sense

 

[F150 2.7 TT user]

You can't measure volumetric efficiency or pumping losses by monitoring exhaust air flow. In other words, the energy spent by an engine to draw fresh air through the intake into the cylinders is independent of the amount of air that the engine is pumping. If you reduce the intake restriction, you are pumping the same volume of air, but using less power to do it thus reducing pumping losses and increasing volumetric efficiency.

NA engines (Sterling 2.5) only work the way you describe concerning pumping efficiency. Boost changes all of that. The smallest area for air to flow thru on EBs is the turbo inlet, that is the restriction and unless you change that size it remains the limit of total air flow. If you are talking power there is no cylinder vacuum affecting volumetric efficiency, it is filled under pressure. Air in equals air out with added combustion weight (burnt fuel). None of his includes the fact than the ECU uses demand power levels (torque requested) as a limiting factor. This is why tuning is the only way to honestly improve power. You can open the intake and exhaust, but the stock tune only seeks a specific power level.
I will agree with looking at exhaust flow (the air flow PID available on my monitor) shows only one side of efficiency, but I an talking about a turbocharged engine not a NA, that changes the relationship. The amount of air flow thru an engine ultimately shows the power achieved.

 

[Tbone289]

NA engines (Sterling 2.5) only work the way you describe concerning pumping efficiency. Boost changes all of that. The smallest area for air to flow thru on EBs is the turbo inlet, that is the restriction and unless you change that size it remains the limit of total air flow. If you are talking power there is no cylinder vacuum affecting volumetric efficiency, it is filled under pressure. Air in equals air out with added combustion weight (burnt fuel). None of his includes the fact than the ECU uses demand power levels (torque requested) as a limiting factor. This is why tuning is the only way to honestly improve power. You can open the intake and exhaust, but the stock tune only seeks a specific power level.
I will agree with looking at exhaust flow (the air flow PID available on my monitor) shows only one side of efficiency, but I an talking about a turbocharged engine not a NA, that changes the relationship. The amount of air flow thru an engine ultimately shows the power achieved.

You seem to only be considering engine operation under boost. I am not. I'm considering performance and efficiency under all operating conditions. Regardless, there are pumping efficiencies lost by intake restrictions whether the engine is turbocharged or N/A, under boost or under vacuum.

Even if the turbo inlet is the final bottleneck in the intake tract, reducing restrictions upstream would still improve efficiency of the system by reducing the pressure drop the turbo has to work against under boost. Reducing that pressure drop allows the turbocharger to reach target boost levels more efficiently and reduce the generation of waste heat, which results in increased intake temperatures, further reducing efficiencies and performance.

The amount of exhaust flow of an engine shows the engine's maximum power potential, but ignores how much of the power generated is being wasted through inefficiencies such as pumping losses and generation of waste heat.

 

[dalola]

I don't know if there are or aren't meaningful restrictions as I haven't seen any data to support that. Because I don't have that data, I'm not making any claims that any particular intake is less or more restrictive than another. All intake systems present restriction to air flow. I have no idea how the stock intake compares to various aftermarket solutions.

You stated that the OEM intake system will flow more air than the engine is capable of using. I'm only pointing out that the maximum amount of air that the system can flow is not the only consideration for performance/efficiency gains.

Either way, I'd be interested in seeing any data you have showing the efficiency of the stock intake in comparison to various aftermarket intakes. All of this discussion is theoretical without any supporting data.

OEM's do not publicly share that data. When all the OEM's are searching for fractional CAFE improvements, why would you assume the intake system is a restriction?

All you have to do is find dyno data that shows some spec improvement with nothing more than an aftermarket intake. There's a reason that data doesn't exist.

Sponsored