The Diesel Garage banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Who has what for preferences and why?

The reason I ask is I'm considering DP's 120.

Thanks........



_____________________
'02 Excursion, DP Tuner, BTS Valve Body, Gauages, 4" exhaust, etc.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
862 Posts
AIS: good stock replacement, keeps the cab quiet, excellent filtration. Becomes a restriction when you start adding some decent power.

Tymar: much cheaper, very loud inside the cab as you can hear more of the engine and turbo, excellent filtration. This one works well with power adder mods.


So, depending on how far you want to go in power, and what your preferences are while driving will determine the best intake setup for you. A chip and stock injectors isn't making a huge load of power, and the AIS with a fender sleeve mod should be able to flow just enough air to keep everything happy. Tymar has the "cool" factor of a giant filter sitting in the engine bay.
 

·
Mod Friendly Title
Joined
·
2,695 Posts
Tymar. It's MUCH cheaper, easy to install, and I don't think its noisy, unless I'm going up a hill under a load, and then it just sounds plain [email protected] :thumbsup You just hear the turbo sucking air, that's all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Tried both.....am going to go with AIS. 6637 proved to have too much noise on a 200 mile trip this weekend, and boost easily goes to 30#. A little too much for the stock turbo. I could fool with the BigHead, but with the AIS, everything stays in balance. Remember, this is an Excursion that's used more as a car than truck -- traveling, vacations, etc. I guess my goal is not so much a hotrod truck, but a good responsive truck.

Thanks all for your thoughts and preferences. :happymugs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
So.........If anyone's interested, I've got a one month old 6637 with 4"x4" pipe and clamp that's been run in clean environment (no dust) up for grabs.......PM me.
 

·
Junior Member
Joined
·
11 Posts
So.........If anyone's interested, I've got a one month old 6637 with 4"x4" pipe and clamp that's been run in clean environment (no dust) up for grabs.......PM me.
I'd send you a pm/email but apparently have to have 15/20 posts to do so. Hate to just pad...

Not sure if I can receive PMs or not, but you can try to send me one if you want. I'm interested in more detail.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,220 Posts
DO IT YOURSELF '''TYMAR''' filter all the way......................




:bubbakevin:bubba
 

·
Junior Member
Joined
·
11 Posts
I'd send you a pm/email but apparently have to have 15/20 posts to do so. Hate to just pad...

Not sure if I can receive PMs or not, but you can try to send me one if you want. I'm interested in more detail.
Now that wasn't thinking very well on my part, if you've only got 10 posts you can't send a pm either... sorry.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
6,337 Posts
AFE stage 2... So rather then ajust the wastegate, your going to add restriction??? ya that makes since...
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,581 Posts
As long as you zoodad your core support you'll have plenty of flow through the AIS. Without the zoodad there's a restriction, but it's not the filter, it's the snorkle butting up against the core support.
The snorkle on the AIS is slightly longer than the stock airbox and virtually seals itself against the back of the core support. Just be careful if you get caught towing heavy in a bad snowstorm, you could end up with a big block of blue ice in your filter housing (the filter will plug up with snow) I used to throw a small piece of cardboard over my zoodad hole when I was towing in heavy snowstorms (it's only a problem if you're towing heavy enough to be deep into the throttle for long periods in white-out conditions)
 

·
Stroke 'em!!!
Joined
·
52 Posts
Do it yourself/tymar all the way!!! Its cheaper and performs better.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
121 Posts
It seems to me that the ability of an air filter to protect your engine should be the top criteria for selecting an air filter and the "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" of an air filter is given by...

"Dirt Filtering Efficiency"={"Dirt Holding Capacity"}/{"Dirt Holding Capacity"+"Dirt Passed"}

...and if you multiply this result by 100 it gives the percentage of the dirt in the incoming air stream that's stopped by the air filter so that it doesn't enter your engine.

For an ISO-5011 test the measurement of "Dirt Holding Capacity" and "Dirt Passed" is done by establishing a 628 CFM airflow through an initially clean air filter and then introducing into the airflow stream a controlled amount of "standardized dust" at a controlled dust feed rate of 17.58 grams/min. The "standardized dust" meets an ISO-12103 standard which has a specified distribution of particle diameters ranging from less than 0.5 microns to 150 microns and the peak of the particle distribution curve is at a 60 micron particle diameter.

As the filter does its job of filtering out the dust that's been introduced into the airflow stream the filter becomes progressively more restricted and the suction is increased so as to maintain a constant 628 CFM airflow through an increasingly dirtier filter. When the inches H2O restriction increases to 10 inches H2O above the initial restriction for a clean filter at a 628 CFM airflow the test is terminated and the results are tabulated. The "Dirt Passed" is collected with a downstream sub-micron HEPA filter and then weighed and the "Dirt Holding Capacity" is determined by weighing the clean and dirty filter under identical conditions of ambient pressure, temperature, and relative humidity.

For the stock FA-1750 filter the "Dirt Filtering Efficiency"={542.0}/{1.31+542.0}=0.9976=99.76% but this means that 0.24% of the ingested dirt still passes through the filter and as the miles accumulate this adds up to a lot of dirt going into your engine especially if you drive in dusty conditions!

The Donaldson Power Core Ultra Web technology blue media used in the AIS FA-1757 element has a "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" of 99.97% which means that only 0.03% of the ingested dirt passes through that filter and this means the stock FA-1750 filter passes a factor of x8 more dirt than the AIS FA-1757 does!

So what's the "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" of a WIX 46637 or any of it's crossed-referenced "so-called" equivalents such as the Baldwin PA2818 or the Donaldson B085011? Well the only information I've been able to find is from the Donaldson website which states that "Donaldson’s DuraLite Air Cleaners" which includes the Donaldson B085011 are rated for... "Gas and diesel engines in light to medium dust conditions".

So the Donaldson B085011 filter doesn't seem to be a good choice for the dusty conditions that many trucks encounter! Also based on the price difference the WIX/NAPA 6637 versions of the Donaldson B085011 might not be of equal quality or perhaps by now they're just like most other commodities and all made at the same factory in China?

A dry paper element filters on a "go or no go" basis where dirt particles that are larger than the "openings" in the filter media are trapped while particles that are smaller than the openings can pass right through. For a treated or impregnated paper element with the same size "openings" in the filter media many of the smaller diameter particles stick to the surface and don't pass through the element resulting in improved "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" of "invisible" particulate matter with very small micron diameters. Since the surface of the stock FA-1750 element has a kind of "waxy" feel and the 6637 seems to employ a plain dry paper element I doubt the 6637 filters any better than the stock element does and perhaps not even as well!

In case anyone's curious as to why a "628 CFM airflow" is used it's because the ISO-5011 test standard includes a formula for the required testing CFM that depends on engine displacement and on whether or not it has a turbo and for any 7.3L engine with a turbo a "628 CFM airflow" is required for the dirt filtration testing.

Some filter vendors have been known to test at a CFM that's lower than the ISO-5011 test standard CFM and since a larger percentage of dirt gets filtered out at a lower CFM this allows claims of higher "Dirt Filtering Efficiency"! Also some filter vendors test with "coarse dust" which only includes particles ranging in size from 5.5 microns to 176 microns as opposed to the ISO-5011 test standard which includes particle diameters ranging from less than 0.5 microns to 150 microns.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
121 Posts
...As long as you zoodad your core support you'll have plenty of flow through the AIS. Without the zoodad there's a restriction, but it's not the filter, it's the snorkle butting up against the core support. The snorkle on the AIS is slightly longer than the stock airbox and virtually seals itself against the back of the core support...
I agree with your statement and when I still had my F350 I spent several years towing my 5er with different versions of a zoodad and measuring the inches H20 "suction" that my turbo applied to my AIS and I compared those measurements to similar measurements made on a 6637 by "Tenn" who posts on FTE. In the picture below on the left side of the "Magnehelic" gauge you can just make out a brass fitting with a clear hose attached which runs to the fitting on the AIS box shown in the second picture. I used the gauge on the left to measure "crankcase pressure" while evaluating different CCV mods but that's another story.





Tenn used an identical "Magnehelic" gauge and he measured the inches H20 "suction" applied to a 6637 at two different locations. He did a few tests with his "Magnehelic" gauge hooked to a fitting in the cap at the "dead end" of the 6637 as is shown below but it turns out that for a clean 6637 hardly any suction makes it all the way out to the very end because even under load the airflow demanded by the turbo gets satisfied by the airflow through the part of the element's surface that's nearer to the neck of the filter.

As the inner portion of a 6637 loads with dirt the suction gets forced farther out towards the dead end portion of the filter so that air is forced to flow through the part of the element's surface that's closer to the end cap as is required to satisfy the airflow demanded by the turbo. Tenn did an experiment in his driveway which kind of simulated this by placing a rag around the inner portion of his clean filter and revving the engine to measure the increased suction at the end cap. These measurements indicate to me that due to its "dead end" cylindrical design a 6637 doesn't fully utilize all of its surface area at any one time!



During the rest of his testing Tenn measured the inches H20 "suction" applied to the neck end of the 6637 as is shown below because this is where it must be measured in order to see the suction that corresponds to the airflow through the total surface area of the 6637 element.



If anyone's interested in the raw data and the analyses of the data I can find some links to it or post a summary here but the bottom line is that we both had DP chips and while towing under similar conditions of load as defined by RPM and BP Tenn and I both saw about the same values of inches H20 "suction" being applied to the 6637 and to the AIS and the maximum suction seen was 12" H2O. Tenn has since upgraded his injectors and turbo and he can now easily pin his Magnehelic gauge at well past its full scale reading of 15" H2O!
 

·
Junior Member
Joined
·
11 Posts
thanks for the great detail of the investigation work ErnestEugene. Both the ISO-5011 info and your personal experience. Interesting testing, I didn't know there was an ISO standard.

Tenn used an identical "Magnehelic" gauge and he measured the inches H20 "suction" applied to a 6637 at two different locations. He did a few tests with his "Magnehelic" gauge hooked to a fitting in the cap at the "dead end" of the 6637 as is shown below but it turns out that for a clean 6637 hardly any suction makes it all the way out to the very end because even under load the airflow demanded by the turbo gets satisfied by the airflow through the part of the element's surface that's nearer to the neck of the filter.

As the inner portion of a 6637 loads with dirt the suction gets forced farther out towards the dead end portion of the filter so that air is forced to flow through the part of the element's surface that's closer to the end cap as is required to satisfy the airflow demanded by the turbo. Tenn did an experiment in his driveway which kind of simulated this by placing a rag around the inner portion of his clean filter and revving the engine to measure the increased suction at the end cap. These measurements indicate to me that due to its "dead end" cylindrical design a 6637 doesn't fully utilize all of its surface area at any one time!
So what this is saying is that the filter has way more flow capacity than the size of the tube that delivers the air to the turbo inlet? The only thing really causing the suction measured in the tube neck is venturi effect thru the narrower tube?

During the rest of his testing Tenn measured the inches H20 "suction" applied to the neck end of the 6637 as is shown below because this is where it must be measured in order to see the suction that corresponds to the airflow through the total surface area of the 6637 element.

If anyone's interested in the raw data and the analyses of the data I can find some links to it or post a summary here but the bottom line is that we both had DP chips and while towing under similar conditions of load as defined by RPM and BP Tenn and I both saw about the same values of inches H20 "suction" being applied to the 6637 and to the AIS and the maximum suction seen was 12" H2O. Tenn has since upgraded his injectors and turbo and he can now easily pin his Magnehelic gauge at well past its full scale reading of 15" H2O!
So if both of your filter types are overkill for the tube diameter, it would make sense that you would both indicate the same max suction (before he upgraded his turbo). The max suction for both at that point is really based upon the tube size and volume of air thru it?

And if that is the case, a choice of filter type may boil down to how much excess "Dirt Holding Capacity" capacity there is and how fast would it be used up (holes clogging) before decreasing below the capacity of the tube? Of course also taking into consideration the "Dirt Filtering Efficiency" as the ISO standard notes.

Or the visual appeal, depending on your preferences.

Just a newb trying to learn and understand.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
211 Posts
thanks for the great detail of the investigation work ErnestEugene. Both the ISO-5011 info and your personal experience. Interesting testing, I didn't know there was an ISO standard.
There is an ASTM or ISO standard for just about everything. The information is just difficult to find unless you work in an engineering office.


Woody
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top