I just ordered an Airaid intake tube. From what I read from some members they would prefer it over the metal intake tubes. Anyone have this and want to share some opinions? It will be connected to my stock box with the swiss cheese mod and K&N drop in.
Airaid M.I.T
- Thread starter My01yuk
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
felixgun
Full Access Member
The intake tube is the biggest part of the equation of the CAI. The polished intake tubes heat up more then the plastic ones so it doesn't stay as cool. I have the airaid MIT and love it.
01HDtahoeNJN
Shredding Gnar Daily
Really 
..I was looking at getting a polished AEM brute...for real cheap..performances matched that of k&Nali plastic on 3-4 different silverados that were dynoed
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
..I was looking at getting a polished AEM brute...for real cheap..performances matched that of k&Nali plastic on 3-4 different silverados that were dynoedSent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Sweet_N_Low
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
- Posts
- 373
- Reaction score
- 0
The amount of heat generated by polished vs plastic won't make any noticeable difference in a daily driver. The smoothed out tube minimizing air turbulence is the real difference maker
I'm not sure what a K&N plastic is but I have read where the metal tubes get hotter and that is not so much a downfall or negative but just something to keep in mind. Some would probably tell you not to worry and you would be fine. I just know that I will not be getting a CAI kit until next year so why not just upgrade my intake tube for the time being.
Sweet N Low, I'm going off what I have read on here. But more than that i just wanted to upgrade my tube until i get the whole kit.
Sweet N Low, I'm going off what I have read on here. But more than that i just wanted to upgrade my tube until i get the whole kit.
hoe
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Posts
- 696
- Reaction score
- 17
CAI stands for COLD Air Intake. The cooler the better. I love my AIRAID MIT. I can drive all over the east coast, stop, pop my hood, and hold my intake and anything under hood for that matter. I also run a 180* tstat
redemn93
Full Access Member
i have a airaid cai. if i got ahold of a stock air box and mounted it with swiss cheese mod and airaid mit, will it be as loud as the cai? i know its a popular thing. are the gains as good as a true cai?
felixgun
Full Access Member
Really
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
performance > looks
polished < plastic
the hard truth... i too loved the polished until I learned more gains can be made from the plastic MIT
---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------
HEAT is the whole problem with the stock oem intake. Why get something that HEATS up more when the whole point was to get COLD AIR flowing through it? It's like how you feel more power during the winter since the air is colder...
TheFuzz
Idiot Police
Not to rag on you too badly here, but your logic is completely flawed. First of all, the problem with the stock intake is NOT heat. At all. In fact, logically looking at it, the OEM intake probably draws in more cool air than most so-called "cold air intakes". It's drawing from a sealed box with a port that pulls air in from outside of the engine bay. Thats about as cool it gets. The problem with the OEM intake is that even though it's drawing cooler air, it's running that cool air through a paper filter with so-so flow capability, and then pulling it though a corrogated tube with baffles that was designed to be flexible for easy servicing as well as QUIET to make ma and pa consumer happy, as opposed to having ideal flow for performance. Heat has nothing to do with why the OEM intake sucks. Besides, by the whole "plastic intakes are better because they don't get as hot" philosophy, the OEM intake should be perfect since it pulls in cool air AND it's made out of *gasp*....plastic, right? Wrong. It's the tube itself that is the problem - it's wildly inefficient.
Most aftermarket "cold air intakes" are actually WARM air intakes compared to the stock system because they utilize open filter elements that are much more exposed to engine heat. Where they make their gains at are A) eliminating the corrogated/baffled OEM tubing and B) using a larger, higher flowing filter that makes up for the added heat with sheer air volume. More warm air still makes gains because, well, it's MORE air. More air = more oxygen, almost regardless of the ambient temperature. When it's cooler outside, the gains are even greater because as you mentioned, cooler air = denser, more oxygen-rich air = more horsepower.
I would love to see some hard numbers showing that a polymer/plastic intake tube makes more power than a comparable aluminum intake tube. The source of your intake charge (ie, where the filter is located and how well it is isolated from engine heat) as well as eliminating the flow restrictions of the stock intake are far more important than what the tube is made out of. Think about it for a second - at the speed the intake charge is moving through the tube, even at idle speeds, do you really think its going to have time to pick up much additional heat from the piping? Not likely. It's moving WAY too fast through the tube for heat soak to be an issue in most circumstances - and thats just at idle. Forget about WOT conditions - I'd bet money that the IAT's stay damn near identical.
IMO, the material the tube is made out of is a moot point. Put two identically shaped systems next to each other, one aluminum and one plastic, and I'd bet the difference would be negligible in 99% of the conditions you run them in.
Earl, the MIT should do fine for you with your current setup. You're getting rid of the stock piping, which is one of the biggest concerns. Combined with the drop-in and the swiss cheese mod, you'll see some nice gains.
Last edited:
felixgun
Full Access Member
Not to rag on you too badly here, but your logic is completely flawed. First of all, the problem with the stock intake is NOT heat. At all. In fact, logically looking at it, the OEM intake probably draws in more cool air than most so-called "cold air intakes". It's drawing from a sealed box with a port that pulls air in from outside of the engine bay. Thats about as cool it gets. The problem with the OEM intake is that even though it's drawing cooler air, it's running that cool air through a paper filter with so-so flow capability, and then pulling it though a corrogated tube with baffles that was designed to be flexible for easy servicing as well as QUIET to make ma and pa consumer happy, as opposed to having ideal flow for performance. Heat has nothing to do with why the OEM intake sucks. Besides, by the whole "plastic intakes are better because they don't get as hot" philosophy, the OEM intake should be perfect since it pulls in cool air AND it's made out of *gasp*....plastic, right? Wrong. It's the tube itself that is the problem - it's wildly inefficient.
Most aftermarket "cold air intakes" are actually WARM air intakes compared to the stock system because they utilize open filter elements that are much more exposed to engine heat. Where they make their gains at are A) eliminating the corrogated/baffled OEM tubing and B) using a larger, higher flowing filter that makes up for the added heat with sheer air volume. More warm air still makes gains because, well, it's MORE air. More air = more oxygen, almost regardless of the ambient temperature. When it's cooler outside, the gains are even greater because as you mentioned, cooler air = denser, more oxygen-rich air = more horsepower.
I would love to see some hard numbers showing that a polymer/plastic intake tube makes more power than a comparable aluminum intake tube. The source of your intake charge (ie, where the filter is located and how well it is isolated from engine heat) as well as eliminating the flow restrictions of the stock intake are far more important than what the tube is made out of. Think about it for a second - at the speed the intake charge is moving through the tube, even at idle speeds, do you really think its going to have time to pick up much additional heat from the piping? Not likely. It's moving WAY too fast through the tube for heat soak to be an issue in most circumstances - and thats just at idle. Forget about WOT conditions - I'd bet money that the IAT's stay damn near identical.
IMO, the material the tube is made out of is a moot point. Put two identically shaped systems next to each other, one aluminum and one plastic, and I'd bet the difference would be negligible in 99% of the conditions you run them in.
Earl, the MIT should do fine for you with your current setup. You're getting rid of the stock piping, which is one of the biggest concerns. Combined with the drop-in and the swiss cheese mod, you'll see some nice gains.
First off, i'm passing off info that has been the general answer when asked the same question over and over again, so I didn't make this answer up in my head, it was passed along. Second, when you said "First of all, the problem with the stock intake is NOT heat. " - When did i say that? The whole point of my post was to tell people about Plastic versus polished AFTER MARKET intake tubes and that's it. I think you over analyzed my statement then went off but to each his own.
Here's an example of some numbers of plastic versus polished you asked for:
Dyno chart ran on 2007 Yukon 5.3L from K&N:
Plastic - 17.55hp:
http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/63-3058_dyno.pdf
Polished - 12.49hp:
http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/77-3058_dyno.pdf
Same thing but one's polished and one's plastic... ~5hp difference.
Last edited:
TheFuzz
Idiot Police
My intention wasn't to go off on you, and I'm sorry if I came across as being a dick. I was just trying to clarify what the primary purpose of an intake is.
Here, which is the exact direct quote listed in my first post:
You said that at the bottom of page one - kinda hard to interpret that as any different than what it is - and thats just not the case.
As for the dyno graphs, I appreciate you digging them up and they do provide some interesting numbers, but I have a couple of problems with them:
1. They are from the manufacturer (K&N). Not exactly the most objective observer out there if you know what I mean.
2. They use the exact same baseline test was done earlier in the day for both graphs. Thats not exactly an accurate way to get numbers since ambient temperature and humidity fluctuate throughout the day. Technically you should baseline the truck then swap intakes and run it again - the sooner the better - and do that for each product. This minimizes inconsistencies. Again, this is a function of the manufacturer conducting the tests (it saves them time and money by not re-baselining for each product...but it skews the numbers just a bit).
3. One graph shows the part number that has the lower output, the other graph witht he higher output shows "K&N intake kit installed". Which kit? The page header shows the part number but why not put it on the graph like the other one?
4. Two different intakes make their peak horsepower and torque numbers at EXACTLY the same RPM? Really? Hmmmmm......
5. Throughout the testing of two different intakes, the mileage on the test vehicle stayed exactly the same?
6. This is the 00-06 section, numbers from an 07 don't mean much to those of us running older engines.
I'm not saying that they are full of beans, but there are definitely some head scratchers there. If you really want to compare manufacturer dyno charts, look at the numbers for the 77 series vs the 63 series for a 2002 Suburban 5.3. The difference is negligible, about .2 horsepower, and the metal intake makes peak power lower in the RPM range. For the newer trucks, maybe the FIPK's respond better. Different tech, different results. But, in my case (with an older truck), theres no reason to ditch the metal tube in favor of anything else.
I'd like to see a real-world, non manufacturer biased dyno graph showing that something such as an AEM Brute Force makes less power than a comparable plastic tube. If that can be done, I'll be a believer. My biggest problem with the K&N intakes is the fact that they still insist on using those damn oiled filters which do nothing but foul the MAF. I'd love to get an FIPK and swap the oiled filter out with a comparable dry filter from AEM, but that is a rather expensive option and I haven't seen anything that would make me think that the extra effort is worth .2 horsepower.
Again, not trying to bust your balls man...just trying to correct some of the stuff I saw as inaccurate. We're all friends here, just having a friendly debate.
Oh, and happy Easter for those of you of the appropriate religious persuasion.
Here, which is the exact direct quote listed in my first post:
You said that at the bottom of page one - kinda hard to interpret that as any different than what it is - and thats just not the case.
As for the dyno graphs, I appreciate you digging them up and they do provide some interesting numbers, but I have a couple of problems with them:
1. They are from the manufacturer (K&N). Not exactly the most objective observer out there if you know what I mean.
2. They use the exact same baseline test was done earlier in the day for both graphs. Thats not exactly an accurate way to get numbers since ambient temperature and humidity fluctuate throughout the day. Technically you should baseline the truck then swap intakes and run it again - the sooner the better - and do that for each product. This minimizes inconsistencies. Again, this is a function of the manufacturer conducting the tests (it saves them time and money by not re-baselining for each product...but it skews the numbers just a bit).
3. One graph shows the part number that has the lower output, the other graph witht he higher output shows "K&N intake kit installed". Which kit? The page header shows the part number but why not put it on the graph like the other one?
4. Two different intakes make their peak horsepower and torque numbers at EXACTLY the same RPM? Really? Hmmmmm......
5. Throughout the testing of two different intakes, the mileage on the test vehicle stayed exactly the same?
6. This is the 00-06 section, numbers from an 07 don't mean much to those of us running older engines.
I'm not saying that they are full of beans, but there are definitely some head scratchers there. If you really want to compare manufacturer dyno charts, look at the numbers for the 77 series vs the 63 series for a 2002 Suburban 5.3. The difference is negligible, about .2 horsepower, and the metal intake makes peak power lower in the RPM range. For the newer trucks, maybe the FIPK's respond better. Different tech, different results. But, in my case (with an older truck), theres no reason to ditch the metal tube in favor of anything else.
I'd like to see a real-world, non manufacturer biased dyno graph showing that something such as an AEM Brute Force makes less power than a comparable plastic tube. If that can be done, I'll be a believer. My biggest problem with the K&N intakes is the fact that they still insist on using those damn oiled filters which do nothing but foul the MAF. I'd love to get an FIPK and swap the oiled filter out with a comparable dry filter from AEM, but that is a rather expensive option and I haven't seen anything that would make me think that the extra effort is worth .2 horsepower.
Again, not trying to bust your balls man...just trying to correct some of the stuff I saw as inaccurate. We're all friends here, just having a friendly debate.
Oh, and happy Easter for those of you of the appropriate religious persuasion.
Last edited:
