Is the Tymar or Ford AIS air intake really that much better over stock?

[DelArmy]

I'm struggling with trying to decide whether to replace my stock intake with either the Tymar or Ford AIS intake systems. Each has it pro's and con's (reading through posts), but does either really give that much better bang-for-the-buck over stock? I pull a 12K 5th wheel and typically drive at 62mph. At that speed my egt's run between 800 and 900 deg's. Occasionally, they will pop up to 1,100 deg's with wind or hills and 700 deg's with a tailwind. I consistently get approx. 12 to 12 1/2 mpg's. I already have the mods listed in my signature. What will an additional $200 in mods get me in significant tangible performance?

[Camptoboat]

I am in favor of my DIY TYMAR (aka BHAF).
I use a NAPA 6637 from Fleetfilter.com
and Filter cover from Filter cover

[444-4D]

Originally Posted by DelArmy

What will an additional $200 in mods get me in significant tangible performance?

If your filter housing is in good condition and you are using an FA-1750 filter you, won't gain anything.

[ajohansson]

IMHO you protect your turbo and motor the best with an AIS. The stock one isnt sealed that well.

[SmokeyWren]

I don't have the numbers for my current AIS, but it is very similar to the old TurboRamAir intake I had before.

The main reason for replacing the stock intake with one that will allow more air into the turbo is to allow you to pull more weight, or climb a steeper grade, or go faster up a grade, or any combination of those three, without too-high EGT.

If you have a towing tune and set your cruise on 62 MPH, then downshift to 3rd (kill OD), then climb a 6% or steeper grade while dragging a trailer that grosses 8,000 pounds or more, then you're going to exceed the 1,250° pre-turbo EGT redline with the stock intake. Even with an excellent intake, you still have to drive by the gauges to be sure you don't exceed the EGT red line, but you'll be able to go about 5 MPH faster with the good intake.

Here's partial results from the tests I ran when I installed my TurboRamAir intake:

Stock truck, except for Walker BTM muffler, LT295/75R16 tires, and about a 60-horse towing chip, dragging a fifth-wheel low-profile RV trailer that grossed about 6,000 pounds.

Stock intake with new Motorcraft paper filter:
(pedal to the metal)
Zero to 60 MPH = 15 seconds, max EGT = 1,175°, max boost = 25 PSI
(simulated passing on a two-lane highway)
50-to-80 MPH = 17 seconds, max EGT = 1,175°, max boost = 25.

Same setup but with TurboRamAir intake:
0-60 = 15 seconds, max EGT = 900°, max boost = 26 PSI
50-80 = 17 seconds, max EGT 950°, max boost = 27 PSI

So no more horses, but significantly lower EGT.

Lowering your max EGT is a misnomer, because you don't need to lower your EGT as long as you're below the 1,250° red line. But those numbers show that the better intake definitely lowered the EGT at the same load/speed/grade.

When crossing mountains, I'm glad I have the AIS now, just as I'm glad I had the TurboRamAir for several years before the plastic airbox disintegrated. On most interstate mountain passes, including I-70 and I-90 across the Rockies, grossing 16,000 pounds in third gear I can maintain 55 to 60 MPH without exceeding 1,250° pre-turbo EGT.

[snakyjake]

I thought the main reason was because the original stock filter housing had a defect that increased the possibility of not sealing. People went with a Tymar because the AIS did not exist.

And today, they both exist. AIS and Tymar filter near equal, and the Tymar/Donaldson filter setup is $$$ cheaper.

The other benefits were lowering EGT's if you tow heavy, or need more airflow for a high performance engine.

[SmokeyWren]

Originally Posted by snakyjake

I thought the main reason was because the original stock filter housing had a defect that increased the possibility of not sealing.

That's the reason today. By now the the stock airbox has warped all out of shape and needs to be replaced with something that will tightly seal between the filter and the airbox.

But several years ago that wasn't a big problem as long as you used the stock paper air filters. But a K&N replacement air filter was thicker and stiffer and wouldn't conform to the airbox good enough, so it allowed too much unfiltered air into the turbo. And the good intake systems allowed you to climb the mountain at a higher speed with a heavy load, so that's why so many aftermarket air intake systems were sold.

People went with a Tymar because the AIS did not exist.

That was true for the folks who didn't mind the increased NVH from the open air filter. But the TurboRamAir was a big seller at two or three times the cost of the Tymar. It was as quiet as the stock intake but increased intake air volume significantly.

And today, they both exist.

True, but the AIS has been available for only a coupla years or so. Before that the only alternative for a really good air intake system was the $500 aFe Stage II with the ProGuard7 filter. And it made almost as much NVH as the Tymar or the DIY open air filter.

AIS and Tymar filter near equal, and the Tymar/Donaldson filter setup is $$$ cheaper.

The Tymar with the expensive Donaldson filter specified by Tymar is cheaper, and louder, but if you think it filters as good as the AIS you are probably wrong. Also most folks don't use the expensive Donaldson filter specified by Tymar. Instead they use a much-cheaper filter that is not nearly as good as the real Tymar, but it looks the same from the outside, and it might even have Donaldson's name on it.

DoD bought the AIS which costs about twice as much as they could have bought the Tymar. I worked for DoD for over 30 years, and I know they don't buy something if something else at half the price will work just as good. They put the AIS on numerous SuperDuty diesel-powered trucks running around in the deserts of Iraq and similar places. It was developed by Donaldson and Ford to meet the DoD objective of clean air for the engines under severe conditions. The Tymar open filter design - regardless of how good was the filter element - simply didn't meet the DoD specs for enough clean air going into the turbo.

The other benefits were lowering EGT's if you tow heavy, or need more airflow for a high performance engine.

Or any combination of severe conditions. For me, it's dusty environment plus towing heavy with a hot-rod towing machine, without the "look at me" racket of an open air filter. So far it seems as good as the TurboRamAir, without the nasty mess of having to clean and re-oil the multi-layer foam filter media in the TurboRamAir.

[dlblazer]

I haven't found an AIS for sale in a long time...

[SmokeyWren]

Originally Posted by dlblazer

I haven't found an AIS for sale in a long time...

As a general rule, only Ford dealers sell them. Any Motorcraft dealer can sell them, but for some reason only the Ford dealers even know what they are. You can get one from Wabash Ford (PowerStrokeShop) for $198 plus shipping:
Ford AIS at PowerStrokeShop

[DelArmy]

Thanks everyone for the great spot on advice and analysis.

[Alex78]

I have had the factory replacement from K&N before changing to the AFE stage 2... It’s a big difference both in power and the ability to breathe easier. Your mpg also is affected by the upgrade for the better.

[caryt]

Simple answer is a real Tymar then AIS..long answer reposted again!

Sorry for the late response. caryt asked me to comment on a few threads, this being one of them, a while ago and I’m just getting around to it. However, on a new computer (yea!… sort of… depends if you like Vista).

Anyway, I don’t monitor all the different forums anymore, but am always willing to comment if anyone would like to link me to the conversation you are having. Since I am a bit late, I’ll respond to the posts as they appear and hopefully it won’t be too confusing.

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!
__________________

[losfinch]

I have found that on my AIS I was also sucking in the air-meter thingy on the airfilter box (both the new one that came with the kit and the original one that came with the truck) anytime I went WOT or pushed it hard. The solution was to simply remove the long snorkel piece. Just looking at it you can see how reduced it is in comparison to the filter box's opening. Now I can't pull in the filter-minder thingy. I live in a dusty area and it keeps the intake tube nice and clean. Works really good, but you do need to either remove the front snorkel section on it and/or do the fender sleeve mod to really let the AIS breathe. My 2 cents worth.

[ajohansson]

I have the front snorkel on but did the fender sleeve mod and have no issue with the filter minder. Its not the best flow compared to the tymar but I still think I am getting good enough flow.