Ford Power Stroke Nation banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
99' F350
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am thinking about getting a 6637 Napa Filter for my Early 99', any input? Can i attach the filter to the stock rubber intake?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
I am thinking about getting a 6637 Napa Filter for my Early 99', any input? Can i attach the filter to the stock rubber intake?
you sure can, i did mine. you need a piece of 4" exhaust tube about 4.5-5.5" long.
 

·
99' F350
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Im going to pick one up sometime this weekend, are these filters just as good as K&N and......... I want something that is going to give me more power and at the same time filtering more dirt.
 

·
Davey B
Joined
·
930 Posts
Im going to pick one up sometime this weekend, are these filters just as good as K&N and......... I want something that is going to give me more power and at the same time filtering more dirt.
They're better than a k&n. If you run a k&n for awhile and then look at your turbo wheel, you'll see where its starting to get dusted. The 6637 is alot better, and its cheaper
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,810 Posts
And the Donaldson in The Tymar kit is better than the 6637 and usually much cheaper. You will need a mounting band for the filter if you want the added air flow the filter provides...The Tymar kit comes complete and has a new battery tray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
And the Donaldson in The Tymar kit is better than the 6637 and usually much cheaper. You will need a mounting band for the filter if you want the added air flow the filter provides...The Tymar kit comes complete and has a new battery tray.
WOW,, um I don't think the Donaldson is better than the 6637... you don't need the mounting band either, the filter will lay right on the fender well just fine,
Why would "You will need a mounting band for the filter if you want the added air flow the filter provides..." the band effect the airflow?
 

·
Metal - It kicks your ass
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
They're better than a k&n. If you run a k&n for awhile and then look at your turbo wheel, you'll see where its starting to get dusted. The 6637 is alot better, and its cheaper
They are better than the K&N drop in panel filter... The panel filters don't seal very well allowing dirt to pass through.

the cone filters that you can mount to a 3-1/2" or 4" intake tube are just fine. As far as their performance compared to the 6637....:shrug: I couldn't tell ya.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
Any of the oiled filters aren't as good as the paper IMHO, because there is a human factor on oiling it. Too much oil, it isn't efficient, too little it won't filter as well. And infact from what I have read on oiled filters, they are not efficient through the whole "Oil cycle" they only filter at their most efficient somewhere in the middle. Actually after they are starting to collect some dirt....

Paper filters great until they get full,,, which is a lot of miles! Unless you live on a gravel road of course,,, then I would get the Ford severe duty filter system...
 

·
OEM Moderator
Joined
·
9,381 Posts
I think the purpose in the band was to keep the filter off the fender liner so as to get air fully around the filter. At least that was the theory I recall.
 

·
All done now
Joined
·
22,486 Posts
I all ready have a big K&N filter people on here just seem to bash them, and I dont want to hurt my motor.
Not bashing them at all. The drop ins don't seal well, it is a verifiable fact. The cone type, I have the same issue as I do with any filter that I have to do maintainance on.

When it comes time to change mine, I pull it off, throw another one on, back on the road.

Oil type. Pull it off, wash it off, lay it in the sun and let it dry. Put some oil on it, something else to buy. Put the filter on the truck. A major pain. Plus I am on foot for a couple of hours. Over a freakin air filter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,206 Posts
We run 6637 in 4 of our Power Strokes...love em, no complaints. Plus we're a NAPA AutoCare Center so they're cheap!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,810 Posts
Maybe this will clear some questions..

Sorry for the late response. OBSWIZ 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!
__________________
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.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top