Fender air box feed

[importfighter01]

FYI this mod can also be done with the K&N intake or Mishimoto intake. I have it now compatible with my personal K&N intake as a trial run. Mishimoto will for because they advertise that their snorkel kit will work with their intake and that uses the same fender feed location as the mod described in this thread.

Sponsored

 

[RangerFitz]

FYI this mod can also be done with the K&N intake or Mishimoto intake. I have it now compatible with my personal K&N intake as a trial run. Mishimoto will for because they advertise that their snorkel kit will work with their intake and that uses the same fender feed location as the mod described in this thread.

So you installed the K&N intake with the foam top? Have you been monitoring your IATs with that intake?

 

[importfighter01]

So you installed the K&N intake with the foam top? Have you been monitoring your IATs with that intake?

I fabricated a new closed top for it out of 1’x1’ square of 22ga steel from Home Depot that fits under the foam top. A set of sharp tin snips, dremel, and drill press plus a step bit that goes up to 3/4in were the tools I used. Now there is no increase in IATs over factory airbox.

I have had to do a lot of fit / finish work to the overall intake setup, comes very rough from K&N. To be honest I wouldn’t recommend unless willing to do the extra work to get it to the level of fit / finish of the Mishimoto intake. I love the massive 6” velocity stack the K&N intake’s cone filter clamps to and the elbow to the factory intake tubing is the shortest path out of all intake options available. Also, for the K&N cone there is an Outerwear’s pre-filter available which I run and has been invaluable in keeping a ton of grit out of the filter. In the end I made it all work and am very happy with the end result.

 

[RangerFitz]

That's great! It's funny that I had the Airraid intake (k&n owned now) for a bit and I thought the fit/finish was very poor as well.

 

[Dr3wDrop]

Last set of pics from the install.

I do not quite understand where the blue doughnut goes?

 

[DukeCanBuildit]

@Dr3wDrop

Hey Andrew, you can find them on Amazon…

 

[Dr3wDrop]

@Dr3wDrop

Hey Andrew, you can find them on Amazon…

I was afraid of a ?? joke. Did not see hemorrhoid coming.

 

[RangerFitz]

It goes in the fenderwell

 

[Dr3wDrop]

It goes in the fenderwell

i guess i was hoping for a picture.

 

[Racket]

I look at the stock air box bottom and the tiny inlet from the tiny horn that doesn't utilize the full cutout area the leading edge of the horn bolts to.

I'm more attracted to the long term protection of the stock air filter over other media and as @importfighter01 points out the stock elbow leaving the airbox doesn't do worse than aftermarket intakes like Mishimoto's. It looks to me that @Loweredon33s has found the inlet to the turbo to be somewhat restrictive like the factory hot side intercooler pipe.

I think the obvious and simple solution would be to upgrade the bottom half of the stock box with the freer flowing intake that the Velossatech Big Mouth would compliment well. I presume Ford didn't make use of the space because of intake noise?

I just see an 'easy' mod enlarging the inlet hole and adding a bigger horn for the stock filter/intake. Whether a kit with a cutout and flange+intake horn or a totally redesigned bottom body+specific (new) horn to retain the factory filter protection and better airflow - like slicing off the bottom layer and putting a new peice that integrates an inlet. What kind of 3D printer kit this would look like I am curious. Just take the largest potential inlet opening (aFe magnum) and make that the opening size (roughly) into the bottom of the airbox.

Dyno verification would drive this type of mod. A molded horn like the aFe attached to a larger inlet might improve mileage (?) especially paired with the VelosdaTech ram air. If it provided even better gas mileage justifying it would be a no-brainer.

Edit to add: if K&N sold just the horn - or a rough copy made with the ability to add the larger port to the airbox this could be an improvement.

From below:

 

[Muffin1]

Looking to do this, was wondering what the purpose of the donut is if the coupler can be put in the 3'' 'opening in the fender well from the airbox?
Thanks.

 

[DROZ23]

@txquailguy - Here goes...you’ve been warned lol.

———

Intake design research:

All of this began as I (like others) searched for “the best” intake. I’ll start with intake design and what I learned along the way.

First up is the aFe Rapid Induction Cold Air Intake. Design is a cone filter with the lower air box still in place, along with a hard intake pipe replacing the factory accordion pipe. According to the dyno chart (which the dyno descriptions show the truck even has an supporting mods like an upgraded cat-back and intercooler pipes on a stock tune), the gains across the powerband are almost non-existent. Lesson learned: a clean paper filter and factory accordion intake pipe are not significant restrictions to power.

Next up is the Mishimoto intake. Design is a cone filter and hard intake pipe replacing the factory accordion pipe like the aFe (which the prior aFe dyno test showed were not significant restrictions to power even with supporting mods in place), however Mishimoto does not use the lower half of the factory air box, but a different air box design altogether.

In these dyno graphs we can see that there are more gains across the powerband vs the aFe, both with a stock and aftermarket tune (interesting that a tune with higher boost levels does not show an exponential benefit over the stock tune dyno graph). In this case since we know from the aFE dyno that a different filter media and hard intake pipe don’t really make a difference, we must therefore deduce that the airbox design was the difference.

In regards to air box design, the Mishimoto box is superior to the stock air box due to a much larger and efficient air box inlet snorkel. You can see in the circled portion in the image below that where the snorkel is molded into into the air box is much bigger than the 2.5x3in rectangle opening where the factory snorkel enters into the lower half of the factory air box. Also the inlet size of the Mishimoto air box snorkel where it ingests air from the radiator cowl area is larger than the factory snorkel. Lesson learned: the factory snorkel size and the actual opening in the lower factory air box where the factory snorkel mates up to it are restrictors.

To further flesh out the deduction that a both a larger snorkel and air box to snorkel opening size improve power, enter the Airaid and K&N intakes. As seen in the images below, they appear to have even larger snorkel to air box openings and also have larger than factory snorkel inlets on the radiator cowl side of things too. So like Mishimoto but bigger. The dyno charts seem to correlate that bigger is better as the Airaid design seems larger than Mishimoto and makes a lil more power across the power band.

The K&N snorkel and snorkel to air box opening design is even larger than the Airaid design and thus makes more power too (regarding the lower stock base line on the K&N dyno, it looks like the truck might have had the A/C on as I’ve seen other non-Ranger dynos where the A/C compressor robs 10-12hp easy, but who knows). Lesson learned: Bigger is better in snorkel and snorkel to air box design. This motor wants as much air as it can get.

The final info I found on intake design that further validated my findings on access to airflow being more important than filter media or post-airbox tubing design was the now discontinued Injen short ram intake. While no dyno sheets were published, Injen claimed their intake made 14hp in their testing. As seen in the pics, it was the least restrictive option of all with no snorkel or airbox design to restrict any airflow. So if we have learned from the aFe dyno that filter media and smooth hard piping are not contributors to power, why the significant power increase? It’s because the motor could ingest as much air as it wanted with nothing limiting the amount of air getting to the filter. This again further validates that access to airflow is where power can be found with intake design on these trucks, which Mishimoto / Airaid / K&N all help for accomplish.

———

A real problem:

So now that we have established that airflow quantities from snorkel inlet and snorkel to air box inlet are what makes a difference (or have the greatest impact on power of if you will), why not just buy a K&N intake and call it a day? Because something that Gale Banks of Banks Power pointed out in one of his dyno videos...when everyone dynos their vehicles they do so with the hood open! On our Rangers, THIS is a real problem. Why? Because when the hood closes the clearance between the hood and radiator cowl (through which the snorkel draws air) narrows down at some points to only a 0.5in x 7in slit! Here’s some math for you. We have discussed that the data shows that the 2.5x3in snorkel to lower factory inbox inlet is restrictive. The area of that opening is 7.5in. The area of a 0.5 x 7in slit is only 3.5in!! That means that sucking air from the radiator cowl area is 2x more restrictive than the already restrictive lower factory air box inlet which dynos show restricts power.

Using the rubber hood bumper as a point of reference, you can do the math to determine how narrow the air pathways are within the radiator cowl area. I even removed my cowl at one point and held it up to the underside of the hood to verify as well. All this to say, no matter how good your aftermarket air box is at making power vs the stock setup, all current intake designs have the same restriction stifling them when the hood is closed. The only design that overcame this was the Injen, but it was crappy as it was ingesting hot engine bay air.

Nothing out there today addresses the issue of the restriction to increased airflow the radiator cowl causes. You can’t cut it open anywhere between the stock fresh air feed hole in the cowl and the snorkel either because doing so will allow the snorkel inlet to ingest warm air from the engine bay (area under the cowl is not sealed off from the engine bay by any means and doing so would take a ton of work like sealing around the intercooler piping). I also looked into running a 3in hose from a new hole in the cowl right in front of the snorkel inlet, but doing so would add several feet to the intake airflow tract, creating a different type of restriction due to excessive length.

All this being said, I recognize that the factory design was not done to make a Ranger a street rod. It was done to a. ingest cold air (which it does) and b. make water very difficult to make it to the airbox for those who off-road (which it seems to be a good design for). However for those who want to go as fast as possible, it’s a real issue.

The Velossatech ram air scoop helps because it is forcing air through the slits in the cowl area to the snorkel, but even then if you look at the hood design and it’s accompanying rubber seals it’s a Swiss cheese design that opens into the hot air of the engine bay, thus the air the Velossatech is delivering is not forced towards the snorkel inlet, reducing its efficiency (you can see how I overcame this with white duct tape and redoing the rubber intake tract seals on my hood below).

———

My solution:

After reviewing all of this for over 2 months, I determined to do what should have been done from the factory (because it has been and is still done today in other vehicles), but prob couldn’t be done due to crash testing, was to create a second air feed for the factory air box by creating a fender feed as seen in my original post. In doing so I’ve created more cold airflow volume than any current intake design will allow in the shortest path possible, regardless of hood being open or closed. It’s similar to having the benefits of a short ram setup, but no hot air ingestion issues. Like I mentioned in original post I observed immediate positive results and am very pleased.

———

Again, sorry for the length but hope this provides the context you were looking for!

Chop the underside of the Hood away to create a Gap then seal it up. That is what I see to do. I also taped the dumb holes above the inlet that bleed air into the hood. I'm also thinking of Cutting away the stupid reverse scoop on the RAD cover That feeds the gap. the 2022 range has 2 plastic bars the partly cover the inlet. Not to mention the 1.5 inch formed plastic that hangs down the wrong way on the cover. It is literally in the the wrong orientation for diverting Air. I am going to cut all that away so there is just a hole. Then resize the hole so it it flows with the framing. You can get a OEM Rad cover for $40 so it is not a major issue if you need a new one.

(For all those haters that say car companies spend millions to design the vehicle to spec can open their eyes and notice this was a after thought. They spend the money to keep compliant with GOV bureaucracy. Otherwise every car would run straight pipes and COWL for performance.)

Instead of a $140 Big mouth, I just took a folding lid off a Shoe box. Cut it to size, then covered it with Black all weather Gorilla Tape. I formed a Ramp angle to force the air up into the restriction between the RAD cover and the intake snorkel. That way at even moderate speed, it forces pressure into to the Air box. I used the Tremor grill as the Ram to concentrate the flow to the Inlet. instead of letting it flow past into the engine bay. It is now always under pressure to receive cooled air from the outside. So if I can't make the hole bigger I will make the air faster.

You are correct that there is not a convenient way to open the pathway from the hood to the air intake snorkel. Ford should of just chopped the hood and put a Cowl Scoop like the RICERs do with those Headlight Mods. My current setup has more consistent response and the MPGs are stable if not slightly better. That cost me $12 only bc I had to buy a full roll of tape LOL!

Finally, the intake System looks to be more than that enough for the 4 banger it feeds. The piping to the snorkel is garbage though. Expensive CAL boxes are not going to fix that issue and are a waste of money for performance sake. An AEM Dry Flow is my go to drop in filter as it strikes the best balance between filtration and flow vs everything else, including K&N. Cheers.

 

[DROZ23]

I look at the stock air box bottom and the tiny inlet from the tiny horn that doesn't utilize the full cutout area the leading edge of the horn bolts to.

I'm more attracted to the long term protection of the stock air filter over other media and as @importfighter01 points out the stock elbow leaving the airbox doesn't do worse than aftermarket intakes like Mishimoto's. It looks to me that @Loweredon33s has found the inlet to the turbo to be somewhat restrictive like the factory hot side intercooler pipe.

I think the obvious and simple solution would be to upgrade the bottom half of the stock box with the freer flowing intake that the Velossatech Big Mouth would compliment well. I presume Ford didn't make use of the space because of intake noise?

I just see an 'easy' mod enlarging the inlet hole and adding a bigger horn for the stock filter/intake. Whether a kit with a cutout and flange+intake horn or a totally redesigned bottom body+specific (new) horn to retain the factory filter protection and better airflow - like slicing off the bottom layer and putting a new peice that integrates an inlet. What kind of 3D printer kit this would look like I am curious. Just take the largest potential inlet opening (aFe magnum) and make that the opening size (roughly) into the bottom of the airbox.

Dyno verification would drive this type of mod. A molded horn like the aFe attached to a larger inlet might improve mileage (?) especially paired with the VelosdaTech ram air. If it provided even better gas mileage justifying it would be a no-brainer.

Edit to add: if K&N sold just the horn - or a rough copy made with the ability to add the larger port to the airbox this could be an improvement.

From below:

I like it. To bad you have to Chop up the truck to find a solution.

Sponsored