What is the difference between? - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech General discussion of 2.9L and 3.0L V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 06-01-2008
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saint Charles, MO
Posts: 14
What is the difference between?

98-00 and a 01-03 Aftermarket Cold Air Intake for a 3.0L Motor?

Basically are they interchangeable? And if not what does it take to make a 01-03 cold air intake work on a 98-00? Please help ...I thought all the 3.0L's intake delivery systems were the same from 98-present!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2008
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saint Charles, MO
Posts: 14
http://www.ssd4u.com/streetsmart_019.htm This website shows two different part numbers but what is the difference and are they interchangeable?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2008
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,221
This kit:
http://www.stuffforyourranger.com/st...4968496db5310c

fits the entire year range (1998-2003). I think the reason it fits both is it has two different "holes" for the PCV hose. It comes with a plug to cap the one you don't need, which varies based on 1998+ or 01+. The cap is on the backside and is pretty well hidden.

I'm pretty sure that is the only difference.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-02-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
The OEM intake is a cold air intake!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-02-2008
dakota772's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tucson
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
The OEM intake is a cold air intake!
I think he wants a high flow cold air intake. Our stock "cold air" intake sucks.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-02-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota772 View Post
I think he wants a high flow cold air intake. Our stock "cold air" intake sucks.
Sorry to disagree, but the OEM intake & paper filter will flow way more air than the engine (3.0L) can pull!! Matter of fact, it is the same filter for the 4.0L,
and the larger the displacement, the more air the engine will pull!!!

Depending on the MAF sensor, most of the larger diameter intakes will slow the air velocity to the point of causing the MAF sensor to not measure the air flow correctly.
And they will flow the same volume of air, being pulled by the engine!!

The only thing you will get from the aftermarket intake & filter is hotter, dirtier, and oily air, more noise, and a lighter wallet!!!

Last edited by Takeda; 06-02-2008 at 09:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-02-2008
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota772 View Post
I think he wants a high flow cold air intake. Our stock "cold air" intake sucks.
And wheres your info to back up 'the stock intake sucks'? Have you done dyno runs with the stock airbox and then a aftermarket system? If so post them up.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-02-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04blackedge View Post
And wheres your info to back up 'the stock intake sucks'? Have you done dyno runs with the stock airbox and then a aftermarket system? If so post them up.

From an independent testing source, not a aftermarket intake manufacturer, like K&N!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-02-2008
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saint Charles, MO
Posts: 14
Thanks for your input but my question was what is the difference between the 98-01 and the 02-03 intake systems and can a 02-03 be made to fit a 2000 Ford Ranger 3.0L? I don't care about opinions.......just what is the difference and can they be modified to fit the other application years? And if so how do you modify it or what do you need to do? The Question is because my Future brother in law purchased one for his 4.0L 2003 Ranger and in came with a "buy one get one free" the free one happens to be for a 02-03 3.0L but mine is a 2000 so I was gonna buy it off him to save him and I some money!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-02-2008
dakota772's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tucson
Posts: 230
04blackedge and Takeda,
Damn guys, you jumped on my *** in a heart beat. The stock intake sucks for a couple of reasons: (1) an aftermarket air filter like K&N allows more air and cleaner air to get to the engine. Of course this is bottle-necked at the MAF like stated above. So, realistically, it doesn't matter how much air the air filter will let pass, but it does matter how much can get into the engine. But at least the air reaching the engine is cleaner with an aftermarket filter. (2) the intake into the airbox is only 4 or 5 inches in diameter and it is hidden behind the headlight. Why not open it up so that air can get into the filter easier?

Personally, I bought my drop-in K&N filter for performance. Afterwards, I didn't notice any improvement in throttle response or power, but I did see a 1-2mpg increase.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-02-2008
Johnbaum13's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,343
Theoretically, my intake must flow WAY to much air, cause the 2.3 uses the same filter as the 4.0......<-sarcasm

The one difference you might want to look for would prolly be the style of MAF it takes. Thats what the difference on the 2.3 CAI is between the different years with the DuraTec. They just don't offer the newer style for mine. If anybody knows a way around that, lets hear it, 'cause I'm interested too.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-03-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota772 View Post
04blackedge and Takeda,
Damn guys, you jumped on my *** in a heart beat. The stock intake sucks for a couple of reasons: (1) an aftermarket air filter like K&N allows more air and cleaner air to get to the engine. Of course this is bottle-necked at the MAF like stated above. So, realistically, it doesn't matter how much air the air filter will let pass, but it does matter how much can get into the engine. But at least the air reaching the engine is cleaner with an aftermarket filter. (2) the intake into the airbox is only 4 or 5 inches in diameter and it is hidden behind the headlight. Why not open it up so that air can get into the filter easier?

Personally, I bought my drop-in K&N filter for performance. Afterwards, I didn't notice any improvement in throttle response or power, but I did see a 1-2mpg increase.
Not true! The OEM paper filter filters the air much better than the K&N! The K&N is known for passing dirt & oil, which contaminates the MAF sensor, and gums up the throttle body, and IAC valve.......The K&N, however, will flow more air than the OEM paper filter, but since the OEM paper filter will flow way more air than the engine will pull, you won't get any more air with the K&N, just more dirt & oil.......
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-03-2008
dakota772's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tucson
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
you won't get any more air with the K&N, just more dirt & oil.......
not true, there is no evidence to support that. I checked K&N's website, they have never had any MAF sensor problems while they were testing their filters. I have been using my drop-in K&N filter for 2-3 years and I have not had any problems with it or my MAF sensor, or the throttle body. Have you had any problems with a K&N filter in your truck?

So, we agree that the engine won't take any more air with either filter, but the air from the K&N is cleaner.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-03-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota772 View Post
not true, there is no evidence to support that. I checked K&N's website, they have never had any MAF sensor problems while they were testing their filters. I have been using my drop-in K&N filter for 2-3 years and I have not had any problems with it or my MAF sensor, or the throttle body. Have you had any problems with a K&N filter in your truck?

So, we agree that the engine won't take any more air with either filter, but the air from the K&N is cleaner.
No K&N on my truck, I knew better!!!

You don't think K&N would admit to causing MAF sensor problems do you?
Just hold the K&N up to a light source, and you will see why they pass so
much dirt!! Why do you think UOA shows high Si content on vehicles using
a K&N air filter?

Why do you think K&N has witten their warranty like this:

"K&N will not be responsible for any other expenses incurred by the customer under the terms of this warranty, nor shall it be responsible for any damages either consequential, special, contingent, or otherwise; or expenses or injury arising directly or indirectly from the use of the K&N Air Filter."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-03-2008
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
So don't get a K&N. I don't like their kit anyway. There is nothing that shields the filter from engine bay heat. I bought it and learned the hard way.

I will say this though. My stock intake hose would shrink when I reved my truck while doing the seafoam treatment. This is with a good filter and the silencer removed. I believe that there is a bit of a restriction or else the hose would not shrink.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-03-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by fddriver02 View Post
So don't get a K&N. I don't like their kit anyway. There is nothing that shields the filter from engine bay heat. I bought it and learned the hard way.

I will say this though. My stock intake hose would shrink when I reved my truck while doing the seafoam treatment. This is with a good filter and the silencer removed. I believe that there is a bit of a restriction or else the hose would not shrink.

Shrink? I've measured the vacuum in the OEM intake hose at WOT, high RPM, and there isn't any even with the OEM paper filter blocked half way. I suspect what you are calling "shrink" is the intake hose being moved from airflow from the fan.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-03-2008
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
Shrink? I've measured the vacuum in the OEM intake hose at WOT, high RPM, and there isn't any even with the OEM paper filter blocked half way. I suspect what you are calling "shrink" is the intake hose being moved from airflow from the fan.
No my hose actually went from round to oval and this was just reving it. Maybe since it had been heat soaked all day the rubber got soft.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-04-2008
dakota772's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tucson
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
You don't think K&N would admit to causing MAF sensor problems do you?
Just hold the K&N up to a light source, and you will see why they pass so
much dirt!! Why do you think UOA shows high Si content on vehicles using
a K&N air filter?
Here is what I found on K&N website. Link
K&N Testing Information

I won't deny that large companies lie about the prodcuts they sell, but that is an entirely separate argument. This is where I got some of my information, and the rest of it is from personal experience.

"We are aware of the “urban myth” (K&N News Story) created by a few dealerships that a vehicle's MAF sensor can be contaminated by K&N filter oil. No evidence has ever been provided to support this “myth” and three years of diagnostic testing by K&N has shown that not only is this allegation not real, it is not even possible. In our opinion, it is an excuse for a dealership and/or the vehicle manufacturer to avoid a legitimate warranty repair. In the last 4 years, we have sold over 10,000,000 lifetime air filters and received only a few hundred calls from consumers who are having dealership or service provider challenges. We believe that Dealership's or service provider's real incentive may be to discourage the use of reusable products so they can sell disposable products over and over. In order to provide consumers with added comfort that they will not be placed in a bad position by a improper warranty denial, we offer our Consumer Protection Pledge."

I apologize for Takeda and I hijacking this thread, but it is an excellent debate!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-04-2008
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saint Charles, MO
Posts: 14
Quote:
I apologize for Takeda and I hijacking this thread, but it is an excellent debate!
lol.....fair enough
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-05-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota772 View Post
Here is what I found on K&N website. Link
K&N Testing Information

I won't deny that large companies lie about the prodcuts they sell, but that is an entirely separate argument. This is where I got some of my information, and the rest of it is from personal experience.

"We are aware of the “urban myth” (K&N News Story) created by a few dealerships that a vehicle's MAF sensor can be contaminated by K&N filter oil. No evidence has ever been provided to support this “myth” and three years of diagnostic testing by K&N has shown that not only is this allegation not real, it is not even possible. In our opinion, it is an excuse for a dealership and/or the vehicle manufacturer to avoid a legitimate warranty repair. In the last 4 years, we have sold over 10,000,000 lifetime air filters and received only a few hundred calls from consumers who are having dealership or service provider challenges. We believe that Dealership's or service provider's real incentive may be to discourage the use of reusable products so they can sell disposable products over and over. In order to provide consumers with added comfort that they will not be placed in a bad position by a improper warranty denial, we offer our Consumer Protection Pledge."

I apologize for Takeda and I hijacking this thread, but it is an excellent debate!
Yes, first thanks for the debate!!!

I would not expect anything else from K&N! But that statement is in complete contradiction to their warranty statement that I've posted earlier:

"K&N will not be responsible for any other expenses incurred by the customer under the terms of this warranty, nor shall it be responsible for any damages either consequential, special, contingent, or otherwise; or expenses or injury arising directly or indirectly from the use of the K&N Air Filter."

K&N will basically lie! Do a search on "Dusted Turbos" and see how many K&N customers have had to pay for turbos under warranty due to the dirt they pass!

I've also mentioned previously about the high Si content in oil (from UOA) from the use of K&N air filters, and this comes from dirt being ingested into the engine!

K&N offers a "Precharger Filter" that goes on their regular filter to use in "very dusty conditions". This alone should tell you they know the amount of dirt their regular filter was passing:

http://www.knfilters.com/wraps.htm

The K&N air filter was originally designed for use in off road races like Baja, where the OEM paper filters would plug up with dust rapidly! The K&N filter wouldn't plug up, guess where the dust was going? But these vehicles didn't have to run 100K miles, and the engines are rebuilt after every race.

So, unless you can show independent test results, don't believe what K&N has to say!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-05-2008
mj550's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 601
The K&N oil factor is why I like my AEM Dryflow filter :D

http://www.aempower.com/ViewCategory.aspx?CategoryID=93
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-06-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by mj550 View Post
The K&N oil factor is why I like my AEM Dryflow filter :D

http://www.aempower.com/ViewCategory.aspx?CategoryID=93

Good idea!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Difference between Edge and Edge Plus? Strider0O0 General Ford Ranger Discussion 25 03-08-2017 03:08 PM
is there powar difference between vic 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 12 10-28-2006 02:13 PM
whats the difference between lifting blocks and lowering blocks? Bumpncarstereo Suspension Tech 8 09-22-2006 11:54 AM
Difference between 4X4 and fx4 series DIPINTHEMUDD General Ford Ranger Discussion 2 06-13-2006 04:45 PM
difference between edge and xlt? rynzingg General Ford Ranger Discussion 23 10-20-2005 05:19 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:02 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.