Dan,
I think it is time to take a step back and re-evaluate your tone here. It is over two weeks since my wife's last comment here and your insistence to try and draw her back is a bit obnoxious. Since she is absolutely done with this discussion, but you insist to persist, I will chime in here. For the record, parts sales have zero bearing on our business. Profit margins in the autmotive aftermarket world are incredibly slim on such a low dollar item and in many cases we've made less than $5 per intake. But I digress...
Let's talk about the discussion that has been had. As far as I know, nowhere has it been said that your modification will be detrimental to the vehicle or power output. What has been in question are the claims and numbers backing them. Jenna is a scientist by day and evaluates the world from a scientific stand point. In that world, seat of the pants, "feels like", past experience, etc don't hold a candle to empirical data and testing/evaluation within the proper environment. I can't count the number of times that the "butt dyno" has reported gains or power losses that could be entirely explained by changes to density altitude.
Your claims were outlandish and unsubstantiated, regardless of accuracy. Period. Here is why:
First, idle airflow.
On a diesel, the engine is operated at wide open throttle at all times, there is no throttle blade. THUS, any change in airflow capabilities can be immediately seen, as any significant airflow restriction removal will yield more airflow at idle. Idle speed remains largely unchanged, as fuel quantity dictates engine power output and it is specified explicitly within the ECM.
On a gas engine, fuel delivery is a specific, fixed component relative to airflow. If airflow increases, fuel flow MUST increase and engine power output will increase (unless timing advance is significantly altered). With this specific fuel consumption scenario, a throttle blade is necessary to control engine power output and thus, idle. If you see an increase in airflow (g/sec), then your engine is consuming more fuel and unless the timing has been significantly retarded, your RPM MUST increase. Within the ECM, idle is controlled by declaration of a desired airflow (g/sec), desired idle speed (rpm) and desired ignition timing advance. The ECM will take those factors and based on feedback from various sensors, will adjust the final airflow via the throttle blade and ignition timing advance to achieve a steady idle at the desired idle speed. Unless there has been a significant drag placed on your vehicle concurrently with the airbox installation that would warrant an increase in airflow at idle (as you have claimed), there will be NO CHANGE.
Second, gains
Our dyno testing was performed following a very specific procedure to ensure impartial, objective results. In both cases, there were no pre-conceived notions and no expectation of results. That having been said, those results showed that the air box itself can be isolated as to having very little to no actual impact on power output gains. This can be extrapolated fom the fact that the factory air box (with OEM filter) with the airaid tube only performed just as well, if not better than each of the other kits utilizing both closed box and completely open element designs. Your claims that the hogged out box provides significantly more air flow just don't hold up, as it certainly provides less airflow capabilities than a completely open 4" K&N filter such as is found on the K&N FIPK and AEM Brute Force kits, regardless of fender hole size. And in a world where it does provide greater gains, those would only be at high RPM where the engine is not easily able to overcome the forces required to consume all air needed to avoid a vacuum in the intake manifold. On a GM 6.2L, this slight vacuum (indication of restriction) usually doesn't appear until around 4000rpm. By the shift point, it is usually equal to about 3-4% of engine power potential and represents the sum of all restrictions points including throttle body.
And lastly is the common sense test. IF reducing the amount of plastic used (read: cost savings) resulted in a very significant power gain and improved engine efficiency, wouldn't GM do it from the factory? What could possibly be their reason for not saving tens of thousands of dollars in material and increasing the vehicle's marketability? If that larger opening truly increased power to that level, I can see no drawback to it. The same argument applies to throttle body spacers, boutique spark plugs, fuel line magnets, etc.
Now, having said all of that and explained WHY your claims were challenged, I will bite. I will hack up the airbox on my completely unmodified 2013 Silverado 6.2L and will report results. I'll itemize and average out the airflow on the factory air box with the OEM tune installed and will hack up the box and do the same, repeating the test conditions as nearly identically as possible. Since throttle application can easily skew results, all testing must be and will be performed at full throttle to isolate that variable. Any "gains" at any other throttle levels do not matter in this case, since it can be the equivalent of just opening the throttle more or less. I'll be able to complete this after we return home from Maui.
I appreciate and respect your experience and history in motorsports. That said, the lack of reciprocal respect to any that question your claims is not appreciated. Especially when a thread such as this becomes completely de-railed from the original post which had nothing at all to do with air box modification.
Justin
Disclaimer to all others: I do not normally get into these kinds of topics here, but when my wife is persistently poked and prodded (on her birthday nonetheless), I'm going to take the matter up. I will be happy to elaborate on any points herein.
