Cold Air Intake (CAI) on 2013 6.2L - worth doing?
- Thread starter LurkingLuke
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Nautilus571
TYF Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2023
- Posts
- 14
- Reaction score
- 5
I installed.a Cold Air Inductions CAI on my wife's 2021 6.2l Yukon Denali. I immediately noticed a better response and obtained a couple of more MPG. I average 16 city where before installng was barely at 14. And yes, it does sound more robust even with stock exhaust. I installed one on my 2019 Sierra Denali with a 6.2 and a Borla catback exhaust. And simply wow! Sound is awsome and increase in performance/response is more than noticable. They are both closed box systems. I am more than happy with the install on both trucks.
sdsuburb06
TYF Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Posts
- 18
- Reaction score
- 29
I ran a k&n setup on a 5.3 powered sierra years ago and had nothing but issues. I will say spending a lot of time on dirt roads in that pickup with that setup turned me off from wanting to go their again. Truck just never ran correctly and I spent more time trying to keep that filter and the MAF sensor clean than any so called performance gains I never saw were worth, to me. On pavement all the time, might be a different story.
Marky Dissod
Full Access Member
Generally, I no longer trust aftermarket air filters unless they prove that they filter BETTER than OE filters.
Usually, they 'outperform' OE filters by filtering LESS.
They let more detritus into your cylinders, leading to increased rates of engine wear.
I prefer BETTER filtration for longer engine life.
Usually, they 'outperform' OE filters by filtering LESS.
They let more detritus into your cylinders, leading to increased rates of engine wear.
I prefer BETTER filtration for longer engine life.
iamdub
Full Access Member
Agreed. Although, after running it for 80K miles, I approve of the AEM DryFlow.
Last edited:
intheburbs
Full Access Member
Ok, let's talk about facts and unreasonable mileage/power gains "claimed" by the manufacturers and users of aftermarket filters.
CAFE, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, requirements by the US Government have essentially killed the low-hanging fruit of easy power gains. In the never-ending quest to improve economy of their fleets, the manufacturers have done/investigated all the easy things. And the manufacturers have billions of dollars they spend on R&D and testing. And hopefully we can all agree that increasing MPG is the same thing as increasing power, right? You're either making more hp while using the same amount of fuel or you're making the same power while using less fuel.
Therefore, there's nothing out there for a modern engine that's going to substantially improve power or efficiency that's cheap and/or easy. It's all been tested and rejected.
Example: The Chrylser/Fiat/Stellantis corporate 3.6 motor was originally designed to use 5w30 oil. Always chasing MPG improvements, testing revealed that 5w20 provided the same protection but the thinner viscosity oil was easier to pump and improved mileage by a tenth or two. So guess what? Stellantis now recommends 5w20. Why? Because when you build 500,000 engines, and can improve their MPG by a fraction, it makes a difference in your CAFE.
If there was an air filter that could improve mileage by a huge amount, say 2 MPG, don't you think the manufacturers would all be using it? And given their buying power and the sheer numbers of units, wouldn't they be able to buy them much more cheaply than in the aftermarket? Stellantis changed oils for a few tenths of a percent increase in MPG. You think they wouldn't JUMP at a chance to increase their fleet MPG by 14%?
CAIs are snake oil. Sure, they make the engine sound better, but that's all they do.
CAFE, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, requirements by the US Government have essentially killed the low-hanging fruit of easy power gains. In the never-ending quest to improve economy of their fleets, the manufacturers have done/investigated all the easy things. And the manufacturers have billions of dollars they spend on R&D and testing. And hopefully we can all agree that increasing MPG is the same thing as increasing power, right? You're either making more hp while using the same amount of fuel or you're making the same power while using less fuel.
Therefore, there's nothing out there for a modern engine that's going to substantially improve power or efficiency that's cheap and/or easy. It's all been tested and rejected.
Example: The Chrylser/Fiat/Stellantis corporate 3.6 motor was originally designed to use 5w30 oil. Always chasing MPG improvements, testing revealed that 5w20 provided the same protection but the thinner viscosity oil was easier to pump and improved mileage by a tenth or two. So guess what? Stellantis now recommends 5w20. Why? Because when you build 500,000 engines, and can improve their MPG by a fraction, it makes a difference in your CAFE.
If there was an air filter that could improve mileage by a huge amount, say 2 MPG, don't you think the manufacturers would all be using it? And given their buying power and the sheer numbers of units, wouldn't they be able to buy them much more cheaply than in the aftermarket? Stellantis changed oils for a few tenths of a percent increase in MPG. You think they wouldn't JUMP at a chance to increase their fleet MPG by 14%?
CAIs are snake oil. Sure, they make the engine sound better, but that's all they do.
Marky Dissod
Full Access Member
I almost completely agree with the above, EXCEPT for the fact that most aftermarket engine air filters don't protect the engine as well as OEM.
The only aftermarket air filters that I bother to consider outperform OE in terms of particualte filtration and retention.
Take a look at
Maxogen - Induction Technology Group
Cylindrical filters used on single throttle body and turbo applications.
www.itgairfilters.com
Soon as I recover from xmas spending, I'll be figuiring out which of these filters fits my Tahoe.
To keep costs down, I'll wrap that filter in pantyhose.
If I lose a couple horses or MpGs, then that's the price I'll pay for my engine to last longer.
I wasted money on my 04 with a k&n cold air intake. I can tell you calling this cold air compared to the factory one is a scam. Maybe less restrictive i could see but it makes you hear the motor sucking air more which some people like that. Its really a waste of money for an inferior product. 8 years later i get codes because it does not seal as good as the original so unmetered air gets in when i stomp on it. What will really help is a programmer to remove all those pesky things that make it efficient. I dopped2-3 mpg but it has a lot more torque which had nothing to with the k&n. Its tunning. Really happy with the programmer but dont expect more power and keep the same mpg they are selling snake oil. If it was true gm would just build one just like it and not spent millions on development
OP
OP
LurkingLuke
Member
The kit arrived yesterday; I don't have the heart to not install it. Either I'll be happy or I'll be in a position to be able to do what some of you tried to do, which is to inform me of the Cons that go along with my decision. As I said earlier, I'll keep the forum posted.
Side note: the kit came with a dyno graph, HP & fylbs. K&N makes the bold claim---a shocking claim, even---that one of these on a bone stock 6.2 made a max increase of >12ftlbs at the wheels! I really have my doubts. But as I said, even if all I get is a deeper induction sound, I'll be content with the purchase, just more wary next time.
Side note: the kit came with a dyno graph, HP & fylbs. K&N makes the bold claim---a shocking claim, even---that one of these on a bone stock 6.2 made a max increase of >12ftlbs at the wheels! I really have my doubts. But as I said, even if all I get is a deeper induction sound, I'll be content with the purchase, just more wary next time.
Similar threads
