Homebrew FIPK, K&N Drop-in Filter, Deckplate, and cleaned MAF/TB = HP! (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

any update on the mileage?

Thanks,
Kirk
 
bamachem said:
To try it out, I just blanked them off. No issues. I'm going to either put some nipples on the SS tube or just install some on the top half of the airbox - eventually. There aren't any vacuum leaks since they are all connected to end-user points (Charcoal Canister, Crankcase Vent, etc). I'm going to check mileage first to see if I want to keep this setup. I may end up w/ the Resonator back in, but obviously keeping the K&N and deckplate.
Click to expand...

Did you ever end up re-hooking the lines back up? One of them looks to be for the fuel pressure regulator, not something you want to leave blocked off. And if you aren't hooking them back up, it'd likely be better if you left the crankcase vent and charcoal canister open to atm.

And finally, those rubber plumbing couplings don't typically last very long in an engine bay. I had a couple friends try them out years back on home made intakes and they would get greasy and tear apart over time (likely due to all of the temperature cycling).

Rich
 
CappyKD said:
any update on the mileage?

Thanks,
Kirk
Click to expand...

I just topped of the 5th tank since putting it back on. Mileage on the last tank was 14.7, with most of it at 65-75 on hi-speed non-interstate 4-lane highways with some stp/go mixed in. It's not much lower than what I would have expected for the OEM setup. Like I said before, the biggest difference in performance is the deckplate in the airbox. The intake tube adds a tiny bit, but the sound is much-improved at near-WOT conditions and kickdown seems better.

richg said:
Did you ever end up re-hooking the lines back up? One of them looks to be for the fuel pressure regulator, not something you want to leave blocked off. And if you aren't hooking them back up, it'd likely be better if you left the crankcase vent and charcoal canister open to atm.

And finally, those rubber plumbing couplings don't typically last very long in an engine bay. I had a couple friends try them out years back on home made intakes and they would get greasy and tear apart over time (likely due to all of the temperature cycling).

Rich
Click to expand...

Not yet. One was for crankcase vent, one for charcoal canister, and one went to the power steering pump - I'm assuming for variable speed steering or something? Hasn't hurt so far.

I haven't decided on keeping the intake or not. It's apparent that the MPG's are approximately the same either way. At "normal" conditions and on the highway, the intake is silent as usual. Hit the pedal to accelerate and it definitely growls more than OEM.

Meeeeh, I'm on the fence as to what to do for long-term. That's why I haven't posted an update.

I'm on the road again Monday for a 500-mile drive. I'll clean the TB/MAF before the trip and record the average speed and MPG's for the two tanks and post up here. I expect the avg speed to be 55-60 MPH and MPG's to be 14.5-15.0. We'll see...
 
bamachem said:
Not yet. One was for crankcase vent, one for charcoal canister, and one went to the power steering pump - I'm assuming for variable speed steering or something? Hasn't hurt so far.
Click to expand...

There are 4 lines on my '98 that tied to the stock intake. Crankcase vent, charcoal canister, power steering, and fuel pressure regulator. The smallest of the 4 went to the FPR mounted on the passenger side fuel rail. Perhaps there is a difference between the 98's and the later years?

I built an intake for my truck as well, and then later on did the airbox mod. Both definitely seemed to make improvements independantly. Wife has been driving it mainly now, and she doesn't keep track of mileage as much as I used to, but she hasn't reported any stark mileage differences to me. I just posted about it in a different thread, but I'll try and snap some pics of the setup I did.

Rich
 
Last edited:
jwagner said:
just to add my 2 cents.
-i put in the k&n about a year ago. didnt know anything about the maf getting fouled. just ran it for a year mainly city driving, so never really paid attention to mpgs. just filled it once a week. ended up on a job site about 30 highway miles out of town. took 1/3 of a tank there and back???? wtf? like 8mpg...hwy??? i do have 325/75's @ 50psi and the ome lift but wtf? after a bit of searching i figured out it may be the fouling. pull the maf and woah. it looked like two rat turds. huge ones. no cel. (the t.b. was also filthy, lots of visible dirt and oil) so i cleaned it w/ the spray and swapped in new plugs. now i get around ~280 miles to a tank on the hwy. so 13mpgs. waay better. screw the k&N. now i just feel bad for telling everyone i know how great they are.
Click to expand...

i'm still reading through this, but i ran with the K&N filter that fits the Oz air box and read a few posts about how it let dust through and all that.
It doesnt let dust through. I've tested that. But then i read abut the oil fouling the MAF sensor.
So i researched where it was and pulled it, after buying CRC MAF cleaner of course!

It WAS dirty. BUT, given the service history i have had with Toyota i cant actually say if it was because of the K&N oiler or not.

So i cleaned the MAF sensor (i posted about it on here too) the stalk bit...? and it went from black to shiny in the middle of the stalk.

Did i see performance increase? Not really. The ScanGuage II showed a good fuel economy, but i'd also removed the (fixed) turbine (so it's not really a turbine) from the airbox (see hosers post on the Oz airbox he bought), but to be honest i may actually put that turbine back in.

Given i have a snorkel which i checked earlier today it looks ok, install wise. (except i found mud which i posted about)

i'll keep exploring options as you are, and we'll see what happens i guess!
 
richg said:
There are 4 lines on my '98 that tied to the stock intake. Crankcase vent, charcoal canister, power steering, and fuel pressure regulator. The smallest of the 4 went to the FPR mounted on the passenger side fuel rail. Perhaps there is a difference between the 98's and the later years?

I built an intake for my truck as well, and then later on did the airbox mod. Both definitely seemed to make improvements independantly. Wife has been driving it mainly now, and she doesn't keep track of mileage as much as I used to, but she hasn't reported any stark mileage differences to me. I just posted about it in a different thread, but I'll try and snap some pics of the setup I did.

Rich
Click to expand...

yep definately 4 you need to take care of. Late 2005 - 2006 VVTI 4.7L V8s have 3.
If you checkout this Tundra one, it has 3, same engine as the LX470 VVTI 4.7.
http://www.urdusa.com/Intakes-Cold-...ra-V8-w/Power-Box-&-MR-Tech/product_info.html

And download the install PDF as it shows you.

Also, if you use this site, dont bother picking Landcruiser as they have bugger all. Choose the Tundra 4.7L from 2000-2004 and you;ll see the the four intakes on that product and thats what we have.
i cant find the link for it.

Let me go thru my delicious.com bookmarks and i'll post back later in the week.
peter

EDIT: the website remembers what you have searched for. So, there is a button that says "Clear". Click it, and it will remove the cookies it has saved and then the searches will work. Sorry it's 3am and i forgot about that.
 
Last edited:
I yanked my K&N and went back to Toyota paper as well. Not really any difference felt under normal driving conditions.
 
Sure. Nothing wrong with it. You don't want to use plain TB cleaner on the MAF because it *might* leave behind an oily residue that could affect it's readings.
 
I just finished up my deck plate install. 4" deck plate, some nuts and bolts and a 6x6 drywall patch. Put some silicon around the outside to button it all up. I will post up results in the next couple days.
image-602516326.jpg
image-204178670.jpg
image-2282916652.jpg
 
wow, the truck just feels like it's breathing so much easier now. The power is so much smoother. I highly recommend this mod
 
How do we reconcile the above perceptions with the hard data from the dyno? Not trying to knock the effort (or the perception) but I thought we had some pretty solid evidence that if anything the deck plate was creating turbulence that was messing with the fuel trim pretty badly, all while producing zero improvement in output....

https://forum.ih8mud.com/100-series-cruisers/458991-gutless-01-a-2.html#post6378928
 
Maybe this explains it:

SupraTuRD said:
Rob, how many runs did you make with the deck plate removed? If only one pass was made, I'm wondering if the ECU was trying to learn and make changes to compensate for the additional air. Perhaps it needed more time to learn?
Click to expand...

I unhooked the battery to reset everything before firing it up. I don't think it added much power, but the delivery is undoubtedly smoother.
 
somebody with the mod must go out and do "blind taste testing" with friends and acquaintances, hopefully you can get 10 or more "samples". you know, unscrew the plate without the person seeing, let person drive it, screw it back in without them seeing, drive again under similar road conditions, then vote.

FWIW, I did a similar mod (the elbow mod) on my ol tacoma, and i thought it improved performance a bit. not the same mod tho, it retained the pipe between the air filter box and sidewall of engine bay - it did not include an additional hole in the air filter box.
 
how would ^ this ^ be any better than the impartial dyno test? i'd like to think that tarmacblack knows his way around good/bad dyno data since he does it for a living...

again, not trying to rain on anyones parade. I too was planning to do this mod, but I just don't see the point any more. I think what may be going on on the human side is that at partial throttle openings (which are not measured on the dyno) there may be a change in response which is more seat-o-thy-pants than what has been charted. that, or placebo effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dubdromic
2006 LX noise after TB change...maybe?
Replies
3
Views
418
excessive
excessive
Tighe
Cover for remove drop down rear entertainment?
Replies
0
Views
63
Tighe
Tighe
S
4speed transmission fluid capacity with pan drop
Replies
15
Views
1K
gregdawg89
gregdawg89
R
MAF failure? Random stalling issue
Replies
6
Views
686
2001LC
2001LC

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom