2025 3.0L I6 K&N Performance Air Intake System

[Scap]

I had a water/methanol injection system on my old ecoboost. Did a great job keeping IAT down because the charge air cooler couldn't keep up.

 

[CalvinC]

Did a Google search on the normal temperature range of IAT for these Hurricanes-
For a 2025 Ram 1500 with the Hurricane engine, the normal intake air temperature (IAT) range can vary based on several factors, but some information suggests that values
up to 200°F can be expected when operating under normal conditions on stock maps. These measurements are often taken before the intercooler. One source mentions temperatures reaching around 275°F under boost, indicating that higher IATs can occur under specific driving conditions.
Important Considerations:

• Intercooler: The Hurricane engine is turbocharged, which compresses the intake air. This compression increases the temperature of the air before it enters the engine. The intercooler's job is to cool this compressed air down before it enters the combustion chamber, improving performance and reducing the risk of detonation.
• Location of IAT Sensor: The IAT sensor's location can affect the measured temperature. If the sensor is located before the intercooler, the temperatures will naturally be higher. If it's located after the intercooler, the temperatures will be significantly lower.
• Operating Conditions: Factors like outside air temperature, engine load, and driving style can all influence the IAT.

In summary, while temperatures up to 200°F are considered normal before the intercooler on a 2025 Ram 1500 Hurricane engine under typical operating conditions, higher values can be seen under heavy load or boosting

There are probably 2-4 sensors tracking IATs along the intake track. There were 3 on the 3.5 EcoBoost. I could read all 3, but had to do some experimenting unplugging them methodically to find out which was which.

IAT2 turned out to be post-intercooler & the one to monitor. I do not know if that is universal.

In the Ford’s case, timing happens and de-rating starts to occur when IAT2 hits ~125, and you’re really hurting by 170.

Pre-intercooler temps may have caused false alarm in the discussion here, e.g. if the numbers discussed above are pre-intercooler then the issue may not be as bad as thought.

Would be really good if someone could identify and confirm which PID is a post-intercooler reading.

Still, if it was the same sensor with both intakes it still tells us something. That the open “cold” air intakes are hotter than stock. We just don’t know if that in itself is a problem. Though I’m generally in favor of air being cool as possible.

 

[kliffy77]

Engines with air induction respond much better to cold air intakes than naturally aspirated ones.

 

[Aroy77]

Just a follow up figured it out. Disconnect battery for 20 minutes and repositioned MAF tube to a 2 o'clock position. Problem solved

I just installed my K&N CAI, after about 100km I had a check engine light. Disconnected the battery for 20-30 minutes, turned the MAF sensor to 2 o’clock as you stated. So far so good. Cleared the engine light. Thanks

**update** after about 50km the light came back on. I discover connected the battery. My SCT tuner for some reason won’t read the check engine light. Will keep updated to see if this time it stays off. Obviously this is a common issue which is unfortunate after paying $600 for an CAI.

 

[Aroy77]

I’m having an issue here with the intake causing a check engine light after about 300 miles, P0402 code, and an assuming it is related to the MAF. Could you detail a little more what you did to reposition the MAF? And maybe where you got that info from to try that?

I just had this same issue. Disconnect the 2 battery’s for 30 minutes and moved the MAF sensor to more of a 45 degree, or 2 o’clock position. Cleared up my issue.

 

[fescen9]

I just had this same issue. Disconnect the 2 battery’s for 30 minutes and moved the MAF sensor to more of a 45 degree, or 2 o’clock position. Cleared up my issue.

Can you show me some pics of the MAF sensor and how you rotated it? I'd love to put my K&N. Still a little uneasy about the temps though, even though a prior commenter said they may be okay. I'll have to monitor my stock temps some more.

Edit: Quick trip to the store, IAT stays around 125F.

 

[Orion10182011]

HP claims on performance parts are always cooked numbers. Gains? Sure. 41HP gain, no f---ing way.

 

[LOWRMPG]

HP claims on performance parts are always cooked numbers. Gains? Sure. 41HP gain, no f---ing way.

true for most things but tuners.

 

[H2OMAN]

true for most things but tuners.

I was a betting man I'd bet the stock intake could handle whatever the tuner brings too.

 

[LOWRMPG]

I was a betting man I'd bet the stock intake could handle whatever the tuner brings too.

Not the point, you said that performance gains were "cooked numbers", I'm saying, not for tuners. Tuned package are nearly all dyno proven. In my case, my vehicles have been tuned while on a dyno, so the gains, were very real.

 

[H2OMAN]

Not the point, you said that performance gains were "cooked numbers", I'm saying, not for tuners. Tuned package are nearly all dyno proven. In my case, my vehicles have been tuned while on a dyno, so the gains, were very real.

I said no such thing. I said the stock intake would give you the same numbers on the dyno as the aftermarket.

 

[LOWRMPG]

I said no such thing. I said the stock intake would give you the same numbers on the dyno as the aftermarket.

My bad, you're right, that was another poster.

 

[Laramieblue]

My only purpose to buying something like this is to improve on the MPG. I would like to see factual data showing the increase in MPG if there is any out there, has anybody seen any? I am a retire engineer and believe in the data if it was obtained by folks without any agenda. I am not an engine engineer but do understand the fuel to air ratio concepts to achieve optimal performance while maintaining desired emissions. With all the computers monitoring what goes in the combustion chamber and what goes out of it you would think there are not too many options on improving MPG. Since MPG is a major factor for marketing folks you would think the manufacturer would do all they can to make it as high as possible while maintaining emissions within legal standards.
So thinking out loud if the air filter restricts airflow then that would richen the mixture going into the combustion chamber and out the exhaust so the computers would reduce the amount of fuel: thus reducing HP and speed. To compensate the reduced speed you would need to increase the throttle to get back to speed, so on and so forth.
On the other hand if you reduced the air flow restriction that would produce a leaner mixture (more air flow) and thus the computers would increase the fuel to richen it out to maintain emissions and speed/hp. To reduce air resistance you would need to increase the filter surface area or reduce the particle size the filter is filtering out, thus adding more abrasives into the combustion chamber that will impact wear on cylinder walls and valves. So to WXman's comment the reduced particle filtering would not be a good thing in my humble opinion.
As to the questions on the JB4 & Diablo, I have emailed them both to get any input on the increase their tunes would have on MPG and both could not guarantee any increase. They also said to get the benefits of their tunes I would need to run 91 octane fuel and keep the RPMs higher than 1500 which is what I run at while driving at 65 mph.

I would like to see somebody take a picture of their realtime MPG at a given speed with cruise control on while on level ground with stock air filter. Then repeat experiment with K&N filter installed to see if there is any difference. Hopefully the test would be on the same day to maintain weather condition's, wind, rain, etc. and going the same direction on the same highway section. That would keep the environmental, road conditions and road slope all the same for both test runs.

Any takers???

 

[H2OMAN]

My only purpose to buying something like this is to improve on the MPG. I would like to see factual data showing the increase in MPG if there is any out there, has anybody seen any? I am a retire engineer and believe in the data if it was obtained by folks without any agenda. I am not an engine engineer but do understand the fuel to air ratio concepts to achieve optimal performance while maintaining desired emissions. With all the computers monitoring what goes in the combustion chamber and what goes out of it you would think there are not too many options on improving MPG. Since MPG is a major factor for marketing folks you would think the manufacturer would do all they can to make it as high as possible while maintaining emissions within legal standards.
So thinking out loud if the air filter restricts airflow then that would richen the mixture going into the combustion chamber and out the exhaust so the computers would reduce the amount of fuel: thus reducing HP and speed. To compensate the reduced speed you would need to increase the throttle to get back to speed, so on and so forth.
On the other hand if you reduced the air flow restriction that would produce a leaner mixture (more air flow) and thus the computers would increase the fuel to richen it out to maintain emissions and speed/hp. To reduce air resistance you would need to increase the filter surface area or reduce the particle size the filter is filtering out, thus adding more abrasives into the combustion chamber that will impact wear on cylinder walls and valves. So to WXman's comment the reduced particle filtering would not be a good thing in my humble opinion.
As to the questions on the JB4 & Diablo, I have emailed them both to get any input on the increase their tunes would have on MPG and both could not guarantee any increase. They also said to get the benefits of their tunes I would need to run 91 octane fuel and keep the RPMs higher than 1500 which is what I run at while driving at 65 mph.

I would like to see somebody take a picture of their realtime MPG at a given speed with cruise control on while on level ground with stock air filter. Then repeat experiment with K&N filter installed to see if there is any difference. Hopefully the test would be on the same day to maintain weather condition's, wind, rain, etc. and going the same direction on the same highway section. That would keep the environmental, road conditions and road slope all the same for both test runs.

Any takers???

No need for a taker. The age of the carburetor ended 40 years ago. Throttle control is now controlled by a computer. When you put your foot on the gas it sends a signal to the computer to open the intake for air to mix with fuel in the fuel injection system. An air intake system whether stock or aftermarket cannot force more oxygen into the intake than the computer calls for. Therefore, an intake whether an aftermarket CAI or an aftermarket air filter in the stock intake cannot improve performance by either HP or mileage. It's simply not possible.

 

[HSKR R/T]

My only purpose to buying something like this is to improve on the MPG. I would like to see factual data showing the increase in MPG if there is any out there, has anybody seen any? I am a retire engineer and believe in the data if it was obtained by folks without any agenda. I am not an engine engineer but do understand the fuel to air ratio concepts to achieve optimal performance while maintaining desired emissions. With all the computers monitoring what goes in the combustion chamber and what goes out of it you would think there are not too many options on improving MPG. Since MPG is a major factor for marketing folks you would think the manufacturer would do all they can to make it as high as possible while maintaining emissions within legal standards.
So thinking out loud if the air filter restricts airflow then that would richen the mixture going into the combustion chamber and out the exhaust so the computers would reduce the amount of fuel: thus reducing HP and speed. To compensate the reduced speed you would need to increase the throttle to get back to speed, so on and so forth.
On the other hand if you reduced the air flow restriction that would produce a leaner mixture (more air flow) and thus the computers would increase the fuel to richen it out to maintain emissions and speed/hp. To reduce air resistance you would need to increase the filter surface area or reduce the particle size the filter is filtering out, thus adding more abrasives into the combustion chamber that will impact wear on cylinder walls and valves. So to WXman's comment the reduced particle filtering would not be a good thing in my humble opinion.
As to the questions on the JB4 & Diablo, I have emailed them both to get any input on the increase their tunes would have on MPG and both could not guarantee any increase. They also said to get the benefits of their tunes I would need to run 91 octane fuel and keep the RPMs higher than 1500 which is what I run at while driving at 65 mph.

I would like to see somebody take a picture of their realtime MPG at a given speed with cruise control on while on level ground with stock air filter. Then repeat experiment with K&N filter installed to see if there is any difference. Hopefully the test would be on the same day to maintain weather condition's, wind, rain, etc. and going the same direction on the same highway section. That would keep the environmental, road conditions and road slope all the same for both test runs.

Any takers???

FWIW, no cold air intake or filter can increase mpg. And most tuners won't either. Tuners are made for making more HP, which usually causes less mpg. But the computers are set to maintain stoich A/f ratio at cruise speeds. No air filter restricts air enough to make a difference at cruise speeds when throttle is barely open. Not a lot of demand for air flow at cruise speeds. The only difference for mpg with either a tuner or air filter/cai would come at 3/4-full throttle acceleration. Or open loop operation.

 

[Laramieblue]

Thanks H2OMAN & HSKR R/T for feedback, what you say is in align with what LB4 and Diablo have indicated in their email response to me which I posted in another thread. I cruise the highway around 65 mph @ 1500 rpm and most aftermarket additions impact HP at higher rpm but don't do much for MPG improvements.

On a side note: We also have a 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor with V6 engine that is rated for 89 octane. On a long road trip I switched between 89 and 91 (or Plus) to see the impact to MPG and on 91 I did get about 2-3 more mpg. But back then there was only a $0.10 difference so my total cost was better getting the 91 for highway trips. If I could not find the 91 or plus octane I would mix half 89 and half 93 in the tank. But now the cost difference is $0.30 so no longer cost effective getting the 91 octane.

LB4 said I MIGHT get 2-3 mpg more on the highway with their tune that cost $700, but that increase is what one of their customers have reported. After doing some math I would beak even after 4.6 years. So without any verifiable real life data to backup the claims for tunes or air cleaners I don't see any advantage to any of these solutions to increase my mpg that offers a short financial break even point other than having a soft foot on the gas peddle. I would rather spend the money on some nice smooth Bourbon, Whiskey or Scotch!

 

[H2OMAN]

Thanks H2OMAN & HSKR R/T for feedback, what you say is in align with what LB4 and Diablo have indicated in their email response to me which I posted in another thread. I cruise the highway around 65 mph @ 1500 rpm and most aftermarket additions impact HP at higher rpm but don't do much for MPG improvements.

On a side note: We also have a 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor with V6 engine that is rated for 89 octane. On a long road trip I switched between 89 and 91 (or Plus) to see the impact to MPG and on 91 I did get about 2-3 more mpg. But back then there was only a $0.10 difference so my total cost was better getting the 91 for highway trips. If I could not find the 91 or plus octane I would mix half 89 and half 93 in the tank. But now the cost difference is $0.30 so no longer cost effective getting the 91 octane.

LB4 said I MIGHT get 2-3 mpg more on the highway with their tune that cost $700, but that increase is what one of their customers have reported. After doing some math I would beak even after 4.6 years. So without any verifiable real life data to backup the claims for tunes or air cleaners I don't see any advantage to any of these solutions to increase my mpg that offers a short financial break even point other than having a soft foot on the gas peddle. I would rather spend the money on some nice smooth Bourbon, Whiskey or Scotch!

Haha. Good man. Thats what youre supposed to spend it on.

 

[CalvinC]

Folks forget that the biggest restriction in the air intake system is the throttle body and its pesky little flap that is hardly ever open 100%.

Ultimately that is what controls or limits airflow, at the direction of the ECM.

No need for a filter that flows more air of the ECM never calls for it.

And the fact that cruising on the highway requires all of 30 horsepower means there isn’t much opportunity for mpg increases with better flow, since hardly any is required to begin with.

You’d have to build something that actually demands more air than the stock system is capable of flowing, and that’s going to require significantly upsizing the turbochargers, and a tune that commands it.

 

[kliffy77]

From my own experience The Cold Air Intake is one of the best mods ever on a HEMI! Forced Induction delivers even more HP & TQ

 

[H2OMAN]

From my own experience The Cold Air Intake is one of the best mods ever on a HEMI! Forced Induction delivers even more HP & TQ

Forced induction and CAI are two different things. And the stock intake can handle all of the air needed for the turbo's. Which are not on a Hemi btw.