Sorry! I am at home today but if someone knows Tony, contact him. I asked
before about the difference in cone air flow and size restriction. For the
4.7 TB, is rated around 660CFM. Tony said, something like this, for street
racing I should use the smaller cone and for the regular driving use the 3x9
standard cone. I am sorry but if someone has the archive of Tony's message
about cone size please repost it. It will make sense. I really didn't
believe until after the fact. I remove the standard Dodge filter and
replace it with an larger cone than 3x9 (more width in the girth and top).
I felt the lost in the bottom end of the RPM range but felt a stronger rush
in the higher RPM range. Since I am restricted to cash flow until the Roush
Stang is completed, I will try out the smaller cone and see the difference
in the rear Dyno.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net] On Behalf Of Kyle Kozubal
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 4:58 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: RE: Intense Performace Cone Filters
< Before you do that I would not go big you will lose the bottom end range.
> Tony from Quick D discussed this earlier and he is right. I have a
bigger
> cone then the standard 3x9 and now looking for a smaller one in September
> 3x6.
> -------------------------------------------
> Steven St.Laurent >>
>
> I didnt see tonys post,, can you pls explain...
Yes I agree, please explain on how the cone size is determines so no low end
grunt is lost. Or find the link so we can read it. Thanks!
Kyle
93 Dakota 4x4 V6
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:53:41 EDT