BHAF kit from SP diesel
06-07-2005, 10:05 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lake Arrowhead, Ca
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHAF kit from SP diesel
Ok, I was just looking at SP diesel's site, and they have a fairly simple, nothing fancy BHAF kit with adapter pipes and filter for $90.00 Anyone run this setup, or something similar? Id like to know how it performs.. Im ITCHING to bomb.
Scott
Scott
06-08-2005, 02:05 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: markham, ontario, canada
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seems simple enough... it almost looks like with that kit, you reuse your oem rubber elbows... [if that bent section is 5", it "should" work]
i've got my own piping setup for my bhaf, and that filter works great i think... i just need to get some nicer clamps instead of the wire screw clamps, but i am in no hurry there...
parts i used...
2x 90° rubber elbows 4" id
1x short radius 90° 4" od/od exhaust elbow
1x short section 4" pipe [about 3" long] to connect filter to elbow...
where do they mount the intake air temp sensor in that kit?
i've got my own piping setup for my bhaf, and that filter works great i think... i just need to get some nicer clamps instead of the wire screw clamps, but i am in no hurry there...
parts i used...
2x 90° rubber elbows 4" id
1x short radius 90° 4" od/od exhaust elbow
1x short section 4" pipe [about 3" long] to connect filter to elbow...
where do they mount the intake air temp sensor in that kit?
06-08-2005, 07:43 AM
#3
Thats MR Hoss to you buddy!
Looks like that elbow and filter would go well with my homemade torque tube (see gallery). I wonder what degree bend that is??? I'm not sure what the little short section of pipe is for though. 
06-08-2005, 12:28 PM
#6
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it is quite as large as the sometimes normal BHAF people use, but it fits well and flows a lot better then stock. I've gained 2 or 3 psi boost and a noticeable increase in spool up time with it on.
06-08-2005, 03:29 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moved.......now Sumter, SC
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not to sound harsh, but just because someone sells it, doesn't mean it works. The normal filter that is used for a BHAF is the Duralite B105006, http://shop.airflowonline.com/Mercha...ategory_Code=D. The filter in the pic is a bit smaller yet. There is a 17 page thread where we went through this last year. BHAFs filter very well, but they don't flow well for their size. You would think the filter in the pic would flow well since it has twice the surface area of the stock filter, but you need to get something in the size range of what Nick has to get decent air flow.
The stock filter flows 452 CFM @ 4.66 H20 restriction. The B105006 BHAF flows 450 CFM @ 6" H2O restriction. Yes, even the standard BHAF will flow less air at the same amount of restriction as the stock filter.....and the BHAF used by SP Diesel is even smaller yet. If you can get me the part number off of that filter CTDHokie, I can get the exact flow specs for you.
Moral of the story, the stock filter flows really well. It is the airbox that presents the most restriction. Drill a few 2" holes in the bottom of the airbox so it is not having to suck all of its air through the fender and you will get more air than this BHAF will give you.
The Donaldson web site has drawings with shapes and dimensions for all of the Duralite BHAF filters. You can use these to figure out the absolute biggest filter that will fit in the space you have available. Once you pick a filter, give Donaldson a call on their 1-800 number and they will give you the exact flow specs so you will know if it will do the job. Lots of people put in a big pretty filter not realizing that it flows less air than stock.
For the room left in a standard truck (without twins), the Donaldson G110119 will do you proud. It is a Radial Seal unit already protected from the elements and has the following flow specs:
Airflow @ 6" H2O: 882
Airflow @ 8" H2O: 1176
Airflow @ 10" H2O: 1470
...... and works really well. We got this one plumbed in and it performed great. Just no room for it now with twins and ended up selling the setup to one of the guys here. I wish I still had some pics to post of it. It is quite impressive.
The stock filter flows 452 CFM @ 4.66 H20 restriction. The B105006 BHAF flows 450 CFM @ 6" H2O restriction. Yes, even the standard BHAF will flow less air at the same amount of restriction as the stock filter.....and the BHAF used by SP Diesel is even smaller yet. If you can get me the part number off of that filter CTDHokie, I can get the exact flow specs for you.
Moral of the story, the stock filter flows really well. It is the airbox that presents the most restriction. Drill a few 2" holes in the bottom of the airbox so it is not having to suck all of its air through the fender and you will get more air than this BHAF will give you.
The Donaldson web site has drawings with shapes and dimensions for all of the Duralite BHAF filters. You can use these to figure out the absolute biggest filter that will fit in the space you have available. Once you pick a filter, give Donaldson a call on their 1-800 number and they will give you the exact flow specs so you will know if it will do the job. Lots of people put in a big pretty filter not realizing that it flows less air than stock.
For the room left in a standard truck (without twins), the Donaldson G110119 will do you proud. It is a Radial Seal unit already protected from the elements and has the following flow specs:
Airflow @ 6" H2O: 882
Airflow @ 8" H2O: 1176
Airflow @ 10" H2O: 1470
...... and works really well. We got this one plumbed in and it performed great. Just no room for it now with twins and ended up selling the setup to one of the guys here. I wish I still had some pics to post of it. It is quite impressive.
Trending Topics
06-08-2005, 03:52 PM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For kicks and giggles I will hook up my aftermarket filter restriction gauge and let you know the difference between the completely stock filter and SP Diesel unit. I won't argu that the larger Donaldson filter may be a little less restrictive then SP's but its prob negligable.
From personal experience on my old Ford and watching the extra boost gain and lower EGTs I know its much better then stock.
BTW if my Ford was any indication we won't be talking about 6" of static at 30psi of boost on a stock filter, it will probably be more like 20" so your CFMs are prob a little out of wack. What I'd be curious to see is Donaldson's graph of cfm versus static pressure for that filter if it is readily available.
From personal experience on my old Ford and watching the extra boost gain and lower EGTs I know its much better then stock.
BTW if my Ford was any indication we won't be talking about 6" of static at 30psi of boost on a stock filter, it will probably be more like 20" so your CFMs are prob a little out of wack. What I'd be curious to see is Donaldson's graph of cfm versus static pressure for that filter if it is readily available.
06-08-2005, 05:36 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moved.......now Sumter, SC
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You never know bud. It is just unlikely. We know the bigger BHAF flows less than stock. The small BHAF used in the SP kit would probably surprise you at how little the filter itself will actually support. It looks to be a Duralite B085011, the same filter they use in the Powerstroke BHAF kits. However, there are other variables to consider that could explain noted benefits. You probably did not get a better filter, but instead their system removed two other restriction points that provide enough benefit that overall results are favorable.
For instance, the flow of the intake system (not just the filter element) is also important. So the air box and intake tube are part of that. AFE testing shows that the factory intake tube itself contributes significantly to flow capability. Their own PG7 filter I think gains like 200 CFM when you eliminate the stock tube and use a smooth, open 4" tube. I wouldn't be surprise to see a 450 CFM filter element (stock filter), put inside a box and set behind an intake tube which together restricts flow to the 300 CFM region. That is why the standard BHAFs help and are so popular even though we know for sure that they support less CFM than the stock filter.....you have eliminated a huge restriction in the air box and intake tube. My guess would be that you can probably do a little better given the size of the SP provided filter. Wish we knew for sure what filter they are using.
This is a good comparison. Here are some specs I took from the old thread. The "AK BHAF" we were working on is the G110119. Now, consider that the G110119 is almost 11 inches in diameter and 13 inches in length. It took a BHAF that big just to outflow the stock filter by enough margin to make it worth the expense of upgrading:
Anyone interested in reading that old thread can do so here: https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...threadid=42436. The pictures don't show up anymore, but we sure learned a lot.
For instance, the flow of the intake system (not just the filter element) is also important. So the air box and intake tube are part of that. AFE testing shows that the factory intake tube itself contributes significantly to flow capability. Their own PG7 filter I think gains like 200 CFM when you eliminate the stock tube and use a smooth, open 4" tube. I wouldn't be surprise to see a 450 CFM filter element (stock filter), put inside a box and set behind an intake tube which together restricts flow to the 300 CFM region. That is why the standard BHAFs help and are so popular even though we know for sure that they support less CFM than the stock filter.....you have eliminated a huge restriction in the air box and intake tube. My guess would be that you can probably do a little better given the size of the SP provided filter. Wish we knew for sure what filter they are using.
This is a good comparison. Here are some specs I took from the old thread. The "AK BHAF" we were working on is the G110119. Now, consider that the G110119 is almost 11 inches in diameter and 13 inches in length. It took a BHAF that big just to outflow the stock filter by enough margin to make it worth the expense of upgrading:
Code:
Spec Factory AK BHAF AFE PG7 Filtration (J726 fine dust) 99.56% 99.995% 99.5% Capacity (J726) 504.4 g 932 g ? Clean element DP 4.66" H20 4.25" H2O 1.50" H20 Rated flow @ clean media DP 452 CFM 625 CFM 300 CFM Terminal DP @ capacity 16" H20 25" H2O ? Normalized flow (CFM/"H2O) 100 150 200 Est. flow at 4.66" clean DP 452 CFM 685 CFM 932 CFM Est. DP at 600 CFM flow 6.2" H20 4.1" H20 3" H20
06-08-2005, 08:06 PM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lake Arrowhead, Ca
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWESOME input guys! I knew there was a reason I was hanging out here! 
Im also looking into Scotty's filter, but this one is way cheaper.
Scott
Im also looking into Scotty's filter, but this one is way cheaper.Scott
06-08-2005, 09:46 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moved.......now Sumter, SC
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Dieseljunkie
Im also looking into Scotty's filter....
Im also looking into Scotty's filter....
The AFE filter mentioned in the thread I linked to above never gave me better than 14 ppm silicone levels on my oil analysis and everyone had me convinced that I just had a bum filter with some kind of defect. Folks were posting that they were using the same filter and seeing silicone levels in the 3 to 4 ppm range. When I went to a BHAF, my silicone levels dropped to 4 ppm on the next oil change. That was nice. Then, I put these twin turbos on and I didn't have enough room left for the BHAF so I had to go back to an AFE filter until I could figure something out. I put on a big AFE with their pre-filter, hoping that would help some, and let'r rip. I took an oil sample at only 2000 miles with the new AFE on and my silicone was back up to 12 ppm, with the pre-filter! I think all the people saying they were getting 3 to 4 ppm silicone levels with the AFE are driving around in a pressurized bubble.
This AFE may flow well, but it's filtration really sucks. It would be nice to try one of Scotty's Uni setups for an oil change interval and see silicone come back down to the low single digits. Scotty needs to build a big o'l twins version of his Scotty III that doesn't require decapitating your hood. (hint...hint)
06-09-2005, 09:57 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 5,540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on AK Ram...cut your hood...I double dog dare ya!
Mine is about to get operated on. I tried to find another solution, but the shaker flows unbelievable. Scotty's truck with the OEM turbo spun SO much cooler than my truck it was a joke. He could run my VA C3.2 plus on old EZ cranked way up and the temps were manageable. I could hit 150o plus in seconds with just the VA.
Mine is about to get operated on. I tried to find another solution, but the shaker flows unbelievable. Scotty's truck with the OEM turbo spun SO much cooler than my truck it was a joke. He could run my VA C3.2 plus on old EZ cranked way up and the temps were manageable. I could hit 150o plus in seconds with just the VA.
06-09-2005, 10:58 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cummins Technical Center, IN
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
5 Posts
AK RAM-- This is GOOD info.
You've covered a lot of the reasons why I went looking for a "better bhaf." I just thought that the Duralite unit wasn't a big enough improvement for the money.
I looked at the RadialSeal filters, too. I thought there was potential there as well, given that the Duralites don't flow very well. However, they still used the cellulose media.
When I read of Donaldson's PowerCore media, I thought that would give me a better chance of finding more airflow without a HUGE package. I mean, the filters I looked at that used the cellulose media were ENORMOUS to deliver decent airflow. The packaging was simply not realistic, as I couln'd figure out how to get a Farr Ecolite (1500cfm) under the hood when it measures something like 24x9 with a 7" oulet!
The PowerCore that Donaldson sent seems to really flow a lot better-- I'm just going to have to work on the packaging a bit. I REALLY want to ditch the OEM intake tubing (ribbed stuff) and I think that's the biggest restriction in my intake as it's presently configured.
You've covered a lot of the reasons why I went looking for a "better bhaf." I just thought that the Duralite unit wasn't a big enough improvement for the money.
I looked at the RadialSeal filters, too. I thought there was potential there as well, given that the Duralites don't flow very well. However, they still used the cellulose media.
When I read of Donaldson's PowerCore media, I thought that would give me a better chance of finding more airflow without a HUGE package. I mean, the filters I looked at that used the cellulose media were ENORMOUS to deliver decent airflow. The packaging was simply not realistic, as I couln'd figure out how to get a Farr Ecolite (1500cfm) under the hood when it measures something like 24x9 with a 7" oulet!
The PowerCore that Donaldson sent seems to really flow a lot better-- I'm just going to have to work on the packaging a bit. I REALLY want to ditch the OEM intake tubing (ribbed stuff) and I think that's the biggest restriction in my intake as it's presently configured.
06-12-2005, 07:32 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton,Ab.
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When comparing flow rates on air filters with restriction the numbers must be the same.
452cfm @4.66"H2O means that the filter will only flow this much at this restiction(Stock)
450cfm @6.0"H2O means that the BHAF flows 450 cfm @ more restriction, It is rated at 1.34" more restriction than the stocker. So if both air filters were rated the same 6.0"H2O then the stocker would be substantially less flow than the BHAF. Be carefull in looking at this info as most people think it takes so much restriction to make a filter flow , when it's completely the opposite. The restriction rating means when the filter gets dirty enough to require 6.0"H2O to flow it flows 450 cfm. When clean the BHAF will definately outflow any filter in the stock airbox.
452cfm @4.66"H2O means that the filter will only flow this much at this restiction(Stock)
450cfm @6.0"H2O means that the BHAF flows 450 cfm @ more restriction, It is rated at 1.34" more restriction than the stocker. So if both air filters were rated the same 6.0"H2O then the stocker would be substantially less flow than the BHAF. Be carefull in looking at this info as most people think it takes so much restriction to make a filter flow , when it's completely the opposite. The restriction rating means when the filter gets dirty enough to require 6.0"H2O to flow it flows 450 cfm. When clean the BHAF will definately outflow any filter in the stock airbox.