[Joel Koontz]

I have a 66 Tri-Power with stock size(approx. 6" x 2") individual air cleaners.

I like the way it looks and sounds, but I think the small filters are very restrictive and I would like to find something that will flow/perform better.

I am using K&N Filter Elements, based upon reports that they flow much better than the paper filters, but they are so small that IMO, even the best filter in that size, will not flow well enough for large performance motor.

Several things I have read indicate that a typical performance motor should have AT LEAST a 3" x 14", filter to avoid a performance loss.

If my math(3.14 x 6 x 2 x 3 = 113 Square Inches & 3.14 x 14 x 3 = 395 Square Inches) is correct(please tell me if my math is wrong) the 3" x 14" filter should flow over 3 times as much air as the filters I am currently using.

If it will help I can make the Carbs all the same height by installing spacers under the end carbs and I am willing to fabricate/modify if need.

I'm willing to spend some money on it, but I don't want to spend fortune.

Anyone have suggestions for a good flowing Tri-Power Air Cleaner?

Any photos/links?

[wheelspin]

Faced with the same dilemma, I looked around and the best I could come up with was a Ford type tri-pwr air cleaner with an adjustable base for this purpose. Stopped there since I didn't feel the gain would be worth the cost & effort.

[Joel Koontz]

Where did you find a "Ford type tri-pwr air cleaner with an adjustable base"?

[arcitech]

Your math is off: 3.14x14x3=131.88 What are you basing your restriction on? Top end RPM? Running too rich with filters on?? a rough estimate of 6cfm per square inch for a K&N filter gives you almost 700 for the tripower and just over 780 for the 14inch. If you are running more than 400ci or over 5500 rpm then yes you are restricted, otherwise you may have a tuning issue. Really need to know a little more about the engine to give a good reason why or why not the tri-power is not doing it for you.

[Joel Koontz]

Thanks for the math correction. Apparently I left an x3 in my calculation and the disparity is not as big as I was assuming.

I have a 463(.035" over 455) with 80cc(72ccs modified by SD Performance) 330 CFM Roundport Eheads, Small Solid Roller Cam, Dougs Headers and full 3" Exhaust.

I know the Tri-Power itself is a restriction, but I like how it looks, feels and sounds.

If I can do it for a reasonable price, I would like to have a less restrictive air cleaner system.

I don't race it, so I don't care how fast it is, but I do care about how fast it feels.

I still have some hood clearance(68 GTO Hood). Anyone know if K&N sells 6" x 3" filters?

[arcitech]

One problem could be turbulence at the carb entrance. The tri-power filters sit low and the air has to turn 90 degrees in a short length, I think the taller filter is the right way to go. I'm interested because I just bought the setup our sponsor sells, and I'm going to be firing it up in a couple of months. Engine is 455 .030 over with 82cc D-port E-heads and 068 style cam.
I plan on keeping it purely street, no work on the heads, but I think I really need to port match the manifold as a minimum to get the most out of the setup.

[wheelspin]

Originally Posted by Joel Koontz

Where did you find a "Ford type tri-pwr air cleaner with an adjustable base"?

Found it on Ebay.

[carbking]

The Ford oval air cleaners were reproduced years ago. They were reproduced (A) punched for the Ford dual quads, (B) punched for the Ford 6v, and (C) unpunched.

Check with the big Ford suppliers.

The paper element was also reproduced, and is quite reasonable in price.

Have been using these for many years on aftermarket applications.

Jon.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Joel Koontz

I don't race it, so I don't care how fast it is, but I do care about how fast it feels.

Try it with "no air cleaners" and see if you can subjectively "feel" a difference.

I'm guessing you can't feel it on the street.

K

[Joel Koontz]

Does anyone have any photos of their Tri-Power Air Cleaners to share?

Can anyone point me to(link?) a source for an unpunched aluminum Ford Tri-Power Air Cleaner Base? I found some made from stamped steel, but would prefer aluminum.

[ahnuld]

Australian lynx tops with tripower bases and edelbrock elements I cut to fit

[Chris-Austria]

That's my tri-power!
Pic is old, now I have new K&N filters but the size is the same and I really like the sound and look of it. Didn't feel more power without filters. Maybe there would be 10hp more at 5500rpm..

[geeteeohguy]

I've been running the K&N's on my '65 for about 30 years and used to run them on a '66 I had. No noticable restrictions whatsover, even when really dirty, which mine get because I drive the cars. The only issue I ever had with restrictive TP air cleaners was with the paper element AC replacements....the middle filter would clog up in short order and actually choke the car. You could remove it at idle and the car would speed up and run much better. It was actually causing the sparkplugs to load up! K&N's are about as restrictive as no filter at all.

[Chris-Austria]

I agree. K&N's are worth the money. Can't tell you what I like more.. the look or how they perform
Try them and then try it without filters.. if you can really feel a difference I'd be surprised!

[Zimtok]

I may be opening a "can of worms" but here goes....

My logical mind tells me that a filter of the same size (area of filter material) that has less restrictive flow would allow larger particles of solid material to pass through.

I currently have the K&N filters on my tripower. I have used the regular paper filters in the past.
The one thing I do notice in using the K&N filter is that my carburetor shows signs of dirt more then with the paper filters.

It seems to me that a filter that captures smaller particles but has a larger filtering surface area would be the best alternative.

(lots of smaller holes being better then fewer large holes)


.

[Jim Doran]

Not the same discussion as we are having, but as an example, during a dyno session, Phil6567GTO and I were at with his 500hp 455, when he put the original 65 pancake aircleaner on and did a pull, it was down 40hp. I realize this is more restrictive than the TP air cleaners. Just as a reference;

[66GTO Jim]

Originally Posted by Joel Koontz

I have a 66 Tri-Power with stock size(approx. 6" x 2") individual air cleaners.

I like the way it looks and sounds, but I think the small filters are very restrictive and I would like to find something that will flow/perform better.

I am using K&N Filter Elements, based upon reports that they flow much better than the paper filters, but they are so small that IMO, even the best filter in that size, will not flow well enough for large performance motor.

Several things I have read indicate that a typical performance motor should have AT LEAST a 3" x 14", filter to avoid a performance loss.

Anyone have suggestions for a good flowing Tri-Power Air Cleaner?

Joel,

I have always heard and read that with the 66 Pontiac Tri-Power, the intake manifold design and the Rochester carbs are restrictive. So increasing air flow through the air filters may not help that much. Many folks have purchased an aluminum Tri-Power intake manifold and sent it and the carbs to Central Virginia Machine Services (CVMS) for porting to increase the airflow. Of course if you do this, you end up back with your original thought of restrictive air cleaners. Just another thing to muck up the waters!!!

Give Jim at CVMS a call if you want more info or do a search on this site.

http://www.centralvirginiamachine.com/

Jim

[ta man]

Another example...on a 500hp plus 455 in a Trans Am a 13.5 x 7 x 2.5 filter 102.5 sq inches +/-.. on a well designed airpan was a restriction at the track versus no filters gave up 2mph plus.Which in theory makes sense... From the K@N site Airflow needed...(CID X RPM)/20839 462X5500/20839 121.93sq inches was needed for a minimum filter size.

[Joel Koontz]

I did some additional measuring. My K&N Filters are actually only 5.5" in diameter so the Square Inches is slightly less than I originally calculated.

I also think that a single round air cleaner with comparable Square Inches of surface area would flow more than the 3 small filters because of the tighter spacing of the inner pleats and more of the surface area of the filters is covered by the rubber sealing material.

I don't expect a larger filter to make a huge difference, but I do think it would help.

I have a Fiberglass Pontiac Ram Air Pan(like the one in Chris' photo) stored away somewhere that I may get out and evaluate for possibilities. If I recall correctly it has a contoured base that should perhaps help smooth the air flow into the carbs. I may be able to modify it to use a fairly large oval filter along with an aluminum top from an aftermarket filter.

[lust4speed]

Horsepower doesn't matter since we are only dealing with the engine being an air pump. A .030" over 389 has 395 cubic inches.

The following formulas and such were also taken from the K&N site. One of the biggest hits to the capacity of the air filters is having to subtract 3/8" of an inch top and bottom for the gaskets and glue for a total of .75" reduction in effective height according to K&N.

Air Filter Size Needed:
•Filter Area = (Cubic Inch x Max RPM) / 20,839
(395 x 5500) ÷ 20,839 = 104 square inches of filter needed

Each K&N filter is 5.625 in diameter and 2" tall

Working backwards
5.625 * π = 17.67" circumference
2" -.75" = 1.25 height
17.67 * 1.25 = 22 square inches of effective filter area
22 * 3 filters = 66 total square inches of filter available

Need 104 square inches and have 66.

Yes, quite a choke point.