Fiesta ST Intake Thread

[anticon]

The way I interpreted Dizzy/Jason's intake test results was the crossover was just the last piece in the intake puzzle. He had done all the other upgrades first, and the crossover was the last bottleneck. Which is why it shows the most gains.

 

[Clint Beastwood]

Yep Jason (Dizzy) has 2 total stages, one with IC upgrade, one without. He says some of the more powerful FiST's have very few bolt on's. He's tuned the x47r on stock fuel and stock exhaust to 300+whp on e20... Anyway, I did the drop in with cold air cutout in the shroud where a Big Mouth would pass through that helps get cooler air in to the snorkel. Then I have the upgraded crossover and inlet, it was also Jason that obviously did the intake tests too and a decent little gain is found with just a crossover even. Since I have a '17 I just have no interest in spending $100 to downgrade my evap just to run a new induction hose that's like $75 and mostly for looks. So yeah, not much for looks or sound as is, but is the most I'd need to do for even a hybrid upgrade already.

Need to do a hole in the hood with a filter sticking up out of it maybe a little scoop around it. I've been searching craigslist for a fire-damaged, etc. FiST for throwaway money, like 5-6k so I can build it out in a "no f***s given" manner. Purely functional everything with zero attention to cosmetics. If I did that I'd probably cut a fat hole in the hood and angle a filter up with a shroud cramming air into it. the uglier the better lol

 

[deadlast]

Need to do a hole in the hood with a filter sticking up out of it maybe a little scoop around it. I've been searching craigslist for a fire-damaged, etc. FiST for throwaway money, like 5-6k so I can build it out in a "no f***s given" manner. Purely functional everything with zero attention to cosmetics. If I did that I'd probably cut a fat hole in the hood and angle a filter up with a shroud cramming air into it. the uglier the better lol

Don’t even paint it or remove any of the cosmetic indicators of fire damage!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clint Beastwood]

Don’t even paint it or remove any of the cosmetic indicators of fire damage!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

one of my favorite paint jobs of all time - here in laguna beach is was a late 1930s early 1940s truck, beefy with fat tires and tastefully modded - but it was painted to look really rusty with fake mud then very well clearcoated. I loved it while also knowing it was stupid. I think it would be hilarious on a newer car.

 

[danbfree]

The way I interpreted Dizzy/Jason's intake test results was the crossover was just the last piece in the intake puzzle. He had done all the other upgrades first, and the crossover was the last bottleneck. Which is why it shows the most gains.

Well, if crossover made the biggest difference then it certainly should have some gains on it's own too, especially with a drop in and the stock air box known for not being a restriction.

 

[Dpro]

I go off of real world results and intakes didn't show much as far as power gains, just a couple did as well as using an upgraded crossover.

A flowbench is real world results. You cannot argue with a flowbench it proves you are moving a certain amount of volume.

Flowbenchs are used all the time in head and port design to determine how much power one can extract from a head flow wise. I.e. the more volume it can flow the more able one is to pack a denser charge into the cylinder thereby extracting more from combustion.
This is basic fact. Lol

Now we want to get to continuity of flow, in your statement about the crossover pipe if its larger than the stock hose flow wise then you would desire to increase the flow rate of the hose coming before it for the sake of continuity.
You will get possible turbelence if you do not have continuity and that could affect flow rate. It could be small but again is a fact.

Since the lower flow rate hose in front of the crossover pipe is not a gradual sizing increase from smaller to larger you do not benifit from a possible venturi effect which would help.

So in the end if dizzy proved the crossover pipe added hp then it has increase flow and truth be told the crossover pipe inner diameter is actually larger than stock. So if you flowbenched it it would show an increase in flow over stock. Real world result.

So it only makes sense to match it with a proven higher flow hose in front of it making the continuity of flow more even and allowing more hp and tq to be developed. How much will be the dyno results but a flow bench is real work not theoretical. Increased flow = denser charge capabilty, denser charge capability= more power development.

Its why back in the day they would put higher CFM ( cubic feet per minute) carbs with larger intakes on a V8 engine. It shoved more air and fuel into the engine there by making a denser charge and power.

Oh ya the Turbo on our engines does the same thing it increases flow into the engine via forcing it in. That is why turbos can add more hp to an engine.

Flow rate is simply real world.

 

[danbfree]

A flowbench is real world results. You cannot argue with a flowbench it proves you are moving a certain amount of volume.

Flowbenchs are used all the time in head and port design to determine how much power one can extract from a head flow wise. I.e. the more volume it can flow the more able one is to pack a denser charge into the cylinder thereby extracting more from combustion.
This is basic fact. Lol

Now we want to get to continuity of flow, in your statement about the crossover pipe if its larger than the stock hose flow wise then you would desire to increase the flow rate of the hose coming before it for the sake of continuity.
You will get possible turbelence if you do not have continuity and that could affect flow rate. It could be small but again is a fact.

Since the lower flow rate hose in front of the crossover pipe is not a gradual sizing increase from smaller to larger you do not benifit from a possible venturi effect which would help.

So in the end if dizzy proved the crossover pipe added hp then it has increase flow and truth be told the crossover pipe inner diameter is actually larger than stock. So if you flowbenched it it would show an increase in flow over stock. Real world result.

So it only makes sense to match it with a proven higher flow hose in front of it making the continuity of flow more even and allowing more hp and tq to be developed. How much will be the dyno results but a flow bench is real work not theoretical. Increased flow = denser charge capabilty, denser charge capability= more power development.

Its why back in the day they would put higher CFM ( cubic feet per minute) carbs with larger intakes on a V8 engine. It shoved more air and fuel into the engine there by making a denser charge and power.

Oh ya the Turbo on our engines does the same thing it increases flow into the engine via forcing it in. That is why turbos can add more hp to an engine.

Flow rate is simply real world.

I'm not interested in going from a dual to a single line evap, these cars already have enough evap probs as it is... otherwise I'd certainly try to match the better diameter of the crossover with some better flow with an induction hose, which admittedly looks much better too, but the gains just aren't worth the trade-offs for me.

 

[Dpro]

I'm not interested in going from a dual to a single line evap, these cars already have enough evap probs as it is... otherwise I'd certainly try to match the better diameter of the crossover with some better flow with an induction hose, which admittedly looks much better too, but the gains just aren't worth the trade-offs for me.

Ah you need to go back and look at Mountunes site again they now sell a compliaint hose for the dual evap. In fact it was posted here several days back.

 

[danbfree]

Ah you need to go back and look at Mountunes site again they now sell a compliaint hose for the dual evap. In fact it was posted here several days back.

OK, just found that again. Looks like they just add a '16+ compliant adapter for an extra $30. Wonder how that's different from Cobb and other earlier solutions but good to see more options! Would be really nice if they sold that adapter piece separate if it works better than other "fixes".

 

[karp]

Is there an intake specifically engineered for the 2018 model yet? I'd like the noise of an intake, but I don't want one of the older bandaided systems. Will a panel filter alone add noise? I'll be installing a symposer delete and an exhaust and I want to maximize fun noises for the driving experience.

 

[karp]

Several brands offer intakes for 2016+ models. These revisions usually involve an additional evap harness component. You can also order the 2014-2015 spec evap harness (Part number D2BZ-9C047-E) from Whoosh, Tasca, FordPartsGiant, etc to convert your car to 2014-2015 evap spec and use any intake on the market regardless of model year.

Is there any risk or annoyance (check engine lights) to this method? If not, I'd go for it.

 

[karp]

To my knowledge, it's the only guaranteed way to prevent codes with an aftermarket intake. Everything else is kind of a band-aid whereas this is an OEM-style solution. It is, after all, an OEM part.

Thanks for the knowledge!

 

[danbfree]

Thanks for the knowledge!

Krug said it well above, but just a bit off... There ARE full intake kits for '16+ now that either are direct designed (Injen) or include very good adapters made and tested by the intake manufacturer (Mishimoto and CP-E). Check out the selection of intakes on Whoosh for example, the '16+ intakes cost $40-60 more than the '14-'15 models and are guaranteed to work great... THAT SAID, if you see another intake you like that doesn't have a specific '16+ option, then at that point then the guaranteed way to not get a CEL is that '14-'15 evap harness conversion... Just to clarify, I'm eyeballing this one that is a specific '16+ design without any adapters needed : https://whooshmotorsports.com/colle...ta-st-1-6l-turbo-4cyl-wrinkle-black-short-ram

 

[danbfree]

True, I don't think that I've heard of anyone getting a CEL with the appropriate 2016+ cp-e or other intake, but I'm a stickler for elegant OEM solutions, and at all of ~$20 more for the cost of the D2BZ-9C047-E evap harness and a 2014-2015 intake vs a 2016+ specific intake, it's worth the cost as insurance. At least for me. Especially considering that even the cp-e 2016+ intake is just charging you an extra $50-$60 for a length of tubing, a connector, a cap, and a check valve. In fact, it looks like a copy of the $45 Whoosh evap CEL "fix" which still causes codes for some people. Too bodged-together to me for that cost, quite honestly.

Sorry, but I find your logic to be backwards on this one. It really doesn't matter what it looks like, if a manufacturer includes whatever type of adapter for an intake specifically sold for a '16+ and there are some solid choices, then it's been tested and guaranteed to work together, end of story. That's the beauty of it, you are getting a combo guaranteed to work.

The one review that says the Whoosh fix still threw a CEL was using a MAPerformance intake which has a different style included when you order a '16+ intake from then, but also it's been mainly just internal codes that don't throw a CEL anyway. Hell I go in and clear an "exceed torque" type one from my AP once in a while simply for being tuned, never throws a CEL... Besides, and no one has brought this up, the evap was changed to a dual hose setup for a reason, why downgrade to the the '14-'15 style that's actually part of a TSB on the FiST and a recall on the FoST if you REALLY don't have to? It may all connect up "elegantly" but to me that's the backwards part if they are known to cause problems, I'd rather go with a manufacturer tested adapter than to pay more just downgrade my evap lines... It's OK to have different opinions, but having all the facts out there first is something that everyone should know to decide on their own. That's why for now I'm not messing with the induction hose part of it until I can decide for myself the best way to go.

 

[Ford ST]

ST200 airbox and call it a day.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

[karp]

Thanks for the further input, all. [MENTION=9629]Ford ST[/MENTION] is the ST200 box a bit louder than stock? I don't need it to be extremely loud. In fact, the symposer provides more volume than I need. For me, it's a bit intrusive and too resonant.

I may just start with a panel filter and symposer delete to see if the noises are a little better. I'm about three weeks from installing my first wave o' stuff due to some work travel coming up. I still need to pick up an AccessPort. I think I'm go with the FB1 package from Mountune. $620 for an AccessPort, panel filter, RMM, and custom e-tune seems like a good deal.

 

[Ford ST]

Thanks for the further input, all. [MENTION=9629]Ford ST[/MENTION] is the ST200 box a bit louder than stock? I don't need it to be extremely loud. In fact, the symposer provides more volume than I need. For me, it's a bit intrusive and too resonant.

I may just start with a panel filter and symposer delete to see if the noises are a little better. I'm about three weeks from installing my first wave o' stuff due to some work travel coming up. I still need to pick up an AccessPort. I think I'm go with the FB1 package from Mountune. $620 for an AccessPort, panel filter, RMM, and custom e-tune seems like a good deal.

Not at all loud not a bit.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

[Capri to ST]

ST200 airbox and call it a day.

I would agree with this. I have the Mountune air box which comes with the MP215 tune, my understanding is it is exactly the same thing except the Mountune one is metal and the ST200 one is plastic. You can buy it separately without doing the whole tune.
The Mountune box uses the stock upper part where the air filter is, and adds a new lower part that has an extra cold air feed which brings in colder air from down low behind the bumper / fog light area. One advantage of both of these is that they are OEM, the Mountune one being developed in close cooperation with Ford.
This air box only adds a small extra bit of sound, which sounds like what you are looking for. However, I did choose to use it with the stock paper air filter to get the extra air filtration after a lot of folks on here reported that it would not detract from the power. I suspect that if you use it with the included K&N type air filter or another panel filter that there would be more noticeable extra sound.

Here's the intake from Mountune-
https://www.mountuneusa.com/mountune-Induction-Upgrade-Kit-Fiesta-ST-2014-18-p/2364-cais-aa.htm

Here it is with the tune added, same airbox as you can see-
https://www.mountuneusa.com/mountune-Fiesta-ST-MP215-Performance-Upgrade-p/2364-215-aa.htm

 

[danbfree]

Don't care; 2014-2015 evap harness guarantees every intake to work without codes. Also, are you aware that the 2016+ "fix" included with most 2016+ intakes alters the evap harness in way to make it operate like the 2014-2015 harness? Even the MAPerformance intake for 2016+ models involves cutting the evap harness to install their fix. Why not simply use the actual OEM component that is guaranteed to work instead of what is effectively a band-aid that may potentially require you to mangle your factory harness? Unless saving $20 is a priority, in which case, no judgment here.

Or, as Ford ST stated, just get the ST200 airbox.

Like I was saying, it's OK to have different opinions, but the fact is when you order a '16+ with it's own adapter, then it's guaranteed to work and there is no need to mess with anything else. It's not a "band aid" if it's being sold as a package and is disingenuous to call it that, but I digress, even though the savings is quite often more than $20 as well, we can choose to justify what we choose to either way... BUT if you really want a '14-'15 intake that has no included adapter available at all, then I DO agree at that point to go with the OEM harness...

Also, the ST200 has nothing to do with the induction hose section that includes the evap connection. While some complete intakes include crossover, induction and filter sections, using an ST200 airbox still means you have a stock induction hose section, that along with the crossover section, provides the actual flow improvements/small gains. The ST200 airbox is really cool if you want to add that secondary cold air intake bottom hose, but it's the crossover and induction hose section where you will see the gains.

 

[danbfree]

Thanks for the further input, all. [MENTION=9629]Ford ST[/MENTION] is the ST200 box a bit louder than stock? I don't need it to be extremely loud. In fact, the symposer provides more volume than I need. For me, it's a bit intrusive and too resonant.

I may just start with a panel filter and symposer delete to see if the noises are a little better. I'm about three weeks from installing my first wave o' stuff due to some work travel coming up. I still need to pick up an AccessPort. I think I'm go with the FB1 package from Mountune. $620 for an AccessPort, panel filter, RMM, and custom e-tune seems like a good deal.

The Symposer is to make up for the quiet stock exhaust I'd say. Even with a drop in, crossover and inlet, the car was WAY too quiet at effectively transmitting enough engine feedback, so you'd want to do some exhaust mods, even a resonator or muffler delete but I went with a rear muffler to glasspack swap, all the rest stock and I'm happy with the results. Maybe a a different airbox or intake could do the trick instead but with a glasspack I get natural pops and gurgles and a nice deep tone.