Will It Work

[poolkeeper]

Will a ef intake system fit on a au, it looks similar but im not quite sure. Anyone know?

[ClassicAU]

why would you want to change it? is there some sort of benifit to be had? sorry, i am just curious is all

[poolkeeper]

Heard it flows more air, it seems like it is less restrictive than the au one. But will it fit, who knows????

[ClassicAU]

sounds handy, i guess there is only one way to find out hey!! just give it a go

[XR6-VCT-2000]

Looks like it would fit ! ..lol , im just guesing though , but by the shape of it / it looks pretty much right , try it .

If it does fit i recon you'd maybe get slightlly faster throttle response , looking at the desing/shape of it . gl.

[chief]

I dont think that part of the EF set up, ie the pipeing will flow better than AU. The EF air box does draw more air than the AU one.

[JC]

Look at it this way. Every time Ford changes the shape of a part, they are up for new design costs, tooling costs etc. If that setup worked well on an AU, do you think they would have spent money on changing the shape? The logical answer to that question is No, so if Ford deemed it necessarty to change the part, it is probably for a good reason, and I doubt the EF piping will give much benefit at all.

[T3man]

Originally Posted by JC

Look at it this way. Every time Ford changes the shape of a part, they are up for new design costs, tooling costs etc. If that setup worked well on an AU, do you think they would have spent money on changing the shape? The logical answer to that question is No, so if Ford deemed it necessarty to change the part, it is probably for a good reason, and I doubt the EF piping will give much benefit at all.

Yes, correct up to a point. However there are other things that come into the equation. NVH levels are just one reason why Ford may have made the change to the intake tract.

Also it is sometimes more beneficial to absorb the tooling costs for a new part if the manufacturing costs of the part is substantially less than the older one. It would seem to me that the EF tract would definitely be a few cents more costly to manufacture. Maybe the reason for the "flatter" EF tract was for underbonnet clearance - I think the AU may have more underbonnet clearance at this point and so a "larger" (simply round and cheaper to manufacture) part was able to be used. ???

[ReVd_uP]

i agree with jc, not only that but its also less direct that the AU set up, so id imagine, if anything, throttle respomse would suffer

[sednwol]

What is the advantage re cold air intake?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by sednwol

What is the advantage re cold air intake?

Heaps, cold air is way better than grabbing hot air from under the bonnet.

[poolkeeper]

Just bigger piping, thats all

[sednwol]

So it's not performance related?

[poolkeeper]

Dont really know, thats y i wanna know if it will fit. My car is more show than go at the moment. ha ha

[Mechan1k]

The EF twin tract intake is more restrictive than the AU setup.
Hence why the EL setup doesn't use it and went to a larger elbow.

[JC]

ALL EA to AUs have cold air induction standard.

[ORESUMSR]

Originally Posted by D1XR2C

Will a ef intake system fit on a au, it looks similar but im not quite sure. Anyone know?

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but in answer to your question, yep, it'll definately fit with a few minor modifications.

1. you will need to get the EF rear engine breather hose, because the AU
one is different and no matter how you try to make it fit, without cutting
it, it'll just come off.

2. You'll also have to get the extended rocker cover bolt (No.2 position) that
supports the large induction pipe over the engine. Without it, the whole
system will just flop around.

3. Lastly you will need to get the flexible rubber hose to connect the
induction pipe to the throttle body. If you can't get the original, a piece
of 75mm dia. silicon hose will fit. You'll only need about 75mm then cut it
to length


I have fitted this set-up to my AUII and I have found that the initial lag from take-off has disappeared and the car seems more responsive. I think my economy is a little better but who knows in city driving where some days you get no hold ups and others it's stop start from go to wo.

I decided to fit the EF induction for 3 months and give it a fair assessment, after reading the following article, in part, attributed to Jim Mock of Jim Mock Motorsport.

Quote "Contrary to popular opinion, J.M.M. says the EF Falcon's divided passage induction pipe between the airbox and throttle gives more power than the larger, single-bore pipe used on the EL and AU." End quote.

I can only assume that they have done their tests to come to this conclusion and you can only be guided by the experts, who know their business, as I have also been from reading the wise words of the contributors to these forums.

To date I am very happy with the EF set-up and can't see any reason to replace it at the moment.

[Hords]

Originally Posted by ORESUMSR

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but in answer to your question, yep, it'll definately fit with a few minor modifications.

1. you will need to get the EF rear engine breather hose, because the AU
one is different and no matter how you try to make it fit, without cutting
it, it'll just come off.

2. You'll also have to get the extended rocker cover bolt (No.2 position) that
supports the large induction pipe over the engine. Without it, the whole
system will just flop around.

3. Lastly you will need to get the flexible rubber hose to connect the
induction pipe to the throttle body. If you can't get the original, a piece
of 75mm dia. silicon hose will fit. You'll only need about 75mm then cut it
to length


I have fitted this set-up to my AUII and I have found that the initial lag from take-off has disappeared and the car seems more responsive. I think my economy is a little better but who knows in city driving where some days you get no hold ups and others it's stop start from go to wo.

I decided to fit the EF induction for 3 months and give it a fair assessment, after reading the following article, in part, attributed to Jim Mock of Jim Mock Motorsport.

Quote "Contrary to popular opinion, J.M.M. says the EF Falcon's divided passage induction pipe between the airbox and throttle gives more power than the larger, single-bore pipe used on the EL and AU." End quote.

I can only assume that they have done their tests to come to this conclusion and you can only be guided by the experts, who know their business, as I have also been from reading the wise words of the contributors to these forums.

To date I am very happy with the EF set-up and can't see any reason to replace it at the moment.

Is it possible to post some pics of this setup?

[AU3 HERROD XR8]

i remember reading an article the the ef top lid or something has a bigger inlet diameter of 80mm and the au has only aroun 57mm or something, im positive that the article was about the ef air intake was 18% better than the au. Then again correct me if im wrong.

[Hords]

Originally Posted by AU3 HERROD XR8

i remember reading an article the the ef top lid or something has a bigger inlet diameter of 80mm and the au has only aroun 57mm or something, im positive that the article was about the ef air intake was 18% better than the au. Then again correct me if im wrong.

You're right...
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=0073

[Smoked]

The EF airbox lid provides more flow, but the design of the intake piping from the Airbox to the T/B is more restrctive then the AU version. As JC previosly said, FORD wouldn't have changed it unless it provided a benefit to the engine.

[ORESUMSR]

Originally Posted by Smoked

The EF airbox lid provides more flow, but the design of the intake piping from the Airbox to the T/B is more restrctive then the AU version. As JC previosly said, FORD wouldn't have changed it unless it provided a benefit to the engine.

Under normal circumstances, I would definately agree however when it comes to fraud, I am very sceptical.

Take for example the auto box dipstick, where has it gone, why has it been deleted, what improvement did this make over previous models? I'll tell you, COST. That's all it was. It was cheaper not to cast a receptacle in the box to receive the dipstick therefore saving on the cost of the dipstick also. Where is the benefit in not having a dipstick...

I believe that the change from the EF style of double passage air intake to the simpler EL intake, with the ribbed "U" bend, was motivated by cost -it was just too expensive to manufacture. It was changed again to the AU 's plain "U" bend pipe with no difference except that the external ribs were removed because it was cheaper to manufacture. Not because it was beneficial to the motor in any way.

Just in this instance I have listened to the advice given by an engine modification engineer who is an expert in his field. I don't think he would put his, and his company's name, to an article which can be easily proven to be mischieviously false, by any other modification workshop with the facilities to do the test.

This is the link to the article to which I was referring, however it is in Autospeed and I'm not a member to be able to retrieve the rest of the article for you to read. Maybe another member can open it up as it's worthwhile reading. Yep, you guessed it, I also got it from an Autospeed registered member who had the foresight to post it.

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_2236/article.html

As I said earlier, I have found benefits with it fitted to my car and that is all that really matters in the end. I have also got a K&N filter, but some members say that there is no improvement over the standard one, some say different and all have their own reasons for saying so, but at the end of the day, it is what benefits the indivual that counts and if I can learn by someone else's trial and error, then it is to my benefit. Gee this is a beneficial society. lol.

[Racecraft]

Originally Posted by ORESUMSR

Under normal circumstances, I would definately agree however when it comes to fraud, I am very sceptical.

Take for example the auto box dipstick, where has it gone, why has it been deleted, what improvement did this make over previous models? I'll tell you, COST. That's all it was. It was cheaper not to cast a receptacle in the box to receive the dipstick therefore saving on the cost of the dipstick also. Where is the benefit in not having a dipstick...

thy removed the dispstick to help with warrantie clams from the DIY mechanics from over filling the trans or just plain using the wrong oil...

[ORESUMSR]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

thy removed the dispstick to help with warrantie clams from the DIY mechanics from over filling the trans or just plain using the wrong oil...

I'll accept that reasoning if it referred to after the warranty period had expired, but not for warranty purposes unless you're saying that fraud mechanics who do the services during the warranty period, are likely to overfill or just plainly use the wrong oil.

To claim warranty, it has to have been serviced by an approved fraud service centre where the correct oil is always used, as we all know. Have it serviced elsewhere by a DIY mechanic within the warranty period is just plain stupid and fraud, rightfully, would not consider such a claim so it doesn't matter to them either way, it wouldn't cost them a red cent.

Yep, I know that your car can be serviced, during the warranty period, by accredited mechanics other than fraud, and still claim warranty ONLY if everything is done to frauds' standards. But you were referring to DIY mechanics I believe.

[JoesAu]

keep what u have its goood enuf.