Experience with Kenne Bell Gimme 5 intake

paluka21

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
2,599
Location
Maryland
I initially inquired about this intake over on the 13/14 forum a while back, but was wondering if anyone has experience with the Kenne Bell Gimme 5 intake on a TVS car? It sure looks good under the hood, flows a ton of air, and is less common than the JLT plastic or carbon fiber intakes.

Would this this intake be overkill or actually degrade HP/TQ curves on a motor running stock boost levels (14psi) and other minimal modifications?

Is the Kenne Bell throttle body required or would the Ford SCJ mono blade work as well?

http://www.kennebell.net/KBWebsite/Accessories_pg/Gimme 5/layouts/gimme5.htm
 

Catmonkey

I Void Warranties!
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
3,854
Location
Louisiana
5" is 127mm, so I don't think it's overkill and should mount up to just about any throttle body with the right 5" i.d. silicone coupler. I don't know the outer dimension on a KB TB mounting diameter, but it looks bigger than 5".
 
Last edited:

paluka21

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
2,599
Location
Maryland
5" is 127mm, so I don't think it's overkill and should mount up to just about any throttle body with the right 5" i.d. silicone coupler. I don't know the outer dimension on a KB TB mounting diameter, but it looks bigger than 5".

Thanks for the input. My curiosity has me wondering why more people aren't going with this intake, unless it's the cost factor.
 

Pribilof

Life's Better @ Elevation
Established Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
1,156
Location
Denver, CO
Thanks for the input. My curiosity has me wondering why more people aren't going with this intake, unless it's the cost factor.

Probably because the JLT 123 is the same size, $350 with filter, and IMHO looks way better.
 

Poisonous West

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
246
Location
Back in US
The Gimme 5" (127mm) intake is measured in OD and when you factor out the wall thickness the true ID is 123mm. The JLT 123mm intake has ONLY 120mm ID - nobody can argue with me because I bought this JLT 123 intake as my first mod.
This JLT intake is the WORST design of intake for the GT500 and I can say JLT did not even know what they are doing. The filter has 5" opening with metal mesh - the stock has 5.5"opening with metal mesh. The metal mesh serve 2 purposes, 1 - the last line of defense in case large object get thru the filter element. 2 - it straighten the inlet air before reaching to the MAF sensor for measuring. But the down side of the metal mesh is efficiency drop. Metal Mesh efficiency in air filter usually between 0.21 to 0.24. So the total effective air filter opening needs to times 0.79 ( assume the efficiency is 0.21). In addition, metal mesh slows down inlet air speed. That's why the stock GT350 air filter do NOT have the metal mesh. There is a way to counter (eliminate) the metal mesh and there is a company out there doing this already. That's why I said JLT is so Stupid in term of design if they want to copy just copy the Real Good Design.
Another thing that JLT intake design is bad is their intake do not incorporate the "Volecity stack" to speed up and smooth out the intake air before reaching to the MAF sensor.
 

NightRide

Roll Racer
Established Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
3,439
Location
New Mexico
I agree the gimme 5 intake polished looks really nice. Never had personal experience with one but ran the jlt for quite a while. At wot it ran great but surged a little at low speeds which was really annoying. Switched to a whipple with the same tuner and the car runs perfect.
 

Catmonkey

I Void Warranties!
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
3,854
Location
Louisiana
What I don't care about the gimme 5 is the lack of shielding to keep hot under hood air out of the intake.
 

TVS VERT

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
2,893
Location
At Your Mom's House :)
The Gimme 5" (127mm) intake is measured in OD and when you factor out the wall thickness the true ID is 123mm. The JLT 123mm intake has ONLY 120mm ID - nobody can argue with me because I bought this JLT 123 intake as my first mod.
This JLT intake is the WORST design of intake for the GT500 and I can say JLT did not even know what they are doing. The filter has 5" opening with metal mesh - the stock has 5.5"opening with metal mesh. The metal mesh serve 2 purposes, 1 - the last line of defense in case large object get thru the filter element. 2 - it straighten the inlet air before reaching to the MAF sensor for measuring. But the down side of the metal mesh is efficiency drop. Metal Mesh efficiency in air filter usually between 0.21 to 0.24. So the total effective air filter opening needs to times 0.79 ( assume the efficiency is 0.21). In addition, metal mesh slows down inlet air speed. That's why the stock GT350 air filter do NOT have the metal mesh. There is a way to counter (eliminate) the metal mesh and there is a company out there doing this already. That's why I said JLT is so Stupid in term of design if they want to copy just copy the Real Good Design.
Another thing that JLT intake design is bad is their intake do not incorporate the "Volecity stack" to speed up and smooth out the intake air before reaching to the MAF sensor.


Wow.....finally someone who understands...the velocity stack your referring to a "bell mouth"...bell mouth design is where its at......I personally wouldn't recommend anything without a bell mouth.....Your options are: 123mm whipple, 123 mm ford racing and both of the new offerings from PMS the 120mm or the big 149.

The low speed maf resolution is terrible the signal its self is crazy noisy .
 

TVS VERT

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
2,893
Location
At Your Mom's House :)
Tuners have been able to make them work over the years by hacking up maf transfer functions only issue is the JLT intake has zero repeatability one intake can be 117mm one can be 125mm which is a nightmare for anyone getting there car remote tuned or even on the rollers......Many many better options out there then the "Sewer Pipe".......Many remote tuner won't even use them and actually tack on a JLT surcharge for the additional time it take to tune around the intake .
 

paluka21

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
2,599
Location
Maryland
I appreciate all the input and knowledge on the intakes, including JLT and the Kenne Bell. Definitely learning a few things as I read.
I've also considered the following Whipple intake/CAI and combine it with the SCJ monoblade throttle body as I've had issues with my current JLT resonator delete warping or becoming distorted where the clamp tightens to the coupler. Therefore I put my stock resonator back on.

http://www.lethalperformance.com/wh...3mm-maf.html?gclid=CMq7gqruj9MCFY-FswodUxwL_Q
 

Bad Company

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
1,943
Location
N/A
What I don't care about the gimme 5 is the lack of shielding to keep hot under hood air out of the intake.
I've thought about this same problem a lot. It is the reason I didn't install a Gimme 5 with the 3.6L SC and went with a painted JLT 148mm. I also talked with numerous people about the differences between the two CAI. Yes the Gimme has reduced shielding from the engine bay, but in reality so does the JLT once you install a taller hood to clear a taller SC. Also the JLT air box isn't made to the same specifications as the one Ford made for the car concerning its shape, so I don't think the upper gasket seals very well to the stock hood. Both air cleaner assemblies do achieve a ram air effect from the front headlight pocket to the filter in the same manner the stock filter assembly does once the car is moving. Both air cleaner assemblies do draw under hood hot air once the car is stopped in traffic. This can be monitored by watching the IAT1 temperatures while driving in stop and go traffic.

Now for the difference in size, the JLT is a 148mm but in reality the max internal measurement is much smaller at close to 5" in diameter with the very thick walls of the tubing. But the interior surface of the pipe is also extremely rough which in of itself creates turbulence in the air flow. High turbulence inside the pipe hinders optimum CFM flow of air. The Gimme is 5" with a much thinner material for wall thickness, I'd guess it would be 12 gauge this would be a .16" reduction in the internal measurements or 4.84". This actual brings the 2 pipes very close to each other in internal size for similar flow rates in my mind. The big difference would be how the turbulence inside the JLT pipe effects flow over the Gimme 5 with its smooth walls. Without a flow bench to determine a winner I can only speculate, but my gut is telling me the Gimme is going to win by a very small amount. Lets call them even to each other in this category.

Now lets look at the filter differences. Here there is a big difference in the size and shape. JLT I believe rates the CFM of airflow for their filter at 2150CFM. Kenne Bell rates the airflow of their filter at 2450 CFM. Well both are flowing more air than a 1000 RWHp car requires. The big difference will be as the filter media gets dirty. The advantage will be to the Kenne Bell because of its much larger filter media surface area. This allows it to to keep its advantage in flow over the smaller filters. It takes roughly 1800CFM of airflow for a 1000 RWHp engine in these cars. As you can see the filter media of the JLT doesn't have a large amount of extra flow capacity before dirt on the filter can effect airflow throughput to the engine for a loss of Hp. The other thing I see about the 2 filters is the KB does incorporate in the base of the filter a molded velocity style stack to direct airflow into the piping. Again something without a flow bench and air turbulence meter to test it leads me to speculate that it is an advantage between the 2 filters.

If you're going for a max Hp effort the advantage in my mind is going to be the KB. For a street car at 800 RWHp outside of having to clean the smaller JLT filter more often I don't see any differences. So the OP question of aesthetics becomes his real concern, but with that comes the issue of finding the proper silicone hose adapter to fit between the TB of his current set up and the KB Gimme 5.
 

TVS VERT

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
2,893
Location
At Your Mom's House :)
CJ 140 is a quality piece as well......Anything JLT has poor maf resolution you can put what ever filter you want on there...its still junk.....bell mouth design is only way too smoothen airflow......i wonder why JLT is releasing a new design with a Bell Mouth seeing PMAS just did one??? But if all the past JLT's were so great why the change ???
 

Catmonkey

I Void Warranties!
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
3,854
Location
Louisiana
Whats everyone's opinion of the SCJ intake and MAF setup that JDM sells? 140mm
I've got one. It's a nice piece, but I just haven't opened up an OEM air filter housing to place it in. I'm currently running a Whipple 123mm in a stock housing like the one in the photo. While I agree with most of BC's comments and he brings up some valid points about how well the intake is sealed off from the engine bay, I still think some baffle needs to be placed in the intake system to minimize under hood air being pumped into the engine bay and down the air intake, at least in a street application. At the drag strip this would not be a concern.

Now, I also live in fairly hot climate and my car is primarily a street car with a stock hood, so it may be more of a consideration for me than people in other locations. If someone's data logged IATs from the MAF sensor, I'd like to see that data with different intakes, and those results could change my mind. My opinion is purely theoretical.
 

blowbye

Bangin gears
Established Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
379
Location
USA
Woa woa woa badcompany.... I remember a post on a ported intake manifold were you said a rough surface area increased airflow... And a smooth surface deceased flow because air is more likely to stick to the surface...

Sent from my LGLS775 using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

Bad Company

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
1,943
Location
N/A
Woa woa woa badcompany.... I remember a post on a ported intake manifold were you said a rough surface area increased airflow... And a smooth surface deceased flow because air is more likely to stick to the surface...

Sent from my LGLS775 using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Yes sir that is true, but the inside of the JLT intake tube isn't finished in the same manner as the ports of cylinder heads or intake manifolds when they are CNC machined to create an isolation layer of air to increase overall air flow of the ports. There is a big difference between a rough surface and a machined surface. I knew my post was going to bring this up. I actually thought about my past posts about the intake and cylinder head porting and not giving my opinion on this subject because of those past posts. I'm tired of fighting and arguing about something that anybody can Google the information for. The ROUGH surface of the JLT intake is going to create a very turbulent air surface along its walls, instead of a boundary layer of air that actually increases the overall airflow of the piping. If KB could mimic the machining of cylinder head porting inside the piping I'd bet the airflow would increase. Unfortunately to do this they would need to either increase the wall thickness, which reduces the interior diameter or go with a larger outer diameter which won't fit under the hood of the cars with SS or most other aftermarket hoods. So a smooth surface in this case outflows the ROUGH surface for basically the same diameter piping

Can anybody answer me a few questions.

Why do my posts create controversy and bring a response that reads as if they have been written with animosity?

Anybody ever wonder why this forum doesn't have technical discussions any longer?

My response to the last question is........ it isn't worth the aggravation
 

blowbye

Bangin gears
Established Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
379
Location
USA
Cant figure out how to edit on this app.

Im not trying to be a dick or instigate in anyway, just answer your question. You come off as pompous.
I watched you knock a guy down on his porting work saying that the rough oem shot peened cast surface would flow better then his smooth ported surface. You made it seem that the oem cast surface would outflow the smooth ported one... Due to the rough surface. Many disagreed with you, you deleted your posts... By deleting your opinions you make it seem to me that your word is law and anyone that says otherwise is not worthy of your opinion. This is a place for discussions. If you delete your opinions for whatever reason, no longer does a discussion does it make. Making this a place were no one want to come... Your attributing to the down fall of this forum ass well. Does your cnc porting theory hold water, yes. But if the cast surface flowed better then a smooth one, no one would of been porting before cnc's were available....

Sent from my LGLS775 using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top