My new air filter...

[alkemyst]

I'd love to see back to back dyno tests showing a measurable performance improvement from a damn air filter on anything short of an extremely modified race engine. Unless you've got ridiculously awesome flowing heads, an intake manifold to match, the cams to make the most of that flow and either lots of displacement/big FI/high RPMs, your air filter & intake tubing are the absolute least of your worries for performance.

The original owner of my car has a K&N intake system on it and the only reason I haven't put the stock back on is because I have to relocate the HID ballasts to do so. 🙄 But I will be ditching it!

This is a full intake. It's worth a good amount on the dyno for my car.

No one was discussing a drop in replacement.

 

[Zenmervolt]

In regards to the dyno though, this totally depends on the dyno make, model, and condition. There are plenty that do not have that big of a margin of error, even on high HP applications. I've run hundreds and hundreds of pulls on ours and it's extremely consistant, even down to the type of losses experienced due to heat from multiple back to back pulls. This is on a DynoDynamics 450DS.

The SAE specs a 3% margin of error on their approved dyno tests. On a 300 hp car like the Supra that showed the "1 hp" gain from the Apexi filter in those tests, a 3% margin of error is... 9 hp. I was off by a whole horsepower. 😛

A 1-2 hp difference in dyno testing just isn't conclusively attributable to anything other than testing variation unless you're dyno testing Briggs and Stratton engines. 😉

ZV

 

[alkemyst]

however when you are testing at the same time that margin of error is identical

9hp becomes 9hp gained.

Most dyno operators know how to baseline and test.

 

[Apex]

Do you happen to know if they put the block off plates on too?

Nope, that test was pre-blockoff. The blockoffs typically do 4-6 rear wheel HP, though some measure up to 8.

The SAE specs a 3% margin of error on their approved dyno tests. On a 300 hp car like the Supra that showed the "1 hp" gain from the Apexi filter in those tests, a 3% margin of error is... 9 hp. I was off by a whole horsepower. 😛

A 1-2 hp difference in dyno testing just isn't conclusively attributable to anything other than testing variation unless you're dyno testing Briggs and Stratton engines. 😉

ZV

ZV:

I think there may be a bit of confusion with respect to margin of error. What SAE is speaking to is a matter of accuracy. What we're speaking of here is a matter of precision.

Properly used, dynos can be very precise tools. In other words, they have great "grouping". For instance, properly used, one specific BMW M5 may show 384-386 hp to the wheels, time and time again, as long as you're correcting for temperature, humidity, etc.

However, they're not very accurate tools. In other words, take the same BMW M5 to another properly used and maintained dyno, it it may show 398-401hp to the wheels, time and time again.

That's about a 3% variation between those two dynos.

This is why dynos are such great tools for measuring relative horsepower, but such absolutely poor tools at measuring absolute horsepower.

So, when, say, I throw an intake on there and measure a 10hp gain to the wheels, that variation means the actual gain may be from 9.7 to 10.3hp.

Does that make sense?

 

[AMCRambler]

Sorry but I'm with the K&N is shit crowd. I put one in my Contour SVT and it gummed up the throttle body to the point that the butterlfly was getting stuck closed. I'd feel the accelerator pedal basically stuck when I started it up after it had been sitting awhile. I'd have to push on it extra hard to get it to pop loose. Once the goo in there heated up with the motor it was fine.

I finally took it apart to figure out the prob. I took the intake off and lifted the butterfly and saw all this brown crap. Had to take it off the car to clean it. Once it was back together I drove down to the auto parts store and bought a paper filter and shit canned that pos K&N.

Before you go saying it was user error. This was a new K&N right out of the box. Didn't oil it, clean it or do anything to it. Just popped it in.

If you want to rock the K&N go for it man, don't say we didn't warn you. And if you don't believe me, take your intake off and check out your throttle body after a couple thousand miles on the KN. See for yourself.

 

[alkemyst]

gummed up a throttle body? son that is a malfunction in your PCV system I am betting.

As part of maintenance I open the throttle body and clean it at around every 50k, which I did as part of the new filter. Just the typical black on the back of the butterfly was there. It was pretty clean otherwise.

 

[AMCRambler]

gummed up a throttle body? son that is a malfunction in your PCV system I am betting.

As part of maintenance I open the throttle body and clean it at around every 50k, which I did as part of the new filter. Just the typical black on the back of the butterfly was there. It was pretty clean otherwise.

Yeah, must've been the pcv system, "Dad". Funny how once I tossed that K&N filter, cleaned the whole thing out and put in a normal filter it never gummed up again. The pcv system must have magically fixed itself after I took the intake apart. ;-)

 

[alkemyst]

Probably hooked up the pcv correctly when you reinstalled then.

 

[Throckmorton]

Well that oil on the K&N has to go somewhere

 

[Gillbot]

After reading all the negativity towards K&N air filers within this thread I think I'll replace the one that came with my SC4 with a new paper filter.

Good idea.

I would like to see one that actually stated K&N was the actual cause of anything.

It's more misinformation. As soon as a MAF was bad or they thought one was, many were fast to blame the filter.

Like I said, I have had mine in for 60k miles. Had 1 cleaning. When i just removed it my MAF was totally clean.

I performed my own testing, that's all the proof I need.

Well that oil on the K&N has to go somewhere

exactly

 

[alkemyst]

why does the oil have to go 'somewhere'? By design the gauze retains it...only over oiling causes issues.

It's clear the anti-K&N fanboi's have been brainwashed and think they are scientists now performing their own testing.

 

[Howard]

why does the oil have to go 'somewhere'? By design the gauze retains it...only over oiling causes issues.

It's clear the anti-K&N fanboi's have been brainwashed and think they are scientists now performing their own testing.

Oh, you don't think air can carry aerosolized oil?

 

[Pulsar]

Nope, that test was pre-blockoff. The blockoffs typically do 4-6 rear wheel HP, though some measure up to 8.



ZV:

I think there may be a bit of confusion with respect to margin of error. What SAE is speaking to is a matter of accuracy. What we're speaking of here is a matter of precision.

Properly used, dynos can be very precise tools. In other words, they have great "grouping". For instance, properly used, one specific BMW M5 may show 384-386 hp to the wheels, time and time again, as long as you're correcting for temperature, humidity, etc.

However, they're not very accurate tools. In other words, take the same BMW M5 to another properly used and maintained dyno, it it may show 398-401hp to the wheels, time and time again.

That's about a 3% variation between those two dynos.

This is why dynos are such great tools for measuring relative horsepower, but such absolutely poor tools at measuring absolute horsepower.

So, when, say, I throw an intake on there and measure a 10hp gain to the wheels, that variation means the actual gain may be from 9.7 to 10.3hp.

Does that make sense?

Nope. Wrong.

3% is 3% of total horsepower. So if you car is only making 10 horsepower, then your above numbers are correct.

If you're making 300 horsepower, then a 3% margin of error means you may read 291, you may read 309.

The only way to confirm those readings is to do a number of consective tests and average them. However, there is also potential offset in dyno numbers: when is the last time they mastered them or certified them? (We do it between each run).

 

[Pulsar]

why does the oil have to go 'somewhere'? By design the gauze retains it...only over oiling causes issues.

It's clear the anti-K&N fanboi's have been brainwashed and think they are scientists now performing their own testing.

The oily gunk was very likely dirt and particles that were moving to quickly when they hit the filter to be trapped. They then picked up enough oil to get stuck at the butterfly where there is a ton of turbulence.

Oil aerosols VERY well - in fact we use lubricated air to oil our hand tools. It's automatically injected into the supply air.

 

[Throckmorton]

why does the oil have to go 'somewhere'? By design the gauze retains it...only over oiling causes issues.

It's clear the anti-K&N fanboi's have been brainwashed and think they are scientists now performing their own testing.

Because air and dust are blowing past the oil.


Have you heard of cognitive dissonance? Your belief doesn't match reality, so you're convincing yourself that K&N is great.

We have posted independent SCIENTIFIC testing that proves without a doubt that K&N filters let more dirt through. Even K&N admits that. They say their filters are 98% effective. Paper filters are 99.xx% effective, letting through 45x less dust.

 

[Throckmorton]

Here's an article from the Nissan Infinity Car Owners club discussing the testing done by Arlen Spicer

http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

In 60 minutes the AC Filter accumulated 574gms of dirt and passed only 0.4gms. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms.

Compared to the AC, the K&N“plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. See the data tables for a complete summary of these comparisons.

 

[alkemyst]

Oh, you don't think air can carry aerosolized oil?

where did I say that?

 

[alkemyst]

Because air and dust are blowing past the oil.


Have you heard of cognitive dissonance? Your belief doesn't match reality, so you're convincing yourself that K&N is great.

We have posted independent SCIENTIFIC testing that proves without a doubt that K&N filters let more dirt through. Even K&N admits that. They say their filters are 98% effective. Paper filters are 99.xx% effective, letting through 45x less dust.

as did my own links.

 

[Howard]

where did I say that?

why does the oil have to go 'somewhere'?

means the air doesn't pick it up

 

[zerocool84]

K&N threads are always fun to read.

 

[Gillbot]

why does the oil have to go 'somewhere'? By design the gauze retains it...only over oiling causes issues.

It's clear the anti-K&N fanboi's have been brainwashed and think they are scientists now performing their own testing.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You have no CLUE what I do for a living do you?

 

[Howard]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You have no CLUE what I do for a living do you?

Doesn't matter, he'll still find a way to demean you. 😀

 

[alkemyst]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You have no CLUE what I do for a living do you?

Explain your testing procedure for the air filters you did.

 

[alkemyst]

means the air doesn't pick it up

right and that has nothing to do with what you were talking about. Oil can be moved by the air, has nothing to do with an oil impregnated item though.

 

[Gillbot]

Explain your testing procedure for the air filters you did.

No, my testing was for internal use only.

Doesn't matter, he'll still find a way to demean you. 😀

Nah, I'll let him claim victory by default. IDC enough to really worry about it. If people are pro-K&N, I say go for it. You'll find out on your own soon enough.