Takeda

One more air filter test, results are consistent with the test that Blackboost posted:

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articl...ter-study.html

darkrider

The K&N has plenty of filtration down to a micron level where any difference in size of particle passed would be eaten up in the combustion process. However, using the stock airbox, the flow and filtering rate is going to be so similar going from stock to K&N, I would say don't do it expecting power gains... If you're doing it for ease of maintenance, that's a different story.

dciobota

Thanks BadAv for your post. Same experience here, over 200k on two of my mustangs (one supercharged) and no engine issues.


Blackboost, again you are absolutely wrong. An engine is CAPABLE of pulling 600CFM, but that is not the actual airflow because of restrictions in the path. As BadAv correctly pointed out though, filters do offer little restriction to start with, so 97% flow filter may not add a whole lot of hp over a 90% flow filter. But "not a whole lot" is still more than zero, which is what you claim. And what you claim is flat out wrong.

Takeda

And another link with testing. Only the 2nd link in the first post works:

https://community.cartalk.com/t/the-...-filters/71520

Takeda

Read the test links I've posted, you will then see you are WRONG! The throttle body is the limiting factor for air flow, so removing the air filter will not make a difference in air flow!

You have shown NO REFERENCES to what you have been saying!!!!!

darkrider

FWIW, if folks are looking for Ecoboost gains, I'm guessing an open air setup with a tune will yield better results than stock airbox or a CAI for that matter. Turbocharged technology cares more about volume than the heat difference between a CAI and open air catching heat from the engine This was proven time and time again on the BMW N54 platform with dyno testing to back it up. Assuming it's appropriately sized for the application, the intercooler will get your IATs to where they need to be regardless.

dciobota

Please quit, this is borderline harassment. My proof is the laws of physics. And you obviously don't understand. You can post all the same tripe all over again, you have zero credibility with me. My discussion with you is over.

WarSurfer

I don't want to get drug into the mud here but I will point out one thing:

Nobody runs just an oiled filter in O/R Racing. My point is that a K&N oiled filter is only one part of what is typically a 2, 3 or even 4 part filtering process.

Dry bag/dust cover -> foam overlay -> oiled filter

Additionally, something like a UMP canister can also be used to reduce 'swamping' the filter when you run through a silt cloud.

The reality is that for just driving on the street, it probably makes no difference what you use.

In the 50's LOTS of folks ran scoop type carb hats with no filter. I'm not suggesting that's an optimum solution, just an illustration to show that you guys are arguing over that last 1%.

BlackBoost

No, so perhaps it's you who doesn't understand. My point is that at X RPM, the engine is putting out Y CFM, regardless of airflow restrictions. If you start to restrict the flow of Y, the X of RPM's will start dropping, and if you keep doing it, the engine will eventually stall at 0 RPM because air can no longer enter the engine.

Air intake will always have a direct correlation to RPM's, period. Physics fact.

Either way, the K&N has about the same performance gain as removing your antenna for aerodynamics, and I say again, unless you're trying to shave off that 1/10th of a second at the track, you won't see a difference. But you will allow more crap to enter the intake. Again, not debatable because of the filter's design, and proven to be true. You're just not accepting the facts and tests given.

dciobota

Nope. An engine can run at any rpm within its band with very little airflow. Perfect example is when you let off the throttle coasting down a hill in low gear. The engine is running at say 5000rpm but it's not flowing nearly as much air as it did at wot at 4000rpm. Know how you can tell? Fuel. The engine management will try to maintain a certain a/f ratio, so the amount of fuel pushed into the engine is directly related to how much is flowing through the engine. So are you now telling me you are using as much fuel rolling down the hill at 4000ropm as you did going up the hill at 4000 rpm? I don't think so. You are NOT flowing as much air with the throttle closed at 4000 rpm as you do with the throttle open. Period.


Not sure where you got your physics. Your "facts" all come out wrong and against any law of physics.


I think I'm done discussing with you tbh, no point unless you guys learn how these things actually work.