: direct flow air filter intake



highonchai
03-22-05, 08:28 PM
Where can i find the K&N style direct flow air intake for my '96 SLS? The one that replaces the black air filter box. I thought Domestic Performance had them, but i cannot find them anywhere. Thanks for any help!!

Aurora By Olds
03-22-05, 10:55 PM
Buy some PVC connectors, a rubber coupling, a filter, and some black spray paint. Cheap and effective.

highonchai
03-22-05, 10:59 PM
Good call. Should i have some type of shroud between the engine and the filter?

Aurora By Olds
03-22-05, 11:44 PM
I chopped up a coffee can and painted it. Looks decent, actually.
I'll try to find some pics of it.

Aurora By Olds
03-22-05, 11:52 PM
Heres some pics.
It was a cheap throw together job. I used old PVC my old man had laying around, and got a filter. Sprayed it all blue and tossed it in. No one ever sees much of it anyway, so the 'heat shroud' works good enough.
by the way, I used a 3" (I think) ruber sewer coupling to attach it to the intake. It worked very well.

BeelzeBob
03-23-05, 12:03 AM
Where can i find the K&N style direct flow air intake for my '96 SLS? The one that replaces the black air filter box. I thought Domestic Performance had them, but i cannot find them anywhere. Thanks for any help!!


You need to consider the fact that your system has the mass air flow sensor in it that the system in the picture does not.

danbuc
03-23-05, 12:30 AM
Even if you got something that fit, it would probably just end up pulling in the 200+ degree air under the hood, which would only hurt performance.

However, if you want to try it out, RSM Racing has a nice one with a polished pipe and a K&N cone filter. http://www.rsmracing.com

Aurora By Olds
03-23-05, 12:32 AM
The CAI really does nothing at all for performance anyway.
If anything it just sounds good. Really good.

Hason560
03-23-05, 12:50 AM
well i dont know about doing nothing cus i have one on my car and i wouldnt have it any other way. oh and by the way it is not a cold air intake it is a short ram intake, a true cold air would run out a funder or near the ground somewhere so yes it probley pulls hotter than desired air but its still better than the restictive box.

danbuc
03-23-05, 01:01 AM
I'd rather have more restricted 80 degree air, then less restricted 200 degree air. If a K&N doesn't really do jack for the Northstar, there's no way that something like this wioll make a difference. Most people I've spoken to, said they had a drop in low end torque ( I even experienced this with K&N in my airbox, returned it the next day), and also mentioned that the car idled a bit rough.

Unless you free up your exhaust a great deal, there's nothing really to be gained from an intake like that. It may sound cool, but it's more likely to do more harm than good.

an01sts
03-23-05, 01:03 AM
In addition to danbuc's comment about drinking hot air, have read that the air filters do increase horsepower. The downside, however, is that the increase in peak horsepower/torque moves up to a higher rpm in the power band, meaning that it will slow down the car becuause for acceleration, you need strong low end torque, something that these contraptions take away from the car. In other words, if you were at a light beside an unmodified car, there is a good chance that the unmodified car would beat you. But at least your car sounds nice--right?


Go look on eBay. They are giving them away and the same vendor posts a bezillion new post every day. Notice the banner flasing at the top of this board's homepage. It flashes "Up To One Million Horsepower Increase" for everything except the Seville. Let's be fair, it would flash it for Sevilles too, but there is enough common knowledge around here so that they know better than to try to sell snake oil here.

Hason560
03-23-05, 01:07 AM
well i am running stright pipes, no mufflers that is. but i have to differ i feel alot more low end than before. i know alot of ppl on here tend to trash intakes on northstars but i am telling you first hand that it works. the olny thing your airbox is good for is 1 to cool the computer by pulling air over it and 2 make your car quiter, if you think your getting outside 80 degree fresh air your wrong, heres and easy test pull you box out and just run down the highway with your mass air flow screen to stop stuff for a quick run, see what you think.

danbuc
03-23-05, 01:17 AM
Yeah, you gained back all that torque you lost, by ripping out the mufflers and catalytic converters. No wonder it feels more powerful. A honda civic would feel more powerful if you ripped out the catalytic converter too. Also, have you checked you air/fuel ratio lately. Without the cat and O2 sensors, I bet the car is either dumping in fuel, or running it lean. That's not a good thing. Hopefully you got the fake O2 sensors they have. Why your at it, why don't you pull out the screen in your MAF sensor. That will give you like 10 more hp too.

Hason560
03-23-05, 08:39 PM
well i guess you didnt read my post very carefully, i said in am running stight pipes no mufflers that is, i never said anything about cats, and another thing since i do work in a performance shop and have put headers freeflow cats and the whole works on hondas, if you use the free flow cats they actully seem slower, i guess they need some back pressure. anyways all those claimes about 20 horse or so is bull and even ill admit to that but you should really give it a try before you knock it and actully i think i would lose horsepower by removing that screen becuse i think it helps stop some turbulance of the intake air comeing in

FastSeville666
03-23-05, 09:14 PM
hay guys im still confuzzled i need help what do i do, i want more hp somebody email me at superstreetracer69@msn.com asap thanx cameron

FastSeville666
03-23-05, 09:15 PM
oh yeah by the way i own a 1996 cadillac seville sls 4.6 northstar

BeelzeBob
03-23-05, 11:15 PM
Keep in mind that there are a lot of factors to consider with modifying the intake system...

All cars and engine applications are different. Just because putting a cold air intake on an LS1 Camaro helped power on a chassis dyno does not mean that putting the same one on a Northstar will have the same effect. You have to test the specific application in some dedicated A-B testing on a dyno.

Do NOT trust the butt dyno. It has proven over and over again to be very unreliable. Track times, dyno numbers, etc... will tell the story but an air cleaner "feeling" better....not likely.

Be very wary of dyno numbers provided by the manufaturer of the intake system. Case in point recently was the issue of the manufacturer's chassis dyno testing taking place with the hood open....in reality the engine made less power with the hood closed like you drive it. Dyno numbers can be manipulated very easily by an unscrupulous marketer.....

The various tuners and noise abatement devices on modern inlet systems do little or nothing to hury power and air flow. Removing or defeating them makes the induction noise louder and it "sounds" faster...but it isn't.

Cars with mass air flow sensors are VERY sensitive to air flow patterns inside the inlet duct and this is getting more and more so with the most recent plug in MAF sensors that are a module that plugs into an inlet duct instead of being a round tube mounted in series with the inlet ducting. Mess up the air flow thru the MAF and the fuel calibration changes and the engine can EASILY be slowed down....very easily. I have personally tested modified inlet duct systems on vehicles and on engine dynos using the late 90's and the early 2000 style Northstar inlet systems on the STS and found that the production systems for those applications flow pretty good and , unless the engine and exhaust is modified heavily, modifying the inlet system will , in all likelyhood, slow the car down. Work was done specifically on the LeMans Pace Car STS vehicles and the most power and best track times were unquestionably obtained with the production, as installed, inlet systems. Modifications either proved to provide no more flow and/or screwed up the MAF signal so badly that the engine made less power. Not that a less restrictive inlet system cannot be designed or developed....but beware that a lot of work went into the production system and it is not easy to improve upon it.

The air cleaner element is NOT the restriction in the inlet system of a FWD Northstar....installing a less restrictive (if possible...) air filter element will make no difference. This is true from car and dyno testing I have done. But...be aware...this is not necessarily true of all applications and all aircleaner elements. What applys to one application does not necessarily apply to another.

Considering the above, be aware of an air filter manufacturer dyno tests and flow claims. They may be true for one specific application where the air filter is very restrictive for some reason and the manufacturer will ALWAYS quote the highest gains thus inplying that the same gains will apply to all applications.

Some things that aftermarketers sell as absolutly dyno proven HP gains simply are not. The "air foil" for the throttle body for an LT1 is a typical example of this. That part looks like it should work and "seems" right and the manufacturer dyno tests show 12 HP or so....but....when it is tested on a real LT1 on real GM dynos it does absolutely nothing. Zero. I know this for a fact. Yet I see regular testimonials as to the seat of the pants improvement with this device.

As I have mentioned before, one aspect of the stock inlet system that is often overlooked is the ability to avoid water intrustion into the throttle body and engine. Modern engines with tuned, individual runner inlet manifolds are very sensitive to even small amounts of water intrusion. The inlet systems are designed and tested to make positively sure that water will not enter the engine in any reasonable situation. Anyone that drives on the street daily can accidentally hit a deep puddle, drive too fast into a flooded cross street or dip in the road or drive in pouring rain or hit deep water along the curb. Water intrusion damage is a real concern for a daily driver. The aftermarket and modified "cold air intakes" are disasters waiting to happen in this respect. Trust me, you CANNOT predict where water willl come from or whether a system will protect the engine. The engine compartment fills with water from the bottom up when hitting deep water so an inlet under the hood or in the fender well is surely to suck water. GM does testing with clear hoods, video cameras, lipstick cameras underhood, etc. to determine water flow patterns hitting standing water and for developing and validating the systems.

Just some things to think about when modifying the inlet system....

danbuc
03-23-05, 11:33 PM
The MAF screen removal comment was joke. I didn't realize you still had the catalytic converter on the car. That thing must be loud though, with no mufflers at all.

eldorado1
03-24-05, 10:57 AM
Bbob-

Assuming the MAF weren't a factor (like in a northstar converted to SD), would there be any gain from a 3.5" intake with a typical cone K&N filter? On an otherwise stock engine.. In other words, you say the production induction (say that 3x fast) system is pretty good, but can it be made better? Is there going to be any difference between the stock system, and a 6" pipe with a semi truck air filter on the end?

BeelzeBob
03-24-05, 04:25 PM
Bbob-

Assuming the MAF weren't a factor (like in a northstar converted to SD), would there be any gain from a 3.5" intake with a typical cone K&N filter? On an otherwise stock engine.. In other words, you say the production induction (say that 3x fast) system is pretty good, but can it be made better? Is there going to be any difference between the stock system, and a 6" pipe with a semi truck air filter on the end?


From my experience that modification would net virtually no power. That part of the system is just not a restriction.

You have to look at the flow thru the engine as a complete system with a series of orifices or restrictions or plugs. If just one is opened up it will have little or no effect unless others are done. If an engine was opened up with headers and open exhaust and more cam and such then the air inlet would become the restriction...but on an otherwise stock engine there is minimal to no gain with that type of modification.

The idea that an open intake system or K&N filter would help low end power also has to be questioned somewhat. Even if the system is very restrictive it is only restrictive when the engine is flowing the most air thru it...at high RPM at the power peak. You could cover half the element in duct tape and notice no difference whatever on an engine dyno as long as the engine didn't rev over 3000 or 4000 RPM....so how could an "open intake" help low end power below 4000 RPM...???? Answer...it can't. "Low end" improvements with a CAI or K&N element are imagined...not real.

From a personal e-mail some people have taken me to task for attacking K&N and discrediting them. I have no complaint with K&N and feel that they make a nice product for certain applications. I actually have K&N filters on several of my bikes and stuff....but.....the idea that a simple air cleaner element replacement in a Northstar air box could yield power gains is ludicrous. K&N makes nice air cleaners for speciality applications but the fact is that the material does not flow anymore than clean paper in OEM replacement applications and, if it did flow more, it would have to have larger holes in the material to allow more dirt thru also. Just plain physics. Plus, many many cars with MAF's are slowed down and run poorly due to the contamination of the MAF with the oil on K&N filters. I have seen this even on our dyno engines where we will often run a K&N filter purely to keep birds and small animals from getting sucked into the throttle body of test engines. The oil from K&N filters is necessary to make them filter adequately and the oil will contaminate the MAF....especially if you overoil the filter. The K&N's supposedly last forever but the price outweighs the utility of them. For the price of one K&N you could buy enough paper filters to run the car a million miles easily...so what if it is reuseable. Not knocking K&N....just making the point that they are no panacea and have the same limitations as other air filters...but...they are good at marketing their product.

weister42
03-25-05, 12:36 AM
I'd rather have more restricted 80 degree air, then less restricted 200 degree air. If a K&N doesn't really do jack for the Northstar, there's no way that something like this wioll make a difference. Most people I've spoken to, said they had a drop in low end torque ( I even experienced this with K&N in my airbox, returned it the next day), and also mentioned that the car idled a bit rough.

Unless you free up your exhaust a great deal, there's nothing really to be gained from an intake like that. It may sound cool, but it's more likely to do more harm than good.

I have a K&N air filter in my 98 Deville and it increased my MPG a gallon or two and I feel like I can squel my tires a bit more.

BeelzeBob
03-25-05, 01:49 AM
I have a K&N air filter in my 98 Deville and it increased my MPG a gallon or two and I feel like I can squel my tires a bit more.


On a carbureted engine a restrictive air cleaner can affect fuel economy since the restriction will act like a "choke" and make the carb run rich....so the story of dirty air cleaners or restrictive air cleaners costing fuel economy was born. But....with a port fuel injection system there is NO WAY that an air filter element affects fuel economy. First, even if the air cleaner was less restrictive, the fuel delivery of the system is controlled by the PCM and would not be affected by the added restriction....the air cleaner would be just another restriction or throttle in the system and as long as the engine would make the power to move the car along the fuel enrichment would be correct and the fuel economy would not be affected. Secondly, at cruise conditions where your engine spends 99% of it's time and where fuel economy is most critical and is measured the air flow thru the engine and thru the air cleaner is only a small fraction of what the filter is capable of. Even if the production filter were "restrictive" at full throttle, at part throttle, there is no way it presents any restriction thus there is NO WAY that a K&N element would improve flow, reduce restriction or improve fuel economy. Just doesn't happen.

If the fuel economy could be improved by 1 (or 2!!) MPG with a different air cleaner element every automaker in the world would be lining up at the K&N factory to get them for OEM applications. They don't for a reason. There is no fuel economy with a K&N filter. Period.

I know there is a pressing need to justify spending $40 for an air cleaner element but improved fuel economy is not part of the deal. Sorry. May be the placebo affect or something. If you got better economy it was due to some other factor, not the air cleaner element.

As far as squeeling the tires....I can put some sand on the pavement and make the tires squeel more, too....does that count..?? Seriously, when you are punching the throttle and squeeling the tires the engine is operating down around 4000 to 4500 RPM at most. Well below the maximum air flow capability of the engine...and well below the air flow capacity of the production air cleaner element. If (and that is a big "IF") the K&N improved air flow it would improve it only at the maximum RPM points of the engine...up near 6000 - 6500 RPM. Not down at the lower RPM's off idle when you are opening the throttle to spin the tires. So there is no way the K&BN is helping there either.

Don't mean to rain on your parade but there is just no engineering reason that an air filter element will improve fuel economy or add low end power. I read the K&N ads too and see thier claims of "improved economy" and "added power" but the claims are pretty hollow. Maybe , back 30 years ago, they tested a carbed engine with a dirty stock element and changed it to a clean K&N and got better economy and power and have been advertising based on that since then. That is about the only way you could substantiate those sorts of claims.

I have personally run FTP emission tests ( like used to measure and rate fuel economy for the window sticker ratings) with cars with different air cleaners and different air cleaner elements and have never seen any impact on the cars fuel ecnomy. The air flow rates on the fuel economy tests are just so low that they do not approach the capacity of even the most restrictive air induction systems so , unless the air flow exceeds the capacity of the system, it will have no effect on fuel economy.

Dooman
03-25-05, 12:50 PM
I'm thinking some of the hype of the filters comes from off road motorsports also. Seems to be cool to have "racing" things on everything these days, and of course every filter kit comes with one of those stickers. I've used K&N filters on snowmobiles and dirt bikes but I know that two strokes are another story.

N0DIH
03-25-05, 12:59 PM
FWIW find a way to do as precise as you can acceleraton test that is repeatable and do the mod, then remove the mod (back to stock) and verify your results.

Most of us don't have access to a chassis dyno anyway, and for a CAI, it probably isn't going to show us the improvement (if any) that the ram air coming through ever nook and crany under the hood will see.

Try this, find a open road that is safe and do a a controlled acceleration test. Stay in 1 gear, be it first, second, etc. Get a run started and have a repeatable assistant (or yourself if you can safely) stopwatch a time from x mph to x+20 mph. Say 2nd gear, 40-60 mph. Or whatever your car will do. No shifts, hit the speed you want already at WOT starting the accel run from around the same mph. So if you pick 40-60 mph, start your acceration in that gear around 30 so you are at max acceration by the time you hit 40 mph. Plan for the rpm range you want to "test" also. Be consistent and keep a log or journal of your testing. This will make it more valid. Not perfect, but gives you a cheap "chassis" dyno.

Tom

danbuc
03-25-05, 01:25 PM
I did a test like that between an STP paper filter, a Fram paper filter, and a K&N filter. The route I picked out, involved a WOT maneuver, followed by some spirited back roads driving, all the way back to my house. I did each filter twice, with about a half an hour in between each test. In the end, I notice that when I went to WOT,while getting onto the highway, the car always pulled hardest with the paper filters, and seemed a little sluggish with the K&N. AFter I was done testing, I left the Fram in the car, hgeld onto the STP as a spare, and packed up the K&N filter. The next day, I drove back to autozone, and returned it. I have to say, that the drop in low RPM torque as a result of that filter, was definitely not worth the $45 dollars I spent on it. I'll stick with my paper filters, they work just fine.

Just so you know, the Fram was $9, and the STP was $7. They both worked the same. I also find it funny, how no one ever takes into account, the cost of the recharge kit for the K&N filter. It's like $20 or something.

WoodShoe
03-26-05, 02:19 AM
Stock Air Box: 15.2
K&N cone Filter: 15.3 :banghead: (try touching your filter after running it for a while...DAAAANNNG it gets hot!! (removed that POS quickly), sure sounds nice though...

K&N Drop in replacement: Not sure yet, . . .cant hurt. . .

dkozloski
03-26-05, 03:17 AM
It's amazing how all this BS can fly and the urban myths run wild but the cold hard facts still rule when the engineer puts the pencil to the paper. You can't over rule laws of nature with an act of congress or wishful thinking. You see this kind of action all the time with mods for bush airplanes. Your money is far better spent on flying lessons and practice. The more expensive the mod the better it just has to be because there is no way I'm going to admit I got stung on a con that was as blatant as this.

weister42
03-28-05, 01:12 AM
Hey all I'm saying is I bought a K&N air filter and "thought" I got something out of it...I even asked my mechanic and he said it's a good thing to have it...I mean if K&N is no good then why are people using them in modded hi-performance cars?

BeelzeBob
03-28-05, 10:16 AM
Hey all I'm saying is I bought a K&N air filter and "thought" I got something out of it...I even asked my mechanic and he said it's a good thing to have it...I mean if K&N is no good then why are people using them in modded hi-performance cars?

K&N makes nice air filters and there is nothing wrong with them at all. You just have to judge each application separately to understand why a K&N or other custom air cleaner might be applicable.

K&N makes money selling air cleaners so they will always present their product in the best light. The "halo" effect from seeing them on high performance engines and special applications makes people assume that they work great everywhere.

It isn't that they aren't any good just that they are very expensive and do not provide any advantage in most OEM applications. Regardless of whay K%N would have you believe a plain paper airfilter element will flow just as much air for a fraction of the price. There is rarely , if ever, any advantage to replacing the OEM air filter element with a replacement K&N or other element simply because the air filter element itself is rarely if ever the choke point in the system.

Much of the "data" on specialty air filter elements is run on simple carbed hot rod engines. Put one on a fuel injected engine with a MAF sensor and the oil from the specialty filters will often clog or foul the MAF causing fueling descrepancies that the sensor will not recover from. This doesn't show up in a 5 minute magazine test but will over the course of a thousand miles.

K&N often makes the only air filter for a specialty application such as many of the open element and high flow specialty/hot rod/racing applications. That reason, alone, is why you see K&N's on many applications. They pioneered the molded "pod" air filters with the rubber boot and clamp that are synonymous with their name. I have those on 3 of my engines (bikes) just because they are the only real option.

In a racing application on a dirt car or dirt bike, for example, the idea of being able to clean the filter and reuse it is very attractive and worthwhile. It is no big deal to clean one of those regularily. Being able to clean and reuse a passenger car air cleaner has little or no advantage since they only get dirty every 50K or 100K miles....and cleaning and reoiling them costs more in the oil alone than a new paper filter would and then you have to worry about fouling the MAF with too much oil.

So....there is no definitive "good" or "bad" about K&N filters. Within the context of this forum of replacing the stock Northstar air box with a pod filter or simply replacing the paper element in the stock system with an aftermarket high performance filter there is little to no gain so it is a waste of money. There are other cars and applications where the stock air box might be much more restrictive and the results might vary. You just have to evaluate each application on it's own. There is no blanket statement that says that the air filters are always good or always bad.

danbuc
03-28-05, 01:20 PM
Even carbureted engines can have problems with a K%N filter. A good example would be my friends 1976 Triumph TR6. He is running two SU carbs. After we had worked on it fro about two years, to finally get it running right, he bought two K%N filters for it. When we tried them out, the car ran like absolute crap, compared to the old filter element, which we were actually running upside down at the time (was originally fit for Zenith Strombergs). My other friend who was helping us, called up his uncle, who own a Spitfire, to ask abotu the K&N. His uncle told him not to use them, because the way the airflows through them, would affect driveability. We then removed the K&N's, and put the old filter back on, and it ran great. Right now, we are running the K&N's again, until we can get the proper OEM style filter assembly. I took it out for a drive on saturday, and after as usual (with the K&N's) it would backfire and sputter, in first, and third gear at anything over 3000rpm. Never did that with the OEM paper filters.

Painless
10-29-05, 11:33 PM
Even carbureted engines can have problems with a K%N filter. A good example would be my friends 1976 Triumph TR6. He is running two SU carbs. After we had worked on it fro about two years, to finally get it running right, he bought two K%N filters for it. When we tried them out, the car ran like absolute crap, compared to the old filter element, which we were actually running upside down at the time (was originally fit for Zenith Strombergs). My other friend who was helping us, called up his uncle, who own a Spitfire, to ask abotu the K&N. His uncle told him not to use them, because the way the airflows through them, would affect driveability. We then removed the K&N's, and put the old filter back on, and it ran great. Right now, we are running the K&N's again, until we can get the proper OEM style filter assembly. I took it out for a drive on saturday, and after as usual (with the K&N's) it would backfire and sputter, in first, and third gear at anything over 3000rpm. Never did that with the OEM paper filters.


Easy explanation here... K&N was less restrictive thus allowing for less "pull" on the carburetor venturis, so it ran too lean..... If the carb was re-jetted for the increased airflow you would have seen better results than the stock filter provided.... Carb Tuning 101 :D

EFI vehicles now-a-days can see how much air is being drawn into the motor and can compensate itself for that increase.. OEM's spend allot of money and reasearch into air box designs etc... Just a piece of PVC pipe and a K&N isn't going to exceed it's performance necessarily...:tisk: Leave the induction system ALONE and add a factory style K&N to it.. I noticed a slight increase in mileage on my 96' STS; Although the seat-of-the pants dyno didn't feel much of a difference at least I can re-use the filter forever!:thumbsup:

N0DIH
10-31-05, 12:42 AM
I am running some PVC on my 94 FWB LT1, to remove "first base". I did some fuel economy experiments with it and without, and there is a distinct across the board 0.5 or so mpg improvement with PCV in place of FB. I am NOT running a K&N, stock AC Delco filter.

I will be doing some intake tract vacuum readings soon here to determine if the filter truly is an issue or not. I suspect not, but I will test to be sure....

danbuc
11-02-05, 12:19 AM
Easy explanation here... K&N was less restrictive thus allowing for less "pull" on the carburetor venturis, so it ran too lean..... If the carb was re-jetted for the increased airflow you would have seen better results than the stock filter provided.... Carb Tuning 101 :D

EFI vehicles now-a-days can see how much air is being drawn into the motor and can compensate itself for that increase.. OEM's spend allot of money and reasearch into air box designs etc... Just a piece of PVC pipe and a K&N isn't going to exceed it's performance necessarily...:tisk: Leave the induction system ALONE and add a factory style K&N to it.. I noticed a slight increase in mileage on my 96' STS; Although the seat-of-the pants dyno didn't feel much of a difference at least I can re-use the filter forever!:thumbsup:

Have you ever seen, let alone tried to tune a Skinner Union (or Zenith Stromberg) carburetor? You can't just re-jet them like you would an Edlebrock or Holley. It's a whole different animal.

I've found that all these people with newer OBDII car's running K&N's, forget about how harmful the oil is to a MAF sensor. Over time, that oil builds up a film on the hot wire, and will eventually cause the MAF to either malfucntion or fail completely. In fact, right now, most Ford dealerships have a rather strict policy of declining any warranty claims pertaining to the MAF sensor, if a K&N is installed on the car. MAF sensors aren't cheap either. All that oi on that wiresscrews up the readings anyway, which makes any performance gains from the K&N useless, since the car now runs liek crap anyway.

As a general rule of thumb, if the car has a MAF sensor, a K&N WILL do more harm than good, and in the long run, will most likely ruin the MAF sensor.

Painless
11-02-05, 01:50 AM
Have you ever seen, let alone tried to tune a Skinner Union (or Zenith Stromberg) carburetor? You can't just re-jet them like you would an Edlebrock or Holley. It's a whole different animal.

I've found that all these people with newer OBDII car's running K&N's, forget about how harmful the oil is to a MAF sensor. Over time, that oil builds up a film on the hot wire, and will eventually cause the MAF to either malfucntion or fail completely. In fact, right now, most Ford dealerships have a rather strict policy of declining any warranty claims pertaining to the MAF sensor, if a K&N is installed on the car. MAF sensors aren't cheap either. All that oi on that wiresscrews up the readings anyway, which makes any performance gains from the K&N useless, since the car now runs liek crap anyway.

As a general rule of thumb, if the car has a MAF sensor, a K&N WILL do more harm than good, and in the long run, will most likely ruin the MAF sensor.

Granted it may not be easy to tune one of those carbs, but tuning it to match the increased air-flow would, if fact, correct the lean issue.. Prolly better to leave the stock filter though..hehe

Good points on the MAF issue involved here.. I'll have to agree 100% there! That just makes too much sense....

N0DIH
11-02-05, 03:57 AM
I did an intake (after filter and MAF but before throttle body) vacuum test today at WOT in my LT1. At the extreme upper rpm, close to redline, it just started to make the vacuum gauge move. So, at most, 0.5 inches of vacuum. Probably closer to 0.25 inches. That is all the restriction the stock AC Delco paper filter has on the LT1 >5000 rpm.

I would take a stab in the dark and say the K&N is next to worthless on my car.

Big_Caddy_Shack
02-28-06, 12:51 AM
How could you put a cone on a 1998 seville sls when you pull the airbox apart and it is full. I'm not to familiar with the airboxes on the sls yet and mine had a large block full of wires. How can I mod this to allow more intake without damaging everything that is in there. I had an Aurora and I just gutted the airbox and was done, this looks like it could cause some serious malfunctions if I mod this box and with all the exposed wiring and such I can just put a cone on the end of the intake hose.

Sorry if I sound stupid but I have only had this car for a month and it has been to cold to really tear into it to look around and I haven't had much luck finding mods for the car.

fubar569
02-28-06, 03:12 AM
i ran a k&n drop-in on my 2002 GT and noticed a drop in times at the drag strip. of course i also coupled that with a 75mm TB and aftermarket upper plenum.

i was eager to see about running a custon intake on the deville, but my brainstorm would've relocated the PCM slightly along with the windshield washer fluid tank...i wanted to come right off the TB and down into the fender for a cold air type setup.

any thoughts on this if you went the whole nine yards and redid everything with a sort of straight shot CAI like i mentioned?

danbuc
02-28-06, 05:27 PM
I would advise reading all the previous posts made on this thread.

Here's a quick summary:

Cone filter= Worthless wast of time and money on a N*

K&N filter= Worthless waste of time and money on a N*

Modding airbox= Hasn't proven to be detrimental or beneicial....who knows, will likely do nothing for performance though.

Cold Air intake= Great if you wanna hydrolock you engine in a heavy rain storm, otherwise not that beneficial to the N*.

Big_Caddy_Shack
02-28-06, 11:56 PM
when you put it that way danbuc it seems that the only thing outta this post I should consider is a regular fram filter.

but I would still like to possibly make some sort of straight pipe to the airbox. who knows...when it gets warmer out or when I can put it in someones garage maybe I'll look at it more indepth and try and figure out something. All I really want is to hear that DEEP Throaty sound that I know that N* can produce...but I want everyone to be able to hear it also....lol

CadillacSTS42005
03-01-06, 12:44 AM
i put 2 K&Ns in my crossfire Trans AM. they really help. however it really didnt preform well in my ETC for the 50 i paid for it

danbuc
03-01-06, 05:35 PM
when you put it that way danbuc it seems that the only thing outta this post I should consider is a regular fram filter.

but I would still like to possibly make some sort of straight pipe to the airbox. who knows...when it gets warmer out or when I can put it in someones garage maybe I'll look at it more indepth and try and figure out something. All I really want is to hear that DEEP Throaty sound that I know that N* can produce...but I want everyone to be able to hear it also....lol

Do you have that big resonance chamber on top of your intake tube leading from the airbox to the MAF sensor? If you have that, you can remove it and plug the hole, and that will gie you that induction whine everytime you floor it. I pulled mine off to make it easier to reach the transmission fluid level dipstick, and change the filter. It does sound cool thoguh with it off. If you reall wanted, you could get a small section of PVC and some angled adapters and try using that instead of the ridged tube that it there now. You would need to drill a hole for the IAT but that's easy. Who know's, that might work pretty good. ALso, being white, it will absorb less heat than the stock black rubber tubing as well. That might be worth a shot. I would use the same diameter as the stock tuning (about 3" I think?). The PVC will provide a smoother path for the air.

Hmmm...the more I think about it, the more I wonder if that might help. I bet I could fab something up real quick, and test it at the track on friday. That would sure help determine if it makes a difference.