: K&N Intake...I want one!



SL1CK
03-12-06, 03:10 AM
Ok guys, so I've been searching for a K&N intake all over and can't find one for the 1996 Seville STS...did they make one for it or what? I've seen pictures of a 95 that had it..the 95 and 96 aren't too much different...either that or he got it custom? Anyone know where I can get one or something?

dkozloski
03-12-06, 03:26 AM
It's hard to believe that any auto enthusiast that frequents this forum would have so little regard for the well being of his engine that he would put a K&N filter on it. These things are an abomination no matter how you look at them. Before you start feeding a steady diet of dirt to your engine please have a look at this link. It would be like feeding your kids out of the cat litter box. http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm

Katshot
03-12-06, 07:45 AM
I think that's a gross exaggeration there. The K&N is the best with respect to performance and although it doesn't filter dirt as well as some others, the question should be asked, does it filter enough?
It's kind of like saying that the HVAC system in the average home is dangerous and does a terrible job when compared to a hospital-grade system. Yeah, the hospital grade system DOES do a better job but unless you NEED that level of clean air, it's value is certainly in question. Cleaner is better, right? The point is at what point do you say that the air is "clean enough" for your use?

Tailfin
03-12-06, 08:01 AM
I have never personally used a K&N filter...and I never will... 50 bucks for an AIR FILTER? I saw a little display for them at Advance Auto, where you can switch it with a normal filter and the K&N one allows more flow, as they show by it keeping a ping pong ball afloat whilst the other doesn't. And yeah, the question then came to my mind of if I put the other one in there, would just as much more dirt as air get in there? I don't know, but even if not, the amount of difference is surely not 45 bucks of difference. I highly suspect they're making a rather disgusting profit margin on these things. It reminds me of oil additives. I doubt the manufacturing cost would be that high if it were made of pure kevlar.

Katshot
03-12-06, 10:28 AM
Not sure what specific filters your talking about but you need to remember that the K&N is reusable. When comparing reusable to throw-away, the long term price is actually rather cheap.

Tailfin
03-12-06, 10:36 AM
That is something to consider, but my car has almost 150K on it, and I still have spent nowhere near that on air filters. They're not something you have to replace all that often unless you live in the desert or something. I don't know, maybe I'd try one if I were sure it protected as well. Anyone got one they'd like to take to the beach and see if it sifts any sand? ;)

Ranger
03-12-06, 11:40 AM
Assuming 30K factory recommended filter changes, $50 for a K&N and $6 (what I pay) for a Fram air filter, the break even point is 250K.

Katshot
03-12-06, 12:25 PM
Okay, if we want to get into this to any "meaningful" level, you need to be able to think about the big picture here.
On one hand, you have some people claiming that there's such a need for extremely high filter efficiency because of the fear of getting gobs of dirt into their engines, and on the other hand you have guys like me that feel that filters like a K&N do a "good enough" job in most instances. And now you have a new wrinkle. Guys that just plain feel the K&N is too damn expensive. Let's look at the facts here.

If you believe there's a very real threat of dirt injestion, then you SHOULD be replacing your filters quite often. Why? Because if there's THAT much dirt in the area you drive in, it will greatly reduce useful filter life. And if that's the case, a reusable filter is FAR more cost-effective. Another very real issue that goes hand in hand here is the cost of fuel and performance. If you operate in such a dirty environment, the filter gets clogged much faster and therefore the flow characteristics of the filter also get compromised rather quickly as well. As the flow capability is reduced (or restriction increased, however you want to look at it), your performance and fuel economy are also reduced. So unless you're changing your filter A LOT, your fuel economy is going to be less than optimal for the majority of the filter's life. In our fleet, we usually changed our filters approx. every 10K miles. That's not to say that the filter was clogged in 10K miles, it was just that I felt that enough of it was that my fuel mileage was being adversely effected. And since we were driving well over 100K miles per year on our cars, even a small reduction in MPG meant BIG MONEY over the period of a year. I was buying filters for something like $2.00 so it was a cheap way to maintain maximum fuel mileage.
Are you starting to grasp the theory here folks? You can't have it both ways. If you believe that you NEED a filter that can catch damn near anything then you MUST realize that you are saying that you understand you will be changing said filter rairly often.
Now you can also think about the opposite. If you only have to change your filter every 50K miles or so, you are NOT operating in a dirty environment, and for that reason, I would say that you should have no worries about using a freer flowing filter like a K&N.

Ranger
03-12-06, 12:47 PM
First off, a dirty filter will not affect milage on a fuel injected car like it will on a carburated car. The filter gets clogged, lets in less air, the MAF senses it and the PCM reduces fuel flow, unlike a carburator which will make up the difference of less air with more fuel.

Secondly, this has been discussed in great detail before. I recall our old guru saying that you can't get any better performance than no air filter at all. He gave a very easy way to plumb in a vacuum guage and check the difference between a K&N and a paper filter. Infact, I think he even did it if I recall correctly and the difference was none existant. Bottom line was that the paper filter would flow all the air that the engine could take at WOT and was not the restricting factor. The TB bore is.

dkozloski
03-12-06, 02:31 PM
Look at the link. It quantifies the dirt ingestion vs. air flow argument as measured on a $238,000 machine. It only takes 1 teaspoon of dirt in the intake to throughly ruin an engine in an eight hour day. It takes about 1 mile trapped behind the street sweeping machine to accomplish this. All this in pursuit of a roaring sound from the intake system. K&N made their name with foam replacement filters for the motocross racers. The selling point was that they didn't collapse when they got wet and full of mud. Unless you submerge your Caddy there isn't much chance of that. Each car owner has his priorities. Style vs. substance.

danbuc
03-12-06, 03:05 PM
People also forget the long term affects of oil buildup on the MAF sesnor that can eventually ruin it too. Of course, this usually only happens when people overdo it with the oil, which they do.

I had a K&N filter on my old Mustang. I thought it performed pretty well, but it was an enitrely different animal than the N*. I think the real question is not so much whether it will cause harm, or how long it will last,...ect. The real question is does it really increase the performance level of the N*. The answer....NO. I think that's it's pretty much been beaten to death here, but the gereral consensus is that it's shows no reasonably increase in performance for how much it costs. Myself, as well as many others even noticed a decrease in low end power (which is here these cars are most lacking). Most of this has to do with the lower restriction of the filter. It's flows a higher volume of air, but reduces the overall velocity. This gives you more top end power, but less low end which hurts acceleration. In short, a K&N may help you achieve a higher sustained top speed, but it would hurt you 60' times at the track (if you took your car to the track that is).

mycaddy94
03-12-06, 07:13 PM
Hey i have a good setup, its cheap and easy, goto your local shop and get a K&N filter for a 97-98 Chevy silverado for the 5.7 liter motor. Take out your existing air box and filter, leave your stock hose in place. put the end of the filter inside the factory tube and clamp it down using the factory hose clamp. It wedges nicely between the radiator support and the factory tube. Any questions just message me.

fubar569
03-12-06, 10:23 PM
so it sucks more hot engine compartment air...good call

danbuc
03-12-06, 10:34 PM
Hey i have a good setup, its cheap and easy, goto your local shop and get a K&N filter for a 97-98 Chevy silverado for the 5.7 liter motor. Take out your existing air box and filter, leave your stock hose in place. put the end of the filter inside the factory tube and clamp it down using the factory hose clamp. It wedges nicely between the radiator support and the factory tube. Any questions just message me.

Good setup my ass...my more restrictive stock air box suckin in air at ambient ouside temp (say 80 degrees +-5) will perform much, much better than your less restrictive intake sucking in 150-200+ degree air from under the hood. Just think about what your saying...:thepan: :nono:

dkozloski
03-12-06, 10:40 PM
An interesting aspect of the testing results is that not only does the stock AC Delco filter, filter out more dirt it also holds more dirt before becoming restricted because of the much greater surface area. The only benefit of The K&N is the testosterone boost from the roaring noise from the intake. Maybe you could clip a playing card to the fender where it would hit the spokes on the wheels and save you a lot of money.

danbuc
03-12-06, 11:11 PM
Haha...playing cards....that's sounds like a pretty sweet idea to me, maybe I should try that too.:histeric:

The '98 and up model Sevilles had that funky resonance chamber attached to the intake blocking the path to the tranny fluid cap/level indicator. I pulled it off and plugged it to make it easier to check the fluid and change the air filters. Wouldn't you know, I know have this bad ass induction whine, just like a K&N but without the hassle of all that money, and lost low end torque.

Katshot
03-13-06, 08:08 AM
First off, a dirty filter will not affect milage on a fuel injected car like it will on a carburated car. The filter gets clogged, lets in less air, the MAF senses it and the PCM reduces fuel flow, unlike a carburator which will make up the difference of less air with more fuel.

Secondly, this has been discussed in great detail before. I recall our old guru saying that you can't get any better performance than no air filter at all. He gave a very easy way to plumb in a vacuum guage and check the difference between a K&N and a paper filter. Infact, I think he even did it if I recall correctly and the difference was none existant. Bottom line was that the paper filter would flow all the air that the engine could take at WOT and was not the restricting factor. The TB bore is.

#1 That would be at least partially true if your car was never in "Open-Loop" but, since it DOES run in Open-Loop a decent amount, AND you probably DO open it up from time to time (WOT takes the sensors out of the equation you know) so a clogged air filter DOES effect your fuel mileage.
#2 I don't doubt for a second that someone here probably HAS done something like that. Pardon me if I find that just a little less than conclusive test data. Even IF the procedure used WAS conclusive, it would only be so with respect to that specific vehicle. There's a multitude of variables that would have to be discussed and taken into account prior to being able to actually validate any findings.

Tailfin
03-13-06, 09:16 AM
It does seem this is a little too theoretical. And I'll go ahead and make it worse... I think intuitively, the solution is to go back to some basic principles of physics. You can't get something for nothing. If more air is getting through the K&N filter, it HAS to take less force for it to do so. The question is how big can a dirt particle be (given however many per a certain time period) and still be burned right out of the engine having no effect? If the K&N lets anything more through, then no good. But anyway, again, it's just a principle we have to live with. The air filter does not affect the environment around it aside from structural properties, so it is not giving us any extra energy. That makes any facts or conjecture about it a double-edged sword. If it stands up better to moisture, then it's either going to let more moisture into the engine, or less air. Meanwhile, the conventional filters don't allow much moisture in, but they do absorb it. Basically, the material and construction work best if they're at the "peak of the parabola." Now..as for what that is...I certainly have no clue.

I'd be willing to use a K&N if it were simply better for the engine. But since the filter was designed to improve flow, which the Caddies don't need, then I shy away from it. Cadillacs are not weak cars...they will get you where you want to go, up any hill, etc... If you need more power from one, then you either have a serious inferiority complex, or are into street racing. In either case, a "performance" air filter is not going to satisfy your oversupply of testosterone or checkered flag by any stretch of the imagination. If you want performance, there are plenty of places to start modifying your car besides clipping its nosehairs.

Katshot
03-13-06, 11:54 AM
It does seem this is a little too theoretical. And I'll go ahead and make it worse... I think intuitively, the solution is to go back to some basic principles of physics. You can't get something for nothing. If more air is getting through the K&N filter, it HAS to take less force for it to do so. The question is how big can a dirt particle be (given however many per a certain time period) and still be burned right out of the engine having no effect? If the K&N lets anything more through, then no good. But anyway, again, it's just a principle we have to live with. The air filter does not affect the environment around it aside from structural properties, so it is not giving us any extra energy. That makes any facts or conjecture about it a double-edged sword. If it stands up better to moisture, then it's either going to let more moisture into the engine, or less air. Meanwhile, the conventional filters don't allow much moisture in, but they do absorb it. Basically, the material and construction work best if they're at the "peak of the parabola." Now..as for what that is...I certainly have no clue.

I'd be willing to use a K&N if it were simply better for the engine. But since the filter was designed to improve flow, which the Caddies don't need, then I shy away from it. Cadillacs are not weak cars...they will get you where you want to go, up any hill, etc... If you need more power from one, then you either have a serious inferiority complex, or are into street racing. In either case, a "performance" air filter is not going to satisfy your oversupply of testosterone or checkered flag by any stretch of the imagination. If you want performance, there are plenty of places to start modifying your car besides clipping its nosehairs.

Damn, you had me right until the last paragraph. While I agree that "if" you don't want to increase the performance of your car, there's certainly no need to modify the air filter (or anything else for that matter), I disagree that there's no need to do so in the first place. Hell, the whole point of this thread suggests that there is a want or need for greater performance.

Zorb750
03-13-06, 03:06 PM
Yeah but even for those of us with exhaust, it doesn't improve anything to put the K&N on it. The FIPK like thing actually cuts performance measurably. The Northstar has an excellent air pickup. It doesn't draw in warm air, it does flow very well, much more than the car needs.

I tried with vs without after my exhaust work. It didn't do a thing at all at the strip. Average of 10 runs was actually .04 slower with, but that doesn't mean anything - that could be wind.

Katshot
03-13-06, 03:32 PM
Yeah but even for those of us with exhaust, it doesn't improve anything to put the K&N on it. The FIPK like thing actually cuts performance measurably. The Northstar has an excellent air pickup. It doesn't draw in warm air, it does flow very well, much more than the car needs.

I tried with vs without after my exhaust work. It didn't do a thing at all at the strip. Average of 10 runs was actually .04 slower with, but that doesn't mean anything - that could be wind.

Where did you come up with this?
"The FIPK like thing actually cuts performance measurably."
Talk about mis-information!

Zorb750
03-13-06, 08:00 PM
On the Cadillac it does. Hey it weorks on my Jeep, and will work on your Fleetwood. Just not Northstar powered Cadillac.

http://www.caddyinfo.com/airboxvscone.htm

SL1CK
03-13-06, 10:56 PM
Dang guys, I just asked for some input on where I could get a K&N Filter...but I will research more on this topc and make a choice.....thanks

Zorb750
03-14-06, 04:54 AM
Just keep the airbox whatever you do. If it makes you feel better to put the K&N, go for it. I doubt the reduction in particle entrapment efficiency will hurt your car. I seriously ran mine both ways, staggered, with, then without, after I had my exhaust and other minor work done, and even with a larger tb, it made no measurable difference. Anything that eliminates your airbox will take in hot air. These cars have really high under hood temperatures, and your factory airbox pickup provides a very good source of cool air, as well as some cooling airflow for some of the car's electronics. Remember that before you listen to the idiot at the auto parts store or Ramchargers or something telling you how his brother put that on his Cadillac and it made it so much faster. (as if the brother in question actually ever owned or would own a Cadillac...)

Katshot
03-14-06, 05:50 AM
On the Cadillac it does. Hey it weorks on my Jeep, and will work on your Fleetwood. Just not Northstar powered Cadillac.

http://www.caddyinfo.com/airboxvscone.htm

I would respectfully suggest that the "test" you are using to qualify your statements isn't worth the bandwidth it's taking up. What that guy did is SO FAR from what a "properly installed" CAI will do (let alone a K&N FIPK) it's not funny.

Katshot
03-14-06, 08:26 AM
Here's an interesting tidbit. Did you know that K&N GUARANTEES their FIPK to give you a boost in HP? Why do you think they'd do that if the kits didn't work? Read it for yourself:

http://www.knfilters.com/HPGuarantee.htm

Tailfin
03-14-06, 08:35 AM
Damn, you had me right until the last paragraph. While I agree that "if" you don't want to increase the performance of your car, there's certainly no need to modify the air filter (or anything else for that matter), I disagree that there's no need to do so in the first place. Hell, the whole point of this thread suggests that there is a want or need for greater performance.

Yeah sorry, didn't really mean to introduce my subjective opinions as well, but I guess I did. However, I was only saying that it's not necessary to improve performance on these cars for everyday driving. Also, that if we're talking about improving performance, then the air filter is not where to start. As I started to get into, without even doing experiments, it's not that good an idea. The simple fact is a stationary object cannot do any work except for its own static force, withstanding whatever forces applied to it which it's able to....and that kind of force is not free...it has to come from somewhere... Like the air box withstands the air going through it, but creates a drag on that air.

The only advantage that can be gained here is that "peak." The engine needs more cool air for more power. For more air, it's just a question of that particle size which the engine can tolerate as I mentioned. Once that's established, then the material must have gaps in it just small enough to stop those particles. After that, the material must be one that creates the least friction and will still hold up and do that job....or a mix of these concepts...say a slightly higher friction-inducing material causes particles to get caught more...or even if ionizing it had any effect...but again, that energy would have to come from somewhere, and you can't gain more than you lose. As for temperature, it is virtually unaffected by the filter, but again, the lower friction would be ideal if it even were enough to care about. Basically, I believe the air filter is like your fingernails. They can hurt someone, but I don't care how much milk you drink, they're not going to turn into throwing knives.

The only way I could see making this better is maybe something like the shop vac principle. Wet shop vacs can vacuum up liquid, but obviously, they don't get the motor wet....as the motor is in a chamber, which is, in turn, depressurized because the air has no other escape...but it is not strong enough to pull liquids up, just gas. Solids, even small ones, probably have a hard time too. This uses gravity, one of our free forces, to our advantage, albiet very mildly. If this were used in cars, and the air had to be sucked UP into the throttle body, for one thing, it would make it MUCH harder for liquid to enter the engine on one of those hurricane/puddle days. Also, not nearly as much dirt would get up there...and thus, you would be able to use a more "flowing" filter without compromising the cleanliness of the engine. What I would do is have the air intake designed like this:

http://photobucket.com/albums/d66/Holonet/?action=view&current=TB.jpg

I realize this isn't exactly different from a lot of intakes out there. The tube going down and being enclosed would allow the air to be cooled without picking up stuff like water, etc... (provided it was directed not near the exhaust). The issue with that, is if you have a larger volume in the airbox, it takes a greater vacuum force to suck the air in at the same speed. Also, sucking in a greater amount of air at the same speed would nullify most of the advantage from whatever might have been there due to gravity, and suck the particles in more effectively. Come to think of it, this wouldn't work any better in practice, I have a strong feeling... I think you get the point :tongue2:

Katshot
03-14-06, 08:39 AM
And with regards to the filter efficiency of the K&N filters:

(From the K&N website)

Air filters are not rated by micron size on an absolute basis. (See technical service bulletin 89-5R from the Filter Manufacturer's Council) The proper rating system for air filters is a testing procedure developed to measure the efficiency of the filtration media at varying micron sizes. We routinely subject a sample of our air filters to this testing procedure conducted by independent laboratories. The primary purpose of this testing is to ensure that our air filter designs meet or exceed automotive industry standards. Until recently filtration tests were performed in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineer's (SAE) J726 testing procedure, however, we now use the ISO 5011procedure which that superseded the SAE procedure.

The content of the test dust used in accordance with the SAE testing procedure is as follows:

Particle Size in Microns --- % by Volume (+/- 3%)
<5.5 -------------- 13
5.5 to 11 ----------- 11
11 to 22 ----------- 13
22 to 44 ----------- 19
44 to 88 ----------- 28
88 to 176 ----------- 16

Our testing has demonstrated that on average, K&N air filters have an overall efficiency rating of between 97 and 99%. With proper cleaning K&N air filters will protect your engine for the life of your vehicle

Tailfin
03-14-06, 08:43 AM
Here's an interesting tidbit. Did you know that K&N GUARANTEES their FIPK to give you a boost in HP? Why do you think they'd do that if the kits didn't work? Read it for yourself:

http://www.knfilters.com/HPGuarantee.htm

Well, I'm not saying K&N is one way or the other for sure, but I would not support that guarantee as a reason why they do. From a business standpoint, they know very well that well over 90% of people will not bother confronting them on such a guarantee, I'm guessing 95% wouldn't know if it had made a difference or not, and the 1% that could actually afford to dyno their car before and after an air filter are made up of a few groups...those that wouldn't buy one in the first place, those that wouldn't bother with such a thorough check on the claims, and the remaining who would likely not be enough to confront a company. These are just figures I made up, but it stands to reason that's the sort of situation you have. It's true that some of the snake oils have been caught with their pants down, but we don't have any way of knowing what's been gotten away with...and the products sell even after lawsuits, so the company probably doesn't give a rat's putoot. Maybe K&N rocks, maybe it will face a lawsuit of its own if it gets popular enough. This is not evidence at all though, it is psychology in its most wretched form.

Tailfin
03-14-06, 08:46 AM
And with regards to the filter efficiency of the K&N filters:

(From the K&N website)

Air filters are not rated by micron size on an absolute basis. (See technical service bulletin 89-5R from the Filter Manufacturer's Council) The proper rating system for air filters is a testing procedure developed to measure the efficiency of the filtration media at varying micron sizes. We routinely subject a sample of our air filters to this testing procedure conducted by independent laboratories. The primary purpose of this testing is to ensure that our air filter designs meet or exceed automotive industry standards. Until recently filtration tests were performed in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineer's (SAE) J726 testing procedure, however, we now use the ISO 5011procedure which that superseded the SAE procedure.

The content of the test dust used in accordance with the SAE testing procedure is as follows:

Particle Size in Microns --- % by Volume (+/- 3%)
<5.5 -------------- 13
5.5 to 11 ----------- 11
11 to 22 ----------- 13
22 to 44 ----------- 19
44 to 88 ----------- 28
88 to 176 ----------- 16

Our testing has demonstrated that on average, K&N air filters have an overall efficiency rating of between 97 and 99%. With proper cleaning K&N air filters will protect your engine for the life of your vehicle

Call them up and ask them how they arrived at these conclusions. Ask them what laboratories they used to determine this, and where you can get documented information on it. 10 to 1, they tell you that they "cannot disclose that for proprietary reasons." :nono:

Katshot
03-14-06, 08:57 AM
Feel free to read for yourself but bottom line, you have a hard-on for K&N and nothing seems likely to change your mind. There's just no way to PROVE every little point you or anyone else might try to bring up. IMO though, K&N goes MUCH further in proving their claims about their products than any of their competitors and their long-standing relationships with many well-respected organizations would seem to back up their reputation. Whether YOU like it or not, there's a reason why they're the #1 supplier of performance air filters in the world and it ain't just HYPE!

http://www.knfilters.com/filter_facts.htm#RESULTS

Tailfin
03-14-06, 09:13 AM
LOL, calm down, the object isn't to turn it into an argument. I'm just posing one possible alternative. I didn't say K&N was all hype, I just said that it's possible, and simply that what a company says about itself is not even approaching proof. It is indeed true that you can't PROVE all those little things, but unfortunately, a lot of companies have capitalized on that very fact. If you can't prove something, you can't disprove it either.

My position is not that they are necessarily bad, but that it is reasonable to be skeptical. Prolong seemed to go a long way toward supporting its claims too, by running an engine dry of oil after treatment... Turned out that when this was tested (By Briggs & Straton), the engine did it anyway, and was, of course, severely damaged, but had nothing to do with the Prolong...just good engine design.

A number of companies have also established themselves by doing good work in one area, and not in others. Reputation is not relevant to quality. Like I'd buy a multimeter at Wal-Mart, but I sure as hell wouldn't buy a spark plug from them (aside from cleaning my engine :cool2: ).

What I was talking about has nothing to do whether I like it or not. You did say "IMO," then said whether I like it or not. First, it was your opinion, and a sentence later, it's a fact? This is not a contest. I don't care if K&N is good or bad...it doesn't affect me. These are just my opinions and suspicions, and that's all you should take them as. They can't prove it, but they can do better than a ping-pong ball display in Advance Auto.

I'll try not to repeat myself too much, but just to sum up, I only think there is cause for suspicion, nothing definite. I do not see why they had to have "independent" laboratories do the testing. It's just that that's one of many of the same lines used by scam-type products over the years. It's often been the result because no laboratory would put their name up and support findings which they did not make. In fact, on the contrary, I would LOVE K&N to boost my engine efficiency, but I have seen no reason to believe it yet. Maybe it's true, but I simply put skepticism before faith on products that seem to have a multiple-hundred percent profit margin for the proprietors.

Dooman
03-14-06, 09:28 AM
I've had one my my STS since 2000. Just the filter, no intake system. That sticker on my airbox alone was worth the $50 to me... I just wish it came with two so I could put one on my truck!

Katshot
03-14-06, 10:27 AM
LOL, calm down, the object isn't to turn it into an argument. I'm just posing one possible alternative. I didn't say K&N was all hype, I just said that it's possible, and simply that what a company says about itself is not even approaching proof. It is indeed true that you can't PROVE all those little things, but unfortunately, a lot of companies have capitalized on that very fact. If you can't prove something, you can't disprove it either.

My position is not that they are necessarily bad, but that it is reasonable to be skeptical. Prolong seemed to go a long way toward supporting its claims too, by running an engine dry of oil after treatment... Turned out that when this was tested (By Briggs & Straton), the engine did it anyway, and was, of course, severely damaged, but had nothing to do with the Prolong...just good engine design.

A number of companies have also established themselves by doing good work in one area, and not in others. Reputation is not relevant to quality. Like I'd buy a multimeter at Wal-Mart, but I sure as hell wouldn't buy a spark plug from them (aside from cleaning my engine :cool2: ).

What I was talking about has nothing to do whether I like it or not. You did say "IMO," then said whether I like it or not. First, it was your opinion, and a sentence later, it's a fact? This is not a contest. I don't care if K&N is good or bad...it doesn't affect me. These are just my opinions and suspicions, and that's all you should take them as. They can't prove it, but they can do better than a ping-pong ball display in Advance Auto.

I'll try not to repeat myself too much, but just to sum up, I only think there is cause for suspicion, nothing definite. I do not see why they had to have "independent" laboratories do the testing. It's just that that's one of many of the same lines used by scam-type products over the years. It's often been the result because no laboratory would put their name up and support findings which they did not make. In fact, on the contrary, I would LOVE K&N to boost my engine efficiency, but I have seen no reason to believe it yet. Maybe it's true, but I simply put skepticism before faith on products that seem to have a multiple-hundred percent profit margin for the proprietors.

All I can say is you bring new meaning to the word skeptic.

dkozloski
03-14-06, 04:58 PM
Back in the old dirt track days we used to tie old nylon stockings over the air inlet. That ought to keep the rocks out at least as well as a K&N filter. With todays pantyhose you have dual intakes covered as well.

Tailfin
03-14-06, 05:33 PM
Back in the old dirt track days we used to tie old nylon stockings over the air inlet. That ought to keep the rocks out at least as well as a K&N filter. With todays pantyhose you have dual intakes covered as well.

:histeric:Haha, that actually sounds like an excellent idea... Stretchy, so you can adjust it in a way...strong, low friction material...and a good medium for moisture, I'd think as well.

RagingSamster
03-14-06, 05:59 PM
I was throwing money at a project car I had (an 85 TA - 5L TPI) after yanking the 5L and putting in a 5.7 and larger injectors (it was MAF, so at least it ran afterwards!) I ran it with a paper filter, and then replaced it with a K&N, I noticed immediate increase in power, but that is all "seat of the pants" data. the one test that I did that was somewhat less so was on a particular strip of road I launched the car from a stop. without the KN nothing with the KN I cleanly broke traction.

If K&N say their filter works then I'll give it a try if Cadillac says it won't hurt. I've had good luck with my first K&N, although I'm not much into 'breaking 'em loose" anymore. If you are making more power at the same throttle position, you should be able to run at a given load with a lessor throttle position - saving gas.

I'll wait til I get a good AVG MPG set and then give the K&N a shot and see if ther's any inpmrovement - I'm hitting around 19 in city, if I get 10% return in efficiency, I'd consider that $50.00 well spent.

Tailfin
03-14-06, 06:43 PM
That sounds good...but we still don't know if it's allowing too much dirt in as an expense. It wouldn't seem like it, depending on the environment... Though if you've got new oil in there or anything, maybe that can provide a gauge by how fast it gets dirty. *shrug*

fubar569
03-14-06, 07:12 PM
i'm probably due up for a tuneup, so i'll be inserting a paper filter for the time being. i will not be switching to a K&N until (and i still might not) i relocate the washer fluid and PCM and dig into the fender for a custom cold air setup. it shouldn't let anymore moisture in than stock due to the placement i'm considering and should allow for a greater draw of cooler air.

this is all just a theoretical plan. i might not even do it, but it's an idea.

auroradude
03-17-06, 01:19 AM
I run a K&N panel filter. I have to wonder, since the airbox has a light dusting to it past the filter now, if its doing much more harm to the motor. I change oil every 2.5k-3k anyway because of this situation to be absolutely safe, but I still wonder if its wearing away at a bearing a little bit or something.

davesdeville
03-17-06, 05:39 AM
I'm fairly skeptical of any HP gain on a northstar. I did back to back runs at ABQ dragway, first with filter, second without an air filter, still with the stock airbox. I saw a .03 second increase in times, then again the ambient temp was rising... even if there's a gain it's a tiny gain not worth fooling with IMO.

Katshot
03-17-06, 05:58 AM
I'm fairly skeptical of any HP gain on a northstar. I did back to back runs at ABQ dragway, first with filter, second without an air filter, still with the stock airbox. I saw a .03 second increase in times, then again the ambient temp was rising... even if there's a gain it's a tiny gain not worth fooling with IMO.

Hell, even doing nothing to the car in between runs, it would be hard to keep a .03sec. consistency. This example tells nothing. The only absolute way to verify any actual power gains is going to be on a dyno, especially since the "expected" gains are only maybe 10hp or so.

Tailfin
03-17-06, 07:37 AM
Hell, even doing nothing to the car in between runs, it would be hard to keep a .03sec. consistency.

I think that was his point... Even removing the filter entirely had pretty much similar results for him as doing nothing to the car....so it would be logical to assume that a different sort of filter, no matter how "high flow" it is would not make a worthy difference.

Katshot
03-17-06, 08:02 AM
You're missing MY point.
In any type of comparison test, if the expected variance between tests is greater than or equal to the expected gain or loss, there's realistically no way to draw a useful conclusion from the results. For that reason, I'm saying that doing a relatively uncontrolled drag strip test to qualify the benefits of using an aftermarket panel filter is useless.
My reasoning for saying this is that even if we were talking about a relatively "controlled" drag strip test, the expected variance between runs would be as great as the expected gains from the filter change.
You have to understand that a simple filter change is NOT going to net much of a power difference, maybe a couple horsepower or so, and that's just not going to be able to be verified by this type of test.
Another perfect example of this type of problem with respect to testing is:
Suppose you have a product that is GUARANTEED to boost you gas mileage by at least 10%. How do you verify that? I've tried, and it's virtually impossible to do so. That doesn't mean the product doesn't give the claimed boost in MPG, it simply means you can't verify it. Imean, think about it, 10% "seems like a nice increase, right? But in real world numbers, most of us here would be talking about a 1-2MPG gain and that's virtually impossible to verify since I'd bet that you get at least that as a +/- variance now between tankfuls.
Sorry but when you start talking about gains that small, you MUST have a more controlled test procedure than we are discussing here.
Now if you're talking a full CAI system, that's another story. The possible gain from that is far greater and for that reason "should" be more easily verified.

Tailfin
03-17-06, 02:27 PM
I didn't mean to say you didn't have a point, just that the points you were both making were not relevant to each other.

I agree, an experiment has to be controlled in order to be reputable. I remember reading a few articles...I think it was Popular Mechanics, where people tested the oil additives and those ridiculous fuel magnets, tornado air intakes, etc... They did very controlled experiments on those swindler products and found that the best result was "no change." Don't jump on me, I didn't read this about K&N lol...

Anyhoo, what he said was that if there is a gain, it's a tiny one, and for him that's not worth fooling with. Maybe it is for someone else, but his point was not that there was no difference, but that the difference wasn't worth bothering with. You actually seem to agree in a sense that the difference is very small, because of that very fact that you need a very controlled environment to notice it.

chevelle
03-17-06, 03:29 PM
Here's an interesting tidbit. Did you know that K&N GUARANTEES their FIPK to give you a boost in HP? Why do you think they'd do that if the kits didn't work? Read it for yourself:

http://www.knfilters.com/HPGuarantee.htm


Those magnets that clip to your fuel line also GUARANTEE to improve fuel economy. Do you believe that also.

chevelle
03-17-06, 03:35 PM
The idea that an airfilter will improve fuel economy on an electronic port fuel injected engine is ludicrous. Even if the filter is extremely restrictive so as to be, in effect, the throttling point at cruise speeds, it wouldn't affect the fuel economy of the system. Between the MAF and the MAP sensors the PCM knows exactly how much air is going into the engine and puts the correct amount of fuel. This is not affected by the air filter being the throttling point even if taken the extreme.

In reality, the OEM air filter and air box is so far overcapacity for the air flow at "fuel economy" operating conditions that it is virtually impossible for any air filter element to flow more than another one or cause less restriction. Even if it did, it wouldn't affect the fuel delivery of the fuel injection system.

Carburetors were significantly affected by even very small changes in pressure drop across the carb so a dirty or restrictive air filter element could indeed cause a loss in fuel economy. This just does not happen with a fuel injected system so any claims of improved economy due to an air filter, K&N or otherwise, are figments of someone's imagination.

Katshot
03-17-06, 08:59 PM
The idea that an airfilter will improve fuel economy on an electronic port fuel injected engine is ludicrous. Even if the filter is extremely restrictive so as to be, in effect, the throttling point at cruise speeds, it wouldn't affect the fuel economy of the system. Between the MAF and the MAP sensors the PCM knows exactly how much air is going into the engine and puts the correct amount of fuel. This is not affected by the air filter being the throttling point even if taken the extreme.

In reality, the OEM air filter and air box is so far overcapacity for the air flow at "fuel economy" operating conditions that it is virtually impossible for any air filter element to flow more than another one or cause less restriction. Even if it did, it wouldn't affect the fuel delivery of the fuel injection system.

Carburetors were significantly affected by even very small changes in pressure drop across the carb so a dirty or restrictive air filter element could indeed cause a loss in fuel economy. This just does not happen with a fuel injected system so any claims of improved economy due to an air filter, K&N or otherwise, are figments of someone's imagination.

Do you understand the difference between open and closed loop operation? Do you not understand the concept of volumetric efficiency? Man, you guys just keep coming up with these statements that blow my mind.

fubar569
03-17-06, 09:44 PM
i like crayons..especially red ones

AlBundy
03-17-06, 10:03 PM
Katshot you seem to be very protective of the K&N filter system to the point of debating the effects of whether it works or not and I agree that by judgeing this effect solely on the N* seems to me to be a done deal. Not that it doesn't work but that it doesn't work well on a N*. .

eldorado1
03-17-06, 11:21 PM
Do you understand the difference between open and closed loop operation? Do you not understand the concept of volumetric efficiency? Man, you guys just keep coming up with these statements that blow my mind.

Think about it this way... Your engine runs at wide open throttle all the time. Thanks to the MAF sensor, the computer knows exactly how much air is entering the engine, and puts in the appropriate amount of fuel.

You start with a dirty filter. You're being robbed of horsepower...

You swap in a k&n filter. You gain airflow into the engine, which means more fuel. (and HP)

Therefore, k&n filter makes you use more fuel. :p

Lets pretend you gain 5hp on your WOT engine. Assume the brake specific fuel consumption is 0.45. That means your engine now uses 2.25 more pounds of fuel per hour. It's already using 135#/hr, which means you lose 1.6% of your fuel economy. So if you get 5 miles per gallon at wide open, you now get 4.92. Miniscule.

At anything less than wide open, you're not using the full flow capacity of the filter. Therefore, it doesn't matter at all. If the air filter was so clogged up with mud that it was like breathing through a straw..... And you floored it....... it would be like barely pressing the throttle, and no gas would enter the engine, because no air is entering the engine.

Maybe I should market the "straw filter" as a fuel economy device? You'd have the power of a weed whacker engine, but imagine the gas you'd save with 100mpg :p Naw, someone will just upstage me by giving away blocks of wood to put under the gas pedal.

fubar569
03-17-06, 11:33 PM
that method usually leaves about 6lbs of sawdust underneath my feet after about 3 days though...

1993 eldorado green1
03-18-06, 02:30 AM
before we get any further you need to check out www.thedieselstop.com (http://www.thedieselstop.com) its a ford diesel web forum, that doesnt mean anything to this site i know but you should read the write ups about the k&n filter. ill leave it at this,

1 every 7.3 turbo diesel that has a k&n filter no longer has a ford warranty

2 k&n refused to honor there own warranty motor replacement due to dusting

3 it has been proven with blackstone oil testing that the k&n lets in more dust then paper element filters

4 85% of the members with a dusted motor had a k&n filter when it happened

if these filters were so great ford would honor the 100k warranty on a dusted engine running them but in every situation ford denied the clamis and voided the warrantys.

k&n had a warranty that said they would replace the engine if it was damaged using there product and in every situation they quickly blammed it on the owner not installing it properly or not maintaining it properly.

for the powerstroke, thats a 10,000 motor and i would NEVER even consider running a k&n in my trucks. they should just stick to atv filters and such in my opinion there not worth taking the chance on dusting a motor...

SL1CK
03-18-06, 02:38 AM
Hm...how about I get a K&N filter...maintain and hope that it messes up, and hello BRAND NEW Northstar....hehehe

Zorb750
03-18-06, 02:44 AM
Another point is that K&N's warranty only goes so far as the filter. It replaces the failed filter, not your failed engine.

Tailfin
03-18-06, 07:53 AM
I pointed this out earlier...Of course it's guaranteed, there's no way in hell you can prove the filter is the cause of the engine problem.

I think, on most cars, open loop is just used to warm up the engine. The economy isn't going to be good until it gets to operating temperature anyway, and then the sensors regulate the mix, as has been pointed out, so the loop bit is really a moot point.

Volumetric efficiency is just the actual flow rate compared to the theoretical. That's affected by air density, temperature, etc... The aforementioned sensors adjust the fuel mix accordingly, as has been said. At a given RPM, the engine can take in a certain amount of air in order to reach full volumetric efficiency. If it can't, then you might lose a petty amount of power, but it's made up in economy because of the engine's ability to adjust the fuel. If you want a greater efficiency and you want that power, then I think it would be better to have a larger bore for the air intake. That would decrease the force necessary to pull air through it before the filter, and not risk the engine dusting (This is analagous to eldorado1's straw example). Once again, you can manipulate the intake to favor what you want, but the filter itself is of less consequence.

chevelle
03-18-06, 02:48 PM
Do you understand the difference between open and closed loop operation? Do you not understand the concept of volumetric efficiency? Man, you guys just keep coming up with these statements that blow my mind.


Kat, I could write you a text book on both subjects. I doubt that you would understand it, BTW.

What does closed loop and open loop operation have to do with it? Open loop operation just means that the system delivers the computed amount of fuel with no correction from the O2 sensor input. Open loop operation is used when the engine starts cold before the oxygen sensor is hot enough to provide adequate feed back. Once it is hot and sending good info the computer uses that info to go "closed loop" and control the air/fuel mixture based on the feedback. The computer is still calculating the basic pulsewidth for the injectors using open loop calculations....it just takes that value and modifies it using the O2 feedback for closed loop control. Anytime the system is running closed loop it is controlling the system to 14.7:1. Typically closed loop operation only is used at low throttle openings, part throttle cruising and accels. At heavy throttle openings the system goes back open loop as it commands a richer than 14.7:1 ratio for power, cat converter protection, engine protection, etc. So, only a small band of the engine operating conditions is affected by closed loop operation but it is the portion of the operating regime that the engine spends most of its time in.

Closed loop operation means that the computed "theoretical" fuel delivery is modified by the input from the O2 sensor so that the system is relying on feedback from the O2 to control at exactly 14.7:1.

Contrary to your earlier implications the closed loop operation would compensate for any supposed bias of the fueling by a dirty or clogged air filter. So.....if you really understand how the system works this would mean that there is absolutely NO WAY a K&N or dirty or other air filter would cause a loss in fuel economy. The "closed loop" system would correct for any fueling descrepancies caused by the air filter element and negate its effect. Simple.

As far as volumetric efficiency....that is simply the amount of air the engine is pumping relative to the maximum capacity of the engine....i.e...it's displacement. If the 4.6 liter Northstar is running at 4400 RPM it is pumping about 4.232 liters of air every two revolutions....so it is running at about 92% volumetric efficiency. This is at WIDE OPEN THROTTLE where only the pumping efficiency of the engine is in effect. This would be affected by a restricted air intake (causing restriction and less volumetric efficiency) or a restrictive exhaust system. Basically one improves the HP or Torque of the engine by improving the volumetric efficiency. A spark ignited gasoline engine (like the Northstar) is controlled by a throttle. The sole purpose of the throttle is to reduce the volumetric efficiency to control the output of the engine. At part throttle operation the volumetric efficiency of the engine is VERY LOW. The engine is pumping only a small fraction of its ultimate capacity...which is why it is making less power and not running away at maximum output. At idle the volumetric efficiency is so low that the engine is only taking in as much air as it takes to burn just enough fuel to make just enough power to overcome internal friction and idle at 600 RPM.

At part throttle conditions...i.e...cruising down the road at 55 MPH...when most people are concerned with "fuel economy" the engine is heavily throttled and is running at very low "volumetric efficiency". It is pumping only a small portion of its capacity. This means that the air flow thru the system and thru the air cleaner is far far below the maximum capacity of the system. Absolutely NO WAY is this amount of flow taxing the air cleaner or induction system and thus there is NO WAY that the air cleaner element (or substituting it with a K&N) is going to change the fuel economy.

At full throttle operation where max volumetric efficiency is desired the air cleaner element "could" cause a loss of VE and power IF it were the restriction in the system. With the Northstar inlet system the air box and air cleaner is NOT the restriction in the system so changing the element, removing it or replacing it with a K&N will have no effect. If you did other things to change the volumetric efficiency such as headers, exhaust, cam changes, porting, etc.. that would allow the engine to flow more air (make more power) then the air cleaner will become the restriction at some point. With a relatively stock engine it isn't.


So, Kat, glad you brought up the topics of closed loop and volumetric efficiency. A quick review of both principles proves that a K&N will have no effect on fuel economy or performance. Next time, just politely ask "why" instead of trying to make me look like an idiot.


BTW....just so you understand, there is a difference between unthrottled and wide open throttle. Any time the engine vacuum falls to zero ( or the MAP goes to the same value as ambient BARO) the engine is unthrottled and the volumetric efficiency is determined by the engine's pumping efficiency, not the throttle blades. The throttle blades can be only half open at low RPM and yet the engine will be unthrottled. Wide open throttle just means the throttle blades are wide open. At 2500 RPM for example, the engine will be unthrottled at 40 degrees of throttle opening so opening the throttle from 40 to 90 does not add any air flow or change the volumetric efficiency.

Night Wolf
03-18-06, 05:06 PM
Chevlle makes some really good points :). I have always been interested in volumetric efficenty of an engine....

In reguards to the Ford Powerstroke thing... well, I am on the Jeep site, and most everyone there dislikes the K&N as they say it lets alot more dust pass thru (see it on the intake system etc...)

I'll also say I have a K&N drop in panel filter on my 4.9, I haven't noticed a difference in power or MPG... though I have had this nearly as long as I have had the car... maybe I'll pick up a paper element and mess around with it for a while... but there are soo many variables...

Anyway... here are a couple more questions:

if K&N dosn't improve MPG.... what about HP/tq. at WOT?

Also, what about the cold air induction kits, either from K&N or any body else.... they have a greater filter area (using a cone filter) are positioned to gt colder, more dense air, and also have less bends and what not for a more streamlined flow to the TB..... do these CAI improve mileage, power or anything?

Zorb750
03-18-06, 05:32 PM
Same thing. If you can bring in enough air from your orifinal air induction, you gain nothing.

K&N things show gain for vehicles like my Grand Cherokee. The 6 and the V8 have the same airbox and intake up to the throttle body. It's ok for the 6, and dynos on the K&N kit by Off Road magazine a few years back showed only 4HP gain. That's very low for a $300 kit. On the 5.2 it was a different story. Chrysler went cheap by putting the same airbox on both trucks. the great thing is that it IS a very good cold air induction with the stock airbox, because it takes air from right next to and in front of the radiator. If you check with a scan tool, the induction temp is never more than 1-2 degrees above ambient at the IAT sensor. The K&N is actually a little warmer, but not badly so. With the V8, because its factory air induction is so undersized, the K&N gave it huge gains. There was a dyno provable 24HP gain. That's becuase the factory intake was choking the engine. Now the intake tubes on the Cadillac are significantly bigger than either of those cars, as are the filters. Are you telling me that the Cadillac 4.6 needs that much more air?

The Northstar was designed to win the horsepower race here. HP/Liter. They wanted it ahead of BMW and Mercedes. They wouldn't do that by putting it with a less than optimally sized intake, now would they?

eldorado1
03-18-06, 05:36 PM
if K&N dosn't improve MPG.... what about HP/tq. at WOT?


Yes, at the upper RPM range where the airflow is the highest. Say, 5500-6500 rpm.

chevelle
03-18-06, 06:32 PM
There is a very simple test to see if there is any inlet restriction. Put a sensitive vacuum gauge in the inlet system after the air filter element and before the throttle blades. Run the engine (on the road) at full throttle and max RPM. Watch the vacuum gauge. If there is any vacuum it indicates that the filter element/box is starting to create a restriction and is throttling the air flow. If there is no vacuum there is nothing to be gained with the inlet system. Period. Simple engineering.

Same with the throttle body and intake system. Put an accurate, sensitive vacuum guage on the intake and run the engine to max power. If you start to see any vacuum as the engine approaches 6500 or so then the inlet system is starting the throttle the engine and is becoming a restriction for power.

Cone elements rarely have the filter surface area (for flow) of the element in the Northstar system.


ENGINES 101

An engine is an air pump. The more air it pumps the more fuel it can burn. The more fuel it can burn the more power it can make.

It always starts with air flow. Without more airflow you cannot make more power. Period.

Here are your choices:

1. Increase the displacement (make it a bigger pump).

2. Rev it up higher (the same size pump spinning faster will pump more air - if you make the appropriate modifications to allow it to pump at higher RPM)

3. Increase the volumetric efficiency (this encompases the typical hot rodder approach of porting, polishing, bigger carb, different manifolds, etc.)

4. Put on a blower to force more air thru the engine.



These are your only options. Any mods you make or have heard of fall into one of these four options. Period. Any modern engine, especially one that makes over 1 Hp per cubic inch like the Northstar, is already heavily optimised for volumetric efficiency so making gains here is difficult, expensive and you are getting very little additional gain.

Then there is always nitrous....LOL....maybe that should be number five.

fubar569
03-18-06, 07:05 PM
There is a very simple test to see if there is any inlet restriction. Put a sensitive vacuum gauge in the inlet system after the air filter element and before the throttle blades. Run the engine (on the road) at full throttle and max RPM. Watch the vacuum gauge. If there is any vacuum it indicates that the filter element/box is starting to create a restriction and is throttling the air flow. If there is no vacuum there is nothing to be gained with the inlet system. Period. Simple engineering.

Same with the throttle body and intake system. Put an accurate, sensitive vacuum guage on the intake and run the engine to max power. If you start to see any vacuum as the engine approaches 6500 or so then the inlet system is starting the throttle the engine and is becoming a restriction for power.

Cone elements rarely have the filter surface area (for flow) of the element in the Northstar system.


ENGINES 101

An engine is an air pump. The more air it pumps the more fuel it can burn. The more fuel it can burn the more power it can make.

It always starts with air flow. Without more airflow you cannot make more power. Period.

Here are your choices:

1. Increase the displacement (make it a bigger pump).

2. Rev it up higher (the same size pump spinning faster will pump more air - if you make the appropriate modifications to allow it to pump at higher RPM)

3. Increase the volumetric efficiency (this encompases the typical hot rodder approach of porting, polishing, bigger carb, different manifolds, etc.)

4. Put on a blower to force more air thru the engine.



These are your only options. Any mods you make or have heard of fall into one of these four options. Period. Any modern engine, especially one that makes over 1 Hp per cubic inch like the Northstar, is already heavily optimised for volumetric efficiency so making gains here is difficult, expensive and you are getting very little additional gain.

Then there is always nitrous....LOL....maybe that should be number five.

i think so :thumbsup:

Katshot
03-19-06, 08:52 AM
Okay, instead of getting your panties in a bunch, and trying to play "I'm smarter than you" ("...Kat, I could write you a text book on both subjects. I doubt that you would understand it...")
, let's discuss a couple points in your post here.


]"...As far as volumetric efficiency....that is simply the amount of air the engine is pumping relative to the maximum capacity of the engine....i.e...it's displacement..."[/B]

Funny, I always thought "Volumetric Efficiency" was the relationship of "theoretical CFM" and "Actual CFM" of a given engine.


If the 4.6 liter Northstar is running at 4400 RPM it is pumping about 4.232 liters of air every two revolutions....so it is running at about 92% volumetric efficiency.

Where the heck did you get this from? I'd like to see how you arrived at this.


At full throttle operation where max volumetric efficiency is desired the air cleaner element "could" cause a loss of VE and power IF it were the restriction in the system. With the Northstar inlet system the air box and air cleaner is NOT the restriction in the system so changing the element, removing it or replacing it with a K&N will have no effect.

I was with you right up to where you said:
"...With the Northstar inlet system the air box and air cleaner is NOT the restriction in the system..."
I'm dying to know how you know this to be a fact.

Katshot
03-19-06, 09:00 AM
There is a very simple test to see if there is any inlet restriction. Put a sensitive vacuum gauge in the inlet system after the air filter element and before the throttle blades. Run the engine (on the road) at full throttle and max RPM. Watch the vacuum gauge. If there is any vacuum it indicates that the filter element/box is starting to create a restriction and is throttling the air flow. If there is no vacuum there is nothing to be gained with the inlet system. Period. Simple engineering.

Same with the throttle body and intake system. Put an accurate, sensitive vacuum guage on the intake and run the engine to max power. If you start to see any vacuum as the engine approaches 6500 or so then the inlet system is starting the throttle the engine and is becoming a restriction for power.

Cone elements rarely have the filter surface area (for flow) of the element in the Northstar system.


ENGINES 101

An engine is an air pump. The more air it pumps the more fuel it can burn. The more fuel it can burn the more power it can make.

It always starts with air flow. Without more airflow you cannot make more power. Period.

Here are your choices:

1. Increase the displacement (make it a bigger pump).

2. Rev it up higher (the same size pump spinning faster will pump more air - if you make the appropriate modifications to allow it to pump at higher RPM)

3. Increase the volumetric efficiency (this encompases the typical hot rodder approach of porting, polishing, bigger carb, different manifolds, etc.)

4. Put on a blower to force more air thru the engine.



These are your only options. Any mods you make or have heard of fall into one of these four options. Period. Any modern engine, especially one that makes over 1 Hp per cubic inch like the Northstar, is already heavily optimised for volumetric efficiency so making gains here is difficult, expensive and you are getting very little additional gain.

Then there is always nitrous....LOL....maybe that should be number five.


Damn, I guess all the guys pulling extra power out of engines by spending hours with individual components on flow benches are just a fabrication then. Or at least a great waste of time. All they needed to do was put a vacuum gauge in there and increase plenum volume to get it to read zero. Why didn't anybody else ever think of such a simple solution? Sorry but IMO, you are trying to grossly over simplify this.

eldorado1
03-19-06, 11:18 AM
Funny, I always thought "Volumetric Efficiency" was the relationship of "theoretical CFM" and "Actual CFM" of a given engine.

It is. That's what he said. Actual/calculated = VE



Where the heck did you get this from? I'd like to see how you arrived at this.

He measured it. You can do that. The mass airflow sensor tells you the "weight" of the air flowing into the engine per second. You can find the volume by multiplying that by the current density of air.



I was with you right up to where you said:
"...With the Northstar inlet system the air box and air cleaner is NOT the restriction in the system..."
I'm dying to know how you know this to be a fact.
I'm guessing he tested it as above with a vacuum gage.

chevelle
03-19-06, 10:52 PM
Okay, instead of getting your panties in a bunch, and trying to play "I'm smarter than you" ("...Kat, I could write you a text book on both subjects. I doubt that you would understand it...")
, let's discuss a couple points in your post here.



Funny, I always thought "Volumetric Efficiency" was the relationship of "theoretical CFM" and "Actual CFM" of a given engine.



Where the heck did you get this from? I'd like to see how you arrived at this.



I was with you right up to where you said:
"...With the Northstar inlet system the air box and air cleaner is NOT the restriction in the system..."
I'm dying to know how you know this to be a fact.




Uhh.....that is what I said. Read my post again. It doesn't matter what units you calculate it in....CFM or CIM or whatever. Volumetric efficiency at any given point is the comparison of the actual airflow thru the engine compared to the theoretical. Just what I said.

You probably would love to know how I know that....LOL. I did measure it. It is the basis for the calibration in the PCM of the speed density Northstars at that operating condition. Doesn't it seem "about right" to you from a common sense standpoint? What would YOU estimate the volumetric efficiency to be at that point? I am refering to the amount of air pumped if the engine is at full throttle, BTW. It will flow considerably less air and be considerably less "volumetric efficient" at part throttle conditions. That is whole basis for the volumetric efficiency maps in speed density fuel injection systems.

If you are REALLY dying to know put a vacuum gauge on it like I said and measure it and see. It is really quite simple and then YOU will KNOW I'm right. If you don't think a vacuum gauge will tell you this information please explain to me why not.

chevelle
03-19-06, 11:02 PM
Damn, I guess all the guys pulling extra power out of engines by spending hours with individual components on flow benches are just a fabrication then. Or at least a great waste of time. All they needed to do was put a vacuum gauge in there and increase plenum volume to get it to read zero. Why didn't anybody else ever think of such a simple solution? Sorry but IMO, you are trying to grossly over simplify this.


Uh...Kat, you don't get less vaccum by increasing plenum volume. Plenum volume has absolutely nothing to do with the intake vacuum level. You could increase or decrease the intake plenum volume by huge amounts and it will not change the vacuum reading at all.

I am not oversimplyfying it. It is basically a very simple concept. A vacuum gauge will tell you if there is any inlet restriction at the engine's point of greatest flow. If there is then you know immediately that there needs to be work on the throttle body size and/or inlet system and/or air cleaner, etc. It doesn't necessarily tell you where the restriction is....it just tells you IF there is a restriction and IF changing something in the inlet sytsem would help immediately.

Flow benches and such are used for measuring individual parts and pieces. They are very good for that. But you need to know where to start looking for power/air flow. The check of inlet vacuum at max output is a very basic test so tell you if the inlet system is deficient or not. That is all I am saying. If the inlet WAS the restriction then increasing the port flow would give you very little gain all by it's self. The engine has to be treated as a system from the very begining of the inlet system to the end of the tail pipe. Making huge changes in the induction system without upgrading the exhaust, for example, will give very little gain. The whole system must be addressed. You use simple tools (like the vaccum measurement checks on the induction system) to see where to start and if mods in that area are worth going after. That is all I was saying. Once an area is pinpointed for improvement then things like the flow bench help to quantify specific improvements on just those parts.

Beside that, it is pretty simple. People try to make it too hard without understanding the basics. An engine is an air pump....read my post. What part don't you agree with? If someone understands those basic concepts then it makes it much easier to understand how mods work and what won't work. That is part of the problem with a lot of hot rodders. They make it too difficult and overlook the forest for the trees. The information I presented is quite correct and is the fundamental taught in any engineering courses regarding internal combustion engines. All the mods on the flow benches and such that you refer to are all aimed at improving the volumetric efficiency of the subject engine. That category is mentioned. It is also why many people are so dissappointed with trying to improve the output of later model production engines like the Northstar. Their baseline from reading HotRod magazine is a 350 Chevy that was making 200 HP originally so it is relatively easy to change some parts and get more power. The problem is that an engine like the Northstar has already had all the performance tricks pulled on it to maximize the volumetric efficiency. That is why it has such high specific output. Easy mods to get more power just don't exist and it is just as easy to slow the car down with mods as the package has been well optimized so as to get the best performance and fuel economy.

Eldobroken
03-19-06, 11:24 PM
before we get any further you need to check out www.thedieselstop.com (http://www.thedieselstop.com) its a ford diesel web forum, that doesnt mean anything to this site i know but you should read the write ups about the k&n filter. ill leave it at this,

1 every 7.3 turbo diesel that has a k&n filter no longer has a ford warranty

2 k&n refused to honor there own warranty motor replacement due to dusting

3 it has been proven with blackstone oil testing that the k&n lets in more dust then paper element filters

4 85% of the members with a dusted motor had a k&n filter when it happened

if these filters were so great ford would honor the 100k warranty on a dusted engine running them but in every situation ford denied the clamis and voided the warrantys.

k&n had a warranty that said they would replace the engine if it was damaged using there product and in every situation they quickly blammed it on the owner not installing it properly or not maintaining it properly.

for the powerstroke, thats a 10,000 motor and i would NEVER even consider running a k&n in my trucks. they should just stick to atv filters and such in my opinion there not worth taking the chance on dusting a motor...
I have a 2000 Superduty 7.3 Powerstroke Diesel I have the full Banks Stainless 4 inch Exhaust and turbo housing and downpipe as well as an Advanced Engineering Intake " Very similar to the K&N" Also a Power programmer. The Injector Pump had a leak Ford fixed it under warranty truck has 50k something miles on it and runs Great I also tow a 13,000LB boat all summer never a problem. I just sold my 94 Eldo with 172K miles on it I had a K&N filter on it since 60K miles BTW it ran great never had any motor problems besides overheating and coil packs and computer crap. I used the Cone Filter and ripped the stock intake out. Ok so hear was my first SOLID gains that I got with the K&N on my 88 Mustang Dynoed 13hp more with the K&N filter years ago. Was not a stock motor but the 13hp for a filter was a sure thing and for $40 a great deal also another motor i ran to almost 200k.

Night Wolf
03-20-06, 12:24 AM
Same thing. If you can bring in enough air from your orifinal air induction, you gain nothing.

K&N things show gain for vehicles like my Grand Cherokee. The 6 and the V8 have the same airbox and intake up to the throttle body. It's ok for the 6, and dynos on the K&N kit by Off Road magazine a few years back showed only 4HP gain. That's very low for a $300 kit. On the 5.2 it was a different story. Chrysler went cheap by putting the same airbox on both trucks. the great thing is that it IS a very good cold air induction with the stock airbox, because it takes air from right next to and in front of the radiator. If you check with a scan tool, the induction temp is never more than 1-2 degrees above ambient at the IAT sensor. The K&N is actually a little warmer, but not badly so. With the V8, because its factory air induction is so undersized, the K&N gave it huge gains. There was a dyno provable 24HP gain. That's becuase the factory intake was choking the engine. Now the intake tubes on the Cadillac are significantly bigger than either of those cars, as are the filters. Are you telling me that the Cadillac 4.6 needs that much more air?

The Northstar was designed to win the horsepower race here. HP/Liter. They wanted it ahead of BMW and Mercedes. They wouldn't do that by putting it with a less than optimally sized intake, now would they?

I dunno about the Grand Cherokee, but if its anything like the TJ, then it is designed more for fording water and off-road conditions then performance... looking at the mini snorkel on the TJ proves that.... that being said, the TJ's intake is pretty un restrictive to begin with...

plus, the 4.0 I6 is an age old tractor engine that is not going to see many gains from nearly anything.... its pretty much pushed to the max right not, unless the 4.6/4.7 stroker or a surpercharger it slapped on.....

Katshot
03-20-06, 07:44 AM
Okay, I'll be the first to call it quits here. We're not getting anywhere, and this is just getting to be ridiculous. I'll sum up my feelings in one last statement and that will be the last I'll say on the subject.
While I agree with your theory, I disagree with your belief that this method will net accurate enough results to be definitive in the way you believe it to be.
What WOULD be interesting is to do a series of tests on a dyno of course as follows:
1. Baseline totally stock with OEM paper filter installed
2. Remove filter entirely but nothing else.
3. Competely remove airbox and run with no box or filter.
4. Install K&N cone filter on MAF
5. Remove entire air inlet tubing and mount MAF directly ahead of the throttlebody.
Beyond the actual power readings, I'd be interested in seeing the MAF readings to see how flow actually changed in each configuration.

Eldobroken
03-20-06, 06:26 PM
Okay, I'll be the first to call it quits here. We're not getting anywhere, and this is just getting to be ridiculous. I'll sum up my feelings in one last statement and that will be the last I'll say on the subject.
While I agree with your theory, I disagree with your belief that this method will net accurate enough results to be definitive in the way you believe it to be.
What WOULD be interesting is to do a series of tests on a dyno of course as follows:
1. Baseline totally stock with OEM paper filter installed
2. Remove filter entirely but nothing else.
3. Competely remove airbox and run with no box or filter.
4. Install K&N cone filter on MAF
5. Remove entire air inlet tubing and mount MAF directly ahead of the throttlebody.
Beyond the actual power readings, I'd be interested in seeing the MAF readings to see how flow actually changed in each configuration.
On my STANG i did this years ago. 13HP from the K&N compared to the ford factory air filter. But I had alot of headwork exhaust work and alot of other things into the motor. But I did get the 13HP on back to back dyno runs. As for the northstar guess I am going to have to dyno it. I am picking up my 00 ETC in an hour or so I will post some pics later.

Zorb750
03-20-06, 06:48 PM
Katshot, flow may be higher like that, if only because it doesn't have to bend through a pipe, but the air will be HOT. That's the problem with modding another vehicles FIPK for the Cadillac, why you still loose power. The Northstars run way higher temperature under the hood than most cars, like your Fleetwood. LT1s run fairly low underhood temperatures, at least my friend's Impala does.

chevelle
03-20-06, 11:06 PM
Kat, there is a little bit of publicly available info on the Northtstar that actually answers some of your questions.

In late 1999 and early 2000 you could have ordered a Mastercraft ski boat with a Northstar engine. A Maristar was available with the L37 Northstar as manufactured in 1999. That engine dyno'd in "as installed" trim in the car at 300 HP.

The marinized version of the engine was identical to the car version EXCEPT for the fact that it ran on speed density in the boat and, thus, had no MAF. Not only did it not have a MAF it had NOTHING on the throttle body but a large K&N cylindrical element. No ducting, hoses, tubing, nothing. Just the K&N over the throttle body flange. The marine engine also ran with very low backpressure due to the large marine wet exhaust manifolds and open wet exhaust system. At 6500 RPM in the boat and full throttle it only had about 6 inches of mercury backpressure vs over 20 inches in the car at the same load condition. The kicker is that the marine version of the engine was rated at 321 HP. Dyno'd in as installed, marine configuration with the wet exhaust and K&N intake.

So.....for no intake system AND very low backpressure exhaust the engine made an additional 21 HP. This is not a lot of gain for that much change. Removing the entire intake on that application was worth maybe 5 of the HP including the extra flow due to the lower backpressure of the exhaust. With no other changes I would expect a pure stock Northstar to gain no more than 3 HP on an engine dyno by totally removing the entire induction system and not changing the exhaust system.

One nice thing about a K&N filter like that is that it is recognized by the US Coast Guard as an approved flame arrestor so applications requiring a flame arresting intake (like a marine engine) can use a K&N for that purpose. Otherwise, the marine application woudn't need an air cleaner or air intake system so the K&N was released by Mastercraft as part of the marinization package for the engine.

The Northstar was a short lived application in the Mastercraft as the engine changed significantly in for the 2000 model year and the 2000 and later engine was never marinized so Mastercraft dropped it from their lineup.

Eldobroken
03-25-06, 01:54 PM
Kat, there is a little bit of publicly available info on the Northtstar that actually answers some of your questions.

In late 1999 and early 2000 you could have ordered a Mastercraft ski boat with a Northstar engine. A Maristar was available with the L37 Northstar as manufactured in 1999. That engine dyno'd in "as installed" trim in the car at 300 HP.

The marinized version of the engine was identical to the car version EXCEPT for the fact that it ran on speed density in the boat and, thus, had no MAF. Not only did it not have a MAF it had NOTHING on the throttle body but a large K&N cylindrical element. No ducting, hoses, tubing, nothing. Just the K&N over the throttle body flange. The marine engine also ran with very low backpressure due to the large marine wet exhaust manifolds and open wet exhaust system. At 6500 RPM in the boat and full throttle it only had about 6 inches of mercury backpressure vs over 20 inches in the car at the same load condition. The kicker is that the marine version of the engine was rated at 321 HP. Dyno'd in as installed, marine configuration with the wet exhaust and K&N intake.

So.....for no intake system AND very low backpressure exhaust the engine made an additional 21 HP. This is not a lot of gain for that much change. Removing the entire intake on that application was worth maybe 5 of the HP including the extra flow due to the lower backpressure of the exhaust. With no other changes I would expect a pure stock Northstar to gain no more than 3 HP on an engine dyno by totally removing the entire induction system and not changing the exhaust system.

One nice thing about a K&N filter like that is that it is recognized by the US Coast Guard as an approved flame arrestor so applications requiring a flame arresting intake (like a marine engine) can use a K&N for that purpose. Otherwise, the marine application woudn't need an air cleaner or air intake system so the K&N was released by Mastercraft as part of the marinization package for the engine.

The Northstar was a short lived application in the Mastercraft as the engine changed significantly in for the 2000 model year and the 2000 and later engine was never marinized so Mastercraft dropped it from their lineup.
Chevelle that could not be a stock K&N Fiter they do go on fire. I have had the experience when my fuel rail broke. But for marine applications you do need a flame arrestor it usually has a top and bottom metal plate and the sides are webbed in steel mesh. Mabye K&N makes them but the regular K&N cone filters are not USCG Certified or nema certified either. We had a problem getting a 31 Bertram with custom 700HP big blocks and an Accell Engine management system Documented. The only problem they had was the K&N filters. Unfortunetly my friend passed away before the boat was completly done so we did not have a solution with the proper airflow for max HP and torque. You could run the boat forever without air cleaners not much dirt/dust on a boat to get in engine but the flame arrestors are essential.

94Concours
04-26-06, 07:59 PM
Check AMSoil's new nano-filters. Just bought one for my 2000 deville. Looks to be the better choice than K&N. :thumbsup:

dkozloski
04-27-06, 12:14 PM
Anytime you start monkeying with the cross sectional area of an intake you start changing the way sonic pulses are reflected up and down the system. Tuners found fifty years ago that sometimes the answer is to reduce diameter and thus increase flow velocity through certain sections. The Ford Boss 302 was introduced to counter the Z-28 302 Chevy in the Trans Am series. The intake ports were so big that the engine would barely run except at high RPM's. The rules at the time limited the amount of material that could be removed but said nothing about adding. The answer was to plaster the inside of the intake ports with DevCon Plastic steel. In fact, molds were made that could be inserted in the ports and the DevCon poured in around them. Intake air flow is not a staic problem that can be addressed by simply making everything bigger. What you really have is part air pump, part airplane, and part musical instrument. Read some of the papers written by Dr. Gordon Blair, QUB, Belfast, Northern Ireland. This guy is possibly the greatest designer of intake and exhaust systems in history. At least he is regarded as being a national treasue in Ireland.

eldorado1
04-27-06, 12:51 PM
What in the world does that have to do with k&n filters? :confused:

chevelle
04-27-06, 12:55 PM
Chevelle that could not be a stock K&N Fiter they do go on fire. I have had the experience when my fuel rail broke. But for marine applications you do need a flame arrestor it usually has a top and bottom metal plate and the sides are webbed in steel mesh. Mabye K&N makes them but the regular K&N cone filters are not USCG Certified or nema certified either. We had a problem getting a 31 Bertram with custom 700HP big blocks and an Accell Engine management system Documented. The only problem they had was the K&N filters. Unfortunetly my friend passed away before the boat was completly done so we did not have a solution with the proper airflow for max HP and torque. You could run the boat forever without air cleaners not much dirt/dust on a boat to get in engine but the flame arrestors are essential.



Just because the filter will burn does not mean it cannot be an effective flame arrester in the case of a backfire. I have seen a marine application that was certified with a K&N as the flame arrester and thus believed the folks that told me it was a flame arrester. Possibly not. I'll have to do a little more research.

dkozloski
04-27-06, 12:59 PM
Putting on a K&N filter, a different airbox, or any other intake modification, may upset the original designers intent and do more harm than good. You may get high end performance at the expense of throttle response or mid-range torque. Big dyno numbers on the top end may be good for bragging rights but they don't get the car down the road and off the corners.

eldorado1
04-27-06, 01:08 PM
Putting on a K&N filter, a different airbox, or any other intake modification, may upset the original designers intent and do more harm than good. You may get high end performance at the expense of throttle response or mid-range torque. Big dyno numbers on the top end may be good for bragging rights but they don't get the car down the road and off the corners.

Changing the air intake does not effect the "sonic pulses". Resonant tuning has a lot to do with intake (port) runner length. Anything outside of the intake manifold is irrevelant. As far as that goes, the less restriction, the better. If you look at some of the before/after k&n intake dyno's, they don't effect the low or midrange torque, only upper end torque when airflow (and restriction) is the highest.

dkozloski
04-27-06, 01:28 PM
That is thinking from the dark ages of carburetors when secondary venturis were the element that reflected the pulse at the inlet end. With modern low-restriction fuel injection systems the tuned length can extend well outboard of the throttle butterfly under wide open conditions. Turbulence from a hap hazardly designed air filtering system can affect airflow all the way to the inlet valve, disregarding "sonic" effects. Engineers spend careers investigating intake system design using multi-million doller equipment only to have Joe Scooterberry slap some intake device on the engine bought off Ebay. Talk about casting your pearls before swine.

dkozloski
04-27-06, 01:45 PM
An extreme example to prove the point is the rash of turbine disk failures in the center engine of heavy jet aircraft that was the result of turbulence generated by a radio antenna that projected from the fuselage well forward of the air intake and traveled all the way to the compressor disk and produced resonances that fatigued the disk and caused failures. When this problem was remedied an unexpected effect was the resolution of other engine airflow problems that had been giving unstable operation and misleading instrumentation readings. One of the incidents involved the compressor disk exploding and the shattering of a cabin window with the nearby passenger involuntarily defenestrating. The only thing different here is the physical size of the system.

JimHare
04-28-06, 12:56 AM
Koz, leave it to you to use the word "defenestrating" in a thread about air filters.. :)

And to save everybody else a trip to the dictionary, it means "being thrown out a window" (or in this case, sucked out the window)

dkozloski
04-28-06, 01:49 AM
Actually forced out the window by the cabin pressurization.

Ranger
04-28-06, 02:01 AM
When, where and what carrier? I usually hear about these things.

dkozloski
04-28-06, 02:51 AM
I think it was National airlines about twenty years ago. There were several turbine disk failures in the center engine of heavy three holers. The turbulence from the antenna was producing resonances in the disks that were precisely timed and were additive rather than damped. In this case it was a wing mounted engine but the same mechanism. The disk failure was uncontained and resulted in the guy going out the window. Coincidently the crew was having a discussion on the operation of auto throttles and was monkeying around with throttle settings trying to settle the argument when the disk let go.

mtflight
04-28-06, 06:32 PM
quote=Ranger]When, where and what carrier? I usually hear about these things.[/quote]

3 November 1973; National Airlines DC10; over New Mexico, USA: The aircraft had an uncontained failure of one of the wing mounted engines. A piece of the engine struck the fuselage and broke a passenger window. One of the 116 passengers was sucked out of the aircraft during a rapid decompression. The remains of the passenger were not found.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=85098&key=0

eldorado1
04-28-06, 07:11 PM
With modern low-restriction fuel injection systems the tuned length can extend well outboard of the throttle butterfly under wide open conditions.

I disagree with you. The intake runner length is the *only* tuned length in operation. The opening of the intake valve creates a low pressure pulse that gets reflected off the open end of the intake runner as a high pressure pulse, effectively cramming more air in during the next valve opening. There are multiple reflections at play there, but that's the simplified version.

The plenum acts as an "air resevoir" from which the runners draw their air. After the throttle body, intake ducting length does not matter as long as it's not a hinderance to airflow.

94CaddyConcours
04-28-06, 09:06 PM
(or in this case, sucked out the window)
Science never suck!!
Higher pressure inside cabin and Low pressure outside.

dkozloski
04-29-06, 12:52 AM
Eldorado1, You are right about the tuned length of the intake runners in engines with plenums. However, the intake to the plenum is also tuned. In fact the tuning of the intake of the VVT V6 in the CTS is varied on the fly with a system of butterfly valves and solenoids. If there are strong roaring noises coming from the engine intake, there are acoustic and aerodynamic effects that are affecting performance that must be reckoned with.