K&N drop in filter vs. stock. Power curves inside

[EspenW]

I've had a K&N drop in filter (barely used) in my garage since I got my car back in 2006. Have been running a stock Mahle paper filter since then (20,000km/ 12500 miles).

Finally got around to do a back to back test with these. I did not expect much difference, and that was the result as well.
These are 2nd gear pulls, so power and especially torque are much lower than when testing in 3rd and 4th, due to low load and drivetrain inertia in the low gear.
NB: Power measured at the wheels.
However, it is the difference that is the issue here.

The light red and light blue lines are for the well used stock paper filter, dark lines for K&N drop in.
These are the middle runs of out three runs with each setup.
As expected, the K&N made zip difference even on an engine that pushes north of 500hp at the flywheel. Only good thing is that it is reusable, but it lets in more crap and there is a risk of damaging the MAF due to oil contamination.
On a flow bench, a K&N will flow ever so slightly better than a new paper filter.

[img][/IMG]

[UrS4boy]

Thanks for sharing that Espen. I am not that surprised. I did try the K&N filter way back when but when it came time to clean and re-oil it, I just replaced it with an OE paper filter. Butt dyno said no change in performance. You've just confirmed that. Thanks. Paper for the win.

[Vorsprung durch Technik]

Have to say i am not surprised either. A few people need to trust their butt dyno rather than fancy marketing. This one is starting to smell like the salesman who could sell the eskimos ice.

[simon20vq]

Thanks for sharing that its good to know, how can they make such claims if its a waste of time?!?!

[K Simmonds]

how can they make such claims if its a waste of time?!?!

Statistics can be massaged and they want to sell stuff.

[Rusty]

They sound better, that's all I know

[Mcstiff]

Interesting results, thanks for sharing! I've only done a "cold air" conversion in one car, Jeep XJ, but there is a place for cone filters if you cannot keep an OEM style air box.

[EspenW]

Interesting little article from Autospeed on dirty filter vs. clean filter:

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=111486

[EspenW]

As ya'll know, I'm much more into actual acceleration times than power numbers. So, here are the acc. times for the various setups.
40-60kmh, 60-80kmh, 80-100kmh and combinations of those. 60-100mph is probably the most interesting, as it provides a longer delta and is the sweet spot for 2nd gear acceleration.



The graphs and acceleration numbers above are generated with my 100Hz MR Dyno accelerometer based logger. I also have a 10Hz Qstarz GPS based logger.
Check out the numbers for 60-100kmh acceleration from the two methods of data acquisition. Even though 10Hz and of course 100Hz is what is being used by magazines, etc today, the good old accelerometers still get the job done nicely, and they are more consistent, as they don't require a clean signal.

[Sonic]

Yep also didn't expect any performance advantage, although there are others that make them attractive over an OEM paper filter

Be interesting to see how the pipercross foam one compares also as i can imagine that is less restrictive, however mine also disintegrated within a few k miles.

[jimmcf]

The only time i ever found a K&N to be better than paper was on an old motorbike i had, i changed it for a paper filter then moved to an area that was a lot higher than sea level bike ran like crap was way over fuelling until i refitted the K&N.

[Henkjan]

thanks for testing and sharing.

(so, there is one piece of kit in my garage that will stay on the shelf )

[andykingfishers2]

Thanks for the information, I asked the question a little while back on which air filter was preferred, and majority of people advised me to use the standard paper filter! which is what i'm using, so no need to change it, if its working!!