Question for you tech guys

[pastor scott.com]

If an air sytem lets in more air, then wouldnt then the computer adjust to add more fuel, in turn giving yes MAYBE more power but would not it then use more gas.

 

Scott

[vhato]

If an  air sytem lets in more air, then wouldnt then the computer adjust to add more fuel, in turn giving yes MAYBE more power but would not it then use more gas.

 

Scott

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

IMO,

Yes, the pcm will add more fuel to an increase in air, but the increase will increase the efficiency of the engine, thus increasing fuel economy. Bascially you are making more power at the same rpm, so less throttle is needed to maintain speed due to the increase in efficiency.

 

Don't think adding a new intake with an open element is gonna add $230 worth of short term MPG increases though.

[asepgrad98]

lots of guys get lower MPG because they gun it around town trying to feel an increase in power

[mdub]

...and in this case, more air allows more dirt into the engine, relative to a paper element. At one time, their documentation admitted the compromised filtering efficiency. Is the negligible increase in power, and a fractional [possible] increase in fuel mileage worth it?

[Mighty HD]

Exactly right---it allows more dirt to pass through.

 

I for one can prove it.

 

Silicon levels on my oil samples on 2 different K&N filters were 25+, I changed to a purlator paper filter and silicon levels dropped to 9. That's a hell of a difference, and the oil stays cleaner longer.

 

They're junk..

[Mighty HD]

www.bobistheoilguy.com check out the air filter reviews. A/C Delco was someof the best filters for air intakes..K&N was the worst.

[BCSierra]

www.bobistheoilguy.com  check out the air filter reviews.  A/C Delco was someof the best filters for air intakes..K&N was the worst.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Also depends on whether the original filter is one of the main restriction points in the system. If the exhaust for instance is highly restrictive, the less restrictive filter is going to have a negligible effect. If, however, the filter is the most restrictive part, then you would possibly feel a power increase however the increased dirt from these filters, apparent from the tests in many links on this and other sites, would not make it a wise choice.

 

The apparent increase in power would occur as you would have to press the gas pedal less to have the same volume of air and fuel (fuel amount is set to be correct to the air amount by the MAF and computer in an independant process), however, this doesn't make your engine more efficient, you're just changing the effective throttle position. You could likely achieve the same effect by moving your throttle cable (if it were possible) so it pulls sooner. Your throttle valve is, by design, the most restrictive point in the system at part throttle. This is why it's called a throttle.

 

At wide open throttle, it is theoretically possible to achieve more power by using a less restrictive filter (assuming the filter was a restriction point), as you would have slightly better volumetric efficiency, however, who can or would want to run at WFO? Fine if you're drag racing I guess (hope you don't get deported if you crash!). This is also dependant on many other design characteristics of the particular engine such as injector flow rates, max rpm governing (used?) etc.

 

I installed a K&N (without first researching) on my previous truck (F%$d F-250 with 302) as it was a gutless dog and I really needed more power to haul my camper up the hills. I noticed no effect from the change. Sold it and bought my present truck and the 6.0 is a delight to drive.

[Dans Denali]

I had my 84 Rustang racecar 5.0 on the dyno and we tested a K&N and saw no power increase over the stock paper element.

 

Dan

[Bish]

Regarding letting more dirt in, I will respectfully disagree with some of the comments. I have been running a K&N FIPKII for over 130K now (152K on truck). Every oil change has been sent out for analysis. Silicate levels have always been under 10 and within 3 of the paper element. My engine still runs great after 152K and the oil analysis guys say it is wearing like an engine with 25K on it.

 

I think the dirt problem is more related to proper cleaning and oiling. While I agree that slightly more dirt gets in, my tests show it is not causing any problems and throttle response is definitely better. I clean and oil mine every 20K and would not hesitate to put another one on my next vehicle.

 

Again, just my opinion on the subject.

[Chad H]

Well, what would the best paper filter to put in, let's say, my truck?

[Chad H]

Anybody? Some input?

[mdub]

Well, what would the best paper filter to put in, let's say, my truck?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Use of the search engine brings back this link of analysis that was very well done:

 

Air Filter Study

[Dans Denali]

Interesting study, I see no reason to run anything but the stock filter.

 

Dan

[dannyukonxl]

im sort of sketched about running anything else than the stock filter. I know the mesh screen filters filter as well or as the studies say and people are running their trucks on k and n's but i feel the engineers at gm put the paper ones in there for a reason, sure i tried the vararam and that thing sucked, mine was about to fall apart or thats what it looked like. I got 2 mpg but that sure as hell isnt worth the life of my engine. I was going to buy a volant and im sure that is a MUCH better quality system, but i just can't justify an intake. I know on the 8.1 there are 2 baffles in the intake box on the side and i can always take those out if i feel there is not enough air getting in, but in my opinion i think the flow rate of all of the stock paper elements are good enough for hte stock engine and meet the cfm requirement of the engine until about 4000 rpms on the 8.1, higher on the smaller engines. But the installation of an airfilter doesnt mean more air, it means less work for the engine to obtain that air