Nothing a little TB cleaner can't fix. With the dust, make sure there isn't an opening in the system.

 

I've noticed with k&n zero horsepower gain. On my old 305 with CFI I gained 2 mpg in town with K&ns over my papers. Anyone need a K&N for their LS1? I've got a used one that you can have for like $15-20.

 

Car Craft recently did a test with K&Ns vs. paper filters.

The K&Ns did a LOT better, but then again it was on Gen I SBC with a carb.

 

Damn!!! This long thread about K&N vs. paper and no post from Psychocabbage.

TS

 

Maybe tired from quoting the same results, over and over and over and over?

 

where is the MAF? I have a k&n it came with the car. I havent oiled it yet. I prob should since i have gone about 25k since oiling the damn thing. Just never wanted to mess it up. I think i am just gunna go back to paper. I have a SLP Lid, the MAF is right behind it right?

 

Yep

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Actually I have been playing topshift.com and havent been scanning posts as often as I usually do.. Yeah.. I know.. I cant leave my Anti K&N Campaign without some support.


Its been said that you could find just as many pros as you could cons for just about any item you want to test. I personally was tired of wondering. I decided to test it myself. My results appeased me. I have a K&N filter thats sitting in a box. I dont touch it anymore. My tests on the dyno showed me that it lost me 3rwhp. As did No filter. The tests were done in as much of a controlled environment as I could get. I rented the dyno for an hour. I then repeated the test a couple weeks later with the same results.

 

Wonder why.

Obviously there is a difference that hurts HP with K&N on these engines, even thought K&Ns are proven HP producers in carb applications. I've tested that myself on different vehicles at the track over the years.

Is it because of better quality, if reduced, flow with a paper filter vs K&N or no filter at all? Might it have to do with resonance characteristics, as in an engine making more HP with a little back pressure than with none?

A reusable filter is mandatory out here in dusty West Texas, even if they do lose HP. So for me, the questions are moot.

 

I know that K@N filters do increase airflow, from my own tests and from a test my uncle did with one. So what is it in the K@N filter that would be a hp reducer??

 

Was the K&N filter properly oiled during the test? All the K&N displays I've seen with the little ball in a tube had dry elements.

 

I have a HolleyPowershot filter like it says in the sig, do those clean as well as the paper filters. I know the K&N's do not seal as well which was my reason for goin Holley. From what i heard a while back, K&N decided to use the same filter for us as they do for some volkswagon that uses the same size filter except our filter comes with a seal that u put around it to make up for it which probably doesn't work as well as they would wish.

So is the HolleyPowershot a good pick compared to the stock filter, i don't really care about the 1-2 hp that i won't really feel, i'd rather have the better filtering. Should i go back to my paper filter, i think its still pretty clean if i remember right.

 

I also ditched my K&N when I noticed that sand and grit were getting past it. I've gone back to paper and am quite happy. The paper filter versus NO filter was worth 1-2rwhp on the dyno, so the K7N just isn't worth the drama. I still have a K&N conical on my 5.0 because they seem to work much better than the panel filters...

 

Sounds like the filter wasn't sealing properly. I ran a foam strip to seal mine.

 

Most 5-20 HP gains from the K&N (or similar) filters come from the whole CAI kit. The new plastic CAI allows more air in, not the filter itself.