Dyno results: NB 1.8 with/without K&N Typhoon air intake

As mentioned in an earlier thread I was gonna put my car on a dyno after having fitted it with a K&N Typhoon Air intake kitand now I've had the chance to do so.

But first a link to a guy which shows/explains exactly what it is a lot better than I can:

formatting link

My car is a 1999 NB 1.8 all stock except a Remus exhaust system. The car has some 60,000 miles on the clock and no problems (knock on wood) and back in late May I had it on a dyno for the first time.

Dyno with stock air intake:

formatting link
And now with the K&N Typhoon fitted:
formatting link
As can be seen there is a positive difference but not a big one.

I have done what I could to get a test with as few disturbing factors as possible but I have used the car and it has also had it's big service between the two tests. A compiled list of difference in conditions at the second test looks like this:

Car has aprox. 2,000 more miles on the clock. Ambient temperature was higher, 27c instead of 22c. Timing belt and spark plugs are new. Oil and oil filter is new. Valve cover gasket is new (wonder if that's the correct name in English) Dyno operator is a different guy. Air filter is not used (unlike first test)

On the plus side are:

Gas is same type. It's the same dyno (this is an important one) Tires are the same.

All in all it's hard to make a definite conclusion. The car has had service which in it self should make it run better but on the other had the ambient temperature was higher which could be an disadvantage. Also a dyno is not an super exact instrument and some even claim they can't produce results more accurate than +-2% the shop that I used seem to think their Dyno is somewhat better than that.

My conclusion is that the K&N Typhoon does give the car a little more power but mainly it gives makes the engine sound a little more eager which makes driving more fun. Some may want even more sound but to me it's perfect that it's there a little when putting the foot down and otherwise pretty much just as stock.

Kind regards Bruno

Reply to
Bruno
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

Unless the runs are made back to back, small differences are meaningless. And for a baseline, a run with no airfilter should have been made. There's a good test of air filter quality somewhere on the web and the K&N fares poorly.

Reply to
Chas Hurst

There's lots of stuff on the web, are you referring to the completely bogus test that never happened where a company that never existed reported poor filtering with filters that K&N never made? I think that's my absolute favorite!

Reply to
XS11E

I think meaningless is a pretty strong word.

As I wrote it is hard to make a conclusion but if nothing else the numbers do tell what the car did at the exact moment measured.

Why - the object of this was to determine if the K&N Typhoon kit is preferable to the stock intake. Not to compare it to some artificial setting.

And this is relevant how? Firstly it's not just a filter which is being tried and secondly the object here was to compare two options and nothing more.

Kind regards Bruno

PS. Please only quote exactly what you comment.

Reply to
Bruno

K&N air filters rate up there with tires on differing opinions.

From what I have seen, they *might* cause your engine to suffer more wear than a regularly maintained paper filter, but they are not self-destruct devices, with many reports of cars going over 200K miles using K&N units.

They also *might* add some power to some cars, but it will never be dramatic unless they cheat and replace a dirty stock filter with a clean K&N filter.

The main advantage that I can see is savings on the cost of replacement. Considering the cost and frequency of replacement on a stock air filter, I would just as soon not deal with the mess of cleaning and oiling one when I can drop in a new paper air filter in just a few minutes.

Not that any of this matters now, as I have a huge cone filter that is services liked a K&N unit. A stock one would not work well with the setup the car has. I do service several other cars, however, and I would hate to have to clean and oil the air filters on all of them.

Pat

Reply to
pws

There's no mess involved with cleaning, here's how:

Fill kitchen sink with hot, soapy water, dunk aircleaner, swish it around and rinse, running hot water through it in reverse direction from airflow. Set in sun to dry, re-oil and re-install.

IMPORTANT NOTE! The above ONLY for us single guys, do NOT try this if married or living with someone as serious health complications may result.

Reply to
XS11E

Then clean sink....I should have said hassle. "Open cardboard box, remove filter" is all that I want to do to have it ready for installation if possible.

Very true. Using turkey basters to remove over-filled brake and clutch reservoirs can cause similar complications. I have a feeling that SWMBO, assuming that she were living with me, would also not have gone for the 5-speed sitting next to the washing machine for over a year. :-)

Pat

Reply to
pws

You tested 2 different cars on 2 different days. I need not go any further than that.

Reply to
Chas Hurst

Why not post up your favorite, 'cause I'm not refering to it.

Here's one test of air filter quality.

formatting link

Reply to
Chas Hurst

"Chas Hurst" wrote:

Not worth posting, it was pure BS by someone trying to discredit K&N.

Not too scientific, is it?

Here's the text I saved years back of a test that WAS conducted under proper circumstances, it might be floating around the web somewhere, the second part is more applicable:

====================================================================I got this off of vettenet.org, and it has some more info which I don't recall being on this list. Just thought I'd pass it along before I go for a ride.

K&N Filters

Hi VetteNetters, Back in Dec. and Nov. there was quite a bit of discussion of the K&N Filter. At the center of the controversy were questions about the K&Ns filtering ability ie: though its performance enhancing features are not in doubt, people wondered how good a filter it is. The discussion got even a bit heated with someone on the anti-K&N side coming out and saying that the K&N pretty much sucks as a filter and is not good for your engine. The only post I saw, pro or con, that backed up statements with test data was a post that cited a 1992 British Motor Industry Research Association dust filtration efficiency test of the K&N air filter. While this test was discussed previously, there are some things in it that need review. The test procedure was done according to ISO standard 5011, an international standard for air filters of the type used on heavy-duty and commercial vehicles. The filter was a K&N commercial type unit using K&N's oil-impregnated, gauze media and measuring 16.14in. long and 10.43in. in diamter. Air flow was 550 cubic feet a minute. The filter test "dust" was "coarse grade" dust as specified by standards used by ACDelco in testing their filters. Coarse grade dust is made up the following percentages of varying diameters of dust particles.

0-5 microns 12% 5-10 microns 12% 10-20 microns 14% 20-40 microns 23% 40-80 microns 30% 80-200 microns 9% The starting pressure differential across the filter was 26.45 inches of water. The test was run until the pressure differential reached 31.49 inches of water then the amount of dust trapped by the filter was determined and compared to the total amount of dust introduced to the filter. Dust introduced was 5.1680 lbs. and the dust trapped was 5.1307lbs. It took 102min. for the filter to reach the 31.49in. of water level. Filtration efficiency was 99.28%. Now, I have to qualify this test a bit to put it in the proper relation to a street high performance engine in a Corvette. First of all K&N commmercial filters typically are four-layers and units typically sold for use in passenger cars are three-layers. K&N has told me that the efficiency of the three-layer filter is 97% and additional tests back that up. Next, the K&N commercial filter tested, had more filter area that the typical air filter we see in a high-performance V8 application, such as a 3x14in. unit. However, the efficiency of the filter media would be about the same. Only the time to reach a specified restriction level would change. It would be less because, for a given type of dust and a given flow rate, the smaller the filter was, the faster it would plug up. Lastly, virtually no Corvette engine, run in a street high-performance duty cycle is going to see coarse grade dust in any significant amount unless the car is used as a farm or construction impliment. Another test that's been done with K&Ns was in 1983. Again, it was done by the British MIRA but this test was done according to the SAE J726 standard which is a bit more familiar in this country. This test was done with AC fine grade dust, the composition of which is different and perhaps more typical of "dust" a street engine would encounter. 0-5 microns 39% 5-10 microns 18% 10-20 microns 16% 20-40 microns 18% 40-80 microns 9% The test was done with a K&N for a motorcycle application which is a three-layer filter. The initial pressure differential was .825in. of water and the ending differential was 6.85. The airflow rate was 40 cfm. The dust introduced was 15.6 grams and the dust trapped was 15.1 grams. The efficiency of the three-layer filter was 96.8, fairly close to the 97% K&N claims for its street high-performance automotive filters. While the motorcycle filter is obviously much smaller than a V8 unit, the efficiency would be about the same. With a bigger filter, the time to reach the ending level of restriciton would be longer. In yet a third MIRA test done with filters of a size typical of V6 engines in high-performance sports coupes, two K&N oval filters were tested. One was a 2.56x7.48x6.18in. and the other was 3.22x7.05x4.5in. The test was run to ISO 5011 and AC fine grade dust was used. The filters' efficiency levels were 97.5% and 97.6% respectively. In my opinion these tests show convincingly that the K&N, oil- impregnated, gauze air filter is not only capible of low restricion but high filtration levels. All of the tests discussed here showed efficiency levels above that of the 95% which most OEs specifiy. Many off-road racers must agree, because a lot use the K&N and, if the K&N works in that kind of enviornment and those off-road race engines are reliable, it must be a heck of a good filter. In the U.S. Chrysler markets factory-approved performance kits for some of its truck engines. The kit includes a K&N filter and the kit's use is covered under the factory warranty. Chrysler would not offer a kit such as that if the K&N Filter could not meet OE filter efficiency goals. In Japan Nissan markets similar factory-approved performance kits for a couple of models that are offered only in the Japanese domestic markets. Like the Chrysler, kits, the Nissan kits include K&N filters. Also, the one way a K&N can fail as an air filter is if it is run, contrary to the manufacturer's instrictions, without being oiled. Another way it can fail is if it is run with the wrong kind of oil. If you use a K&N, best results comes from cleaning annually and reoiling every six months. If you operate your Corvette in a dusty environment (the coarse dust) clean and reoil more frequently. When you reoil, use only K&N's filter oil. Foam filter oil, engine oil, WD40 or ATF are not the proper products with which to reoil a K&N and will significatnly degrade the filter's efficiency. cYa H. Halverson
Reply to
XS11E

A test from 1992? Well that is very applicable. Bobistheoilguy makes a very good test that relates to actual usage.

Reply to
Chas Hurst

Nothing has changed.

It's not a good test, it's not done under any set conditions, etc. etc. It's basically someone's opinion with nothing to back it. Good tests are done in a laboratory with proper equipment, proper materials and repeatable results

If you think K&N filters don't filter as well as other filters that's fine, don't use them but that's only your opinion and one that's been debunked multiple times.

Reply to
XS11E

I don't use them because there is no evidence they do what K&N claims. Here' another test. Feel free to post something more applicable to support your opinion.

Reply to
Chas Hurst

Here's the link.

formatting link

Reply to
Chas Hurst

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.