Mustang GT and K&N air charger

I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63 series aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their Ford warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mrsunshine wrote:

You shouldn't have any issues with the warranty unless the kit directly caused the problem. As for the horsepower boost, you will likely be lucky to get half of what the manufacturer claims. They typically get their numbers from a very specific set of parameters that most people never see.
If you want to make a real difference in performance then get a dyno tuned chip. That will improve throttle response and get you around 30 rwhp and about the same amount of torque. Also, rear end gears is another good modification that you can really feel in the seat of your pants. Most of these other mods, on a stock engine, like air intake systems etc. are just fluff and mostly serve to let you point at something when you raise the hood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

15 is way to high, perhaps 2 or 3 at 6,000 RPM, no low end grunt torque improvement at all. not worth it, but the chip is, especially to get rid of some of the throttle lag.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

See http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html for my opinion.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While I agree K&N filters are a potentially dangerous and certainly a pain in the ass, this statement "Claims of greatly improved fuel mileage for K&N Filters are bogus." Is absolutely FALSE!
I still have the mileage records of every fill up for a 1994 Taurus SHO that I bought new with 7 miles on it, to over 70,000 miles. This car was a daily driver commuter car that went 70 mostly freeway miles each weekday. The first 25,000 miles it consistently recorded 24.5 MPG each fill up. A K&N air filter was installed into the stock air box, zero other changes. The fuel mileage took an immediate (and documented over 50,000 miles) jump up to 26.5 MPG, and stayed there.
I personally would NEVER use a K&N oil bath air filter again. My preference is to filter my intake air as well as I possibly can and I don't think the K&N's do that as well as the stock paper filters.... But throwing out a blanket statement that fuel mileage gains from their use are bogus, is simply bogus. You may or may not like K&N filters, I don't, but for crying out loud, don't post bullshit about them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My Name Is Nobody wrote:

K&N air filters do flow better than most OEM filters. The problem with them is they can leave an oil film residue over time if the MAF is installed after the filter. Especially, if the user gets too much oil in the filter after cleaning it. The remedy for this is to clean the MAF element more often, which isn't a big hassle. Where they really pay off is on heavily modified engines (i.e. super/turbo charged) where the OEM filter becomes a bigger restriction due to the greatly increased air flow requirements.
Additionally, I don't think K&N filters decrease the life of an engine due to poor filtering. I have had one on my '89 LX since it was new and it has 150k+ miles (the last 30k-40k miles with a blower) on it and it burns the same amount of oil as when it was new. I have also had the heads off numerous times and see no accelerated wear on the cylinder walls. The original cross hatching is still very visible. Anyone worried about engine wear from using a K&N is splitting hairs regarding their effectiveness verses an OEM/paper filter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Johnson wrote:

Yep, I now use the dry cleanable Donaldson filters from Amsoil.
--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But why? Explain how the K&N could increase fuel economy on a fuel injected engine. Except at WOT, the air filter restriction is trivial compared to the throttle restriction. The MAF and other part of the FI control system are measuring the mass of flow through the induction tract, and they don't know whether the flow is restricted by the air filter or the throttle plate. With an older carbureted engine, I can see how a restricted air filter upsets the fuel air ratio and affects gas mileage. This is not the case for modern fuel injected engines. I don't know why your mileage jumped, but I suspect other factors are at play.

I don't believe my opinion is BS. I don't see any reason to expect a K&N filter to increase the fuel economy of a modern fuel injected engine. Not even K&N makes the claim that their filters will increase fuel mileage Go read K&N's carefully worded FAQ on this subject (http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#1 ) - "we do not go so far as to make a general claim that our air filters and intake systems will provide an increase in mileage." K&N is willing to let you think their filters might increase fuel mileage, but they are not so foolish as to claim that they will.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While this was certainly true with carbureted engines, there is no reason to think this is the case for modern fuel injected engines. For carbureted engines, a clogged air filter acts like a choke and enriches the mixture because of the effect on air pressure in front of the throttle plates. This reduces the fuel economy. In a modern fuel injected engine, the mixture is not influenced in this way. The amount of fuel injected is determined based on the MAF sensor and other sensors. These sensors can't tell the difference between a restriction to the flow related to the air filter and a restriction to the flow related to the throttle plates. There is no difference as far as the computer is concerned between the restriction of the air filter and the restriction of the throttle plates. The engine speed / power output is determined by the total intake restriction (intake tract plus throttle opening). The only thing a slightly restricted air filter does on a modern engine is require you to open the throttle a slight amount more and reduce the maximum power output. The effect on fuel economy for a modern engine is minimal. I won't claim it is zero, but I doubt you would be able to tell the difference unless the filter was absurdly restrictive.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:

A dirty filter will lower gas mileage on EFI engines too. Instead of going into a long rebuttal I'll just provide a few links to some credible web sites.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/103164/article.html http://tinyurl.com/2a9v2 http://tinyurl.com/2hyeyx http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/doer/pub_info/dt.pdf
There are a huge number of sites stating that a dirty filter decreases mileage. There is more than just a MAF reading that the computer uses to determine the amount of fuel needed. Air density, throttle position, air temperature etc. also come into play. Excessive opening of the throttle plate on a fuel injected car also tells the computer the engine is under a greater load which effects how much fuel is delivered to the cylinders.
I'm not saying a K&N filter will give a noticeable improvement in gas mileage over an OEM unit but with all things being equal the engine with a more efficient filter will perform better. Do you think an engine with a dirty air filter would pass an emissions test? If so then why not?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Johnson wrote:

Yes but I'd bet that by "dirty filter" they mean clogged. I can see Ed's point here but there is probably a point at which the clog becomes so bad the electronics can not compensate. I once bought a 1977 Thunderbird for $50. It would not start, the guy and 4 friends tried to get it started to get it home. When I went to get it I had a battery, some gas and tools. It was full of gas, I cranked, smelled gas and popped the hood. Took off the air breather and put it in the trunk, started it and drove home to all their amazement. Three months and $500 later I sold it for $4500. It had 267K miles on it. The buyer was still driving it 4 years later. :oP
--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WindsorFox-- wrote:

Clogged or mildly dirty, it is all variants of the same thing. That is a restriction to air flow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

world.
You are being too simplistic, example a clean filter capable of delivering 1000 cfm new, but only 700 cfm dirty, is still quite adequate if the engine only requires 500 cfm at max rpm to start with. Air resistance is an exponential factor, it doesn't really come in to play until you get into the upper limits of your overall air flow capability. Honestly, how much time does your engine spend at 5000 rpm?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nice theory, but it does not explain my documented 2 MPG fuel mileage increase from a simple filter change, on a 1994 SHO commuter car that I CAN SAFELY SAY NEVER HIT 5000 RPM while my wife drove it, 99.9% of it's miles.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ironrod wrote:

Are you saying a car gets the same mileage when a filter is new compared to when it is dirty? Gas mileage decreases gradually over time and not like dropping off a cliff. Here's another one to think about.... an engine with a more efficient intake in front of the throttle body makes more horsepower than with a stock setup. That power increase happens across the rpm range. The engine making more power will get better mileage because the engine is more efficient at making that power. What difference does it make whether it is a more efficient intake or a clean verses dirty filter that causes the increase in efficiency?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You just don't get it. Unless you are at wide open throttle, the restriction of a normal air filter is irrelevant for a modern fuel injected engine. Yes, certainly the engine may develop more power with a clean air filter AT WIDE OPEN THROTTLE. This is not because the engine it is more efficient, it is because you can draw more air into the engine - more air equals more power. But unless the throttle is wide open, the air filter is not the limiting factor. So unless you are driving around with your foot on the floor most of the time, the air filter restriction is not a significant factor in fuel economy. And if you are driving around with your foot on the floor most of the time, fuel economy is not something you care about.
You seem to think there is a huge difference in the pressure drop across air filters - this isn't true. At a normal cruise you only need less than 20 horsepower to go 65 mph. This is somewhere around 0.034 gallons of gasoline per minute (around 27 miles per gallon). This is around 0.21 lbs of gasoline per minute. This amount of gasoline requires around 2.9 lbs of air. This is about 26 cubic feet of air. So, when cruising you can assume that your engine only needs about 26 cfm of air. Go look at the K&N web page. They compare filter performance at 300 cfm - over ten times what is required to cruise. And even at 300 cfm the difference in pressure drop between a clean K&N and a clean paper filter is on the order of 0.03 PSI. At a 65 cruise the pressure drop across a normal filter is probably too low to be measured without very sensitive equipment. There is a reason K&N always rates the flow rate of there filters for a given pressure drop, instead of giving you a pressure drop for a given flow rate - it over hypes the difference in filters.
Discussing this subject with you is like watching a train wreck. You know there is nothing you can do about it, but you just can't turn away. I know you don't get it, I even understand why you don't get it, but I can't seem to come up with the proper way of explaining things to make you understand where your thinking is going wrong. You just can't get your thoughts around the idea that for a modern feedback controlled fuel injected engine, the PCM can adjust the fuel flow to compensate for changes in the system. Does a dirty air filter flow less air than a clean air filter, yes of course. Is the difference significant as far as fuel economy is concerned - no, not for a properly serviced air filter. We are talking about hundredths of a psi difference in pressure drop at normal cruising speeds. This difference is well within the adjustment range of any modern fuel injected engine. Heck, changes in the air filter are not close to the most significant factor that changes with time. Drift in the measuring capabilities of the MAF and TPS are more significant than the change in the pressure drop across the air filter. Until you understand that unless you are at wide open throttle, the air pressure drop across the air filter is trivial, you'll never understand why the pressure drop across the air filter is not a significant factor in determining fuel economy. An air filter dirty enough to significantly affect fuel economy should also set a fault code in the PCM and turn on the check engine light.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:

I don't believe that. The computer may know to adjust the amount of fuel based on the flow of air, but having to pull that air through a stiffer restriction is still going to make the engine work harder. I also think depending on how restricted the intake is it may cause some of the electronics to not perform as efficiently as well.
--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Again, why do you believe this? Air flow into the engine is restricted by the throttle plate at anything less than wide open throttle. To achieve a particular level of power, you need a given amount of air. The flow of air into the engine is restricted if you are trying to develop anything but maximum power. Where in the intake this restriction occurs is irrelevant. The pumping losses (this is what you are talking about) are the same whether the restriction occurs at the air filter or at the throttle plate. For any power level less than maximum, a slightly more restricted air filter will just require a slightly more open throttle to compensate. And the difference will be tiny. You guys seem to have it in your mind that a normal air filter is very restrictive. It isn't. We are talking about a difference in restriction in the noise range (0.01 to 0.03 psi).
Which electronics do you thing will be affected? There are only two, possibly three, sensors in front of or concurrent with the throttle plate - the mass air flow sensor - MAF, throttle position sensor - TPS, and possibly the intake air temperature sensor (these are often combined with the MAF). The MAF is designed to measure the mass of air flowing through the intake tract. The trivial differences in pressure related to normal changes in air filter restriction are not going to affect the MAF operation beyond what would be considered a normal variation. The PCM can compensate for this based on feedback from the O2 sensors. The TPS is a gross throttle position measurement device. It is not highly accurate. Any minor changes in the position of the TPS for a given power output caused by a slightly more restricted air filter will be easily compensated for by the PCM based on feedback from the O2 sensors.
Again, I am not talking about grossly contaminated air filters. I am talking about filters serviced in a reasonable manner per the manufacturer's recommendations. Any air filter so restrictive that the PCM cannot adjust the A/F to compensate, should turn on the check engine light. And to be clear, I am talking about differences measurable by normal consumers. I wouldn't claim that there is no difference at the level that could be measured under tightly controlled laboratory conditions with precision equipment. I doubt there is any significant difference even in that case, but given the uncertainty of almost any complex system, I can't be absolutely sure that there won't be minor differences down in what would be the noise range for normal vehicle operation. Also, I am not claiming that a restricted air filter will have no effect on performance. It certainly can reduce maximum power. With the throttle wide open, other restrictions in the intake tract are what limits the air flow. The more air you can get into the engine the more power you can develop. A K&N filter may provide more power, but in most cases the differences will be trivial. For most cars, it is not the air filter that is the most restrictive part of the system, it is the actual plumbing (intake opening and connecting tubing). Air filters are usually sized to provide minimal restrictions. K&N provides a means of calculating an air filter size to minimize power loss due to air filter restrictions. See http://www.knfilters.com/filter_facts.htm#SELECT . K&N used to provide a filter factor for their filters and for paper filters (they have dropped the paper filter number from the current web page, but I recorded it). They claimed that their filters would flow 6.02 cfm per square inch and that a paper filter would flow 4.38 cfm per square inch (they don't clue us in on as to the pressure drop needed to achieve these flow rates). You should use the K&N method to calculate the filter size needed for your engine. Then derate it by 73% (4.38/6.02). Compare the resulting filter size to the stock filter for your engine. I'll wager you that your stock filter is at least one and a half times the size this calculation suggest is required (assuming it is stock). And the calculation is very conservative. Working backwards through the K&N calculations for a 350 engine turning at 5500 it can be shown that they are assuming an air flow of 560 cfm. This much air flow should be sufficient for a 450 hp engine. So the K&N calculation is clearly for a very powerful engine - hardly a normal production engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:

By this thinking if the car is at an idle and not WOT then putting your hand over the intake should do nothing. A clogged filter ads more resistance to what it already there.
--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

ARRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG -you really don't get it do you. What is so hard to understand here. The amount of air that flows into the engine is what determines the amount of power the engine developed. For a given speed, or moderate acceleration rate, you need a certain amount of power that is most likely less than what can be developed at wide open throttle (I know, some people claim to drive all the time at WOT). The total restriction to air flow is the sum of all the little restrictions that make up the inlet tract from the air intake to the actual cylinders (including the piping, air filter, throttle plate, etc). For a properly maintained engine, NOT at wide open throttle, the biggest single source of flow restriction is the throttle plate. If there is a minor increase in the restriction in another part of the intake system, you can decrease the total restriction of the entire intake system by opening the throttle a little more - as long as the additional restriction is not something outlandish, LIKE PUTTING YOUR HAND OVER THE INTAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you guys want to argue that cramming a potato in the intake will affect fuel economy, I'll agree with you, although the results might not be what you expect. Assuming you don't block the intake so completely that the PCM can't properly adjust the A/F Ratio, it might even increase the fuel economy since you'll be reducing the available power . I have never claimed that an idiot with an air filter so clogged that the check engine light is on won't have fuel economy problems. I am just talking about the range of restrictions associated with a properly maintained air filter and an otherwise stock engine in good condition. If you want to talk about what happens if you do something stupid, all bets are off.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.