SVTPerformance 2012 GT : K&N Replacement Filter Test

[SID297]

Guys chill out. I'm just asking questions. I'm very appreciative of the work put in on this test. I am just trying to wrap my mind around the k&n loosing horsepower. I think that's crazy. I personally would not buy one any way. The whole point of a forum is for people to discuss results. Thanks Sid for doing this test. If you say that the car was cooled down enough in between post's then I believe you.

It actually had to be warmed back up to the temperature we start testing at.

 

[B.Richards]

Blew my mind!! Thanks for sharing this test!

 

[SID297]

Blew my mind!! Thanks for sharing this test!

Glad you guys liked it. We have a lot more great stuff coming in the future.

 

[BM1]

heres the bottom line...if you don't believe the dyno and want to drop $60 on a filter, do it. otherwise, stop fighting the data

+1

Drink that K&N Kool-Aid all you want, but don't argue with actual test data.

 

[Red Turtle]

Hmmm, wonder if I should remove mine that came with the ProCal...?

Maybe I'll contact Mastwolf and see what he would charge to do 3 runs with K&N and then 3 runs with the stock filter while running my ProCal. Then we could post the results in this thread for those owners with the ProCal.

 

[MalcolmV8]

I find dyno's so inconsistent anyways. I've seen as much as 15 hp difference between pulls on my car. Same dyno session back to back. Had I painted a red stripe down the side of my car quickly between the pulls I would have sworn it just gained me 15 hp lol.

 

[SID297]

I find dyno's so inconsistent anyways. I've seen as much as 15 hp difference between pulls on my car. Same dyno session back to back. Had I painted a red stripe down the side of my car quickly between the pulls I would have sworn it just gained me 15 hp lol.

Hence why we use the most accurate dyno made in a fully sealed climate controlled cell.

 

[RedRocketMike]

Good read, I've never been a fan of K&N products. For everyone in disbelief Brenspeed had similar results when they ran this comparison. Brenspeed Tests K&N Panel vs. Stock Filter 2011 Mustang 5.0 - Ford Mustang Forums

 

[BLK93GT]

I don't understand why people are so surprised by this dyno test. K&N filters real advantage is the ability to reuse them and if you dyno compared them with say 5,000 miles on them the K&N "should" come out on top. The stock filter may straighten out the airflow better, who knows.

Were there any differences in the A/F between runs?

 

[SID297]

I don't understand why people are so surprised by this dyno test. K&N filters real advantage is the ability to reuse them and if you dyno compared them with say 5,000 miles on them the K&N "should" come out on top. The stock filter may straighten out the airflow better, who knows.

Were there any differences in the A/F between runs?

The ECU would compensate for any conditions that would lead to an A/F ratio change.

 

[thasalvoo]

:cryying:

Guys chill out. I'm just asking questions. I'm very appreciative of the work put in on this test. I am just trying to wrap my mind around the k&n loosing horsepower. I think that's crazy. I personally would not buy one any way. The whole point of a forum is for people to discuss results. Thanks Sid for doing this test. If you say that the car was cooled down enough in between post's then I believe you.

It's losing not loosing! Damnit somebody had to say it.

 

[65mph_Roll]

You should have run the K&N first, and the paper second, to end the endless heat soak debate.

 

[01cobravortech]

I find dyno's so inconsistent anyways. I've seen as much as 15 hp difference between pulls on my car. Same dyno session back to back. Had I painted a red stripe down the side of my car quickly between the pulls I would have sworn it just gained me 15 hp lol.

:lol:

 

[SuperSport01]

This is an interesting test. I guess Ford did a great job with the stock intake system. Im not surprised as I have seen other cars where a K&N made no gain over factory, then again on my 01 SS a K&N made 6whp over the 7000 mile factory filter.

 

[thematrixhazune]

Too bad a control test wasn't done, 1. without any filter 2. stock filter 3. K&N filter.

But I would have to side with Ford on this. They know more about their own hardware than K&N would.

 

[SID297]

You should have run the K&N first, and the paper second, to end the endless heat soak debate.

There is no debate. Just some looking for excuses for poor performance.

Too bad a control test wasn't done, 1. without any filter 2. stock filter 3. K&N filter.

But I would have to side with Ford on this. They know more about their own hardware than K&N would.

The car will fall on its face without a filter in place, due to turbulence through the MAF.

 

[rich5150]

Was the ech reset between runs? If not, the higher flow of the k&n will cause the car's ecu to read lean and pull timing.

No it won't. You are completely wrong. By the sheer nature of your comment you have no idea what you're talking about and how a modern engine management computer controls the engine...especially at WOT. :burn:

 

[Chris410]

No it won't. You are completely wrong. By the sheer nature of your comment you have no idea what you're talking about and how a modern engine management computer controls the engine...especially at WOT. :burn:

Wrong, unless the stock filter flows more, the k&n will introduce more air requiring the car to adjust, this is NOT instantaneous when it comes to OPTIMAL mapping on a "modern" ecu. The point was that the ecu should have been reset when the filter was changed for consistency.

I do not run k&n filters so, I was trying to suggest something that would have helped the test rather than hurt feelings or cause an argument. Again, I was not bashing or trying to stir up trouble.

This also spells it out plainly (read what it says about modern ecus and tuning)

http://www.ecutuningtopics.com/ecu-tuning-achieving-maximum-engine-performance/

Anyone who tunes understands what I am suggesting when I said that resetting the ecu would have led to a more consistent test. I am done with this topic, good luck!

 

[SID297]

Wrong, unless the stock filter flows more, the k&n will introduce more air requiring the car to adjust, this is NOT instantaneous when it comes to OPTIMAL mapping on a "modern" ecu. The point was that the ecu should have been reset when the filter was changed for consistency.

I do not run k&n filters so, I was trying to suggest something that would have helped the test rather than hurt feelings or cause an argument. Again, I was not bashing or trying to stir up trouble.

This also spells it out plainly (read what it says about modern ecus and tuning)

ECU Tuning: Achieving Maximum Engine Performance

Anyone who tunes understands what I am suggesting when I said that resetting the ecu would have led to a more consistent test. I am done with this topic, good luck!

Your source is a blog post by some guy named Jeff? Where specifically does Jeff say to "reset" the ECU? Since you mention "[a]nyone who tunes understands what I am suggesting", what is your experience tuning Copperheads (one of the most advanced ECUs Ford has ever used)?

Do you actually believe this is correct (and if so where did you get theory from)?

Was the ech reset between runs? If not, the higher flow of the k&n will cause the car's ecu to read lean and pull timing.

Here's a hint, when the computer reads increased airflow (within limits) it adds more fuel and makes more power. It doesn't pull timing. To see that in action view this thread:

http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...hing-treatment-airaid-mxp-intake-install.html

We increased airflow, did not "reset" the ECU, did not alter the tune, yet made more power without any timing being pulled.

 

[chuckstang]

Heres the way I look at it. Whenever I go to a dyno day or for tuning etc, the first pull always makes the most power.

Take that for whatever its worth and draw your own conclusions