Advice on K&N - Page 2 - Pontiac GTO Forums: Pontiac GTO Forum
NewAge GTO Forums
 


» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Pontiac GTO Forums: Pontiac GTO Forum > GTO Tech > Induction Tech

Newagegto.com is the premier Pontiac GTO Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-12-2007, 02:10 PM   #16
formula79
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,025
I like Volant...so does my GTO
formula79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-12-2007, 02:19 PM   #17
mechanic58
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,236
Ok...here's good question to ponder...everyone has an "opinion" on how much of an "improvement" they THINK they have seen by putting on a CAI with a K&N filter, or something similar. Hell, just lastnight in Reno I had a guy SWEAR to me that when he put on his CAI and K&N that his mileage went up to 28-29 hwy on his M6 LS2. *I* raised the BS flag. Is there any PROOF of this? Has anyone done a baseline dyno run with a stock airbox and filter than then put on a CAI with a K&N and done another run to compare numbers? I have never seen this anywhere before. I want someone to put their money where their mouth is. I'm skeptical.
mechanic58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2007, 11:16 PM   #18
formula79
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,025
The Volant looks cool, so I win

Quote:
Originally Posted by mechanic58
Ok...here's good question to ponder...everyone has an "opinion" on how much of an "improvement" they THINK they have seen by putting on a CAI with a K&N filter, or something similar. Hell, just lastnight in Reno I had a guy SWEAR to me that when he put on his CAI and K&N that his mileage went up to 28-29 hwy on his M6 LS2. *I* raised the BS flag. Is there any PROOF of this? Has anyone done a baseline dyno run with a stock airbox and filter than then put on a CAI with a K&N and done another run to compare numbers? I have never seen this anywhere before. I want someone to put their money where their mouth is. I'm skeptical.
formula79 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 05-15-2007, 02:38 PM   #19
LA_Phantom
Senior Member
 
LA_Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechanic58
Ok...here's good question to ponder...everyone has an "opinion" on how much of an "improvement" they THINK they have seen by putting on a CAI with a K&N filter, or something similar. Hell, just lastnight in Reno I had a guy SWEAR to me that when he put on his CAI and K&N that his mileage went up to 28-29 hwy on his M6 LS2. *I* raised the BS flag. Is there any PROOF of this? Has anyone done a baseline dyno run with a stock airbox and filter than then put on a CAI with a K&N and done another run to compare numbers? I have never seen this anywhere before. I want someone to put their money where their mouth is. I'm skeptical.
I noted this elsewhere on the forums here, but there have been reported incidents of folks who do nothing more than throw on a "CAI" and lose 25-30 rwhp. When the stock airbox and filter are reinstalled, the power comes back to where it ought to be. Without a good tune, I do not know that this mod is all that it is cracked up to be. Additionally, I do not know the validity of the published performance loses. It could be another Internet warrior over exaggerating. Then again, what do I know?

-K
__________________
2005 Black/Black M6 GTO - Futral Tune (503/466)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LA_Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2007, 08:58 PM   #20
mechanic58
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,236
I've always been skeptical of the CAI mod. A great number of VERY smart engineers put a LOT of time into the design of EVERY aspect of today's engines. If the CAI was such a big deal, the cars woulda come from the factory with one installed. ESPECIALLY if it yeilds such a purported gas mileage increase. Cause we ALL know how big the FEDS are on fuel economy.
mechanic58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2007, 10:31 PM   #21
Orbit Orange
Super Moderator
 
Orbit Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 3,333
Stock airboxes are there to quell induction noise. Take a look at all the ridiculous baffles tacked on to many stock airboxes. Those are guaranteed to create turbulence and slow air intake speed. All it would take would be a simple flow test of a stock airbox vs. the CAI. I don't look at my intake as being a cold air intake, rather a free-er flowing intake. Diminishing the restriction of the stock airbox is always a good thing as long as you are not sucking in overly hot underhood air.

Every stock airbox with stock paper filter I've checked also show a distinct dirty area on the filter that is WELL smaller than the overall size of the filter itself. What that tells me is that the engine is sucking in the air through a much smaller area than say an open cone.

I think we should send this one into Mythbusters and we could get our answer quick.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
__________________
2004 GTO: IBM/Blue A4 (1 of 369)
K&N CAI, JBA shorty headers & catted mids, SLP LM1, Pred. tuner, ported stock TB and MAF ends, Derale trans pan cooler, 180 Tstat, TB coolant bypass, Hankook Ventus V12's, King 0" drop rear springs, drag bags, Monroe Sensa-Trac rear shocks, SLP rear sway bar w/ end link bushings, Lovell's RR bushings, BMR skidplate, tow brace delete kit, DEPO black tail lamps, SCSS pod w/Aeroforce gauge


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Orbit Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 01:18 PM   #22
formula79
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,025
The problem is, a stock airbox is not restrictive enough to rob the engine of power. It only becomes a problem when you start adding say 75 HP at the wheels.
formula79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 01:55 PM   #23
LS2weber
Senior Member
 
LS2weber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Orangevale CA.
Posts: 699
Send a message via Yahoo to LS2weber
In my old car I gutted the air box and just put in a drop in K&N seemed to work fine and free up the car abit but who knows it was all by seat of the pants
__________________
Everday Is Race Day
06Quicksilver Metallic/ Red Interior/ M6/ Corsa Cat-Back/ K&N 63-3053/ 1 of 123
LS2weber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2007, 05:41 PM   #24
SV876
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbit Orange
Stock airboxes are there to quell induction noise....
GM engineers have not only stated the above but also that increasing the intake size increases performance. Diagram below shows a 'stock' airbox which appeared on the Holden Special Vehicles (HSV) 'VY SERIES 2 285kw Clubsport'-
SV876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 06:21 PM   #25
GT O yea
Senior Member
 
GT O yea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 201
Unhappy Don't bite my head off again Mechanic......

Quote:
Originally Posted by mechanic58
I've always been skeptical of the CAI mod. A great number of VERY smart engineers put a LOT of time into the design of EVERY aspect of today's engines. If the CAI was such a big deal, the cars woulda come from the factory with one installed. ESPECIALLY if it yeilds such a purported gas mileage increase. Cause we ALL know how big the FEDS are on fuel economy.
I ran my GTO for three months with stock air box, I travel the same way almost every day with it. I was getting 18.3 to 18.8 miles per gallon average, after install the K&N FIPK II the average is now 19.1 to 19.3 miles per gallon.

I do not notice a difference in power at low rpms but since the install there is a slight increase in how it revs up from 3500rpm and above, my time for roll-ons 60-100mph I believe is faster than the stocker, but very minimal.

As for the K&N damaging the engine as you state......yea your right but it is minimal in relation to how long someone drives on that engine. You could expect an air boxed engine to go 200,000 miles average, with the K&N you could expect 185,000 miles or more. Its not that big a deal, I ran K&N on one of my Camaro's for over 10 years and its engine went at 231,000 miles......its not that bad, and who plans on running the same engine for that long anyhow.
GT O yea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:24 PM   #26
dkrowner
Junior Member
 
dkrowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: alb,nm
Posts: 8
Volant for cold air
__________________
2006 gto ls2 m6 cyclone grey/black
engine:aps tt system,90mm ported fast intake,AIS duel injector trunk mount system,b&m short shifter,magnaflow cat-back system,elite catch can
appearance:fikse profil 10 18x8 1/2 38mm offset fr and18 9 1/2 51mm offset rr
245/40/18ZR fr and 275/40/18ZR rr tires

2006 gsxr1000 with more do then i care to write about
dkrowner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:52 PM   #27
LS2weber
Senior Member
 
LS2weber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Orangevale CA.
Posts: 699
Send a message via Yahoo to LS2weber
love my K&N
__________________
Everday Is Race Day
06Quicksilver Metallic/ Red Interior/ M6/ Corsa Cat-Back/ K&N 63-3053/ 1 of 123
LS2weber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2008, 12:16 PM   #28
cowboyili
Member
 
cowboyili's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oak Forest, IL
Posts: 74
Send a message via AIM to cowboyili
K&N works fine if you use it correctly. Mechanic58, you said you remove the whole induction system for racing. Removing the mass air flow sensor will cause an automatic car to shift improperly. Besides, I'd look pretty stupid if I was on the street and someone pulled up to me and I got out to disconnect the snorkel.

Anyway, I never noticed any issue w/ K&N. I love their products and use their oil filters. I want to get a CAI myself for my '04 GTO.
cowboyili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2008, 06:05 PM   #29
svede1212
Senior Member
 
svede1212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 247
i've written a lot of threads over the years on intakes. the only way to evaluate them and the way never advertised or done by manufacturers and consumers is by IATs under real world conditions and MAPs (manifold absolute pressure) under high RPM WOT runs. ideal IAT is ambient air temp and ideal MAP is whatever the MAP is measured when the engine is static (turned off). other than filtering junk that's the only functions an intake does.

think of MAP as the opposite of vacuum. any restriction of air flow (filter, tubing, bends, tube smoothness, MAF, etc) will cause a decrease in the possible air going into the TB. a supercharger of turbocharger will have MAPs in the intake manifold above static and that's where its power increase is gotten from. the higher the MAP the more oxygen you cram into the cylinder and the more power.

static MAP is usually around 100-101 kpa but that is dependent on the barometric pressure that day and your altitude. on a different tangent but one i found interesting was that the barometric pressure the weather man announces isn't necessarily what it really is where you are unless you happen to be at sea level. the number given is always adjusted to sea level. that way the isobars (lines of pressure) on the weather map mean something other than the altitude the pressure was taken at.

in testing quite a few intakes i noticed that they all suffered from one or both being less than ideal. BTW the best IATs i got were with my thru the fender design and the best MAPs i've gotten were with my OTRCAI (over the radiator CAI).

with a MAFless thru the fender intake i used a 9" cone filter and 4" smooth tubing but the bends, especially the 90* one right before the TB, kept MAPs at high RPM WOT up to 4 kpa and more below ambient MAP. with the MAFless OTRCAI the absolute worst was 1.4 kpa below ambient. i'm finally convinced what the Aussies have know for years and that is OTRCAIs are the best intake, period.
__________________
2004 Blk/Rd M6 (Ziggy) 12.34 ET, 113.55 MPH, 1.82 60ft

Go:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- SD tune - HPT w/LC-1 - SLP LTs - FTI SS HT Cam - Stiffy - SLP UD - 243 Heads - Custom Exhaust - NW 102 TB - FAST 102 - 3.91s w/Spring Kit - DiffTech DS - Fjord 42# Green Tops - Diamond Stg 3 clutch

Handling: GMM Rip Shift - Harrop Cover - Koni's - Hotchkis - Lovells springs - SuperPro - Energy Susp - Pedders - '05 Brakes - 1" widened rear wheels
Show: Tints 55% Fronts, 15% Rear & Rear Sides - '06 Black Tails
svede1212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 11:33 PM   #30
xtranaut
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechanic58 View Post
I've always been skeptical of the CAI mod. A great number of VERY smart engineers put a LOT of time into the design of EVERY aspect of today's engines. If the CAI was such a big deal, the cars woulda come from the factory with one installed. ESPECIALLY if it yeilds such a purported gas mileage increase. Cause we ALL know how big the FEDS are on fuel economy.
I am surprised you said that they would have put CAI on the goat if it needed one. These freakin corporations don't do anything they don't have to do even at the risk of letting you die from their unadmitted mistakes.

GM isn't the worst but there is a long list of crap they did the werong way and let it go, then with class action suits, made a recall order.

Caddy CTS and STS are a good example.The rear gears started roaring because the housings were defective. Almost always they'd give out before 15k miles..same with defective fuel systems.

I like the GTO. i have an 04. It is a simple car and fun to drive but they really could have put a tire pressure sensor, oil and battery gauge and a at least a 5 speed auto with overdrive. Gees, this was a comeback car and they left all this off?? Not because they forgot it...they just wanted to make more money on what they knew would be the instant enthusiasm for the car -- now, it will be lucky if it is revived as a Chevy Caprice
but who cares...they pooped that 6.0 G8 GT out there so it's likely the GTO is a memory
with the edicts to build fuel efficient cars and get guzzlers off the road.

..and after seeing the Camaro, I am glad I have something as rare as my perfect 04 stock goat. Sorry, but that car looks like Ford and Chrysler cooked up that cheese dish.
xtranaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.



Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.