K&N Air filter for SuperCharger?

[jamisobe]

Plat IV's use a ceramic coated electrode, not a ceramic electrode (like the FD5POR for example). It also uses a little tip of Platinum vs almost .200in of it on the F5. What I find happens with the cheap ones, is that the ceramic coating cracks, then the spark travels up the side of the electrode, negating anything close to a better spark. Again, the stockers are fine, you won't blow out the spark using them, so no gain is had from a 2.99 plug. In fact, since bosch is the oe for the turbo audis, I go thru this all the time. I recommend either FD5POR or just use the triple coppers (xxxDTC), they are the same price as the PIV and are a much better plug design. Regarding wires, the stock wires last forever, I replaced mine as PM at 12 years, well, because. That indicates to me that the new stockers will last another forever.

You have given the first negative review that I have heard. I searched on google for evidence of bosch plugs cracking and the only thing that turns up is praise. Not saying that you are wrong, just that I have no reason to not use salt on what your saying. You have already said things that I do disagree with. So I guess I don't understand why you changed your wires if you believe that stock wires never degrade in performance.

I speak to leaving a cat for each bank, not in series, yes in parallel. It's easy to put dual high flow cats on the 80, cuz it already had them from the factory. In terms of the honeycomb, it's really tough to claim that laiminar flow thru a grid less than half the size of 2 grids will yield better flow. Even if you account for velocity. Exhaust is all about pressure drop. I doubt a 3 in system with the stock cats would decrease flow, and can math out that a 3in honeycomb cat will cause a higher restriction than the stockers. I also suspect if you took a measure of pressure drop on a cat back 3in, the 3in muffler would yield the highest backpressure, not the stock cats. BTMT on a lot of cars in my shop.

First of all, my stock cats on my year are in series. 2nd, I am using headers outside of the frame and in my opinon, like Mr. Ts, that's were they belong. 3rd, if I were running duals (I'M NOT) I wouldn't be running 3" diameter tubing. 4th, I absolutely disagree with you if you think that a 2 (or even 1) stock 2.25" cat set up with 3" tubing will outflow a 3" high flow cat such as the dynatech (or whichever cat as long as it is a true 3") with 3" tubing. Why would you even say that if you don't know for sure? It sounds ludakwiss (to quote Mike Tyson). Please, I compared the dynatech to the stock and that is just silly. My buddy (a very experienced mechanic who does custom work) was a little skeptical too until he saw the cats side by side. You can poo poo non-oem all day long but I am not picking up what you're laying down on alot of what your saying. Your not speaking in terms that are apples to apples. You sound like you know what you are talking about to the extent of your own bias which means to me that you are not absolutely correct on much of what we are discussing.

Not necessarily, x pipes, crossover pipes, antireversion steps, catalysts, nozzle diverters, laminar flow converters, all are tricks that give performance and flow gains, and can add no additional restriction.

I don't view x pipes or crossovers as a trick (maybe our definitions of trick vary). They are for balancing or scavenging and they don't restrict. I don't see how a nozzle diverter or a catalyst will increase hp unless they aren't what I think they are. As far as I am concerned the only exhaust restriction that will add any significant gain is a turbo. Otherwise, my single mandrel bent tubing (I guess you would consider mandrel bent to be a trick-not me), minus any 60 degree turns (another trick maybe?) or greater, will flow better with 1 cat rather than 2. I will confidently pass on your advice to go back to the stock cats.

Glad you think it's working for you. As a rule slotted rotors tend to eat pads quicker, because the edge of the slot will clip them. I suspect that the carbon pads did more than anything to the rotor. Cross drilled look cool, I suppose, but there is little to support cross drilling or slotting that will yield gains in the 80. Put SS lines on them, and get air to them, run the stock pads. What gets the 80 in trouble is heat, btdt at Steamboat. A cast iron caliper needs to dissipate heat, pads don't do that well. Carbon can take more before failure, but they tend to be less agressive on initial bite, then get more so as they heat up. The problem with them IME, is that you overheat them, they will eat rotors immediately. The Semimetallics will get soft, indicating you have some heat issues before they eat the rotors.

I was mistaken about the slots, they're only crossdrilled and chamfered, I remember way back that I decided against the slots for the very reason you stated. Anyway, your opinons sound to be biased toward oem. Which gives me reason to doubt all of what you say. Crossdrilled, if done right, are better than not crossdrilled. I believe that having the vehicle lifted helps significantly with airflow over the rotors. My pads are lasting much, much longer than the stock with what is much better stopping performance (I drive hard sometimes, I used to experience fade under hard braking with the stock set-up. I haven't experienced this at all since the mod). I have stainless lines for whatever that's worth. So I hear your concerns but I haven't experienced them. I think I will also pass on your advise to use oem rotors and pads with confidence.

Again, I only look at what you've done vs what 'gains' are inherent to what you've done. It's your machine, I only encourage testing in some quantitative manner. In the case of the K&N, you don't even need to test, just calculate... You are wasting your money if the stock paper filter flows half the CFM.

ST

See, now theres your chance to show me. This whole discussion (between you and me) began over the flow of a K&N and how much gains, if any, could be realized. You said you had no proof but from your experience I should just believe you. Sumotoy, I am telling you again, show me and I will believe. If you can show me that the stock flows better than the K&N I would be convinced. You haven't even claimed to have performed the same test you are urging me to perform. If you have the equipment and are so interested in me believing you than why not do the test and report back? I believe that less resistence is better in the front end as well as the rear until I see tangible proof otherwise.

Heresay doesn't do it for me. Most of what I have done is backed up by research not gut feeling or uncontrolled testing. My results have been, in some cases, superior. I don't think I would be able to say that with as much conviction if I would of been using your advice as an expert.

 

[cary]

Heresay doesn't do it for me. Most of what I have done is backed up by research not gut feeling or uncontrolled testing. My results have been, in some cases, superior. I don't think I would be able to say that with as much conviction if I would of been using your advice as an expert.

Could you please provide your research, because I haven't seen any factual data that supports your position. Every time I ask for some you you make this arguement. You sound a lot like Ross Perot, you keep talking about how the other side won't produce the facts, but you continue to fail to produce them yourself.

 

[jamisobe]

Did it. I posted 3 examples. 1 showed significant gains related to reducing front end restriction (replacement of OEM aribox and filter with cold air intake and K&N), 1 showed that the K&N airfilter material flowed better than paper, and the 3rd was an opinion from a 3rd party writer who basically echoed what I have been saying. The K&Nis a good product that can make a small difference and an even more noticable difference if other exhaust mods are completed.

I'll repeat again. I never said that the K&N would definately improve performance. I said that it definately may improve performance as it has in other applications.

If someone has testing I would like to see it. In the meantime any statement that K&Ns will not improve performance (or will hurt performance) is heresay and anyone who is willing to swear by heresay might as well stop trying to convince me that they are right without proof. Its just that simple.

Prove it and I will believe. Otherwise, its just puffed up unsupported, opinion. I don't need to prove anything other than what I have proved. I never made any claims of fact specific to the performance of a K&N in an 80. Why do I feal like I am repeating myself?

 

[cary]

Did it. I posted 3 examples. 1 showed significant gains related to reducing front end restriction (replacement of OEM aribox and filter with cold air intake and K&N), 1 showed that the K&N airfilter material flowed better than paper, and the 3rd was an opinion from a 3rd party writer who basically echoed what I have been saying. The K&Nis a good product that can make a small difference and an even more noticable difference if other exhaust mods are completed.

Here is what you posted:

I have seen research that I believed to be conclusive that air flow is increased significantly in at least the control applications. I believe that gains are more in the neighborhood of 5hp or more depending on engine displacement. It would take dyno testing to determine with certainty.

James Healey: Free-flow air filters such as K&N, and the cold-air intake systems can make a difference.

Here are the results of the dyno run for the BenFer Performance CAI. ..... Overall, this is a great intake that can be had at an exceptional value. I would recommend this to anyone who is looking for a less expensive alternative to Dinan, ECIS or Conforti CAIs. On top of being able to upgrade to a K&N filter, AEM bypass and your choice of 4 custom colors, you get most bang for the buck. I hope this review will satisfy those interested in this intake.

Here is some of the actual test from the filter test on BITOG that you quoted in part:

So what do these results mean? For one, there is very little pressure drop across any air filter, and the difference between the best (K&N) and worst (paper) is very small. Yes as total power output increases, air flow increases, and differential pressure would also increase. So a K&N probably does yield some power on higher output race motors where every last ounce of power must be squeezed out. On lower powered street cars, it is probably not much of an improvement over paper. Basically, an air filter is first and foremost a filter, and should be chosen for it's filtration ability. I know after this enlightening experiment, that is exactly how I will select my air filters. Also remember, that this total differential pressure is measured from the atmosphere via the stock Miata air intake tube, airbox, accross the filter, though the test port, about 6 feet of tygon tubing and the manometer and back to the atmosphere. This is not the pressure drop across the filter itself. I may do a quick test with no filter ( I really hate to do it, but might anyway) to get a good estimate of how much is the system itself sans the filter.

So it is safe to say from the first test, that the K&N is still the best flowing filter. What is interesting to note is that there was a 5.1 inch of H2O differential pressure in the stock air box and intake piping. If you subtract this different it says worst case one can see a 2 inch of H2O differential pressure loss due to the air filter. This is equivalent to 0.072 psi or very nearly nothing. The air filter posses very little restriction at all in this application. As long as an air filter is properly sized for an application, the lost airflow will be very minimal. This means that there is very little if any power to be found from removing the air filter, much less changing the filter type. The K&N did flow better than the Napa Gold in the first test to the tune of 0.02 psi. That is less than 1/3rd the loss in the factory piping, and it is a whopping 0.14% of atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi). If you need the 0.14% better airflow, than the K&N is hands down the best filter.

I addressed these three examples. The first has no factual data, the second is a comparison of a cold air intake, not air filters. The third is a comparision of air filters where he finds a .14% difference in airflow, within the range as to be statistically insignificant. AGAIN I WILL ASK YOU TO POST THE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF YOU POSITION THAT YOU KEEP CLAIMING TO HAVE CITED. So far all I see is the emperor has no clothes.

Finally, on an issue you raised earlier, please explain how synthetic oil is increasing your power?!!! Last I checked it takes the same amount of energy to pump oil of the same thickness (CST @ operating temperature), whether that oil be mineral, hydrocracked, poa, or ester based.

 

[SUMOTOY]

You have given the first negative review that I have heard. I searched on google for evidence of bosch plugs cracking and the only thing that turns up is praise. Not saying that you are wrong, just that I have no reason to not use salt on what your saying. You have already said things that I do disagree with. So I guess I don't understand why you changed your wires if you believe that stock wires never degrade in performance.

I see 4 prongs as marketing, as I did splitfires. Not sure why 4 prongs to begin with. The retail argument is better service life, I just don't see that. The idea is to have 4 prongs wear evenly. The problem is that the ceramic center degrades and the spark finds the least resistance to ground. Use triple copper bosch they last longer than the P4 ever will. I've installed hundreds of plugs in turbo cars. I haven't found a cheap platinum that can take the abuse. I run triple copper in my own turbo cars and can change them 5 times for the price of a single set of proper F5POR plugs. You want service life, don't get the P4's. That's a retail plug with a big marketing arm. Find a specific application plug in the target heat range that has an innate hard service life (audi turbo, volvo turbo, mitsu turbo, porsche turbo), you won't find a single P4 in any of them. The F5POR came out specifically for the audi 4 valve head with a 16psi turbo.

First of all, my stock cats on my year are in series. 2nd, I am using headers outside of the frame and in my opinon, like Mr. Ts, that's were they belong. 3rd, if I were running duals (I'M NOT) I wouldn't be running 3" diameter tubing. 4th, I absolutely disagree with you if you think that a 2 (or even 1) stock 2.25" cat set up with 3" tubing will outflow a 3" high flow cat such as the dynatech (or whichever cat as long as it is a true 3") with 3" tubing. Why would you even say that if you don't know for sure?

Because you can't change the laws of physics. Do the calculations
Pipe surface area = pi * r^2

1 x 3.000in pipe = pi * 1.50^2 = 7.07sq in

2 x 2.250 pipe = 2* (pi * 1.125^2) = 2* (3.9760) = 7.94 sq in

That's just pipe diameter. Next, you have to calculate the honeycomb area in a single 3in vs dual 2.250. Then you have to double the CFM flow going thru the 3in which will in turn increase the pressure vs the duals... Again, you might have a point if you put dual 3in instead of a single 3in.... Here your single 3in cat is basically a step back to the equivelent of a 2in dual cat system in terms of surface area.

It sounds ludakwiss (to quote Mike Tyson). Please, I compared the dynatech to the stock and that is just silly. My buddy (a very experienced mechanic who does custom work) was a little skeptical too until he saw the cats side by side. You can poo poo non-oem all day long but I am not picking up what you're laying down on alot of what your saying. Your not speaking in terms that are apples to apples. You sound like you know what you are talking about to the extent of your own bias which means to me that you are not absolutely correct on much of what we are discussing.

I don't poo poo anything, I say a hi flow 3in cat on each bank would probably outflow the dual 2.25 in cats that came on the truck. In fact, that's the plan for my truck, regardless of cat back choice. I also have done the math on what the CFM in and out of the motor is, and can up to any pressure ratio. It tells you a lot of things about what works and what doesn't. Have you tested or calculated any of this?

I don't view x pipes or crossovers as a trick (maybe our definitions of trick vary). They are for balancing or scavenging and they don't restrict. I don't see how a nozzle diverter or a catalyst will increase hp unless they aren't what I think they are. As far as I am concerned the only exhaust restriction that will add any significant gain is a turbo. Otherwise, my single mandrel bent tubing (I guess you would consider mandrel bent to be a trick-not me), minus any 60 degree turns (another trick maybe?) or greater, will flow better with 1 cat rather than 2. I will confidently pass on your advice to go back to the stock cats.

You are basing that on the surface area of the cat correct? The exhaust flow is only as good as the biggest restriction. You can be confident, try measuring cat backpressure on the truck. Or just think about it, your applications is stuffing 6cylinder 4447cc exhaust output thru a 3in pipe. On the stock truck you are stuffing half the cylinders output (2.237cc) thru a 2.250 in pipe. Again, pick your pressure and flow.

I was mistaken about the slots, they're only crossdrilled and chamfered, I remember way back that I decided against the slots for the very reason you stated. Anyway, your opinons sound to be biased toward oem. Which gives me reason to doubt all of what you say. Crossdrilled, if done right, are better than not crossdrilled. I believe that having the vehicle lifted helps significantly with airflow over the rotors. My pads are lasting much, much longer than the stock with what is much better stopping performance (I drive hard sometimes, I used to experience fade under hard braking with the stock set-up. I haven't experienced this at all since the mod). I have stainless lines for whatever that's worth. So I hear your concerns but I haven't experienced them. I think I will also pass on your advise to use oem rotors and pads with confidence.

I only chuckle at crossdrilled rotors. There aren't many high performance applications that use them, even in the rain. Porsche uses them because they look cool, and they have so much overcapacity in the production braking system, they could drill holes without casting them. Airflow with lift?

I'm not an oem kinda guy, in fact take a look at the rotor information I posted up. I do know a gimmick when I see it, and crossdrilling on a 80 is one of the biggest. I do know failure on crossdrilling, and I know absolutely little gain from it. Get cold air to the rotor with ducting or scoop or dam air. It's cheaper than the best crossdrilling application you can buy. Don't take my word for it, call up the big boys in the US = Coleman. Ask if they recommend crossdrilled rotors. They do it, because folks want it. They don't do it because it realizes a gain.

The K&N on the otherhand, is really another marketing thing. You can't get close to the 874CFM without 30 pounds of boost from your turbo. I'm sure eager to hear how much gain a K&N will realize on the 80, but the stocker with more surface area is more than adequate. Again, use the calculator, not the marketing. What is the max flow out of the 80 motor in normally aspirated trim?

If you have the equipment and are so interested in me believing you than why not do the test and report back? I believe that less resistence is better in the front end as well as the rear until I see tangible proof otherwise.

Again, get the calcluator out. Get max airflow for the engine. This doesn't require a single test. I already gave you what the K&N flows. The rest is just math and a bit of common sense. It's pretty obvious to me why it's not going to give you the gains you claim. That really depends on the size of the filter appication. Here Mr. T gave us one that is monstrous compared to the airflow. Multiply your quoted Miata test airflow gain by a factor of 10, the math doesn't work!

Heresay doesn't do it for me. Most of what I have done is backed up by research not gut feeling or uncontrolled testing. My results have been, in some cases, superior. I don't think I would be able to say that with as much conviction if I would of been using your advice as an expert.

I'm no expert. I'm a performance guy, and my job is to look at subjective numbers and objectify them. I have put k&N filters on engines exactly half the size of the 80, pushing much more air than the 80 ever will. I found no gain. You want to have a gut feeling? That's fine, but a simple calculator will show that your gut has a monumental task to get to the conclusion you have made.

The choice is yours to make, I've learned in my 20 years of automotive tweeking that K&N, magnecors, ARP's, Jacobs, Plat 4's, splitfires, turbonators, and a bunch of other tweeks, usually tweek the wallet more than the car.

YMMV

ST

 

[jamisobe]

I see 4 prongs as marketing, as I did splitfires. Not sure why 4 prongs to begin with. The retail argument is better service life, I just don't see that. The idea is to have 4 prongs wear evenly. The problem is that the ceramic center degrades and the spark finds the least resistance to ground. Use triple copper bosch they last longer than the P4 ever will. I've installed hundreds of plugs in turbo cars. I haven't found a cheap platinum that can take the abuse. I run triple copper in my own turbo cars and can change them 5 times for the price of a single set of proper F5POR plugs. You want service life, don't get the P4's. That's a retail plug with a big marketing arm. Find a specific application plug in the target heat range that has an innate hard service life (audi turbo, volvo turbo, mitsu turbo, porsche turbo), you won't find a single P4 in any of them. The F5POR came out specifically for the audi 4 valve head with a 16psi turbo.



Because you can't change the laws of physics. Do the calculations
Pipe surface area = pi * r^2

1 3in pipe = pi * 1.50^2 = 7.07sq in

2 x 2.250 pipe = 2* (pi * 1.125^2) = 2* (3.9760) = 7.94 sq in

That's just pipe diameter. Next, you have to calculate the honeycomb area in a single 3in vs dual 2.250. Then you have to double the CFM flow going thru the 3in which will in turn increase the pressure vs the duals... Again, you might have a point if you put dual 3in instead of a single 3in....




I don't poo poo anything, I say a hi flow 3in cat on each bank would probably outflow the dual 2.25 in cats that came on the truck. In fact, that's the plan for my truck, regardless of cat back choice. I also have done the math on what the CFM in and out of the motor is, and can up to any pressure ratio. It tells you a lot of things about what works and what doesn't. Have you tested or calculated any of this?



You are basing that on the surface area of the cat correct? The exhaust flow is only as good as the biggest restriction. You can be confident, try measuring cat backpressure on the truck. Or just think about it, your applications is stuffing 6cylinder 4447cc exhaust output thru a 3in pipe. On the stock truck you are stuffing half the cylinders output (2.237cc) thru a 2.250 in pipe. Again, pick your pressure and flow.



I only chuckle at crossdrilled rotors. There aren't many high performance applications that use them, even in the rain. Porsche uses them because they look cool, and they have so much overcapacity in the production braking system, they could drill holes without casting them. Airflow with lift?

I'm not an oem kinda guy, in fact take a look at the rotor information I posted up. I do know a gimmick when I see it, and crossdrilling on a 80 is one of the biggest. I do know failure on crossdrilling, and I know absolutely little gain from it. Get cold air to the rotor with ducting or scoop or dam air. It's cheaper than the best crossdrilling application you can buy. Don't take my word for it, call up the big boys in the US = Coleman. Ask if they recommend crossdrilled rotors. They do it, because folks want it. They don't do it because it realizes a gain.

The K&N on the otherhand, is really another marketing thing. You can't get close to the 874CFM without 30 pounds of boost from your turbo. I'm sure eager to hear how much gain a K&N will realize on the 80, but the stocker with more surface area is more than adequate. Again, use the calculator, not the marketing. What is the max flow out of the 80 motor in normally aspirated trim?



Again, get the calcluator out. Get max airflow for the engine. This doesn't require a single test. I already gave you what the K&N flows. The rest is just math and a bit of common sense. It's pretty obvious to me why it's not going to give you the gains you claim. That really depends on the size of the filter appication. Here Mr. T gave us one that is monstrous compared to the airflow.



I'm no expert. I'm a performance guy, and my job is to look at subjective numbers and objectify them. I have put k&N filters on engines exactly half the size of the 80, pushing much more air than the 80 ever will. I found no gain. You want to have a gut feeling? That's fine, but a simple calculator will show that your gut has a monumental task to get to the conclusion you have made.

The choice is yours to make, I've learned in my 20 years of automotive tweeking that K&N, magnecors, ARP's, Jacobs, Plat 4's, splitfires, turbonators, and a bunch of other tweeks, usually tweek the wallet more than the car.

YMMV

ST

I'll agree that turbonators and splitfires are junk. I've seen the proof. I don't know what jacobs or arp's are, maybe I should find out in case they work.

The resaerch I did suggested that anything more than a 3" single pipe from 4.5 liters of displacement was overkill and may actually have a negative effect due to loss of scavenging.

I could possibly see how 2' or maybe even 2.25" pipe in a dual, normally aspirated configuration could work but I don't want duals. I already have excellent flow from my exhaust and doubt that there is a way to improve it much better if better at all. The calculations you post are apples to oranges and do not take into consideration the dynamics of heat.

You are wrong about the crossdrilled rotors and I don't think we will know about the K&N anytime soon. Maybe time will tell that you are right. ...maybe not. We don't know today. Maybe it will turn out that the amount of difference your duals (the ones that you think will turn your truck into a race car/you shoud just ditch the spare, ditch your bumpers, strip the interior and pull out the spare seats if you really want to go fast) makes will be similar to the gains I am getting from just my K&N alone??? Or worse yet, maybe it will turn out that you get negative gains from your duals... Now theres a scary thought!

 

[cary]

You are wrong about the crossdrilled rotors

Actually he is not. There is a reason you don't see them used much anymore. I have personally witnessed cracking in cross-drilled rotors during lapping days. There is a reason track junkies don't run them anymore. Most guys on the street don't have any problem with them because they don't push their cars far enough, but start to really push it, get those rotors nice and hot, and many will fail.

BTW, I run Hawk Carbon pads with stock rotors, but only because they provide an extra margin of braking performance in an emergency when the stock pads would overheat and become ineffective. I overheated the brake pads on the LC last year driving down a slow speed (30mph) road that decends 1500 feet in less than two miles. The outgassing was so bad, I could not stop at the bottom (I haven't had a car in years that had insufficient braking capacity to deal with this type of road). The problem is a lack of airflow, and like sumotoy stated is the best improvement to the brakes would be to improve airflow. In my case, I don't have regular problems, but want that extra margin in case I do overheat the pads. If this happens, I will trash the rotors but I will be able to stop.

 

[jamisobe]

And another thing. My truck did not come with duals!

 

[SUMOTOY]

I'll agree that turbonators and splitfires are junk. I've seen the proof. I don't know what jacobs or arp's are, maybe I should find out in case they work.

As well as the P4's I'm afraid.... Just more expensive

The resaerch I did suggested that anything more than a 3" single pipe from 4.5 liters of displacement was overkill and may actually have a negative effect due to loss of scavenging.

I could possibly see how 2' or maybe even 2.25" pipe in a dual, normally aspirated configuration could work but I don't want duals. I already have excellent flow from my exhaust and doubt that there is a way to improve it much better if better at all. The calculations you post are apples to oranges and do not take into consideration the dynamics of heat.

Dynamics of heat? There is dynamics of pressure and flow. Heat should be a constant. You might argue the dynamics of flow against the wall of the pipe, the depth of the honeycomb vs the surface area. Unfortunately, flow thru pipe is pretty much just physics. If you don't want to do dual pipe I understand, but dual cats would definitely give you gains. Just to be clear, I speak to Dual downpipe, not dual exhaust. Dual downpipe into dual cats, into a collector, into a 3in cat back system.

You are wrong about the crossdrilled rotors and I don't think we will know about the K&N anytime soon. Maybe time will tell that you are right. ...maybe not. We don't know today. Maybe it will turn out that the amount of difference your duals (the ones that you think will turn your truck into a race car/you shoud just ditch the spare, ditch your bumpers, strip the interior and pull out the spare seats if you really want to go fast) makes will be similar to the gains I am getting from just my K&N alone??? Or worse yet, maybe it will turn out that you get negative gains from your duals... Now theres a scary thought!

For the crossdrilled rotors debunk, go here
http://flashoffroad.com/Maintenance/Brakes/BrakeRotors.html

You should have put the slots in, and not done the CD.

For the rest of it, your own quoted reference negates the K&N gain. What I've never seen is a K&N double the flow of the stock, unless you go bigger in size. Here, the K&N is smaller, and you offset a minimal gain with a reduction in surface area.

When you test, make sure you put the stock in, the paper in and no filter in. I predict the results will surprise you, they never did to me, I've seen too many K&N that folks guessed the wrong service interval.

I have no ill will towards you. I find mindset fascinating, and overly marketed hype of tweeks to be a waste of good money spent elsewhere.

ST

 

[cary]

And another thing. My truck did not come with duals!

And with that your last tiny bit of credability has left the room.

 

[jamisobe]

As well as the P4's I'm afraid.... Just more expensive

Opinions and test results seem to vary on the plugs. It does seem that the platinum plugs are seen as having more longevity. Articles vary but here are two 3rd party articles with data.

http://www.se-r.net/engine/bosch_vs_ngk.html

http://www.porsche914.org/sparks.html

Dynamics of heat? There is dynamics of pressure and flow. Heat should be a constant. You might argue the dynamics of flow against the wall of the pipe, the depth of the honeycomb vs the surface area. Unfortunately, flow thru pipe is pretty much just physics. If you don't want to do dual pipe I understand, but dual cats would definitely give you gains. Just to be clear, I speak to Dual downpipe, not dual exhaust. Dual downpipe into dual cats, into a collector, into a 3in cat back system.

What kind of headers do you plan on using?

For the crossdrilled rotors debunk, go here
http://flashoffroad.com/Maintenance/Brakes/BrakeRotors.html

You should have put the slots in, and not done the CD.

This 3rd party off-road test article references the rotors I use. It explains that not all cross drilled rotors are the same and is complete with quantifiable road test data (you know how I like real world data).

http://www.off-road.com/isuzu/womb_brakes.html

For the rest of it, your own quoted reference negates the K&N gain. What I've never seen is a K&N double the flow of the stock, unless you go bigger in size. Here, the K&N is smaller, and you offset a minimal gain with a reduction in surface area.

How does the flow bench negate the K&N gain? It's not conclusive to just say that the K&N has to double the flow of the stock. Even if the stock filter had twice the surface area of the K&N. You still are extrapolating your opinion without real data.

When you test, make sure you put the stock in, the paper in (K&N [sic]) and no filter in. I predict the results will surprise you, they never did to me, I've seen too many K&N that folks guessed the wrong service interval.

I never said your opinon is wrong only that it is your opinion. I think you meant the stock, the K&N, and no filter. I wouldn't run without the filter. Me waiting an extended period to change my filter is of no consequence to the debate. Part of the advantage to running a guaze filter are extended change periods.

I have no ill will towards you. I find mindset fascinating, and overly marketed hype of tweeks to be a waste of good money spent elsewhere.

ST

I will grant you that there are frauds out there, but the K&N will improve the performance in many applications(maybe the 80, maybe not. I will reserve judgement till I see facts rather than conjecture). There are well made cross drilled rotors that work excellent with semi-metallic pads(I have posted a link to an article for you, I also have a fine real world example sitting on my truck-these rotors are completely straight after 25k, I still have lots of pad remaining, and my stopping performance was improved. Leaps and bounds better than the stock set-up), the plugs aren't a big improvement but they work fine and their long life countered their higher cost.

I understand why you feel the way you do and I respect that. You are entitled to your opinion and your own reasoning. Just as others are entitled to have their own opinions. However, facts do change and one disadvantage of being a nay sayer without checking for the new facts (such as more advanced cross drilled rotors) is that you may actually be operating off of old knowledge. Also, taking a position that doesn't allow for the benefit of the doubt. It is fact that K&Ns do often improve power (my point) which you disagreed with. It causes me a little angst when someone says just believe what I have to say especially after they just wronlgy spewed a big smelly poo poo fest. That's all. No harm done.

 

[jamisobe]

And with that your last tiny bit of credability has left the room.

You remind of Robin. You know, Batman's sidekick. At least I don't have to put as much thought and research into replying to what you have had to say.

My truck didn't come with side by side cats before the collector as ST implied more than once. I suppose he is referring to earlier years 'cause I know that 95-97 had cats in series after the collector.

Even if I wanted to accept the added complexity I still don't see how side by side cats would work with headers. It's very tight in there. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[cary]

This 3rd party off-road test article references the rotors I use. It explains that not all cross drilled rotors are the same and is complete with quantifiable road test data (you know how I like real world data).

http://www.off-road.com/isuzu/womb_brakes.html

Umm, can you please show me where in the article there is factual support for you contention that there is real world data concerning the performance of your cross drilled rotors. I see some stopping tests and then repeated tests with new PADS AND ROTORS. Sorry but once again you have failed to recognize that you have changed two variables at the same time, not one. If they had run the test with the same pads and non drilled rotors, the stopping distances would have been virtually identical. The fact the guys are using metal master pads on a road vehicle, especially a 4x4 truck which needs to be able to generate high levels of brake torque from cold brakes (think off roading) makes me question their knowledge to start with.

You need to learn the phrase certis paribus, take a class in scientific methodology and get back to us. BTW, you wouldn't be an Aggie would you?

 

[jamisobe]

Umm, can you please show me where in the article there is factual support for you contention that there is real world data concerning the performance of your cross drilled rotors. I see some stopping tests and then repeated tests with new PADS AND ROTORS.

So shoot me.

Sorry but once again you have failed to recognize that you have changed two variables at the same time, not one.

When was the first time?

If they had run the test with the same pads and non drilled rotors, the stopping distances would have been virtually identical. The fact the guys are using metal master pads on a road vehicle, especially a 4x4 truck which needs to be able to generate high levels of brake torque from cold brakes (think off roading) makes me question their knowledge to start with.

You need to learn the phrase certis paribus, take a class in scientific methodology and get back to us. BTW, you wouldn't be an Aggie would you?

I'm a Buckeye Robin and I would suggest that you stick with OEM.

 

[cary]

I suppose he is referring to earlier years 'cause I know that 95-97 had cats in series after the collector.

Even if I wanted to accept the added complexity I still don't see how side by side cats would work with headers. It's very tight in there. Maybe I'm missing something.

I will take this step by step, please read it slowly and several times, perhaps then you will be able to comprehend:

1) You said your truck didn't come with "duals" refering to the converters.

2) The definition of dual is:

Main Entry: 1du·al
Pronunciation: 'dü(-&)l also 'dyü-&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin dualis, from duo two -- more at TWO
1 of grammatical number : denoting reference to two
2 a : consisting of two parts or elements or having two like parts : DOUBLE b : having a double character or nature

3) I insulted you as you are incorrect, it did come with two cats.

4) You have confirmed that you truck has two cats (technically you confirmed more than one, for all I know you think it has 5000) when you stated as I have quoted above "I know that 95-97 had cats in series after the collector."

5) Oops, wait, I might have moved to fast there. I notice you used the word series, but am not sure you understand what it means. Here is the definition if you are unclear:

Main Entry: se·ries
Pronunciation: 'sir-(")Ez
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural series
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from serere to join, link together; akin to Greek eirein to string together, hormos chain, necklace, and perhaps to Latin sort-, sors lot
1 a : a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession <a concert series> <the hall opened into a series of small rooms> b : a set of regularly presented television programs each of which is complete in itself
2 : the indicated sum of a usually infinite sequence of numbers
3 a : the coins or currency of a particular country and period b : a group of postage stamps in different denominations
4 : a succession of volumes or issues published with related subjects or authors, similar format and price, or continuous numbering
5 : a division of rock formations that is smaller than a system and comprises rocks deposited during an epoch
6 : a group of chemical compounds related in composition and structure
7 : an arrangement of the parts of or elements in an electric circuit whereby the whole current passes through each part or element without branching -- compare PARALLEL
8 : a set of vowels connected by ablaut (as i, a, u in ring, rang, rung)
9 : a number of games (as of baseball) played usually on consecutive days between two teams <in town for a 3-game series>
10 : a group of successive coordinate sentence elements joined together
11 : SOIL SERIES
12 : three consecutive games in bowling
- in series : in a serial or series arrangement


You aren't missing something, you are missing a lot, mainly the ability to methodicaly aproach an issue and root out the cause and affect. Guess what, just because you can find it on google doesn't mean it is correct.

 

[cary]

I'm a Buckeye Robin and I would suggest that you stick with OEM.

What's that something you shoot? Sorry but I don't know local school insults down there, perhaps you can explain it. I was only asking because all those jokes you hear about Aggies make a lot sense when communicating with you.


BTW, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that you completely fail to address the issues that I have raised concerning the problems with every piece of alleged factual support you have given for your position. Could you please address those issues/questions I have asked?

BTW, yes I am being a prick at this point, because you are long at spouting opinion as fact, but short on supporting your alleged facts with data that supports your arguements. Next thing I know you will be citing an article where somebody added a supercharger and uses a K&N and you will say "see the K&N increased the power."

 

[jamisobe]

I will take this step by step, please read it slowly and several times, perhaps then you will be able to comprehend:

1) You said your truck didn't come with "duals" refering to the converters.

Wrong again Robin. Duals in the context ST was speaking. side by side cats before the collector. Big difference hot shot.

 

[jamisobe]

2) The definition of dual is:

Main Entry: 1du·al
Pronunciation: 'dü(-&)l also 'dyü-&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin dualis, from duo two -- more at TWO
1 of grammatical number : denoting reference to two
2 a : consisting of two parts or elements or having two like parts : DOUBLE b : having a double character or nature

I'm not as dense as you Robin. I know that my 80 came with cats in series-I took them off. ST initially said that my original stock set up (2 stock cats) would flow better than my mod (1 high flow cat). He was wrong, just not as rude or as brash as you.

 

[jamisobe]

3) I insulted you as you are incorrect, it did come with two cats.

Hmmm. Are you one of those rocket scientists?

 

[jamisobe]

4) You have confirmed that you truck has two cats (technically you confirmed more than one, for all I know you think it has 5000) when you stated as I have quoted above "I know that 95-97 had cats in series after the collector."

So why did ST say that my truck came with two cats before the collector? My truck came with 2 after the collector, in series.

Are you getting this? You must be from Michigan.