So i shouldn't take the MAF screen off if i only have a K&N panel filter?
04-02-2003, 06:45 AM
#3
I agree with Dave... can't hurt to try. But I would consider getting some kind of...
MAF inlet installed. Even if the stock airbox doesn't throw any codes or CEL's the bell flair MAF inlet is a perceptable, feelable enhancement even with the screen in place. I've felt it's difference on numerous occasions and Mr D told me Sunday night that he could feel the difference even before he tried removing his MAF screen which then further enhanced the MAF inlet's effectiveness. I think like all other intake tract mods the results are cumulative in nature and every little bit helps. A well-designed MAF inlet (airhorn) at the airbox outlet/MAF inlet goes a long way towards mimicking the effectiveness of a well-designed cone filter with integrated velocity stack while maintaining the stock airbox and it's inherent cool air and "no brainer" five minute installation benefits.
Designing/duplicating/fabricating and installing a cool air box on the other hand thats as efficient/effective as the stock "sealed system" at keeping intake temps cool for a cone filter is certainly not a project for the skittish, unsure, timid or under-tooled weekend mechanic, especially when viewed in terms of comparison.
Designing/duplicating/fabricating and installing a cool air box on the other hand thats as efficient/effective as the stock "sealed system" at keeping intake temps cool for a cone filter is certainly not a project for the skittish, unsure, timid or under-tooled weekend mechanic, especially when viewed in terms of comparison.
04-02-2003, 08:28 AM
#5
Which presumes someone owns a drill, a Dremel and an aftermarket intake kit...
or wants to drill/bore holes in their car's sheet metal or fabricate a separate piece with it's associated weather-stripping and drilled mounting points, fasteners and clamps. Or if they want to open the airbox, push a MAF inlet into place and close the lid. And to date there's no empirical data to support that either one works better than the other. I have all the tools necessary to fabricate or build a closed-in container or shield and I would still prefer the 5 minute method until/if someone shows me a before/after dyno pull on each mod proving one works better than the other. The flowbench certainly can't find any cone w/VS CFM increases over a K&N panel filter with a MAF inlet installed but hey, I've got an open mind! Just cuz the flowbench doesn't show it doesn't necessarily mean the dyno wont. And the dyno will always be a more accurate measure of power from EVERY modification than a flowbench ever can. The flowbench is just a complex yardstick, a gauge if you will of potential, but not empirical HP/torque.
And then there's the whole issue of returning the car to stock if necesary when you decide to sell/trade. If you've bored holes thru the firewall it's megabucks and time to patch, weld, sand and paint that hole or leave it and take the hit. An after market heatshield or box is a lot easier to return to stock but still more work than the 5 minute MAF inlet flare removal.
But heck it's a choice for individuals and their car. Certainly not mine to make for anyone. I'm just offering a quick, easy work-around that seems to work very very well in spite of the time (5 minutes) and expense ($20) for a likely similar, perhaps even identical net gain.
And then there's the whole issue of returning the car to stock if necesary when you decide to sell/trade. If you've bored holes thru the firewall it's megabucks and time to patch, weld, sand and paint that hole or leave it and take the hit. An after market heatshield or box is a lot easier to return to stock but still more work than the 5 minute MAF inlet flare removal.
But heck it's a choice for individuals and their car. Certainly not mine to make for anyone. I'm just offering a quick, easy work-around that seems to work very very well in spite of the time (5 minutes) and expense ($20) for a likely similar, perhaps even identical net gain.
04-02-2003, 10:24 AM
#7
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well stated, well stated indeed.
I guess my car has enough modifications that I didn't shy away from cutting through the firewall. All I know is that I got significant 'seat of the pants' results and I always know that I have cool, fresh air being force fed into my aspiring 12V.
I'd like to see the results of your TB, so then I can gauge if that is going to increase my bottom line as well.
I am SO glad that you are trying to find ways for us to keep up with our force fed 1.8T brothers and sisters.
I'd like to see the results of your TB, so then I can gauge if that is going to increase my bottom line as well.
I am SO glad that you are trying to find ways for us to keep up with our force fed 1.8T brothers and sisters.
Trending Topics
04-02-2003, 04:32 PM
#9
Elder Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 23,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the numbers to show such improvements on a A4 1.8T APR SIII
but they wouldn't be worth much for our cars. In truth or engines,in stock form, probably don't need more 'n the stock box and inlet can supply. One could always test for a pressure drop between inlet and outlet if they had the means to do so.
If you look at a engine as a pump,it'll perform best with the least restriction on the intake/suction side that allows the best flow.
The one huge increase that I gained was ease of inspection and replacement. On the SIII,it makes it easier to work around in that area. Plus I think that one needs to consider that it would be easier to insulate one plane vs. four.
If you look at a engine as a pump,it'll perform best with the least restriction on the intake/suction side that allows the best flow.
The one huge increase that I gained was ease of inspection and replacement. On the SIII,it makes it easier to work around in that area. Plus I think that one needs to consider that it would be easier to insulate one plane vs. four.
