Please,What are you thing for K&N air filter,THE TRUE
12-26-2000, 06:42 AM
#11
AudiWorld Senior Member
I've got one in my A6--->
and personally, I honestly do feel a slight difference.
The engine feels more responsive to the throttle now. Not sure if it made any HP at all, but the throttle response makes it feel like it did. Now, a gentle poke at the accelerator makes the engine gather revs.
Either way, I'll keep it in. After the tracks open again in NJ, I'll run the 1/4 again to see if it makes any difference at all.
The engine feels more responsive to the throttle now. Not sure if it made any HP at all, but the throttle response makes it feel like it did. Now, a gentle poke at the accelerator makes the engine gather revs.
Either way, I'll keep it in. After the tracks open again in NJ, I'll run the 1/4 again to see if it makes any difference at all.
12-26-2000, 08:45 AM
#13
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, I understand your points, "around town".....
but, I've popped the hood after 30 mins. on the track at my last event the MC (T5) intake snorkle, absolutely cool to the touch! Meaning NOT breathing Hot engine bay air.
And actually would expect little difference, unless stuck in bumper to bumper commute traffic.
Two different schools of thought!?
But, I like it, even believe it offers better MPG performance.
Still believe it to be a worthwhile mod.
And actually would expect little difference, unless stuck in bumper to bumper commute traffic.
Two different schools of thought!?
But, I like it, even believe it offers better MPG performance.
Still believe it to be a worthwhile mod.
12-26-2000, 03:50 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When do you exacly tend on doing a smog test on your car. Maybe you should read your DMV hand book.
You dont have to smog your car for 4-5 years. So you are telling me that my K&N filter charger is no better then the stock airbox for my eclipse. If you are then you are only fooling your self. I did the mod to the stock box on my Audi and ran it, then put the turbo5 intake on and ran that. I would never put the stock box back on my car other then to smog it in 4 yrs.
12-26-2000, 05:28 PM
#15
The SMOG thing was just matter of fact...that's all...read on...lots more inside
Ahem I'm well aware of the smog laws cmh...sheesh man how stupid do you think I am? All I was suggesting is that it's another thing that I'll never have to worry about.
Your filter is NOT a K&N unless you've changed it...I've talked to Clark on this one...they're made by (S&B, SMB, SNB...can't remember what he said exactly on the phone) anyhow that's not the point here. There's no need to tell me how it works...I own one too if you'll notice.
Now here for the hard facts...try to think about them before you react with an answer.
Filter Element made by K&N that drops in your stock airbox has the same if not slightly more surface area than that cone, if you don't believe me I encourage you to take them and measure...you'll be shocked at what you find...I sure was. The cone that comes with that kit has a maximum circumference (distance around) at the bottom equal to 2 times the longest dimension of the panel for the stock airbox...but since the cone is almost EXACTLY one half as the shortest dimension (x,y) the areas are equal...now you may try to argue that because there is that little filter area in the front of the cone it has more area...I can shoot that down too. You see I said the MAXIMUM circumference is 2 times the longest dimension of the drop in panel...but the min is a fair bit smaller...meaning less area...the real kicker is that the K&N drop in has convolutions which are nearly 2 times as deep as the cone...which means more surface area....
OK so now you've lost the surface area argument...there is no doubt the K&N which drops in the stock box has greater surface area...flow resistance is a direct function of element surface area and flow resistance per unit area on the element in question...the more area for a given flow resistance per unit area the less pressure drop you're going to have. It's simple science...
OK now we've determined that the intake filter element on the cone is probably more or equally restrictive (as a filter device alone...not as a system)...so all things being equal the filters may be about the same...let's call it a tie...
On to the next argument...if the drop in filter and the cone are the same in terms of flow resistance...then it must be the removal of the evil restrictive airbox that allows the kit to supposedly make power. Well if you buy that then you MUST buy that the snorkel is the primary source of flow resistance now...as you know the stock airbox has no choice but to draw air in though the snorkel (the flapper is there in case the filter element gets water soaked or clogged for some reason so the car doesn't die it's seldom if ever used) which is the coolest air avail to the car.
Now air will be draw in via the path of least resistance...it's lazy so to speak, so if the cone increases flow then it must be because it draws in more air...if it draws in more air then it has to get it from somewhere else...READ THE ENGINE BAY...this means you have parallel air induction paths...and the least resistive one will constitute the bulk of the flow, the engine bay at lower speeds WILL constitute the least resistive path as there will be little or no air ram action from the snorkel...this is BAD for performance no matter how you slice it.
Some will argue that you can see more fuel being used...just monitor the long term fuel trim...it goes positive...and look at the MAF readings you see more grams per second...that means more air...which means more fuel...which means more power...WRONG. What it could very well mean is that the air flowing into the MAF is not very straight and as a result of turbulence some of the airflow may be perpendicular to the MAF hot film element causing it to read more air than is really flowing causing the engine to respond by increasing fuel delivery...
The car honestly feels more powerful with the stock box in place...don't let those vrooom and whoosh sounds fool you...you might be paying a lot more than $2XX for them :-)
Good Day,
James R.
2001 A4 1.8TQMSXP (Turbo5 Stage III Brakes, on the way (Oettinger Pedals, Oettinger RE's 17x8 Yoko 225/45/R17, Euro Xenon Housings, Bailey BPV and RS4 Grille)
Your filter is NOT a K&N unless you've changed it...I've talked to Clark on this one...they're made by (S&B, SMB, SNB...can't remember what he said exactly on the phone) anyhow that's not the point here. There's no need to tell me how it works...I own one too if you'll notice.
Now here for the hard facts...try to think about them before you react with an answer.
Filter Element made by K&N that drops in your stock airbox has the same if not slightly more surface area than that cone, if you don't believe me I encourage you to take them and measure...you'll be shocked at what you find...I sure was. The cone that comes with that kit has a maximum circumference (distance around) at the bottom equal to 2 times the longest dimension of the panel for the stock airbox...but since the cone is almost EXACTLY one half as the shortest dimension (x,y) the areas are equal...now you may try to argue that because there is that little filter area in the front of the cone it has more area...I can shoot that down too. You see I said the MAXIMUM circumference is 2 times the longest dimension of the drop in panel...but the min is a fair bit smaller...meaning less area...the real kicker is that the K&N drop in has convolutions which are nearly 2 times as deep as the cone...which means more surface area....
OK so now you've lost the surface area argument...there is no doubt the K&N which drops in the stock box has greater surface area...flow resistance is a direct function of element surface area and flow resistance per unit area on the element in question...the more area for a given flow resistance per unit area the less pressure drop you're going to have. It's simple science...
OK now we've determined that the intake filter element on the cone is probably more or equally restrictive (as a filter device alone...not as a system)...so all things being equal the filters may be about the same...let's call it a tie...
On to the next argument...if the drop in filter and the cone are the same in terms of flow resistance...then it must be the removal of the evil restrictive airbox that allows the kit to supposedly make power. Well if you buy that then you MUST buy that the snorkel is the primary source of flow resistance now...as you know the stock airbox has no choice but to draw air in though the snorkel (the flapper is there in case the filter element gets water soaked or clogged for some reason so the car doesn't die it's seldom if ever used) which is the coolest air avail to the car.
Now air will be draw in via the path of least resistance...it's lazy so to speak, so if the cone increases flow then it must be because it draws in more air...if it draws in more air then it has to get it from somewhere else...READ THE ENGINE BAY...this means you have parallel air induction paths...and the least resistive one will constitute the bulk of the flow, the engine bay at lower speeds WILL constitute the least resistive path as there will be little or no air ram action from the snorkel...this is BAD for performance no matter how you slice it.
Some will argue that you can see more fuel being used...just monitor the long term fuel trim...it goes positive...and look at the MAF readings you see more grams per second...that means more air...which means more fuel...which means more power...WRONG. What it could very well mean is that the air flowing into the MAF is not very straight and as a result of turbulence some of the airflow may be perpendicular to the MAF hot film element causing it to read more air than is really flowing causing the engine to respond by increasing fuel delivery...
The car honestly feels more powerful with the stock box in place...don't let those vrooom and whoosh sounds fool you...you might be paying a lot more than $2XX for them :-)
Good Day,
James R.
2001 A4 1.8TQMSXP (Turbo5 Stage III Brakes, on the way (Oettinger Pedals, Oettinger RE's 17x8 Yoko 225/45/R17, Euro Xenon Housings, Bailey BPV and RS4 Grille)
12-26-2000, 07:09 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is nice and dandy to read. But I do get over 24 mpg with my race chip & over 26 with my street
chip so how can I do that if I am using more fuel whith my turbo5 intake on the car. By the way james I was wondering who you work for, it is just a Question dont take it the wrong way.
12-26-2000, 09:24 PM
#17
Grab a beer make a sandwich this is a hella long reply....
I work for Momentum Data Systems in Fountain Valley California, I'm a Design Engineer (Electronics) we do primarily various audio encoders and decoders...we do all the programming for Motorola on the 56K series of Digital Signal Processors for Dolby Digital, AC3...DTS you name it. We also do a lot of work in Class-D (Digital) audio power amplifier design...these are special high efficiency PWM amplifiers with power ratings from 600 Watts to a projected 2000 Watts for the first series. They're generally used for powering large subwoofers and the like.
Previous to that I worked for Harman International...you know Dan Harman I'm sure...well that's his dads company. Anyhow I worked there for the last 2.5 years designing multimedia loudspeakers and associated electronics (amplifiers and EQ's) for the Harman Multimedia division...you may have seen some of my work, the newer iMac (less than 1~1.5 years old) computers with the Odyssey sound system...any of the Dell Speakers from low cost virtually give aways to higher end 3 piece systems...I was either directly responsible for the acoustics...or tightly associated in some way...our smallest speaker (size not sales volume) we ship to dell sold about 6 million pairs last year...wow :-)
Before that I worked for Threshold Corp one of the worlds leading manufacturers of ultra high end audio equipment...unfortunately after 22 solid years of business we went under due to poor management of cash flow :-( I'd still be there today if it weren't for that...I was the last employee...spent my last month working in exchange for High-Fi gear...as a result I've got about 25,000 in my two channel hi-fi (which is by no means a lot by audiophile standards...but it's up there).
Anyhow point is...if you're trying to hint that I might be a Troll for one of the other tuners you're dead wrong. I don't know how long you've followed my posts...but I generally tend to be pretty neutral. Hell Clark and I get along great...I think he's a pretty cool guy...we'll talk on the phone for stupid amounts of time about this and that...don't think the filters have never come up :-) I even own one of the damn things...so it's not like I'm some guy just talking out of his *** about this or that which I've never even tried on my own car. I just don't honestly think that the airbox is a restriction and unless you're makin' 400+ HP you don't need to mess with it cause you'll do more harm than good...that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it...and when it's solicited I give it out. If I wanted to be an ******* I'd could post all of my findings and continue on by getting the thing onto a flow bench...but in the end I won't post that stuff cause it would only make me look like I'm mean spirited...despite the fact that any findings good or bad would be in the best interests of the Audi community in general.
Further more...as you may or may not have noticed I've been eagerly awaiting the delivery of my Turbo5 Stage III brakes...I would figure this alone should be a pretty good indication that I'm not out to boycot any Turbo5 products...hell if you want to hear something even funnier I'M THE ONE WRITING THE DAMN INSTALLATION MANUAL FOR THE THING...SHEESH. If you're reading this Clark...seriously I'll finish it one of these days :-) things will slow down after CES in early January...once I get back from Vegas I'll try to button it up and get it off to you.
Anyhow...have fun with your filter, I certainly enjoyed certain aspects of mine...but in the end I weighed the pro's and cons and came to the conclusion that it wasn't the right part for me. Hopefully the brakes will kick ***...as they were a tad more expensive than the filter :-) In retrospect I wish I'd put more money into the exhaust since you're bound to have way more pumping losses there due to the longer path lenghts involved...and the higher gas volumes flowing.
BTW - I used to get about 27 miles per gallon on my K04...twas a FWD though...but still pretty impressive esp with my driving style.
Regards,
James R.
2001 A4 1.8TQMSXP (Turbo5 Stage III Brakes (Porsche 996 Caliper + S4 Rotor...in the post) Oettinger Pedals, Oettinger RE's 17x8 Yoko AVS Sports 225/45/R17, Euro Xenon Housings, Bailey BPV and RS4 Grille)
Previous to that I worked for Harman International...you know Dan Harman I'm sure...well that's his dads company. Anyhow I worked there for the last 2.5 years designing multimedia loudspeakers and associated electronics (amplifiers and EQ's) for the Harman Multimedia division...you may have seen some of my work, the newer iMac (less than 1~1.5 years old) computers with the Odyssey sound system...any of the Dell Speakers from low cost virtually give aways to higher end 3 piece systems...I was either directly responsible for the acoustics...or tightly associated in some way...our smallest speaker (size not sales volume) we ship to dell sold about 6 million pairs last year...wow :-)
Before that I worked for Threshold Corp one of the worlds leading manufacturers of ultra high end audio equipment...unfortunately after 22 solid years of business we went under due to poor management of cash flow :-( I'd still be there today if it weren't for that...I was the last employee...spent my last month working in exchange for High-Fi gear...as a result I've got about 25,000 in my two channel hi-fi (which is by no means a lot by audiophile standards...but it's up there).
Anyhow point is...if you're trying to hint that I might be a Troll for one of the other tuners you're dead wrong. I don't know how long you've followed my posts...but I generally tend to be pretty neutral. Hell Clark and I get along great...I think he's a pretty cool guy...we'll talk on the phone for stupid amounts of time about this and that...don't think the filters have never come up :-) I even own one of the damn things...so it's not like I'm some guy just talking out of his *** about this or that which I've never even tried on my own car. I just don't honestly think that the airbox is a restriction and unless you're makin' 400+ HP you don't need to mess with it cause you'll do more harm than good...that's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it...and when it's solicited I give it out. If I wanted to be an ******* I'd could post all of my findings and continue on by getting the thing onto a flow bench...but in the end I won't post that stuff cause it would only make me look like I'm mean spirited...despite the fact that any findings good or bad would be in the best interests of the Audi community in general.
Further more...as you may or may not have noticed I've been eagerly awaiting the delivery of my Turbo5 Stage III brakes...I would figure this alone should be a pretty good indication that I'm not out to boycot any Turbo5 products...hell if you want to hear something even funnier I'M THE ONE WRITING THE DAMN INSTALLATION MANUAL FOR THE THING...SHEESH. If you're reading this Clark...seriously I'll finish it one of these days :-) things will slow down after CES in early January...once I get back from Vegas I'll try to button it up and get it off to you.
Anyhow...have fun with your filter, I certainly enjoyed certain aspects of mine...but in the end I weighed the pro's and cons and came to the conclusion that it wasn't the right part for me. Hopefully the brakes will kick ***...as they were a tad more expensive than the filter :-) In retrospect I wish I'd put more money into the exhaust since you're bound to have way more pumping losses there due to the longer path lenghts involved...and the higher gas volumes flowing.
BTW - I used to get about 27 miles per gallon on my K04...twas a FWD though...but still pretty impressive esp with my driving style.
Regards,
James R.
2001 A4 1.8TQMSXP (Turbo5 Stage III Brakes (Porsche 996 Caliper + S4 Rotor...in the post) Oettinger Pedals, Oettinger RE's 17x8 Yoko AVS Sports 225/45/R17, Euro Xenon Housings, Bailey BPV and RS4 Grille)
12-26-2000, 11:08 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to be mean or anything, but I never even said I had a K&N filter on my AUDI. I said I had one
on my eclipse maybe you should actually read some of the post and stop typing so much.
12-27-2000, 07:45 AM
#19
Hmm is that right...well then read on and see just how wrong you are...
And I quote you...from your post up this chain of posts...
"So you are telling me that my K&N filter charger is no better then the stock airbox for my eclipse."
I'm no English professor...but I would read that sentence and extrapolate the following meaning. You have a K&N Filter Charger on your car...and that you pose the following question..."Is it not better than the stock airbox on my Eclipse?" I don't even understand why you'd mention the Eclipse...it has no bearing on this conversation...but neither have most of your replies on this topic.
It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that you have zero objectivity with regard to this subject, so far your arguments have been neither intelligent or even remotely novel. I can see that you're not even willing to imagine for even a moment that any of what I say could be true...you've apparently got a number of preconceived notions about how things work...they're probably wrong but you're entitled to them in the same way I'm entitled to share my opinion especially when it's solicited.
Regards,
James R.
2001 A4 1.8TQMSXP (Turbo5 Stage III Brakes (Porsche 996 Caliper + S4 Rotor...in the post) Oettinger Pedals, Oettinger RE's 17x8 Yoko AVS Sports 225/45/R17, Euro Xenon Housings, Bailey BPV and RS4 Grille)
"So you are telling me that my K&N filter charger is no better then the stock airbox for my eclipse."
I'm no English professor...but I would read that sentence and extrapolate the following meaning. You have a K&N Filter Charger on your car...and that you pose the following question..."Is it not better than the stock airbox on my Eclipse?" I don't even understand why you'd mention the Eclipse...it has no bearing on this conversation...but neither have most of your replies on this topic.
It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that you have zero objectivity with regard to this subject, so far your arguments have been neither intelligent or even remotely novel. I can see that you're not even willing to imagine for even a moment that any of what I say could be true...you've apparently got a number of preconceived notions about how things work...they're probably wrong but you're entitled to them in the same way I'm entitled to share my opinion especially when it's solicited.
Regards,
James R.
2001 A4 1.8TQMSXP (Turbo5 Stage III Brakes (Porsche 996 Caliper + S4 Rotor...in the post) Oettinger Pedals, Oettinger RE's 17x8 Yoko AVS Sports 225/45/R17, Euro Xenon Housings, Bailey BPV and RS4 Grille)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
j31izzle
A4 (B5 Platform) Discussion
3
07-04-2004 02:36 PM