SVTPerformance 2012 GT : K&N Replacement Filter Test

[SID297]

SVTPerformance 2012 GT : K&N Replacement Filter Testwww.svtperformance.com/forums/front...ance-2012-gt-k-n-replacement-filter-test.htmlwww.svtperformance.com/forums/front...ance-2012-gt-k-n-replacement-filter-test.htmlwww.svtperformance.com/forums/front...ance-2012-gt-k-n-replacement-filter-test.htmlwww.svtperformance.com/forums/front...ance-2012-gt-k-n-replacement-filter-test.html​

www.svtperformance.com/forums/front...ance-2012-gt-k-n-replacement-filter-test.html

​

Sometimes an interesting idea for an article just simply presents itself. Such was the case here. A mod that we have for the SVTP 2012 Yellow Blaze Mustang GT just so happened to arrive with a K&N Drop-In Replacement Filter for the stock airbox. Since it has long been thought that a high-flow replacement filter is worth a couple of horsepower of the factory paper unit, and circumstances found us in the vicinity of Arrington Performance's Superflow chassis dyno (our favorite dyno facility to use for testing), we decided to do a little back-to-back testing. Follow along for the results:

I think this car is starting to get pretty comfortable on this dyno.

The SVTP has sadly been returned to stock, but not for long.

The subject of today's test. It appears to be endorsed by Ford Racing.

The part number for those who may be interested.

As it comes out of the box.

The heavy rubber construction of the K&N is far more robust than the stock filter's foam rubber.

The deeper pleats of the stock filter would appear to allow it to hold a greater volume of dirt before needing to be replaced/cleaned.

Here you can see the physical height difference of the two filters.

Fitment of the stock filter.

Fitment of the K&N filter.

This is our best run with the stock filter, 381.8HP 372.2TQ.

This is our best run with the K&N filter, 377.2HP 368.5TQ.

This a comparison of the best runs with both filters.

We ran a total of three back-to-back runs with each filter, with the following results:

Stock Filter
381.8HP 372.2TQ
375.1HP 371.9TQ
376.1HP 369.3TQ

K&N Filter
377.2HP 368.5TQ
373.0HP 363.7TQ
368.0HP 361.7TQ

I believe it’s safe to say that at the very least you will not see a tangible power gain with simply a drop-in filter. However, that’s not really the purpose of that type of filter. It is intended help save you money by being washable and reusable instead of disposable like the stock filter. Whether you’ll own your vehicle long enough recoup the initial investment is a question of usage. If you rack up a lot of miles or drive in dusty conditions a drop-in K&N filter may be worth it for you, but not if you’re looking for more power.


Special Thanks To:

Arrington Performance and ShopSupercharger.com

StacyStangz Photography


- SID297 - :beer:

 

[KingBlack]

wow...for the cost difference...thats a fail for most situations

 

[chuckstang]

How much hp and tq though do you pick up with the frpp tune to go with that k&n filter???

 

[Mr. Mach-ete]

Well I just wasted $60.00.

Actually, I upgraded to a JLT CAI a few weeks ago.

 

[SID297]

How much hp and tq though do you pick up with the frpp tune to go with that k&n filter???

We didn't get the FRPP tune. The filter came with another mod that we'll have an article for in the next few weeks.

 

[ViciousJay]

Well I just wasted $60.00.

Actually, I upgraded to a JLT CAI a few weeks ago.

so you wasted even more money! :lol1:

 

[smitty2919]

Did anyone consider heat soak? Or was that factored in and allowed the car to cool for the K&N runs?

It may have been on the hotter side at the begining of the K&N runs. If so, the only thing you gain is a reusable filter.

 

[SID297]

Did anyone consider heat soak? Or was that factored in and allowed the car to cool for the K&N runs?

It may have been on the hotter side at the begining of the K&N runs. If so, the only thing you gain is a reusable filter.

It was 49 degrees in the dyno cell (late Oct.) and there was about 30 minutes (time for pics, etc.) between the runs. I doubt heat soak was an issue.

 

[bpmurr]

Wow I'm surprised to see it lost power.

 

[Loosescrews]

Just what every Mustang owner is looking for, less power. WTH?!

 

[01cobravortech]

Interesting finds. Wonder if the Amsoil filter would provide different results.

 

[SD_Stang]

Wow loosing close to 5 rwhp for spending 50 bucks is always great. I think most people are under the impression that the filter flows better then the paper one and the test clearly shows it does not. You would really think the stats would be in favor of the K&N and not in favor of the paper filter.

 

[viperakron]

Tough to evaluate an air filter with no real world air flow?

 

[SID297]

Tough to evaluate an air filter with no real world air flow?

Arrington's Superflow dyno is housed in a closed forced air climate controlled dyno cell. Airflow is directed onto the front of the car by louvers in the ceiling that direct the outside air that's being forced in at a substantial rate. They can also control the temperature and humidity of the air. Arrington's dyno is used by NASCAR and other racing teams to develop race engines and other components. I think it's probably adequate for testing an air filter.

 

[saunupe1911]

well damn, I'm going back to paper

 

[mastwolf]

Dyno Tested an AFE Filter, with ZERO Gains but ZERO LOSS in power over 6 months ago.

AFE > K&N

Chris

 

[mastwolf]

Tough to evaluate an air filter with no real world air flow?

This Might be the case for open element filters.

 

[SD_Stang]

I'm not sure 20-30 minutes is enough of a cool off period because the car would still be nice and warm at that point. If you reversed the order and went cold on the K&N and waited 20-30 mins and did the paper I think the results would favor the first runner. The K&N should not be 9.1 rwhp lower at the third pass that's obviously something else not air flow because it's first pass was higher then the papers lower two passes after it was warm. I could be wrong but that's my 2 cents.

 

[SID297]

I'm not sure 20-30 minutes is enough of a cool off period because the car would still be nice and warm at that point. If you reversed the order and went cold on the K&N and waited 20-30 mins and did the paper I think the results would favor the first runner. The K&N should not be 9.1 rwhp lower at the third pass that's obviously something else not air flow because it's first pass was higher then the papers lower two passes after it was warm. I could be wrong but that's my 2 cents.

The cool down period was more than adequate to get the coolant back to 170 degrees, which is where we started both tests. The runs in each series were performed back-to-back without bringing the wheels to a stop. Usually 45-60 seconds from the end of one run until the beginning of another.

 

[RFM50]

The cool down period was more than adequate to get the coolant back to 170 degrees, which is where we started both tests. The runs in each series were performed back-to-back without bringing the wheels to a stop. Usually 45-60 seconds from the end of one run until the beginning of another.

I don't think it's a matter of allowing the coolant to cool off but more about allowing the heat to disapate from the stock air intake assembley. If there is no air flowing through the motor in between runs, the heat soak's in and stay's until the car has completely cooled down. I can gurantee that if you were to have touched the mass air meter before you started the car, it would have still been really warm. I say try the test again but allow the car to completely cool for a few hours in betweem runs.