My question is this. I've had K&N filters in every vehicle I've owned from 5.0 Mustangs to 4.0 Ranger 4x4 and I've not been able to notice any difference in MPG or power. Has anyone who has it on an LS V8 been able to notice any difference? I always found it kinda a pain to clean and re-oil the filters so if I'm not going to notice any difference I'll just stick with the regular air filter and change it every other oil change. Thanks.

best pick is gained from CAI like the cones. I would bother otherwise.

K&N is bull :q:q:q:q. yes the filiment is thiner but it has oil on it. it is like trying to breath through a wet rage. it really makes no sence at all when you think about it. Alos any one can say that somthing will make power. dynos are BS if it is at sea levle and you move it up 10 feet you just lost 3HP.

I tend to agree with the "clown"... I put a K&N on my 97 merq and noticed zero difference. I think a lot has to do with the amount of restriction on the head end side of the airbox. Mustangs were noted for this with that goofy air bladder thing that lived in the fender well. You took that out and put the K&N in, then the car ran better. In my 97 merq, I screwed up and didn't get the airbox back together right, and ended up leaking air around the two halves of the box. It cost me a MAF, but once I replace that, I cut a 4x6 hole in the bottom of the box, THEN it ran better, and at that point it didn't matter what filter was in it, K&N, Fram whatever.

You're probably wondering how I screwed up the airbox... sounds simple but I'm sure you noticed that once you open the damn thing, it's next to impossible to get it closed, and sealed without taking it out of the car. In my 97, it was snapped on the one side, but one of the little fingers in the corner of the box missed the receiving clip, and it allowed the top to separate a little so it would suck air across the top of the filter and not though it. I noticed more sound from WOT, so I knew something was up. It was winter, so I checked it out a day later and found salt and stuff sucked though the top of the filter and splattered against the MAF. Instant toasted MAF. It ran for a couple years like this, then it got so bad it would barely run. I did some research and answered all the questions that came up. Replaced the MAF, and it ran like new, at 120k miles. All the while the poor performance (but great mileage) was caused by the MAF which was out of cal for 3 years...

Moral of the story: Make sure that those stupid clips line up, even if you have to do it 3 or 4 times... I miss the old ones with the metal clips on all 4 sides, you knew it was sealed.

You will not notice any power difference from putting one in. There are better filters out there. It's mainly so you don't have to keep buying the cheap paper ones.

Well from what i have read paper cones are actually better then the k&n filters in that it cleans the air a lot better then the oiled ones. But i am guessing that they will let more air in so that could help out some, but it would be more beneficial probably to add a cone filter or cai so it can suck up a lot more air which will probably make a noticable difference from the factory location of the enclosed air filter.

So if not K&N what filter what CAI or cone would you guys recommend in your experience?

Cheers,
Eric

There are some options... You can go to the LLSOC store and purchase either the True-Rev Induction Kit, their Stainless steel snorkel which has none of the wind-restricting baffles in it like the stock tube.. OR YOU CAN BUY BOTH!!!

http://www.llsoc.com/V2R1/CyberMerchant_public/Scripts/default.asp


http://www.llsoc.com/V2R1/CyberMerchant_public/ProdImages/kurtzbig.jpg
http://www.llsoc.com/V2R1/CyberMerchant_public/ProdImages/airtubelargeAirTube.jpg

I only have the KKM Filter cause I don't have the $$$ to get the tube yet...

I spoke with Warren at Kurtz, I think i have his name right, recently. He says the tube is a superflous purchase. The only point that one can improve upon is the point of air intake.

eL eS, why is superflous????? What about the restrictive baffles in the stock tube? The cone will allow more air to come through into the engine, but if the tube is restrictive, it will only allow so much to go through... Stupid Example: If you change the filter on the end of the straw.. no matter how big the filter is.. the straw will only allow so much air through to the engine since it's on "suction power" like the engine not under "pressure" as in a super/turbo charger....

Does this sound right?? Cause I was thinking of purchasing a tube from them... What did warren say about that?

I also purchased just the KKZ filter and my understanding is that the stock tube flows more than the factory throtle body could ever take even at WOT.

While the factory tube could be restricting air flow, it still gives the engine all it can take without modification.

I think the filter makes a big difference on both power and sound. :L

eL eS, why is superflous????? What about the restrictive baffles in the stock tube? The cone will allow more air to come through into the engine, but if the tube is restrictive, it will only allow so much to go through... Stupid Example: If you change the filter on the end of the straw.. no matter how big the filter is.. the straw will only allow so much air through to the engine since it's on "suction power" like the engine not under "pressure" as in a super/turbo charger....

Does this sound right?? Cause I was thinking of purchasing a tube from them... What did warren say about that?

Well for one the diameter of the throtle body remains the same. but this opinion about the tube came from the purveyor of the CAI not me. I simply called and asked some questions and he said changing the tube is simply an aesthetic improvement. I understand the argument though.

The way i understand it is that some efforts are made to create a pressure in the intake tubes by adjusting the flare of the tube; they shape it to shape the air flow. IIRC it is intended to shape the force of air being delivered into the intake maifold to improve atomization of the fuel.

I am just a newbie self learner in progress and these bits of information are just things I have recently read. I am not a seasoned tuner by any measure and have basically been asking questions and am not in the position to refute anyones claims.

The guy was kind and patient enough to educate me a little. I didnt ask well if I should buy one first or the other. In fact, I told him I that am building my intake tube and was curious about his product. First thing he said... let me ask you this then... are you doing it for looks or performance... I replied cant you have both and that is when he explained.

I got the impression that the only way changing the tube would do anything is if you went with a smaller tube and we both know that would have an negative impact.

About the only real difference changing the factor tube out for an aftermarket unit is sound and appearance. The Factory tube has those little chambers, which are resonators at some frequency. They do nothing for or against flow. By putting a larger diameter tube on it is the same as changing the diameter of the exhaust pipe, the tone will go down.

Even if you spun the V8 at 6850 RPM, that's only about 400 CFM. When you come right down to it, that's not a lot of air. I can see and agree that the stock pipe should be able to flow that with no problems with minimal pressure drop. The air filter may very well be the problem child of this system, and to a point, more surface area on the filter is a good thing. Beyond some point, the engine just can suck enough to make any appreciable difference.

What eL eS is saying about the force of the air makes some sense, however I don't personally believe it makes any difference. (BTW: I'm not shooting at the messenger) For this to make any difference, you'd want the air to be moving as fast as possible to beat up and break up the fuel dropplets that are shot out of the injector. For a given flow rate of a gas, smaller pipe will make the velocity higher, and larger pipe will make the velocity lower. So why would changing a tube on the other side of the throttle body about 15 or 20 inches away from the injectors (as the air flies) make any difference? The intake manifolds runners are still the same size, hence the air by the injector is still going the same speed. I don't know what it looks like in our 4 valve engines, but most of the time the injector fires into the airstream, pointing right at the intake valve, so again, how will this make any difference? Gasses under a vaccum behave very differently than ones under pressure. Surface smoothness and quality make differences, albeit not greater than 10 or 15%, that's another reason why we have composite manifolds. We can design smoothness into them, and gradual sweeping bends that were not possible with older metallic casting processes.

I believe in this case it all boils down to what it looks like. Unless you built something ungodly strange, I think it would be rather tough to actually hurt the performance.

I believe the reason they gave for shaping the tubing was to control turbulence a more predictable air flow would render a more predictable mixture. The scientific term is stoichiometry:

n.

1. Calculation of the quantities of reactants and products in a chemical reaction.
2. The quantitative relationship between reactants and products in a chemical reaction.

It is crazy stuff. I used to think of cars as linear but the more I read into the management systems I realize the are not the cars we drove in the 60's and early 70's. This is literally rocket science now.

Under turbulent conditions it is hard to predict the results of the mixture and the rate of burn so the shaping of the space or intake and intake manifold play a significant roll in calculating air and fuel.

Like I said, these are things I have read and I do not pretend for one minute to know them as fact due to my lack of experience in this field. They make sense to me as techie of multiple disciplines. Further, I welcome and encourage discussion becasue I want to know more about this field.

I don't know about the turbulence thing, the best example I can site for this is what happens when you're at anything less than full throttle? Other than full throttle, anything ahead of that valve is meaningless in terms of turbulence. Why? Because as soon as the air hits that valve plate, stuff is flying everywhere in the wake of that obstruction. Even if that were the case, by rotating the axis that the throttle butterfly is on would have drastic effects on how the motor runs. To date, nobody on any vehicle I can think of has ever changed the orientation of the butterfly.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is by the time the air reaches the injector before it goes into the cylinder, its flow is so screwed up, it wouldn't make any noticeable difference, if even any at all.

There are plenty of things you can do to a motor that make zero difference in the real world. One that always got me was how much water a motor could take before it would try to sputter out and die. It's almost impossible on the cars with MAFs, but speed density and carbureted, it's pretty neat to see. It's also a good way to clean up a motor that was really carboned up. It's like steam cleaning for the inside of the engine, an old motor builder showed me that trick. Just make sure it's warmed up first!

I don't know about the turbulence thing, the best example I can site for this is what happens when you're at anything less than full throttle? Other than full throttle, anything ahead of that valve is meaningless in terms of turbulence. Why? Because as soon as the air hits that valve plate, stuff is flying everywhere in the wake of that obstruction. Even if that were the case, by rotating the axis that the throttle butterfly is on would have drastic effects on how the motor runs. To date, nobody on any vehicle I can think of has ever changed the orientation of the butterfly.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is by the time the air reaches the injector before it goes into the cylinder, its flow is so screwed up, it wouldn't make any noticeable difference, if even any at all.

There are plenty of things you can do to a motor that make zero difference in the real world. One that always got me was how much water a motor could take before it would try to sputter out and die. It's almost impossible on the cars with MAFs, but speed density and carbureted, it's pretty neat to see. It's also a good way to clean up a motor that was really carboned up. It's like steam cleaning for the inside of the engine, an old motor builder showed me that trick. Just make sure it's warmed up first!


I read that about the butterfly valves orientation some where. They gave examples of how the car would react to 90 degree offset. I believe it was on one of the engine mgmt sites.

I understand how the intake valve would reshape the particle mixture but I would be inclined to think that this too has been considered in the design of each combustion cycle. To say that it is all controlled to an absolute would be ridiculous but think of how they design wings. This is about laminar flow.

check this link out for a second and just kind of speed read across.

Now keep in mind that the moving plate in the case of cars is the intake valve.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pfric.html

eL eS, you're starting to sound like my AP Chem teacher.

I agree with kleetus and eL, the stock intake pipe can handle more cfm than the motor can. Unless the entire intake from INTAKE VALVES to FILTER is completely redone and made to have almost zero resistance and turbulence, there should be no noticable gains.

Good site, some quick reference to some very fundamental equations. If you could find that link to the 90 offset, I'd like to read that one.

I wasn't talking about the intake valve, I meant the throttle butterfly itself. I agree that the location of the injector in relation to the valve makes a difference. My point of contention is the throttle valve controlling the flow in the first place. Assuming the intake tube has sufficient flow capacity to satisfy the engine, what happens in that tube doesn't make any difference. Just because there was laminar flow prior to the valve does not mean there will be laminar flow after it. It's easy to attain laminar flow at lower velocities than it is to do at higher velocities. Here's a real twist: does the air velocity speed up or slow down as the throttle valve closes from wide open?

Go the next example: you drive a boat across a calm lake. The water has zero velocity to it, meaning it's smooth as glass. Once the prop from the outboard goes through it, how long does it take for that water to go back to its original non moving state?

Example three: You have a water pipe in your house, there's a ball valve in it. You're flowing water to some device, or just out of a hose. The pipe is silent. you decide to close the valve to shut the water off. It starts to make noise. It continues to make noise until it's all but completely closed. What happened? When the water was first flowing, making no noise, we can assume that the flow was largley non turbulent or laminar in nature, right? As you put a restriction in it, the flow was then disrupted, thus causing turbulence, and destroying the laminar flow. This flow will continue to be turbulent until it has completely stopped, or at least to the point where the viscosity of the liquid can take up the energy being genereated by the water bouncing off the side of the pipe. I'm sure you have seen this to some degree somewhere.

This is my point about the throttle valve, everything is great until it starts to close and vectoraly speaking, all H e l l breaks loose on the other side! So even with the perfect pipe ahead of the throttle it make no difference, because the throttle introduces turbulence. Even if the pipe isn't perfect, the throttle still makes a mess of things.

So at best, it *might* make a difference at full throttle. Realisticly, how often are we there?

I see your point about the flow disruption and this condition should exists at the open point as well. Open the valve slowly and you will observe the same resonanting effect. But we are looking at a system that pops oopen and closed in thousandths of seconds so these effects would be minimal but relevant.

I think the ref to the buttery fly valve offset might have been here.

http://www.emeraldm3d.com/ems.htm#index

It is pretty big write up so I could be wrong. i will look at a few other links i read JIC.

Thanks to everyone in this post that provided scientific information.

I've argued forever that the LLSOC pipe CANNOT make that much of a difference on a stock intake/heads/cammed motor. There's just no way. Just apply simple logic. Case in point...on my LS1 (99 Camaro SS) the stock MAF is good for upwards of 500 hp. Beyond that...fine...get a bit larger one. While this is not an apples to apples comparison...I'd be surprised if the stock components in the LS wouldn't support in excess of 400 hp. Anyone know if this is fact?

This is exactly why I gutted my stock air box and left the rest of the stock piping in place. I've noticed a really nice increase in top end pull...but...again...as posted above...how often are we at the big end of the speedo? This also allowed me to put $300 toward the Magnaflow that I want. Which...again...won't provide a huge power increase. I only want it for the sound.

Now...with the cracking of the LS comptuer...maybe someone will start developing headers/cams etc for the 3.9L. I sorta doubt it will ever happen...but...one can wish.

-Pete
02 LSE

well unfortuneately I did not bookmark all the sites I read from a few days ago. So i do not have that reference to the throtle valve orientation. I will try to remember my search criteria and see if I can pull it back up through google. I contantly dump my history so that will be useless to me.

I know I read something regarding the throtle valve orientation man i could kick myself now.

Thanks to everyone in this post that provided scientific information.

I've argued forever that the LLSOC pipe CANNOT make that much of a difference on a stock intake/heads/cammed motor. There's just no way. Just apply simple logic. Case in point...on my LS1 (99 Camaro SS) the stock MAF is good for upwards of 500 hp. Beyond that...fine...get a bit larger one. While this is not an apples to apples comparison...I'd be surprised if the stock components in the LS wouldn't support in excess of 400 hp. Anyone know if this is fact?

This is exactly why I gutted my stock air box and left the rest of the stock piping in place. I've noticed a really nice increase in top end pull...but...again...as posted above...how often are we at the big end of the speedo? This also allowed me to put $300 toward the Magnaflow that I want. Which...again...won't provide a huge power increase. I only want it for the sound.

Now...with the cracking of the LS comptuer...maybe someone will start developing headers/cams etc for the 3.9L. I sorta doubt it will ever happen...but...one can wish.

-Pete
02 LSE


this is why we gather to share and learn. If you read the llsoc, not to knock them, add for the intake I believe they mention words to the effect of whenused with the Kurts kustom CAI gains of ...hp etc.

So that got me to thinking as well. As you pointed out it would take a complete refit of the intake system and pcm programming to relize gains when it comes to increasing the tubing size.

If you wanted to put you money on performance start with the CAI and then have the pcm updated with the sct tune(s). certainly a high flow exhaust system would be more advantageous then.

I'm rolling my pants up now, its getting deep in here.............

My LS ran a 15.5 bone stock, 15.1 w/ just the LLSOC/DPG CAI (w/ cone filter). Don't tell me my timeslips are all in my imagination.

Any restriction in the intake or exhaust side of the engine will hurt performance. Restrictions create a pressure gradient. Another factor most people don't seem to consider on CAI systems is acoustic tuning. While those baffles / chambers on the stock tube may not restrict gross flow very much, they are dampening / canceling out the pulse waves from the intake valve suction (that's their only reason for existance is to make it quiet). In the process of doing their job, they effectively reduce the instantanious pressure at the intake valve when it opens, resulting in less air/fuel induction on each intake stroke. This effect is also a function of RPM, since it relies on the acoustic resonance of the entire intake tract (intake manifold as well as the length of tube in front of the throttle body). The two different size "kidneys" placed at two different locations on the factory tube are designed to eliminate resonance across a broader RPM range. By eliminating those "kidneys", the intake tract is allowed to resonate, boosting instantanious pressure at the intake valves over a certain RPM range.

I'm rolling my pants up now, its getting deep in here.............

My LS ran a 15.5 bone stock, 15.1 w/ just the LLSOC/DPG CAI (w/ cone filter). Don't tell me my timeslips are all in my imagination.



So...you are saying that you picked up 4 tenths with just the LLSOC intake? What was your mph? I'm not going to call BS just yet...but...consider the following:

LS weight ~ 3700 lbs
To gain 4 tenths, you would need to pick up 20 horsepower
What were the track/weather conditions each time?
What was your 60 ft?
Did you dyno before and after the intake?

Again...I don't want to start an arguement here but...ET/horsepower comparisons are not valid until someone either:

1) Completes back to back strip runs with and without the CAI

or

2) Completes back to back dyno runs with and without the CAI

There's just no way that (all other things considered equal) the CAI provides a 20 horsepower gain over the factory intake tract. I'll be happy to eat my words at a later point if someone has either of the above. Now...I won't agrue if a combination of mods offered up a 20 horsepower gain.

One other thing to consider:

The surface area of the K&N panel and the cone are probably pretty close to the same. Because of this...using a cone is negliable. Some might argue that the 360 degree filter will help out some. Which it might. However, this setup is limited in the sense that it will suck in hot underhood air. Which will increase the temp of the intake charge...therefore decreasing horsepower. Even if you have a heat sheild...I doubt it will benefit anymore than a gutted stock airbox.

-Pete
02 LSE

I'm rolling my pants up now, its getting deep in here.............

My LS ran a 15.5 bone stock, 15.1 w/ just the LLSOC/DPG CAI (w/ cone filter). Don't tell me my timeslips are all in my imagination.

Any restriction in the intake or exhaust side of the engine will hurt performance. Restrictions create a pressure gradient. Another factor most people don't seem to consider on CAI systems is acoustic tuning. While those baffles / chambers on the stock tube may not restrict gross flow very much, they are dampening / canceling out the pulse waves from the intake valve suction (that's their only reason for existance is to make it quiet). In the process of doing their job, they effectively reduce the instantanious pressure at the intake valve when it opens, resulting in less air/fuel induction on each intake stroke. This effect is also a function of RPM, since it relies on the acoustic resonance of the entire intake tract (intake manifold as well as the length of tube in front of the throttle body). The two different size "kidneys" placed at two different locations on the factory tube are designed to eliminate resonance across a broader RPM range. By eliminating those "kidneys", the intake tract is allowed to resonate, boosting instantanious pressure at the intake valves over a certain RPM range.


I can appreciate thier noise dampening qualities but the ID, inner diameter, of the intake tube is greater than that of the throtle body. This leave two points of impedance the filter where the air ingress' and the exhaust where it egress'.

The pressure on the front side of the throtle body will increase when air flow/velocity increase. I am ready to be told otherwise but I firmly believe that the ripples in the air tube along with the kidneys have are negligible impact on induction.

Give me some numbers a camparo of before and after and a mix of replace snorkel with stock etc...

Their website states pair it with KKM CAI and you get 10 to 15 HP and nothing about what it offers as a stand alone. what i heard from KKM is that the filter is the spot to improve unless you plan a full overhaul of induction and exhaust.

So...you are saying that you picked up 4 tenths with just the LLSOC intake? What was your mph? I'm not going to call BS just yet...but...consider the following:

LS weight ~ 3700 lbs
To gain 4 tenths, you would need to pick up 20 horsepower
What were the track/weather conditions each time?
What was your 60 ft?
Did you dyno before and after the intake?



Actually, it was more like 0.44 gain (15.55 vs 15.11). And isn't the rule of thumb 10HP ~= 0.1s in the 1/4mi? But you are right, I can't attribute the entire gain to the CAI, it was ~30F cooler w/ the CAI run. 60's were pretty much the same, 2.2 range IIRC. Trap was low 92s pre-CAI. So allowing ~ 0.1sec / 10F, the CAI probably gave me ~15HP. Link to my CAI run is in the timeslip section.

Considering that the gain from a cat-back is about the same but costs nearly double, the CAI is a bargain by comparison.

I wish every day was 65 to 70 degrees. Man the little bit of winter we get here is missed dearly when it passes. Cold air = free horse power.

I think quik LS's setup provides the best gain, the filter is completely sealed (looks like it at least), and all air is drawn in from either the scoop or the tubing from the fog light area. No hot air from engine bay, less restriction before MAF than stock.

I think quik LS's setup provides the best gain, the filter is completely sealed (looks like it at least), and all air is drawn in from either the scoop or the tubing from the fog light area. No hot air from engine bay, less restriction before MAF than stock.


He is certainly commited to adding performance to this vehicle. It is a bold mold and very attractive. It certainly gives the car some teeth.

.

.

thanx guys.


the setup I use (beside the hood inlet and air box):
- oversized green filter
- aluminum venturi
- aluminum intake

The intake does make a difference over the stock setup.

the stock intake:
- has air baffling that is designed to counter resonate reducing certain frequencies - reducing noise
- has tighter turns causing back pressure and turbulence
- non-smooth surfaces causing back pressure and turbulence


Think of it like this -
air flowing over and airplane wing is smooth and fast - if you introduce something rough on the wing surface - it causes airflow disruption and slows the air speed down

You are right - this is probably only a (small) factor at WOT, butterfly wide open - but isn't that when we always measure the performance of our cars?

I'll take every little bit I can get.

While I didn't argue that it provided some sort of an increase...I simply questioned how much...and how much in relation to a gutted airbox.

To find this out...I think someone needs to post up back to back dyno runs. That's the only way to settle this. I've been wanting to dyno our LSE since we got it and I can do so with the stock airbox and with a gutted stock airbox. We can see what sort of difference there is. However, I do not have access to an LLSOC intake or the KKM. Is there anyone in the metro Atlanta area that has one that could be used? I'd even be willing to remove my airbox and install it on another car. It really doesn't matter much who's car it's done on...as long as it's consistent.

Or...I'd like to think that someone over and LLSOC has a dyno graph of one with ONLY the intake mod. To me...that's the best way to sell a product...especially one that is $300.

My $.02.

-Pete
02 LSE

While I didn't argue that it provided some sort of an increase...I simply questioned how much...and how much in relation to a gutted airbox.

Or...I'd like to think that someone over and LLSOC has a dyno graph of one with ONLY the intake mod. To me...that's the best way to sell a product...especially one that is $300.

My $.02.

-Pete
02 LSE

I concur. in order to legitimize the component something needs to be offered up in the way of statistics. I think the overwhelming thing that undermines its legitimacy is the fact that the site says "when paired up with the KKM" 10 to 15 HP increase can be realized.

Break out which component brings what gains and then let consumers decide. The overwhelming force of induction is constrained primarily by the throttle valve once opened just like electricity air will tend to flow along the path of least resistance and the inner diameter of that tube is greater than the throttle body.

I agree with I will take my gains where I can get them but you must be mind full of the law of returns. How much more dense is the stainless than the plastic? You must take mass into consideration as well what have you gained and what was the expense and I do not mean monetarily.

While I didn't argue that it provided some sort of an increase...I simply questioned how much...and how much in relation to a gutted airbox.

To find this out...I think someone needs to post up back to back dyno runs. That's the only way to settle this. I've been wanting to dyno our LSE since we got it and I can do so with the stock airbox and with a gutted stock airbox. We can see what sort of difference there is. However, I do not have access to an LLSOC intake or the KKM. Is there anyone in the metro Atlanta area that has one that could be used? I'd even be willing to remove my airbox and install it on another car. It really doesn't matter much who's car it's done on...as long as it's consistent.

Or...I'd like to think that someone over and LLSOC has a dyno graph of one with ONLY the intake mod. To me...that's the best way to sell a product...especially one that is $300.

My $.02.

-Pete
02 LSE

I have an 03 with the LLSOC intake. I still have my old intake too. Where in Atlanta can I do a before and after dyno run? I can swap the components in less than 10 minutes...

oh man now it is getting intersting. Did you buyt the stainless steel snorkel as well?

I have an 03 with the LLSOC intake. I still have my old intake too. Where in Atlanta can I do a before and after dyno run? I can swap the components in less than 10 minutes...

There's a place up near me in Buford called Balanced Performance Motorsports (they are an import outfit but...appear to be reputable). They used to have a dyno in their facility. I'm not sure of the brand but...I prefer the DynoJet over the Mustang...as the Mustang tends to register a bit higher than actual. There's some place over in Marietta that the annual F-Body gathering's use. That might be better suited to your location.

I'll call over to BPM tomorrow and see what they offer. If I remember correctly...they charge $100 for 3 runs. That should be enough for our test.

Is your 03 stock other than the intake?

-Pete
02 LSE

I did very well In calc 1,2 and 3 but i just spent a few minutes trying to find the formula for a cone and just bloodied my nose. I do not have any of my college text books to reference and I know we have few students that frequent here and I would like to call upon you to see if you can find the formula to calculate the area of a cone.

I was hoping to find an online resource that someone that has the cone filter could use but all the example refer to right cones which a a distinct point and am at a loss here.

Basically I want to get to the bottom of this surface area conundrum.

hold your breath. I think I have it.

Ref the "The surface area, not including the top and bottom circles, is" image onthis link it is the 2nd example.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConicalFrustum.html

A=(R1=R2)s=pi(R1+R2)Sqrt(R1-R1)^2 + h^2

I wish I had the cone to save the poor sole that does the trouble of using this formula.

hold your breath. I think I have it.

Ref the "The surface area, not including the top and bottom circles, is" image onthis link it is the 2nd example.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConicalFrustum.html

A=(R1=R2)s=pi(R1+R2)Sqrt(R1-R1)^2 + h^2

I wish I had the cone to save the poor sole that does the trouble of using this formula.

One other thing to consider...the cone is pleated...therefore, you need to use and additional formula.

Here are the stats for the panel (I had to count the pleats):

Pleats: 42
Height: 0.875 in (22 mm)
Outside Length: 12.375 in (314 mm)
Outside Width: 6.563 in (167 mm)

Still trying to find the correct formula that accounts for the pleats.

-Pete
02 LSE

oh man now it is getting intersting. Did you buyt the stainless steel snorkel as well?

THe 03's don't have the SS snorkel since the intake in the front of the engine instead of the back.

I'll call over to BPM tomorrow and see what they offer. If I remember correctly...they charge $100 for 3 runs. That should be enough for our test.

Is your 03 stock other than the intake?

-Pete
02 LSE

Stock except for the Intake and Magnaflow mufflers and tips. The Mufflers make it sound better but don't add any power since the 03 exhaust is already well tuned and sorted. Magnaflow never got more than 4 extra ponies with a cat back they made so they never went into production. One guy with an 03 got that prototype Magnaflow cat back...

One other thing to consider...the cone is pleated...therefore, you need to use and additional formula.

Here are the stats for the panel (I had to count the pleats):

Pleats: 42
Height: 0.875 in (22 mm)
Outside Length: 12.375 in (314 mm)
Outside Width: 6.563 in (167 mm)

Still trying to find the correct formula that accounts for the pleats.

-Pete
02 LSE

very good point. Smae consideration will have to be made for the K&N replacement for the stock air box.

Stock except for the Intake and Magnaflow mufflers and tips. The Mufflers make it sound better but don't add any power since the 03 exhaust is already well tuned and sorted. Magnaflow never got more than 4 extra ponies with a cat back they made so they never went into production. One guy with an 03 got that prototype Magnaflow cat back...

One thing I did not realize last night...you have an 03 (must have been asleep). While this will resolve the stock airbox question...it will not resolve the intake tube question.

Thoughts?

One thing I did not realize last night...you have an 03 (must have been asleep). While this will resolve the stock airbox question...it will not resolve the intake tube question.

Thoughts?

Well it is not a good comparison to the 00-02 LS V8's as they had 252 HP and the 03 has 280 or so.

The only thing a dyno test will tell us is if the LLSOC intake on an 03 is an improvement over the stock 03 airbox ( I believe it is and this was tested when the intake was created).

It will have no relevance to the older models and I do not know if the "tube" on those models has any effect...

Well it is not a good comparison to the 00-02 LS V8's as they had 252 HP and the 03 has 280 or so.

The only thing a dyno test will tell us is if the LLSOC intake on an 03 is an improvement over the stock 03 airbox ( I believe it is and this was tested when the intake was created).

It will have no relevance to the older models and I do not know if the "tube" on those models has any effect...

Does LLSOC offer an intake for the 03? I looked on the site and didn't see one. However, they do offer the KKM intake. Is that what you are talking about?

Just curious...

Oh...and I completely agree about not comparing the 00-02 and the 03+ as the intake and exhaust are different. It would be apples to oranges. However, I believe the air boxes are identical. Therefore, it would show the gain to be had by replacing just the airbox with the KKM. Even then...one could only extrapolate the gain to be had on an 00-02.

-Pete
02 LSE

Man.... I go skiing for one day....

Wow, we've got a lot of information chugging through here now. For the filter question... can't we just take the inner and outter dia of the filter and divide by say two to get the difference, or just measure the length and width of the pleat and add them all together? It's basically a strip that is in the shape of a helmet goggle. Just add the elements together, and there's your surface area.

That should work. And average the top and bottom bases and multiple by the height by 2(pi)x(average radius of top and bottom bases).

(2)(pi)(r)(h) in formula style. Then add in the extra material from the pleats.

if we cut it from top to bottom would we have an isosceles trapezoid? Maybe we could just use the forumla that solves for the surface area of an isosceles trapezoid.

If you want to work woth isosceles trapezoids, you will probably have to integrate a function that models the filter's dimensions. The halves would still have rounded sides, just semicircles now, not one circle.

h(lenght of bottom + Lenght of top)
----------------------------------
2

But then we have the fact that the cone benefits from having the 14.5 lb per sq inch on the top half where the stock or K&N filter has to be pulled against. So would it be safe to assume that the cone automatically has half the work of the stock or K&N.


¿Do we call it quits now?

¿Do we call it quits now?

Why not? Too much rambling and not enough facts. Cone works better than stock or k&n panel, how much better, not sure, but every little bit helps.

Just live with the fact that the true gains are not known, and enjoy the extra power you get.

:soapbox:

h(lenght of bottom + Lenght of top)
----------------------------------
2

But then we have the fact that the cone benefits from having the 14.5 lb per sq inch on the top half where the stock or K&N filter has to be pulled against. So would it be safe to assume that the cone automatically has half the work of the stock or K&N.


¿Do we call it quits now?

So you are saying that the cone is twice as efficient as the panel? If so...I just don't buy that. Reason being...there's still a force that exists sucking behind any filter...regardless if it's the panel or the cone...it's the same force.

If we want to end it...that's cool...but...I won't be satisfied until we have a final decision with mathematic proof. Admittedly...I haven't had much time to research it today..nor will I this weekend. When I do...I'll pick back up on it. In fact...I may just end up emailing K&N and asking them. Surely they have flow comparisons between cones and panels.

-Pete
02 LSE

or - you could just measure the amount of space you have available and buy the largest cone you can find that will fit....

well it occured to me that the top half of the cone benefits from the down force of atomospheric pressure. At sea level is about 15lbs psi. The rectangular filter does not have this down force. I am not saying that it is a clear 2 time better simply that if the surface area is equal the the cone has a down force which helps it do less work than the filter that simply picks up.

well it occured to me that the top half of the cone benefits from the down force of atomospheric pressure. At sea level is about 15lbs psi. The rectangular filter does not have this down force. I am not saying that it is a clear 2 time better simply that if the surface area is equal the the cone has a down force which helps it do less work than the filter that simply picks up.


Ahhh...ok...that makes more sense.

Anyone have one of the cones that come with the KKM kit? How long is it? If it's not as long as the panel is wide...then you know right there it has the smaller surface area. Also...if someone can measure the circumference of said filter...and it's not greater than the panel is long...you know it has the smaller surface area. This is just a ballpark...not exact.

By just looking at the KKM...it looks as though the circumference may be the same as the panel length...but...the cone length looks like it MIGHT be the same as the panel width...if not...the cone is a tiny bit shorter.

Remember though...if there's no heat sheild blocking engine heat from the cone...any increase attributed to the increase in filter efficiency is probably negated.

I apologize if this is like we are beating a dead horse...but...I like to get to the bottom of something and inform folks of the best option for their money.

-Pete
02 LSE

Does LLSOC offer an intake for the 03? I looked on the site and didn't see one. However, they do offer the KKM intake. Is that what you are talking about?

Just curious...

Oh...and I completely agree about not comparing the 00-02 and the 03+ as the intake and exhaust are different. It would be apples to oranges. However, I believe the air boxes are identical. Therefore, it would show the gain to be had by replacing just the airbox with the KKM. Even then...one could only extrapolate the gain to be had on an 00-02.

-Pete
02 LSE

Yes I got the KKM intake.

I have an unused cone that is smaller than the kkm one, only 4.75" length of filter material, 6" bottom base, 4.625" top base. It has approx. 81.94 sq. in. without pleats. Not sure of the stock panel area without pleats.

Ahhh...ok...that makes more sense.

Anyone have one of the cones that come with the KKM kit? How long is it? If it's not as long as the panel is wide...then you know right there it has the smaller surface area. Also...if someone can measure the circumference of said filter...and it's not greater than the panel is long...you know it has the smaller surface area. This is just a ballpark...not exact.

By just looking at the KKM...it looks as though the circumference may be the same as the panel length...but...the cone length looks like it MIGHT be the same as the panel width...if not...the cone is a tiny bit shorter.

Remember though...if there's no heat sheild blocking engine heat from the cone...any increase attributed to the increase in filter efficiency is probably negated.

I apologize if this is like we are beating a dead horse...but...I like to get to the bottom of something and inform folks of the best option for their money.

-Pete
02 LSE


I hear ya. The cone is prone to hot air ingestion esp in city driving and during the summer forget about it.

Why not? Too much rambling and not enough facts. Cone works better than stock or k&n panel, how much better, not sure, but every little bit helps.

Just live with the fact that the true gains are not known, and enjoy the extra power you get.

:soapbox:

Before dropping $300 on an intake tube...wouldn't you like to know if it offers a bang for the buck gain? To me...with engine mods...it's all about horsepower/$. Why would I spend $300 + the cone to gain the same amount of power by gutting the stock box and putting in a K&N panel?

Just like for my Camaro SS...I have yet to bolt on one mod that hasn't netted me a significant gain for the buck. The lid I bought used for $80...my longtubes...I bought on a group purchase for $500...GM performance plug wires...group purchase...$35...K&N...$50...ported MAF...free...did it at home. ..3" header back...$500. When I last had it dynoed...it put down 327 RWHP (about 387 crank horsepower assuming 18% driveline loss) and 337 RWTQ (about 397 crank torque). Assuming a factory rating of 320 crank horsepower...that's a 67 horsepower increase for just a little over $1k. If I ever get around to purchasing LS1Edit ($500)...I'll probably find another 20-30 horsepower locked up in the computer. With the 00-02 LS...you are looking at $900 for the LLSOC intake tube and the Magnaflow catback. Somehow I doubt it'll gain you even 40 horsepower.

But in the end...it's up to everyone how they want to spend their money...some choose to spend it wisely...some choose to spend it poorly.

Again...I apologize for rambling.

I have an unused cone that is smaller than the kkm one, only 4.75" length of filter material, 6" bottom base, 4.625" top base. It has approx. 81.94 sq. in. without pleats. Not sure of the stock panel area without pleats.

From what I posted earlier;

Pleats: 42
Height: 0.875 in (22 mm)
Outside Length: 12.375 in (314 mm)
Outside Width: 6.563 in (167 mm)

Therefore...the panel has about 81.21 sq in. not counting pleats. Not that much difference huh? Even if you figure the KKM is a bit larger...it's still not going to flow significantly better than the panel.

I am running a Green Filter - I believe the K&N match for mine is a RF-1048 (Chrome End Cap) or a RT-4590 (Custom End Cap aka XStream® Air Flow Top)

The dimensions of the filter are:
Filter Top= 4.5"
Filter Base= 7.5"
Length of media= 5"
Bottom Opening= 6"
Neck Length= 5/8"

L x W of a pleat x 42 = surface area???

We are making this way more complex than it has to be... the conical filter, if you take it apart, and lay it down flat, will look like a fat rainbow. I see two ways of measuring the surface area of this "rainbow". You can take the number of "teeth" that the filter has, one count for the up and one for the down of each pleat, find that area which will be a trapezoid, and multiply that area times the number of pleats. Or, you can take that same rainbow and use this formula: "Frustrum of a Right Circular Cone" and the lateral surface area is pi*s(inner radius + outter radius) where s is the length of the cone from the inner to outter radius.

So for Quik's filter, we have LSA = 3.14*5*(2.25+3.75) or 94 square inches of area.

This is only true if the filter had material on a smooth surface, since it's pleated, I would submit that if you knew the height of the pleat, you could take the surface area of the cone for the peak of the pleat, then take the surface area of the cone from the valley of the pleat, and take the average of the two. Figure you're going up the pleat as much as you're going down... since we don't have that information yet, it's an estimate. But, we do have a viable equation to make it run once we find the height of the pleat.

This is great. Now, does anybody happen to know the pressure drop per square inch for said filter?

Also, eL eS... I don't understand what you mean about the downward pressure of the air pushing on the filter with the conical unit. Air pressure is 14.7 PSI whether your upside down or rightside up. If it were not true, you'd suffocate if you ever tried to breathe with your face facing down. Or did I miss something in what you were saying?

There is no sucking force to pull air into a motor, or any other void. It is the atmospheric pressure pushing air in, when the motor moves the piston down and out of the way.,This creates a hollow spot for the atmosphere to fill.

Before dropping $300 on an intake tube...wouldn't you like to know if it offers a bang for the buck gain? To me...with engine mods...it's all about horsepower/$. Why would I spend $300 + the cone to gain the same amount of power by gutting the stock box and putting in a K&N panel?

Just like for my Camaro SS...I have yet to bolt on one mod that hasn't netted me a significant gain for the buck. The lid I bought used for $80...my longtubes...I bought on a group purchase for $500...GM performance plug wires...group purchase...$35...K&N...$50...ported MAF...free...did it at home. ..3" header back...$500. When I last had it dynoed...it put down 327 RWHP (about 387 crank horsepower assuming 18% driveline loss) and 337 RWTQ (about 397 crank torque). Assuming a factory rating of 320 crank horsepower...that's a 67 horsepower increase for just a little over $1k. If I ever get around to purchasing LS1Edit ($500)...I'll probably find another 20-30 horsepower locked up in the computer. With the 00-02 LS...you are looking at $900 for the LLSOC intake tube and the Magnaflow catback. Somehow I doubt it'll gain you even 40 horsepower.

But in the end...it's up to everyone how they want to spend their money...some choose to spend it wisely...some choose to spend it poorly.

Again...I apologize for rambling.

You will never get this much gain out of the LS without a supercharger. Now that we can tune with the SCT Flasher it is becoming a reality.

There is no sucking force to pull air into a motor, or any other void. It is the atmospheric pressure pushing air in, when the motor moves the piston down and out of the way.,This creates a hollow spot for the atmosphere to fill.

Huh? How is there no sucking force that pulls air into a motor. Any internal combustion engine is just a big air pump. Hence...air in...and air out. Therefore ...there are two events...sucking...and blowing. So...I'm a little unclear on how there is no sucking force?

You will never get this much gain out of the LS without a supercharger. Now that we can tune with the SCT Flasher it is becoming a reality.

I can completly agree with that. However, I was just making the point of why spend a ton on mods to only get a minimal return when you can spend next to nothing and get the same return?

Now...sure...if you can install ported and polished heads...new cams...maybe a different intake and a flash then sure...get a different intake tube and filter. And while you're at it...upgrade to 2.5" exhaust.

Speaking of which...what is the exhaust diameter for the 00-02 and the 03+? I believe for the 00-02 it is 2.25". If so...then dual exhaust @ 2.25" on the 3.9L is more than adequate to support the power increase that we are talking about. Therefore...my next mods are an x-pipe and replacement mufflers. On the mufflers...I'm leaning toward Dynomax bullet race mufflers because that's what I have on my SS. At constant speed...it has nearly no drone and is just nice and deep. However, WOT...it wails. My only concern is that it might sound like a bee in a beer can because of the small displacement and I don't want it to sound like :ricesmile.

Ehh...once I finish this up...I'll probably finally take it to be dyno'd. Then we can ballpark the $ spent and the horsepower gained.

The biggest problem with mods for the LS is supply and demand. There just aren't enough of us performance buffs out there that want to mod them that would drive down the cost/mod. It's sorta like the old school hot rodding...if you want something...mod the parts yourself and work with what you have.

-Pete
02 LSE

I can completly agree with that. However, I was just making the point of why spend a ton on mods to only get a minimal return when you can spend next to nothing and get the same return?

Now...sure...if you can install ported and polished heads...new cams...maybe a different intake and a flash then sure...get a different intake tube and filter. And while you're at it...upgrade to 2.5" exhaust.

Speaking of which...what is the exhaust diameter for the 00-02 and the 03+? I believe for the 00-02 it is 2.25". If so...then dual exhaust @ 2.25" on the 3.9L is more than adequate to support the power increase that we are talking about. Therefore...my next mods are an x-pipe and replacement mufflers. On the mufflers...I'm leaning toward Dynomax bullet race mufflers because that's what I have on my SS. At constant speed...it has nearly no drone and is just nice and deep. However, WOT...it wails. My only concern is that it might sound like a bee in a beer can because of the small displacement and I don't want it to sound like :ricesmile.

Ehh...once I finish this up...I'll probably finally take it to be dyno'd. Then we can ballpark the $ spent and the horsepower gained.

-Pete
02 LSE

These guys are a Vendor on our site. Great Prices for Quality Stuff!

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=5370

Huh? How is there no sucking force that pulls air into a motor. Any internal combustion engine is just a big air pump. Hence...air in...and air out. Therefore ...there are two events...sucking...and blowing. So...I'm a little unclear on how there is no sucking force?


Vacuum is the absence of air. The force that you call sucking is actually the atmosphere pushing the air in. It's force or pressure is that common number 14.7 psi. This is why larger trucks don't use hydraulic brakes. Aside from the complications for the trailer connection, the size of the booster needed to apply that much force over that many wheel sets would be so huge, you couldn't get it under the hood. In fact, that why some trucks, (like uhaul and ryder) have the the booster mounted along side the frame rail behind the cab.

Ever have one of those jello shots that come in a big 100 cc syringe? Do the shot, put your thumb over the end and try to pull the plunger out. You can pull it down, but when you let go, it snaps back to the bottom. The force that pushed it back down is the atmosphere acting on the surface area of the backside of the plunger. There is a limit as to how much vaccum you can create too, it's 30 inches of water, or 760 mm of mercury. And belive it or not, there is no such thing as a perfect vaccum either, you can get close to it, but not actually there.

We are making this way more complex than it has to be... the conical filter, if you take it apart, and lay it down flat, will look like a fat rainbow. I see two ways of measuring the surface area of this "rainbow". You can take the number of "teeth" that the filter has, one count for the up and one for the down of each pleat, find that area which will be a trapezoid, and multiply that area times the number of pleats. Or, you can take that same rainbow and use this formula: "Frustrum of a Right Circular Cone" and the lateral surface area is pi*s(inner radius + outter radius) where s is the length of the cone from the inner to outter radius.

So for Quik's filter, we have LSA = 3.14*5*(2.25+3.75) or 94 square inches of area.

This is only true if the filter had material on a smooth surface, since it's pleated, I would submit that if you knew the height of the pleat, you could take the surface area of the cone for the peak of the pleat, then take the surface area of the cone from the valley of the pleat, and take the average of the two. Figure you're going up the pleat as much as you're going down... since we don't have that information yet, it's an estimate. But, we do have a viable equation to make it run once we find the height of the pleat.

This is great. Now, does anybody happen to know the pressure drop per square inch for said filter?

Also, eL eS... I don't understand what you mean about the downward pressure of the air pushing on the filter with the conical unit. Air pressure is 14.7 PSI whether your upside down or rightside up. If it were not true, you'd suffocate if you ever tried to breathe with your face facing down. Or did I miss something in what you were saying?

There is no sucking force to pull air into a motor, or any other void. It is the atmospheric pressure pushing air in, when the motor moves the piston down and out of the way.,This creates a hollow spot for the atmosphere to fill.


Hind sight the atmospheric pressure would on have a distinct difference at different elevations. top and bottom of filter are not that far apart to make a difference. I should have used gravity. since nothing has a natural tendance to fly away from earth and the atmospheric pressure being what it is.

To force the air from the bottom to seems to be working against gravity. It seems that to force it on a horizontal plane or down force would be more beneficial. So I was giving the cone an edge becasue it is open to these planes. Isn't this way they use scoops?

This is my attempt to over complicate things. :Bang

Scoops are making use of moving air, and the kinetic energy that it has as some speed... Hood scoops don't do a thing when you launch, because, well, nothing's moving yet. When you're screaming down the track at 100 +, that's a different story.

You are correct that at different elevations the atmospheric pressure changes, the higher you go up, the lower the pressure, and the worse your car, or you, will run. Gravity makes no difference on the air filter. I could hand you two 100 cubic foot CO2 tanks for a welder, one full and one empty, and I'll gauruntee that you can't tell me which is which without an accurate scale.

Cones have the advantage of more surface area, and the flow might look a little better because the air is coming in from all sides. I doubt you'd be able to see any difference just from that alone, again, go back to our previous disscussion about the restrictions and bends in the pipe.

Think about the obvious example: Does a vaccum sweeper run any better when you hold the nozzel straight up or down or any other direction, other than kinking the hose? Of course not. Same thing here. Our vaccum pumps have cylinders, not a centrifugal fan, but the result is the same.

We are making this way more complex than it has to be...

understatement of the YEAR!!!!

if the goal is to get the largest area opened (and covered by a filter) - measure the space you have to work with and buy the largest filter you can. I bet you end up going with a cone simply because you can't get a larger panel filter to fit in the stock airbox - so unless you're gonna make a new airbox - you're gonna replace it with a cone - a large cone.

understatement of the YEAR!!!!

if the goal is to get the largest area opened (and covered by a filter) - measure the space you have to work with and buy the largest filter you can. I bet you end up going with a cone simply because you can't get a larger panel filter to fit in the stock airbox - so unless you're gonna make a new airbox - you're gonna replace it with a cone - a large cone.


BINGO! :Beer

Vacuum is the absence of air. The force that you call sucking is actually the atmosphere pushing the air in.

Pardon my ignorance but...are you saying that atmospheric pressure is the driving force instead of the motor drawing air in? If so...how can you explain something like hydro-locking? Did the water force it's way into the motor or was it drawn in?

understatement of the YEAR!!!!

if the goal is to get the largest area opened (and covered by a filter) - measure the space you have to work with and buy the largest filter you can. I bet you end up going with a cone simply because you can't get a larger panel filter to fit in the stock airbox - so unless you're gonna make a new airbox - you're gonna replace it with a cone - a large cone.

Ok...this is my last post on this. If you want the largest air filter in the larget area opened...then that's cool...but...it's sorta like having an exhaust that's too big...there's just no point. I don't think that an air filter that is too big will hurt performance the same as an exhaust that is too big...but...whatever.

Again...my apologies if we are trying to get to the bottom of what is the best mod for the money. Like I said above...If y'all want to throw money at mods that are unecessary...cool with me. I'll try and make the same power for a fraction of the cost.

This is the reason this board exists...to offer up discussions/disputes on what performance mods are out there and get facts from folks that have them.

-Pete
02 LSE

This might be the overlooked benefit, but the larger filter will be much more tolerant of dirt, over a longer time before it will need serviced. The engine will only draw as much air as it needs, so the big filter could be, say, 30% plugged and the car will still run great.

this may help -> http://knfilters.com/facts.htm#SELECT

HaHAHAHA!! The beginning of the post was about a simple mods that could be bought.. and it spread like wildfire

So from what I'm readin, people should just buy a cone filter since the change out of the stock snorkel wouldn't/won't change anything in means of HP to suffice for the price? I want to know what Quik_LS thinks.. And Ghost....

So from what I'm readin, people should just buy a cone filter since the change out of the stock snorkel wouldn't/won't change anything in means of HP to suffice for the price? I want to know what Quik_LS thinks.. And Ghost....

Ok...so I lied...my previous post wasn't my last.

Who cares what anyone thinks...why can't someone just show a dyno graph of the comparisons? I think that means wayyyy more than any ones opinion.

So from what I'm readin, people should just buy a cone filter since the change out of the stock snorkel wouldn't/won't change anything in means of HP to suffice for the price?

My opinion the gains are in order:
- Changing to a less restrictive filter gets the biggest gains.
- Adding a venturi adds small gains under WOT at speed
- Adding a new smooth intake adds small gains under WOT at speed

there are also the intangibles - the 'sound' improvements and the 'looks' under the hood - neither matter as much to me as the performance but they are added benefits. It's the same logic I used on my exhaust - I did all the performance stuff - but added the quad chrome tips to 'look' good.

I did the whole intake - and would do it again. But Pete - that's just my opinion.

My opinion the gains are in order:
- Changing to a less restrictive filter gets the biggest gains.
- Adding a venturi adds small gains under WOT at speed
- Adding a new smooth intake adds small gains under WOT at speed

there are also the intangibles - the 'sound' improvements and the 'looks' under the hood - neither matter as much to me as the performance but they are added benefits. It's the same logic I used on my exhaust - I did all the performance stuff - but added the quad chrome tips to 'look' good.

I did the whole intake - and would do it again. But Pete - that's just my opinion.

Quik...I can completely respect ANYONEs opinion...especially someone that appears to have the knowledge that you do. However, I am a complete skeptic when it comes to mod/$. Something that just doesn't make sense...typically...doesn't offer the gains folks claim. I also like to beat the bushes to find the best mod out there for my money and not just take someones word for it. Show me some emperical evidence...and I'm sold.

I like to see either back to back dyno runs (which can still not show the whole picture) or back to back drag strip runs. Either of these will show a mods true capability.

No hard feelings...

-Pete
02 LSE

No hard feelings... absolutely I understand.

changing the filter get 90%-ish of the gains. smoothing airflow and creating better suction are the small things we can do to improve upon a very limited aftermarket for these cars.

so your decision is:
"- how many rwhp gains are worth your money for things like the intake tube"
and that is a personal decision - but it will only be a few rwhp. That's why you have to factor in the 'look' and 'sound' elements as well - for some that adds $$ for others not. like i said - I added the quad chrome tips to my exhaust - but those cost 1/3 of the overall price - not a wise hp/$ decision ;)

my setup (the entire intake) added 13 rwhp (dyno). the hood scoop added another 3rwhp (dyno). I never did the filter only. So cutting the hood was as much look as function (though probably gives more hp running down the road in the air than on the dyno).

if you assume a 17% drivetrain loss - the intake was good for 15ish hp

Scoops are making use of moving air, and the kinetic energy that it has as some speed... Hood scoops don't do a thing when you launch, because, well, nothing's moving yet. When you're screaming down the track at 100 +, that's a different story.

You are correct that at different elevations the atmospheric pressure changes, the higher you go up, the lower the pressure, and the worse your car, or you, will run. Gravity makes no difference on the air filter. I could hand you two 100 cubic foot CO2 tanks for a welder, one full and one empty, and I'll gauruntee that you can't tell me which is which without an accurate scale.

Cones have the advantage of more surface area, and the flow might look a little better because the air is coming in from all sides. I doubt you'd be able to see any difference just from that alone, again, go back to our previous disscussion about the restrictions and bends in the pipe.

Think about the obvious example: Does a vaccum sweeper run any better when you hold the nozzel straight up or down or any other direction, other than kinking the hose? Of course not. Same thing here. Our vaccum pumps have cylinders, not a centrifugal fan, but the result is the same.


Makes sense to me.

I read on the K&N website that air flow takes the least path of resistance any way so if the ID of the intake tube is greater than that of the throttle body the where does buying a smooth tube help. The ripples in the stock appear to be on the outer diameter of the throttle body so are they there for noise abatement only does this feature impede air flow.

So it breaks down to what warren said... Are you doing it for looks or for performance. Like quik ls with teh exhaust tips... he noted they added no benefit other than aesthetic.

So in ranking the mods bang for buck we have the CAI, SCT FLASH, Exhaust and Air Snorkel. In no particular order... so what say ye?

So in ranking the mods bang for buck we have the CAI, SCT FLASH, Exhaust and Air Snorkel. In no particular order... so what say ye?

I can agree with that...the only thing I would caution is using the acronym CAI. Just adding a cone air filter is not the same as a CAI. CAI would require some sort of a heat sheild or a setup like Quik.

That said...here's my $.02...in bang for the buck order

1) Higher flow air filter
2) x-pipe & better flowing mufflers (at least for the 00-02s)
3) Nitrous (obviously no more than a 50 shot)
4) SCT Flasher

If it were me, I'd swich #3 and #4 on Peter's list, but keep the order of #1 and #2.. I don't think that Torrie has the flasher configured to handle NOS (just yet) but then again.. NOS isn't for everyone...

If it were me, I'd swich #3 and #4 on Peter's list, but keep the order of #1 and #2.. I don't think that Torrie has the flasher configured to handle NOS (just yet) but then again.. NOS isn't for everyone...

Yeah...I originally had the 3 and 4 reversed too...but...for bang for the buck...you can't beat nitrous. My problem with it...is that it's not a permenant solution. You run out of the gas and your power is gone. Like you said...it's not for everyone.

Another reason...not everyone is going to know how to change parameters using the SCT flasher either. It's sorta like LS1 Edit it's easy to screw something up.

Will the stock fuel system really not handle a 50 shot?

-Pete
02 LSE

I hear :nos: is :q on the engine and if used frequently would make have to rebuild the engine. Is that true?

I ran a 100 shot for a year.

IMHO - NOS is not a practial everyday option - it's only good when you want to test the 1/4 mile times - you do not scoot to work in the morning using NOS!

Pardon my ignorance but...are you saying that atmospheric pressure is the driving force instead of the motor drawing air in? If so...how can you explain something like hydro-locking? Did the water force it's way into the motor or was it drawn in?

Yes - That is exactly what I'm saying.

I'm not sure what you mean by hydro locking, getting water in the motor and having the engine lock up? The moving air caries the water, and if it happens to be in the intake or any where else, it will go where the air pushes it. Same way dust moves... Water is obviously heavier, and will displace the air, when the force of the moving air is not great enough to keep the water moving, it stops. When the valve opens, the water falls in, and it's all down hill from there.

So it looks like we finally got this under control... Cool...

Anybody want to discuss the gains from underdrive pulleys?

Yes... I am kidding! :joke

I ran a 100 shot for a year.

IMHO - NOS is not a practial everyday option - it's only good when you want to test the 1/4 mile times - you do not scoot to work in the morning using NOS!


Yeah... i would hope no one is out there burning that stuff on the street but I know better. I am curios what would be considered excessive use.

So it looks like we finally got this under control... Cool...

Anybody want to discuss the gains from underdrive pulleys?

Yes... I am kidding! :joke


I have heard of them being used in the contour at contour.org by some users there. Not familiar with what it does exactally. Without implying for the usage of the LS what is the gain from this mechanical mod.

Underdrive pulleys deliver more horse power by freeing up power lost to parasitic drag caused by driving external accessories. The amount you will realize depends on your car and the accessories you are driving, a car with alternator, water pump, power steering, A/C and a smog pump will see a larger HP gain then a car with alternator and water pump only. Dollar for dollar underdrive pulleys are one of the best value for HP gain on the market.

Underdrive pulleys deliver more horse power by freeing up power lost to parasitic drag caused by driving external accessories. The amount you will realize depends on your car and the accessories you are driving, a car with alternator, water pump, power steering, A/C and a smog pump will see a larger HP gain then a car with alternator and water pump only. Dollar for dollar underdrive pulleys are one of the best value for HP gain on the market.

You have got to be kidding me! Please tell me you're joking and don't believe that these stupid a s s e d things do anything! Underdrive pulleys are the biggest joke since the chrome plated dipstick and repacking your muffler bearings! Unless your alternator is trying to power Manhattan Island, you have the steering wheel turned past the lock and wedged to one side, your water pump has no bearings left and is pumping pure tar through it, and your smog pump is plugged solid, these POS's will do nothing but make your wallet lighter!

I can not believe that this idiotic fad is still alive. My cousin was actually dumb enough to try these and in his own words, they did nothing for the 1/4 mile, nothing for autocross, but they did do one thing for the street: the battery discharged when you sat at a traffic light at night. The added bonus, you'd have to drive a half mile to get the idiot light to turn off. He subsequently took them back off, and ate $85.

Sorry... not trying to flame you, but damn... The theory is correct, it should take less power, but here in the real world, not that crap they post in the go-fast magazines, they do exactly dick.

If we're going to do dyno runs to check results, let's not forget this ugly turd...

Sorry dude, I posted that as a joke, and was certainly not serious about ANY gains from them.

underdrive pulleys discussed here -> http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=2917&highlight=underdrive

WOW!!! Tell us how you really feel and try to let it all out, don't hold back.
:bow:

I was laughing so hard people from other offices wanted to see what I was looking at.

:yourock:

WOW!!! Tell us how you really feel and try to let it all out, don't hold back.
:bow:

I was laughing so hard people from other offices wanted to see what I was looking at.

:yourock:


Oh.. in that case... Eh-hem...

:soapbox:

underdrive pulleys discussed here -> http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=2917&highlight=underdrive


Read all three pages.... And I agree... maybe 5hp. Can you feel it or see it conclusively on a dyno? Nope.

The one I liked the best was the people using underdrive pulleys, but then changing out some of the other pulleys to make the alternator work right. Yeah, that's a good plan, add HP, then take it away, and empty your wallet.

Im Looking to replace my air intake should i replace the whole system Including the tubing and where can i get a good exhaust system but I dont want me car to sound like a beefy truck more like the infinty G-35

Im Looking to replace my air intake should i replace the whole system Including the tubing and where can i get a good exhaust system but I dont want me car to sound like a beefy truck more like the infinty G-35

try this link -> http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/search.php?searchid=43422

it lists a bunch of past topics on this.

You have got to be kidding me! Please tell me you're joking and don't believe that these stupid a s s e d things do anything! Underdrive pulleys are the biggest joke since the chrome plated dipstick and repacking your muffler bearings! Unless your alternator is trying to power Manhattan Island, you have the steering wheel turned past the lock and wedged to one side, your water pump has no bearings left and is pumping pure tar through it, and your smog pump is plugged solid, these POS's will do nothing but make your wallet lighter!

I can not believe that this idiotic fad is still alive. My cousin was actually dumb enough to try these and in his own words, they did nothing for the 1/4 mile, nothing for autocross, but they did do one thing for the street: the battery discharged when you sat at a traffic light at night. The added bonus, you'd have to drive a half mile to get the idiot light to turn off. He subsequently took them back off, and ate $85.

Sorry... not trying to flame you, but damn... The theory is correct, it should take less power, but here in the real world, not that crap they post in the go-fast magazines, they do exactly dick.

If we're going to do dyno runs to check results, let's not forget this ugly turd...

Sorry dude, I posted that as a joke, and was certainly not serious about ANY gains from them.



Hmm...so I suppose the 10-12 horsepower (dyno proven BTW) that we see on LS1s make them a turd? LOL...what a hoot. I'll run over to LS1.com and LS2.com and tell everyone we have a new expert on all underdrive pullies. Oh...and may as well head over the all the Mustang guys at the corral and see what they think too.

The ONLY issue with underdrive pullies on the LS1 is that they can cause false knock. Not 100% sure why that is. As for the battery discharging...he probably had an automatic and was running a boatload of aftermarket electronics...or had a short of some kind. Everyone I've ever known (more than one person) that had an auto and NO aftermarket electronics just experienced some light flicker if sitting at idle for too long in gear (not just a few seconds). But...no idiot light. If he had a manual...something was bad wrong with his charging system to begin with...that or his idle SUCKED.

Finally...yes...hydro-locking is when your engine ingests enough water to cause one of the cylinders to be filled...thus on the compression stroke...locking the cylinder (and damaging all kinds of things). This happened on quite a few Camaros and Firebirds that were running a ram air system that funneled air from behind the air dam. They would run through a really bad downpour or a deep enough puddle and the water would be forced up through the filter. The water was then sucked into the engine on the intake stroke...causing the hydro-lock.

I do see what you are saying about the intake stroke causing a lower pressure in the cylinder. Hydro-locking would be the same thing.

Again...let's get some facts here...back-to-back dyno runs or back-to-back track runs. We have enough newbs wondering what to do without the misinformation that's flying around.

-Pete
02 LSE

Hmm...so I suppose the 10-12 horsepower (dyno proven BTW) that we see on LS1s make them a turd? LOL...what a hoot. I'll run over to LS1.com and LS2.com and tell everyone we have a new expert on all underdrive pullies. Oh...and may as well head over the all the Mustang guys at the corral and see what they think too.

The ONLY issue with underdrive pullies on the LS1 is that they can cause false knock. Not 100% sure why that is. As for the battery discharging...he probably had an automatic and was running a boatload of aftermarket electronics...or had a short of some kind. Everyone I've ever known (more than one person) that had an auto and NO aftermarket electronics just experienced some light flicker if sitting at idle for too long (not just a few seconds). But...no idiot light. If he had a manual...something was bad wrong with his charging system to begin with...that or his idle SUCKED.

Oh...what are your thoughts on a smaller blower pulley for the 03+ Cobra or the Lightning? Are they turds too?

Finally...hydro-locking is when your engine ingests enough water to cause one of the cylinders to be filled...thus on the compression stroke...locking the cylinder (and damaging all kinds of things). This happened on quite a few Camaros and Firebirds that were running a ram air system that funneled air from behind the air dam. They would run through a really bad downpour or a deep enough puddle and the water would be forced up through the filter. The water was then sucked into the engine on the intake stroke...causing the hydro-lock.

I do see what you are saying about the intake stroke causing a lower pressure in the cylinder. Hydro-locking would be the same thing.

Again...let's get some facts here...back-to-back dyno runs or back-to-back track runs. We have enough newbs wondering what to do without the misinformation that's flying around.

-Pete
02 LSE


:gr_hail: Pete02LSE :soapbox:

well I will set up my speed tracer this weekend. I will do a street dyno using it and post my results. Stock air box with off the shelf air filter and I will it with the stock air box with K&N.

before the install I will disconnect my battery so it clear the adaptive learning. I will drive it for one day Sarasota and back to Brandon about 130 miles round trip. They use the speed tracer the next day to record the difference if any.

I might buy the cone filter set from Kurtz unless an altertnative can be recommended. I am not sold on it yetas I am using a moded air box whihc I also have one of those sitting int he garage. So I might test the K&N with the moded air box. Then if I am feeling generous I will buy myself a present but I an stingy hateful fun hater so I probably will say no and go for thereapy. :wrench

BTW...I didn't mean to delete the part about the Cobra and Lightning pullies. I was trying to add this...but my 30 minutes expired. I wanted to claify the difference.

The blower pullies are not underdrive...however...those do exist. When discussing a blower...smaller pullies are actually overdrive pullies...thus causing the blower to act like a bigger one and provide more of a pressure increase.

-Pete
02 LSE

Hmm...so I suppose the 10-12 horsepower (dyno proven BTW) that we see on LS1s make them a turd? LOL...what a hoot. I'll run over to LS1.com and LS2.com and tell everyone we have a new expert on all underdrive pullies. Oh...and may as well head over the all the Mustang guys at the corral and see what they think too.

The ONLY issue with underdrive pullies on the LS1 is that they can cause false knock. Not 100% sure why that is. As for the battery discharging...he probably had an automatic and was running a boatload of aftermarket electronics...or had a short of some kind. Everyone I've ever known (more than one person) that had an auto and NO aftermarket electronics just experienced some light flicker if sitting at idle for too long in gear (not just a few seconds). But...no idiot light. If he had a manual...something was bad wrong with his charging system to begin with...that or his idle SUCKED.

Finally...yes...hydro-locking is when your engine ingests enough water to cause one of the cylinders to be filled...thus on the compression stroke...locking the cylinder (and damaging all kinds of things). This happened on quite a few Camaros and Firebirds that were running a ram air system that funneled air from behind the air dam. They would run through a really bad downpour or a deep enough puddle and the water would be forced up through the filter. The water was then sucked into the engine on the intake stroke...causing the hydro-lock.

I do see what you are saying about the intake stroke causing a lower pressure in the cylinder. Hydro-locking would be the same thing.

Again...let's get some facts here...back-to-back dyno runs or back-to-back track runs. We have enough newbs wondering what to do without the misinformation that's flying around.

-Pete
02 LSE


First off let me say that I agree completely with some ACCURATE dyno results, not the s h i t they print in magazines... It's like reading the Summit catalog... so and so claims 20 HP with this mod... yeah, I bet they did, you'll never see it, or be able to duplicate it, but they did... Also the same crap they print about somebody's 91 gt that gets 12 sec 1/4 miles with just a cam, stock tires and pump gas. I really wish the editors would be a little more realistic in what they print. Onward...

10 to 15 hp huh? that's about 3 percent, on a 300 HP engine... what's the margin of error on the dyne? How about weather conditions? Is that actually enough to be seen on the resolution of most charts? 3% in real world, again, means nothing, unless you're making 600 HP or some serious numbers. You'd get more of a gain by skipping dinner, taking a dump, and taking that 40 pound CD case out of the back seat for your next launch! Next...

I recant my statement about the idiot light, you are correct, there is none on a 91gt. He was a stick, 750 idle, with the normal plus or minus 100 that Ford was noted for. Point being, with the stereo on (not at the may be structurally unsafe for your vehicle level), at night, A/C on, but not high, the lights dim out, fan slows down, and the volt gauge drops off the chart. You know that can't be good for other electronics in the car. It's been posted elsewhere that this isn't the best for the machine. So, for a street machine, you're gaining what, exaclty?

My thoughts on underdrive pulleys for a blower? I never said a word about the pulleys for the blower drive. As you pointed out, smaller means faster, and that generally means more boost. Besides, that's not an accessory.. It's a NECCEssity...

Go ahead and go to LS1.com and the like, tell them what you like. They can claim what they wish, but I can prove I still have money in my wallet. Mustang guys? Same diff... Most of my friends around here have had or still have a GT or LX of some form. I still have my 81 Capri with the 351 police interceptor in it. Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, with about $800 in the motor and some money for decent brakes, I still have the best bang for the buck. Sure I've been beat. But at what cost? Nitrous, blowers? sure... My second car's the LS, the other guys are riding around in Hondas... You tell me what makes more sense.

I will tell you this though, I've NEVER been beat by a punk in a GT with a set of cragar rims, two 15's in the hatch and a handfull of bolt ons...

I'm not trying to put anybody down (yeah, hard to beleive right?!?) But marketing, inexperience, and that unwillingness to look inexperienced, make folks do and try just about anything. With the North Hills Sports Car Club members, I was fortunate enough to learn from their mistakes. In autocrossing, the guys at the track and having to help bolt and unbolt the stupid things, the resounding statement was pulleys don't do a darn thing. Maybe we can agree to disagree, but I just can't see how spending 50 to 100 bucks on a roughly 3% improvement could possibly be worth while.

a small turbo would be cool for the BOV sound :)... Or i could get one of these NA BOV (http://www.takakaira.com/accessories/nightpager/nightpager.html), NOT.

Well...I'm going to try and have our LSE dynoed on Friday, March 11th. Balanced Performance Motorsports is offering a 3 pull deal on a DynoJet for $59.98. That's just too good of a deal to pass up. If I can swing it...I'll get it dynoed on the 11th...then try and upgrade the exhaust x-pipe and higher flowing mufflers the following week...then try and dyno it again. So...we should have a good idea what the x and mufflers will do for it.

Cool... I'm sure we're all going to be interested in the results...

no doubt. that is fantastic thanks!

My question is this. I've had K&N filters in every vehicle I've owned from 5.0 Mustangs to 4.0 Ranger 4x4 and I've not been able to notice any difference in MPG or power. Has anyone who has it on an LS V8 been able to notice any difference? I always found it kinda a pain to clean and re-oil the filters so if I'm not going to notice any difference I'll just stick with the regular air filter and change it every other oil change. Thanks.

There has to be an increase in HP due to the fact that you are getting more cfm's through your intake = more HP. I ordered and installed an 80mm mass air intake kitand K&N fillter from Lincoln Motorsports and it made my 98 MarkVIII LSC scream! Then I ordered a Superchips tuner that completly turned my big Cobra lose!! All of it was worth every penny. If you have a Lincoln, call Geno at Lincoln Motorsports and he can hook you up. Get ready to hold on!

Use your head man, More air, more hp. You may not be able to feel it but it makes it easier for any engine to run by supplying more air to the fuel mixture. Install a cold air intake with a bigger mass air unit and then re-tune it with a computer chip. Now! you will feel the difference you were looking for. If you have a Lincoln call Geno at Lincoln Motorsports, he can hook you up.

i have always heard that bigger MAFs dont work well on these engines. Has that changed since that pcm can be reflashed now?

i have always heard that bigger MAFs dont work well on these engines. Has that changed since that pcm can be reflashed now?


We've never been able to push the car outside of what the stock MAF and PCM can handle - yet.

I remember way back in the early days at llsoc someone was trying to design and larger MAF but it went over like a lead ballon.

I think the plumbing analogy made the most sense of all. If you've ever used a ball valve to shut off a water supply under pressure (as opposed to a "gate" valve), one can hear the turbulence in the pipe, regardless of flow diameter.
Now, if someone could help me get more "oomph" out of the 3.8 in my '93 Continental...

I just re-read the thread...back to the original question. My old 580 Case backhoe ('70 model) had an oilbath-type filter and it was a royal pain to service. The later models (580B,C,D,E,K,L) as well other related equipment went to paper filters simply because the technology/manufacturing processes had improved to the point where they did the job just as good or better. If you've ever noticed the dusty conditions construction and agricultural engines (gas and diesel) operate, the filters have got to be able to do the job without suffocatiing the engine. Of course, pre-cleaners are almost mandatory on these units, especially in agricultural use.
I'm still just a country-boy at heart. I'll take a "cathead" biscuit with some cured ham over a McMuffin any day of the week!

never heard of cathead biscuits but my grandma makes the best buttermilk biscuits with tomato gravy and potato gravy or you can just butter and jelly em'. She bakes em in a good ol cast iron skillet.

Stir up some molasses with some butter and "sop" 'em or poke a hole in 'em and pour in the molasses. Goooooood! Also, try some pear preserves when they come straight out of the oven, or bake 'em with a touch of cheese!

never heard of cathead biscuits but my grandma makes the best buttermilk biscuits with tomato gravy and potato gravy or you can just butter and jelly em'. She bakes em in a good ol cast iron skillet.


Mmmmmmm.. Biscuits :wave

Thats one way to calm a heated debate.

Bring out the food. :yourock:

I tend to agree with the "clown"... I put a K&N on my 97 merq and noticed zero difference. I think a lot has to do with the amount of restriction on the head end side of the airbox. Mustangs were noted for this with that goofy air bladder thing that lived in the fender well. You took that out and put the K&N in, then the car ran better. In my 97 merq, I screwed up and didn't get the airbox back together right, and ended up leaking air around the two halves of the box. It cost me a MAF, but once I replace that, I cut a 4x6 hole in the bottom of the box, THEN it ran better, and at that point it didn't matter what filter was in it, K&N, Fram whatever.

You're probably wondering how I screwed up the airbox... sounds simple but I'm sure you noticed that once you open the damn thing, it's next to impossible to get it closed, and sealed without taking it out of the car. In my 97, it was snapped on the one side, but one of the little fingers in the corner of the box missed the receiving clip, and it allowed the top to separate a little so it would suck air across the top of the filter and not though it. I noticed more sound from WOT, so I knew something was up. It was winter, so I checked it out a day later and found salt and stuff sucked though the top of the filter and splattered against the MAF. Instant toasted MAF. It ran for a couple years like this, then it got so bad it would barely run. I did some research and answered all the questions that came up. Replaced the MAF, and it ran like new, at 120k miles. All the while the poor performance (but great mileage) was caused by the MAF which was out of cal for 3 years...

Moral of the story: Make sure that those stupid clips line up, even if you have to do it 3 or 4 times... I miss the old ones with the metal clips on all 4 sides, you knew it was sealed.

Right on Kleetus, Good history to know. Haven't seen you on the site for a while. Yinz been ta Pixburg? lol, Lincolnlov