Ponywars

Had my K&N drop in filter for around 3k miles before i read a post on SVT testing on the filter which claimed a 4-5 hp loss in the 2011 and up 5.0.I took it out and the car definetely feels a little more peppy and better throttle response.The best part is i picked up almost 2mpg local driving.Ford got it right with our intakes,the paper filter works much better than the K&N as far as performance goes.It should be used only if you never want to buy another stock filter again.but i want every bit of performance out of my car i can get,(thats why ibought it)and will be more than happy to shell out the 15 or 20 bucks it will cost when needed to replace the stock filter.

CCTking

Link to the test?

11SHELBYGT500

Oh, Danny boy, don't buy everything you read.

JAJ

I have my car pretty well instrumented for tuning the supercharger. I have the stock airbox and I can measure the pressure drop from the filter with considerable precision.

A stock paper filter with about 9,000 miles on it produces less pressure drop than a brand new K&N by about 8%. In either case, the pressure drop is small and 8% of a small number is really small, but the paper filter actually wins by a margin bigger than the statistical error of the measurements.

sleepermustang@live.com

Good post something for me to look at

Ponywars

I dont buy into everything i read unless theres absolute proof.I have the absolute proof that the tests are real because i see and feel the difference.Thats absolute proof!!!!My car DEFINETELY feels better (seat of the pants) and the mpg dont lie.2mpg is a huge difference from just an air filter change.I was getting 15.5 local driving,and since the stock filter went back in i,ve been getting almost 17.5 driving the same way i always do.

11SHELBYGT500

Well as long as you think so. I guess that's all that matters, but I'm going with a placebo effect and driving technique. You're not going to feel 4 horsepower.

Getportfolio

Is this just for GT? Have you found anything in regards to the V6?

BackinBlack13

my experience...had it and sold it.

5LHO

My experience: Same mph at the track with paper or K&N. Different days, yeah, I admit but, obviously not a huge difference to be had here going K&N. This ain't the 80s anymore.

Ponywars

Dont know about the V6,but i would assume the same.And there is no placebo effect in a difference of 2mpg and an instant difference in feel as soon as i put the stocker back in.I,mm 55 and have been doing this for a long time with lots of different performance cars.

11SHELBYGT500

My father is laughing at this and he's dead. Please post up your study data for 2 mpg.

Getportfolio

Im confused as hell. I have the KN filter in my stock 6 but have the paper filter sitting somewhere in the garage. My gas mileage didn't change either way. I bought the filter to improve airflow and realistically didn't expect HP increase. I'd like to keep the KN filter.

However, all these posts makes me wonder if the KN is causing loss of power? , if so is it really even noticeable compared to never having to replace the filter and that cool whoosh sound?

What happened to the good old days where you simply popped in a KN filter and removed the air silencer and grinned with glee and you frugal but effective mod?

Ponywars

What study data are you talking about? I put the stock air filter back in and went through 3 tanks of gas driving the same as i always do and the mileage went from a consistent 15.5mpg to 17.4.Thats my study data!!!!The throttle response was noticable enough to feel and the car was defientely snappier from 0- around 45mph.No placebo effect or anything else.

Ponywars

BTW i have used K&N filters in every car i have owned since 89.My motorcycles also.

Scuba-Matt

Its over at SVTP.

Ponywars

I believe so.i saw it on another forum link.

NTXRockr

My experience was quite the opposite. I bought the car at 13k, put in a K&N at 15k, and saw my average mpg's (60% highway) go from 15-16avg to 17-20avg with the K&N. I would get about 24mpg on highway before, after I saw 26 or 27mpg regularly. While in the gas it was peppy to start with, but after the filter it would roast the tires through third regularly and there was a noticeable gain in midrange power that wasn't there before as it would pull harder from 4k to redline.

Your "butt dyno" may be suffering from a placebo effect like mentioned above, but so could I. However, I log every tank of gas (mileage and exact gallons) and note the driving style and have done so for all my past vehicles, of which three have logged over 200k miles each (last three had K&N filters), so I'm pretty meticulous on that. With that said, I personally believe the K&N is better manufactured than most paper filters and does a better job keeping the crud out of the powerplant...case in point, when I first bought the car, the OEM filter had crushed and was nearly ingested into the intake from an apparent blockage that closed off airflow. The metal mesh and rubber was too flimsy and warped out of place until it wedged in the tube and then melted from the engine bay heat. How much crud and debris was sucked down from the filter alone, much less the outside air, I'll never know but I had it replaced soon enough with one I've proven doesn't.

Point is, does it restrict airflow slightly more? Does it lose 3-4hp over a stock filter? Possibly...we need more than one test and analysis to prove one way or the other (how many people have seen drastic differences in stock dyno numbers from different dyno brands?). The same argument can be made about aftermarket freer flowing intakes - do they really gain 10-30hp over the stock intake? Possibly...but at higher rpm's and higher than highway speeds needed for the airflow (can't drive with a fan on the front of the car force feeding air into it). Again, butt dyno/placebo effect are more prevalent here than the real numbers, but whatever makes you happy or comfortable at night is probably best for you. I personally will stick with what I know works and is reliable - just my $0.02!

TommyV

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...lter-test.html

NTXRockr

I've seen that test before, but as it was noted in SVTP likely the order of testing and heat soak could've played a part in the differences between runs and filters (saw the retest after that with the FI application, again similar results). The other thing that bugs me is the fact that his dyno graphs are from different dates in both tests (February and June) which leads me and others to believe he tested the stock in June and K&N filters in February, though he says it's when he printed them and not tested (he installed and uninstalled the same SC twice, really???). Honestly, there could be something unique about his car, or the other scenario also mentioned was turbulence could exist due to the dimension differences. Again - more than just ONE person needs to test this out to prove a trend one way or the other as that's true testing. If we had several cars that showed similar trends then the case could be made more earnestly, but right now it's extrapolating a trend from just one test and calling it fact.

I may just go buy another stock filter and drive it with both to see same day differences, plus I may be hitting the dyno very soon so it'll be a chance to document another test between the two.