K&N cai. worth it???
02-11-2009, 10:14 AM
#22
TECH Resident
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: norcal
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From www.siliconeintakes.com
1 x 3.5" Silicone Hump Hose, Black (SIL000432)
1 x T-Bolt Clamp for 4.0" Silicone Parts (CLA000310)
3 x T-Bolt Clamp for 3.5" Silicone Parts (CLA000105)
1 x Silicone Reducer, 90° bend - 4.0" to 3.5" - Black (BRE000958)
The intake tube I got here.
http://store.airflo.com/alintu3od.html
1 x 3.5" Silicone Hump Hose, Black (SIL000432)
1 x T-Bolt Clamp for 4.0" Silicone Parts (CLA000310)
3 x T-Bolt Clamp for 3.5" Silicone Parts (CLA000105)
1 x Silicone Reducer, 90° bend - 4.0" to 3.5" - Black (BRE000958)
The intake tube I got here.
http://store.airflo.com/alintu3od.html
02-12-2009, 11:54 AM
#24
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: south dakota
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From www.siliconeintakes.com
1 x 3.5" Silicone Hump Hose, Black (SIL000432)
1 x T-Bolt Clamp for 4.0" Silicone Parts (CLA000310)
3 x T-Bolt Clamp for 3.5" Silicone Parts (CLA000105)
1 x Silicone Reducer, 90° bend - 4.0" to 3.5" - Black (BRE000958)
The intake tube I got here.
http://store.airflo.com/alintu3od.html
1 x 3.5" Silicone Hump Hose, Black (SIL000432)
1 x T-Bolt Clamp for 4.0" Silicone Parts (CLA000310)
3 x T-Bolt Clamp for 3.5" Silicone Parts (CLA000105)
1 x Silicone Reducer, 90° bend - 4.0" to 3.5" - Black (BRE000958)
The intake tube I got here.
http://store.airflo.com/alintu3od.html
Thanks
02-13-2009, 12:23 PM
#26
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hilltown
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of asking a stupid question...
When testing was the hood open or closed? The same for each session? Depending on the box and intake type leaving the hood open will give you a post you will not see in the real world.
When testing was the hood open or closed? The same for each session? Depending on the box and intake type leaving the hood open will give you a post you will not see in the real world.
02-13-2009, 05:50 PM
#31
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hood was open for the stock airbox and the K&N kit so test conditions were consistent. You bring up a good point, though, as of course heat increases (as with a closed hood) should sap power from an open element faster than a closed air box. But with that said, it does seem odd to me that the closed air box would actually lose more hp after repeated pulls than did the K&N.
02-14-2009, 03:08 PM
#34
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Central AR
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just ordered everything i needed from racepartssolutions.com It should be here wednesday and I'm gonna try to redyno mine after installation. It made 328SAE on a dynojet a couple weeks ago. I am doing an open element filter too, not the stock airbox.
02-15-2009, 07:41 AM
#36
Cai ?? Boat Dr.,
I "rolled my own" intake tube with parts from intakehoses.com and an airbox from LPE (for the most filter area and it's 4" inlet to the element).
Initially, stock tube was used, but I felt that the tube and stock MAF were a bottleneck.
From the throttle body: 90* 4" rubber elbow, 2" section of 4" aluminum tube, 4" to 3 1/2" silicone reducer, section of 3 1/2" aluminum tube to 3 1/2" silicone hump connector and then the MAF. The rubber 90* was used instead of the silicone 90* because the bend is more gradual. Some of the homemade stuff uses a 3 1/2" elbow, which I feel could be disruptive to the airflow.
It all looks pretty sanitary if you put the hose clamp screws on the bottom.
Seen here at https://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-...ml#post9880907
All this is changing this afternoon. It's being changed as it now has to be 4" all the way because of the LS7 MAF & Haltech housing I'm installing.
A retune and testing will probably be next week.
I "rolled my own" intake tube with parts from intakehoses.com and an airbox from LPE (for the most filter area and it's 4" inlet to the element).
Initially, stock tube was used, but I felt that the tube and stock MAF were a bottleneck.
From the throttle body: 90* 4" rubber elbow, 2" section of 4" aluminum tube, 4" to 3 1/2" silicone reducer, section of 3 1/2" aluminum tube to 3 1/2" silicone hump connector and then the MAF. The rubber 90* was used instead of the silicone 90* because the bend is more gradual. Some of the homemade stuff uses a 3 1/2" elbow, which I feel could be disruptive to the airflow.
It all looks pretty sanitary if you put the hose clamp screws on the bottom.
Seen here at https://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-...ml#post9880907
All this is changing this afternoon. It's being changed as it now has to be 4" all the way because of the LS7 MAF & Haltech housing I'm installing.
A retune and testing will probably be next week.
Last edited by scatillac; 02-15-2009 at 07:46 AM. Reason: Added info.
02-15-2009, 09:28 AM
#37
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: PA and NJ
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#1: 273hp
#2: 278hp
#3: 279hp
(For all pulls, the engine was up to operating temperature)
From pull #1 to #3 I "gained" 6hp (peak) by doing nothing! As you can see one can have a variance without doing a single thing.
You would need numerous pulls side-by-side on the same day with and without the K&N installed to make any worth while conclusion. In order to claim the K&N had an improvement, I would need to see an increase in every pull with the K&N installed to the pulls witout the K&N installed. I have yet to see any proof. Many guys compare dyno pulls ranging in years apart, different weather conditions, and comparing their worst to the best pulls.
The manufacturers never 'lie' either.
02-15-2009, 11:47 AM
#38
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I already posted in this thread, that's exactly what I did. Three back to back pulls with the stock system, then install the K&N with the car still strapped to the dyno, then three more back to back pulls. On each set of three pulls the first was the best and the third was the worst as heat increased but K&N pull 1 was better than stock pull 1, K&N pull 2 was better than stock pull 2 and K&N pull 3 was better than stock pull 3. As this dyno session was probably 8 months ago I don't have the dyno sheet lying around to give you the exact numbers but that's how it went. If you choose not to believe me that's fine.
02-15-2009, 12:18 PM
#39
Dyno Runs Merc,
His oil temps may have been low on his first pull (creating more parasitic drag) depending on how long the car sat before the pull started.
You can scan your temps and quite often you'll see your water temp being in the normal operating range, but your oil temp will still be low.
His oil temps may have been low on his first pull (creating more parasitic drag) depending on how long the car sat before the pull started.
You can scan your temps and quite often you'll see your water temp being in the normal operating range, but your oil temp will still be low.
02-15-2009, 02:14 PM
#40
On each set of three pulls the first was the best and the third was the worst as heat increased but K&N pull 1 was better than stock pull 1, K&N pull 2 was better than stock pull 2 and K&N pull 3 was better than stock pull 3.
I believe you. I ordered a K&N two days ago based on your analysis. I hope to back it up with my own dyno pulls. I will mimmick the above 3 pulls/ 3 pulls.