Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday April 19, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-12-2010, 03:41 PM   #1
Brock31
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128115
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Wilmington, NC
Vehicle:
2004 4EAT Wagon PSM
enginuity is cool

Default Panel Filter on 2.0 with 16g

Yes..I did search and read the FAQ (which by the way, one of the links to the filtration data is missing all the charts and pics)

Anyway..I'm just curious if an aftermarket air filter would complement a 16g at all by allowing more airflow?
I don;t want to get a CAI and would like to stay with the stock airbox.

Pro's--more air, reusable

Con's--less filtration, more expensive

any opinions?
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Brock31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 04:44 PM   #2
Brock31
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128115
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Wilmington, NC
Vehicle:
2004 4EAT Wagon PSM
enginuity is cool

Default

I know this is a well discussed topic, but any input would be great.
Brock31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 04:54 PM   #3
soobaviator
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 115070
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Northern VA
Vehicle:
2009 DGM LGT Spec.B
08 Audi Q7 4.2 PRM

Default

The answer is nothing significant. I use K&N filters on every car that I have owned. I've also used STI panel filters in my WRX's. Did not notice anything significant between the two. Maybe the K&N allows a bit more intake noise to be heard...

The benefits are that after a time the filter is worth it because you don't have to buy new ones. I'd say if you are very curious about it then buy one, log some data and then share with the forum.



-soobaviator
soobaviator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 04:58 PM   #4
scoobystas
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 26568
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Brighton, Mass
Vehicle:
2003 Yellow Bugeye
Version 8-Vf37

Default

i just take out my oem style paper panel filter about every 5k, shake it off, and reinstall (sometimes i even vacuum out the filtering side)

i do swap them about every 20k though. They are like 8 bucks so no biggie.


but for my application, i think i'd rather have more filtration, than 1.07832hp at 6800rpm, lol.
scoobystas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 05:00 PM   #5
Brock31
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128115
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Wilmington, NC
Vehicle:
2004 4EAT Wagon PSM
enginuity is cool

Default

I'd like to know if the K&N filter would net higher MAF g/s or not. It seems to me like it would, but you never know. The 16g is going to pull XXX amount of air into the intake, and I wonder if the filter would make it flow more easily and therefore net "some" type of gains.

Most of the search results were involving stock or "stage 2" type set-ups and I couldn't find anything on larger than stock turbo's.
Brock31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 07:18 PM   #6
Unabomber
Big Ron
Moderator
 
Member#: 18062
Join Date: Apr 2002
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: I can save you a ton of cash
Vehicle:
on car parts so PM
me b4 j00 buy

Default

If you install and OEM filter or remove the filter and use nothing, you will net the same HP, so go worry about world hunger.
Unabomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 07:32 PM   #7
SVT_WRX
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 164830
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
G61 III OVE 58e

Default

Yes it will make a difference and you will pull more MAFV and G/S. How do I know? Because I have an EVO III 16G and tried it. IIRC, when I logged it with the OEM filter I pulled 4.3 MAFV. Changed the filter, same day, same temps, (maybe a little hotter) no other changes, pulled 4.5-4.6 MAFV. This was pre-APS 65 MM. I have since then upgraded to a KSTech 83 mm intake. My turbo likes to breathe, and my extensive logging proves this.
SVT_WRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 09:01 PM   #8
Brock31
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128115
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Wilmington, NC
Vehicle:
2004 4EAT Wagon PSM
enginuity is cool

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT_WRX View Post
Yes it will make a difference and you will pull more MAFV and G/S. How do I know? Because I have an EVO III 16G and tried it. IIRC, when I logged it with the OEM filter I pulled 4.3 MAFV. Changed the filter, same day, same temps, (maybe a little hotter) no other changes, pulled 4.5-4.6 MAFV. This was pre-APS 65 MM. I have since then upgraded to a KSTech 83 mm intake. My turbo likes to breathe, and my extensive logging proves this.
This is what I was looking for. Actual data instead of heresay.

I realize the lower effective filtration is a factor, but wanted to see if better flow actually was quantifiable.

SVT, was there an increase in the MAF-g/s as well (I would assume so)?
Brock31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 10:09 PM   #9
xsnapshot
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 170973
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincoln, NE
Vehicle:
2004 WRX 4EAT
PSM

Default

g/s is based off of mafV. Just like your AFR readings are based on a 0-5v sensor. If your voltage goes up, then the computer see's that, and its calculated g/s goes up as well.
xsnapshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 10:17 PM   #10
quazimoto
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 70395
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Da-boonies,Va
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unabomber View Post
If you install and OEM filter or remove the filter and use nothing, you will net the same HP, so go worry about world hunger.
And you data to back this up?
quazimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 10:22 PM   #11
soobaviator
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 115070
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Northern VA
Vehicle:
2009 DGM LGT Spec.B
08 Audi Q7 4.2 PRM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT_WRX View Post
Yes it will make a difference and you will pull more MAFV and G/S. How do I know? Because I have an EVO III 16G and tried it. IIRC, when I logged it with the OEM filter I pulled 4.3 MAFV. Changed the filter, same day, same temps, (maybe a little hotter) no other changes, pulled 4.5-4.6 MAFV. This was pre-APS 65 MM. I have since then upgraded to a KSTech 83 mm intake. My turbo likes to breathe, and my extensive logging proves this.
I call shenanigans on this one. Going from a 4.3 to a 4.6 MAFV is 70 HP worth of air. You did not make 70 more HP from a panel filter, no way no how.



-soobaviator
soobaviator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 10:22 PM   #12
xsnapshot
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 170973
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincoln, NE
Vehicle:
2004 WRX 4EAT
PSM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quazimoto View Post
And you data to back this up?
+1. Running no air filter is stupid, but there is no doubt it would make more power. How much? It's hard to say, and will depend on what snail you have sucking the air in. A restriction is a restriction.
xsnapshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 10:31 PM   #13
Brock31
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128115
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Wilmington, NC
Vehicle:
2004 4EAT Wagon PSM
enginuity is cool

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnapshot View Post
g/s is based off of mafV. Just like your AFR readings are based on a 0-5v sensor. If your voltage goes up, then the computer see's that, and its calculated g/s goes up as well.

I thought about that about 5 minutes ago. The two values are tied together not separate.
Brock31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 10:32 PM   #14
xsnapshot
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 170973
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincoln, NE
Vehicle:
2004 WRX 4EAT
PSM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soobaviator View Post
I call shenanigans on this one. Going from a 4.3 to a 4.6 MAFV is 70 HP worth of air. You did not make 70 more HP from a panel filter, no way no how.



-soobaviator
I agree. When I cleaned my REALLY dirty K&N filter last fall I saw about a .05 mafV difference. I didn't realize it had gotten so bad, and was honestly surprised. (actually it may have only been .04 mafV....I went from 4.26 as a logged value, to 4.3 on my old cobb handheld, and it doesnt read past the tenth's place)

Although think about it. If your filter was Ridiculously dirty and restricted, then plopping on a even more free-flowing filter could do it. But your car would be running like total **** before and you'd definitely know.
xsnapshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 10:33 PM   #15
Torquey
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 175334
Join Date: Mar 2008
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Dallas, TX
Vehicle:
2003 Impreza WRX
JDM v8 EJ207 WRB

Default

You can take a look at this one, if you don't want to shell out K&N bucks... plus the reviews are good too. I just ordered two...

Purolator Pure One air filter
Torquey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 10:56 PM   #16
soobaviator
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 115070
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Northern VA
Vehicle:
2009 DGM LGT Spec.B
08 Audi Q7 4.2 PRM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnapshot View Post
I agree. When I cleaned my REALLY dirty K&N filter last fall I saw about a .05 mafV difference. I didn't realize it had gotten so bad, and was honestly surprised. (actually it may have only been .04 mafV....I went from 4.26 as a logged value, to 4.3 on my old cobb handheld, and it doesnt read past the tenth's place)

Although think about it. If your filter was Ridiculously dirty and restricted, then plopping on a even more free-flowing filter could do it. But your car would be running like total **** before and you'd definitely know.
That's 10 HP which is more believable, but I would doubt that as a common occurrence. If you can free up 10 HP by putting on a new filter then the old one was very, very, very dirty, or the new one is too porous too keep out larger entrained particles in the air that will damage the turbo and engine....
soobaviator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2010, 11:02 PM   #17
xsnapshot
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 170973
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincoln, NE
Vehicle:
2004 WRX 4EAT
PSM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soobaviator View Post
That's 10 HP which is more believable, but I would doubt that as a common occurrence. If you can free up 10 HP by putting on a new filter then the old one was very, very, very dirty, or the new one is too porous too keep out larger entrained particles in the air that will damage the turbo and engine....
Ya like I said....It was pretty bad. I live on a long gravel road, and the whole dry summer (and the rest of the year) I must have been sucking up tons of dust. When other cars would go the other way/etc. I'm sure if I didn't live out where I'm constantly around dusty conditions, that I wouldn't have had that difference.

You can bank on the fact that I now clean it every other oil change!
xsnapshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 03:28 AM   #18
XanRules
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 157348
Join Date: Aug 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Snisterbopperton
Vehicle:
1996 JNCO Jorts
Stonewashed Denim

Default

Wirelessly posted (Phallic Tractor: BlackBerry9630/5.0.0.497 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

K&N filters about as well as having no filter. Go aem, green, apexi, or amsoil.
XanRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 03:47 AM   #19
02redwagone
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 87067
Join Date: May 2005
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Oregon Coast/AK
Vehicle:
02 Old but tasty
SRP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XanRules View Post
Wirelessly posted (Phallic Tractor: BlackBerry9630/5.0.0.497 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

K&N filters about as well as having no filter. Go aem, green, apexi, or amsoil.

+! Amsoil. Dry, cleanable, collects dust bunny making particles.
02redwagone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 05:20 PM   #20
azn_outlaw
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 91572
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Vehicle:
2005 Impreza WRX
Silver Tack

Default

Havent tried a K&N Filter but after reading all the negatives of it,

I opted to stay away from it, so instead, I went with the

AVOTurbo World Drop in filter

http://www.avoturboworld.com/avoshop...p?cPath=267_30

specs seemed a little better then K&N plus it was a bit cheaper then the K&N
azn_outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 08:16 PM   #21
SVT_WRX
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 164830
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
G61 III OVE 58e

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soobaviator View Post
I call shenanigans on this one. Going from a 4.3 to a 4.6 MAFV is 70 HP worth of air. You did not make 70 more HP from a panel filter, no way no how.



-soobaviator
Call it whatever you want chief. I'm just sharing my experience and it is accurate. And yes, the OEM panel filter was really dirty.

After discovering this, I realized that I was really restricting my turbo with the stock intake box. I upgraded to an APS 65 MM CAI intake, made a few tweaks to my tune and logged up to 4.74-4.8V. I have since then upgraded to a KStech 83 MM.

I wish I would have saved those logs to show you, but I didn't. So, it's up to the OP to make a decision based on real experience, not someone "calling" shenanigans. He WILL gain MAFV and G/S by switching to K&N. How much? We won't know until he does a before and after comparison, but he WILL gain something.

SVT_WRX
SVT_WRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 08:50 PM   #22
Brock31
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128115
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Wilmington, NC
Vehicle:
2004 4EAT Wagon PSM
enginuity is cool

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torquey View Post
You can take a look at this one, if you don't want to shell out K&N bucks... plus the reviews are good too. I just ordered two...

Purolator Pure One air filter

Thats what i've got in now.

I realize there is a sacrifice in the amount of filtration for better flow and less restriction. The only reason I looked toward K&N is that they can be sourced easily at my local Advanced Auto.

From previous threads, the issue seems to be a lean condition that can be caused by the filter. But if it can be tuned for, then any gains in flow from the filter could be realized when compensated for properly
Brock31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 09:09 PM   #23
SVT_WRX
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 164830
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
G61 III OVE 58e

Default

Do you live in an area where it's really dusty and dirty all the time? Then I would go with something that has more filtration....but trust me, that turbo wants to breathe.
SVT_WRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 09:18 PM   #24
Brock31
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128115
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Wilmington, NC
Vehicle:
2004 4EAT Wagon PSM
enginuity is cool

Default

No. Not dusty. I also change my oil every 3000-3500 miles with high quality synthetic which I would hope would mitigate any increase in particulates through the intake.
Brock31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 09:20 PM   #25
SVT_WRX
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 164830
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
G61 III OVE 58e

Default

I'd say either go for the K&N, or save up some chips and get the APS 70 MM CAI.
SVT_WRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2.0 with small 16G pump gas 12.73@110 69subaru360 Proven Power Bragging 24 10-11-2008 12:02 PM
16g setup on 2.0 spooling02wrx Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain 8 08-31-2008 03:48 PM
Coolant leak on 2.0 with new vf43, need help finding the source clbd39 Built Motor Discussion 5 03-11-2008 08:47 PM
Evo III 16G on 2.0 question Dynasty336 General Community 16 07-16-2007 07:22 PM
map for utec 2.0 with 750cc and 16g? jhull UTEC 2 05-24-2006 03:42 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.