Panel Filter on 2.0 with 16g

Brock31 · 05-12-2010, 03:41 PM

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 · 05-12-2010, 04:44 PM

I know this is a well discussed topic, but any input would be great.

soobaviator · 05-12-2010, 04:54 PM

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

scoobystas · 05-12-2010, 04:58 PM

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.

Brock31 · 05-12-2010, 05:00 PM

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.

Unabomber · 05-12-2010, 07:18 PM

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.

SVT_WRX · 05-12-2010, 07:32 PM

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.

Brock31 · 05-12-2010, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVT_WRX

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)?

xsnapshot · 05-12-2010, 10:09 PM

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.

quazimoto · 05-12-2010, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber

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?

soobaviator · 05-12-2010, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVT_WRX

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

xsnapshot · 05-12-2010, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quazimoto

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.

Brock31 · 05-12-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnapshot

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.

xsnapshot · 05-12-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soobaviator

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.

Torquey · 05-12-2010, 10:33 PM

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

soobaviator · 05-12-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsnapshot

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....

xsnapshot · 05-12-2010, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soobaviator

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!

XanRules · 05-13-2010, 03:28 AM

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.

02redwagone · 05-13-2010, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XanRules

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.

azn_outlaw · 05-13-2010, 05:20 PM

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

SVT_WRX · 05-13-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soobaviator

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

Brock31 · 05-13-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torquey

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

SVT_WRX · 05-13-2010, 09:09 PM

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.

Brock31 · 05-13-2010, 09:18 PM

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.

SVT_WRX · 05-13-2010, 09:20 PM

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

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	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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

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	I know this is a well discussed topic, but any input would be great.

05-12-2010, 04:54 PM	#3
soobaviator NASIOC Supporter Member#: 115070 Join Date: May 2006 Chapter/Region: MAIC Location: Northern VA Vehicle: 2002 2.1L 20G WRX 08 Audi Q7 4.2 Prm	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

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	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.

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	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.

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	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.

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	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.

05-12-2010, 10:09 PM	#9
xsnapshot Scooby Newbie Member#: 170973 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lincoln, NE Vehicle: 2004 WRX 4EAT PSM	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.

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	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

05-13-2010, 03:28 AM	#18
XanRules Scooby Guru Member#: 157348 Join Date: Aug 2007 Chapter/Region: South East Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Vehicle: It's rowdy outside I ain't signin' s***	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.

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	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

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	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.

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	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.

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