i have some dyno proof on k&n filters, ya know ya wanna see it!!!

Discussion in 'SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech' started by stangman, Feb 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. well i have been hearing things about k&n filters not making power lately & i just put my car on the dyno today, & before we get going with the story it was on a mustang dyno. & for those who don't know they read lower than a dynojet, so just pay attention to the losses & gains.

    well i had my car dyno'd shortly after i got it & put down 206.8 rwhp & 242 rwtq. & i got it back on the dyno today for the heck of it, since my shop owed me a couple runs. well the only difference from the very first run when i got the car to todays run, is a k&n filter.

    well the first run today i netted 200.2 rwhp @ 5250, & 233.4 rwtq @ 4250

    i was like :mad: i lost 6 hp what the heck. so i went for another run without the filter

    the second run netted me 208.4 rwhp @5250, & 246.1 rwtq @4250

    i couldn't believe it, cause i've always heard about how they actually give you more hp. i actually lost 6.6 rwhp & 8.6 rwtq with just that filter :notnice: & weather conditions were almost exactly the same, nearly the exact same temp (mid 40's) & humidity (bout 40%) so i know this is pretty dang close

    oh btw--corrected numbers on my car were 220 rwhp & 261 rwtq :banana: & they guy from mustang dynos' that set up this dyno said to add 33% to get the flywheel hp. so that would put me at 296 hp & 327 tq corrected flywheel :eek: :banana: (low balling the flywheel by only doing 30% is still 286 hp & 319 tq) :D if i get flamed i can post dyno sheets too (if i can figure out how :bang: )

    just thought you all would like to know about the loss in power. i already yanked that thing out :notnice:
  2. HA HA very funny chris :rolleyes: :notnice:
  3. I don't see how you can gain 26hp from filter or no filter. The mods in your sig haven't been installed (unless they have and you haven't changed it), and I'm guessing the rest of it is stock...I'd like to see the answer to this.
  4. 30% drivetrain loss? wtf? ive always heard 15-20

  5. 26 hp :scratch: only a 6.6 loss on the dyno & no i haven't installed my parts yet, except for the springs, hopefully later this week though :D

  6. Yeah he has an exhaust... sitting in his living room floor :nice:
  7. well on a dynojet its about that, because a dynojet doesn't take into account the vehicles weight & spins the rollers with a set inertia, which gives slightly higher numbers. a mustang dyno takes into account your vehicles actual weight into the run & it will make it read lower. it's actually better for tuning, but not for the ego :(
  8. there are other things to take into consideration, maybe you need an oil charnge or something.
  9. just had one :nice:
  10. OK, on the second run, was it the stock filter or no filter? Snorkel or no snorkel on the two runs? Just trying to understand what is going on here, cause from what you said, it sounds like you did the second run without any filter. A K&N should flow better than the stock filter, but of course will not flow better than no filter.
  11. *those were the two runs today* i previously had a dyno in october that i got 206 rwhp, under almost exact circumstances, which is what i am comparing to (sorry for the confusion)

    well the 2nd run was made without a filter all together, just for the heck of it. & it got me a 2 hp increase over my previous dyno day in october, which was 206 with stock filter & no snorkel. the first run today, with the k&n got me 200 hp. so it was a 6hp loss from the first one ever on the car :notnice: . granted it was not the same day & that can have a effect on it i know, but the weather conditions were nearly exactly the same, right down to temp & humidity, so it should have been really, really close.

    total with the k&n there was a 6.6 rwhp & 8.6 rwtq loss, from the factory filter :notnice:

    i also had a friend take his k&n out & put in his stock one & he ran 2 or 3 tenths quicker at the track :shrug:
  12. :rlaugh: 33% more to get the flywheel HP ??? :rlaugh: :rlaugh: :rlaugh:

    That must be on an automatic with A/C on and the hand-brake on ! :rlaugh: :rlaugh: :rlaugh:

    With 220 rwhp & 261 rwtq add 15% and just make it 258HP / 307 TQ :lol:
  13. Yes, Mustang dyno's are much much better. Awesome for tuning too, like you said. Who wants "fake" Dynojet numbers anyway? I could see Dynojet losing market share to these "real world" dynos in the very near future. Probably is already happening. They even allow for simulated 1/4mi runs on the dyno within .10 of actual drag strip times. Pretty awesome if you ask me.

  14. yeah, i like the mustang dyno's better because of the "real world" factor, but i would like to get on a dynojet just for the old ego :D

    i dunno about the 1/4 mi times though. they are close, but i don't think that close. trying to launch a car on a dyno is definately a experience :nonono:
  15. well i guess the guy employed to install & run MUSTANG DYNO'S had no idea what he was talking about huh????? :rolleyes:
  16. Aww...Dynojet has nothing on my butt...I can 'feel' how much my K&N does for me.
  17. :rlaugh: i already had a guy tell me that :rlaugh:

  18. Sounds like you're on a mission to prove the majority wrong, so let me add a few points:

    -You're "experiment" is completely unscientific.
    You made dyno runs on separate days, months apart- although you may think the conditions were the same how do you know? Do you have accurate measurements for barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity for both runs?

    -You're dumb enough to run your car without an air filter... and then point out to us that it made more power without any filter at all- Duh!!!!

    -You attribute 2-3 tenths at the track to switching to the stock filter. i don't think so

    -Did you consider that your k&n possibly got dirty between October and now, causing the horsepower loss?

    - I think when the guy said to add 33%, he didn't mean to add it to the corrected numbers- your stock mustang is not putting out 296hp to the flywheel

    I don't think anyone here thinks that a K&N is a world beater- but countless dyno tests have shown that it does give a slight advantage (2-3hp) and outflows the stock paper filter.

  19. 1) i'm not out to "prove" anyone wrong

    2) as i stated above the conditions were nearly identical on both days, i have record of both days, we wrote down the conditions of the first run & also todays run, & they were similar enough to compare

    3) being that the dyno was done in a mostly enclosed area i don't think i was being "dumb" by doing it, since there was nothing that was going to get in there & yeah i expected it to run a higher # without it :rolleyes: i only did it cause i didn't have the stock one with me

    4) if you don't believe the timeslips i'll be happy to see if he still has his slips

    5) the k&n was just installed last week

    6) if we happened to be at the optimal sealevel & perfect weather, we would still be adding 33% since thats what he said to add. corrected or not that's what he said to add in both instances, since that is what you would have to do either way to get the numbers sae & corrected. so i guess that shows you where "thinking" gets YOU.

    7) & in this particular instance it happened to lose hp on my car & i decided to share. it was a spur of the moment dyno, so i didn't have the chance to bring the stock paper filter. if i have a chance to do it on one of my before & after dyno's this week or next for my exhaust install, i'll get the exact difference between the two on the same day
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.