Did I make a mistake?Help!!!!

[Kirby]

quote:Originally posted by 3BarBoost

Notice he said he tested the part on the naturally-aspirated motor (over a year prior to turbo availability). The turbo air cleaner is not the same.

The reason I am so sure you aren't getting anything - we run the wastegate based on what gets into the intake manifold. You reduce restriction (with your Airaid or K&N - although K&Ns are no better than stock) upstream of the turbo, and we pull back until the same total amount of air gets through the motor.

You are not the first DCX person to disparage the K&N drop in filter. Many of us have used K&N for years and are well aware of it's benefits in other applications. I find it interesting that the details are never discussed, and also that you would have the kahunas to disparage a specific company knowing full well that other companies make cotton matt performance filters!

1) Are you saying that the DCX paper filter has the SAME flow rate as the K&N in an open enviornment?

2) Are you saying that NOTHING can be done to the 2.4 Turbo motor to increase efficiency of the intake air, or that the system will attempt to minimize it after the fact?

3) Has DCX purposley tried to minimize the effects of increased airflow into the turbo?

I am interested in your response, but I'll bet that the folks at K&N are even more interested!

[SteelBlueGT]

If I can get the dyno numbers from K&N (after public relaese of their product) we can have a good numbers based discussion[^]. I know that the good folks and K&N expected good numbers from the Typhoon system. Less than 5 hp they would not market and I know they expected closer to 10 HP!

[3BarBoost]

Kirby -

1) Every K&N drop-in filter that I have ever tested on the flow bench produced identical results to the stock paper filter. A K&N therefore doesn't reduce restriction - it does however allow you to never have to buy another filter, and in some parts of the country that's important. Filters are one of those things that people like to believe make a huge difference, but in reality it is one of the cheapest things for a manufacturer to do right - we are after all in a competitive market and unnecessary restriction is silly. The filter element makes some contribution to the overall sound damping of the air induction, but a minor part - it is those sound dampers that usually contribute the most to restriction.

2) Listen to what I said ".. since we run the boost schedule based on mass flow through the engine - we tend to make the same total power no matter what you do in front of the turbo (assuming you don't make the restriction substantially worse). If you reduce restriction, the controller notices that it is over-achieving air flow and adapts for this change. Same thing if you have a dirty filter, it compensates." Sounds like the latter to me.

3) Another conspiracy question? We simply have a motor that can make way more torque than the transmission can last 150k miles with. Therefore we HAVE to prevent the engine from making more torque if something changes. At the top end (where restriction changes have the greatest impact) there isn't enough fuel to keep the exhaust manifold cold enough to last the life of the motor, so your external boost controller could utilize the extra air flow and make more power at the expense of cracking the manifold. The factory controller will yank wastegate back to offset the reduced restriction to prevent that.

[Beacon]

3Bar - Appreciate the intel. Always nice to know exactly what does what for those of us not in the know. And don't mind Kirby, I've been lurking here for awhile now and I can say he's a good egg but he does love his conspiracies.

[Kirby]

quote:Originally posted by 3BarBoost

Kirby -

1) Every K&N drop-in filter that I have ever tested on the flow bench produced identical results to the stock paper filter. A K&N therefore doesn't reduce restriction - it does however allow you to never have to buy another filter, and in some parts of the country that's important. Filters are one of those things that people like to believe make a huge difference, but in reality it is one of the cheapest things for a manufacturer to do right - we are after all in a competitive market and unnecessary restriction is silly. The filter element makes some contribution to the overall sound damping of the air induction, but a minor part - it is those sound dampers that usually contribute the most to restriction.

2) Listen to what I said ".. since we run the boost schedule based on mass flow through the engine - we tend to make the same total power no matter what you do in front of the turbo (assuming you don't make the restriction substantially worse). If you reduce restriction, the controller notices that it is over-achieving air flow and adapts for this change. Same thing if you have a dirty filter, it compensates." Sounds like the latter to me.

3) Another conspiracy question? We simply have a motor that can make way more torque than the transmission can last 150k miles with. Therefore we HAVE to prevent the engine from making more torque if something changes. At the top end (where restriction changes have the greatest impact) there isn't enough fuel to keep the exhaust manifold cold enough to last the life of the motor, so your external boost controller could utilize the extra air flow and make more power at the expense of cracking the manifold. The factory controller will yank wastegate back to offset the reduced restriction to prevent that.

No conspiracy, if you read my post as it is written!

K&N spends a lot of money to refute your statement #1 though, they should be very interested, their business is built on that very issue.

I appreciate your info, but this is not a lecture, it's supposedly a free posting of ideas. I think that your ideas and attitudes come through very clearly, but do you have to "win" a conversation rather than participatein one.[B)]

[Kirby]

3Bar,

Your angry and overbearing answer caused me to re-read my own question to see if there was anything demeaning or provoking . I can't find it.

The answers could have been yes or no to each question.

If you had taken the time to look around this site you would have seen that many PT owners could benefit from knowing that, acording to one DCX engineer: messing with the intake will not be beneficial to turbos without boost controlers.

This post could have been simple and informative and positive, don't you think?

[SteelBlueGT]

But Kirby it is all that!!

[Kirby]

Maybe so, just not a conversation at the end of a baseball bat!

[3BarBoost]

Nope, don't think I could have answered any of those leading questions with a simple yes or no. You can read whatever tone you want into anything I write, but you ask me anything technical and I explain as best I can. Have I refused to answer anything technical? Seems to me I gave the same answer about modifications to the air induction as your other source: boost controllers allow modifications to improve performance that wouldn't otherwise.

As for K&N, show me third party data. I know the answer, I have done it myself. Merely letting you know what I found. What motive would I have for telling you K&N has an equivalent product? We don't sell a competitive one...

[Adman]

3BarBoost...Maybe I am missing something here but I dont have any issue with your communication style and find the information useful.

Regarding K&N even on N/A motors I have never been able to document one single horsepower gain on a dyno. I have probably had 20 performance cars and wasted money on K&N and other aftermarket systems for each one. Some guys never learn...LOL. I have an Airaid and a K&N drop-in for the GT. Cant tell a bit of difference at the track or on the street and I hate cleaning the darn things.

I have modified every combustion engined apparatus I have owned since I was 10yrs old and I am now 50. The aftermarket is full of well known companies with their dyno results. I have never been able to duplicate the results that they got on a dyno. I have found that exhaust systems and CAI seem to be the farthest off target when you hit the dyno. JMHO
Matthew