danbuc Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 I just went out and bought the K&N panel filter for my car to go with my CORSA exhaust. Reason being that I've generally heard that the filter work best in conjunction with a high-flow exhaust system which I have. So far what I found out from the drive I took after I installed it was this. Low end torque probably increased a minor amount while further up the RPM range around 4500-5500 the car seems to accelerate faster and harder. For example (this probably happens to everyone) off the line when I floor it the wheels spin until TC takes over which is where you get that slight stall where the car recovers until it really takes off. After that I would usually already be going around 20-25 mph and would then accelerate without and further wheel slippage. Now after the car recovers, in the right conditions the RPS's will again start to climb and the wheels will sometime slip for a little bit implying that there is more torque now higher up the RPM range. This is nice because right around 4500 is where the car usually starts to take off down the road. Overall I'm am pretty pleased with the reasults but there is more testing that remains to be done. I will post any further findings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Cool! Yeah, the filter AND exhaust together tend to give the best benefits. If you can get measured results, we'd love to see them! Enjoy that Caddy! Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond) "When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazbo Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Find a place with a dyno. Do a back to back test. Just make sure the car is at full temp so all the fluids are flowing like they should. When they are not up to full temp, it can cut a few HP's. The dyno is so much fun itself. It's worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLAWS Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Hi I noticed you have a 1998 STS? Corsa only list 99 and up. Did you have to find a way to make it fit or is the 1998 set exactly the same? Also how much louder is the exhaust? i.e. is it twice as loud or 25% louder? Is it just as quiet as stock till you really get on it or do you hear the exhaust all the time? Let me know at your convenience. Those listed factor are the only reasons deterring me from buying the system last year. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed blaq Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 What pressure do you keep your tires? Try it a puond or two lower and see if you get better traction and less slippage under WOT conditions. Mine for instance work best right at 32psi . I still get a nice chirp out of first and second but no traction loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazbo Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 JLAWS - I was worried like you are. The Corsa system is pretty much stock quiet when cruising at ANY speed and it sounds so cool when accelerating. Just normal driving it's certainly noticable when accelerating but it's not "loud" or ratty. Smooth as can be. WOT is very cool of course. People aren't going to think something is wrong or off with the car. In fact it's a little too quiet sometimes. Mine is on an Aurora (slightly modified STS system) so it's probably a bit quieter on the 4.0 than the 4.6. I never regretted having the Corsa exhaust. It's all straight through with no baffles or obstructions at all but the sound cancellation really works. I think they have the best system out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazbo Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Check that web site again. I thought it was for the STS for 1998 and newer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danbuc Posted February 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 In regards to the CORSA system. The 98 setup is the same ans the 99 and newer because 98 I believe is when they switched to the new body style. That is why it fit on my car. Unfortunetly the results of the filter were a bit misleading. After I removed the paper filter I went ahead and cleaned it as best as I could. Just to make sure, I put the cleaned paper filter back in the airbox and low and behold, there was more low end torque. This was a bit surprising since I thought the K&N would work better with the CORSA instead of by itself. Sadly, I was mistaken and am now out 45 dollars. At least I can say I have a K&N filter. I don't think anything is really going to flow better than the stock paper filter (which is a bit weird) even with improved exhaust flow. Once again, sorry to mislead anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Unfortunetly the results of the filter were a bit misleading. After I removed the paper filter I went ahead and cleaned it as best as I could. Just to make sure, I put the cleaned paper filter back in the airbox and low and behold, there was more low end torque. This was a bit surprising since I thought the K&N would work better with the CORSA instead of by itself. Sadly, I was mistaken and am now out 45 dollars. That's exactly what I found, but I chalked it up to mine being an open element air filter. I fabbed a heat shield as best as I could, but it still didn't really work right and I wasn't happy. Less throttle response down low, and lower gas mileage. Interesting to see yours is doing the same thing, considering it's a panel filter, and you've got it coupled with the Corsa system. If you're determined to use it and get gains with it, perhaps try disconnecting the battery for a couple of minutes to clear the computer of its learned characteristics and let it start fresh with the K&N filter. Maybe that would give you better results? Either way, I'd get it on a chassis dyno if you could. That will tell you the truth, as operating conditions from day to day can vary. Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond) "When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 The reason that you would notice more low end torque with a stock filter is because it does NOT flow better than a K&N. More vacuum is created with a lower flow rate, and that HELPS torque generation. Just like long runners for an intake plunum create a good low end torque, but hurt high end horsepower. Take note of BMW's variable length intake plenum; that system makes the intake plenum runners longer while at lower rpm's, and then reduces the length at higher rpm's. --Flyer '99 'Vert 'Vette 45k '97 SLS 55k Deceased: <'68 Mustang 200+k>, <'86 GMC S-10 180+k>, <'86 VW GTI 180+k>, <'86 Seville 195+k>, <'93 Seville 175+k> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danbuc Posted February 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Thanks for the info Flyer. I was also interested in whether or not anyone has tried that Tornado dohicky thats supposed to increase horsepower/torque and gas milage. I was wondering if anyone has proven that the company that makes it is right or full of crap. It would be nice to know and any results would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 The reason that you would notice more low end torque with a stock filter is because it does NOT flow better than a K&N. More vacuum is created with a lower flow rate, and that HELPS torque generation. Just like long runners for an intake plunum create a good low end torque, but hurt high end horsepower. Take note of BMW's variable length intake plenum; that system makes the intake plenum runners longer while at lower rpm's, and then reduces the length at higher rpm's. Well, that's partly true. High vacuum doesn't create more torque in an engine. Any restriction will hurt the torque potential of an engine. It's the high VELOCITY that creates good torque. High VELOCITY = good torque. High VOLUME = good upper end power. Before the days of variable length intake runners, you had to pick your flavor with the port design of the cylinder head. If you had smaller ports, you would have an engine with better low end torque (in general). Hog out those intake and exhaust ports (which creates better volume, but less flow velocity), and you're going to make better upper rpm power, but you're going to lose some down low. Enter the world of variable intake runners, and you get the best of both worlds. If you simply add restriction to the intake system (with a partially blocked air filter for instance), and you just simply lose power. That's why a dirty air filter generally hurts power -- it's blocking flow. The fact is (reported here repeatedly), a paper air filter is not a flow restriction to the engine...and if it is, it would only be at the very upper echelon of the rpm range (redline basically). Even with a Corsa exhaust, the engine's airflow demand will not exceed the potential of a stock paper air filter, especially in the lower ranges of the rpm range. The reason I would suspect that even the panel K&N filter is giving less than stellar results is because the flow is different through that filter (maybe not as straight, or not as smooth, or with bits of oil, etc) and the MAF is seeing it and isn't happy about it. Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond) "When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazbo Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 The filter - any filter element is a restriction. It's a dense media that the air must pass through. After the air passes through the filter it travels through the intake duct and then through the screen of the MAF. The filter (paper or K&N) isn't going to matter as far as changing the turbulence characteristics by the time you get to the MAF. If there was oil getting to the MAF, you'd see it accumulate in the duct. As far as the MAF "seeing" different air flow and not "liking" it or whatever, just consider that the difference between a clean paper filter and a dirty paper filter is probably much greater than the difference between a clean paper filter and clean K&N. But the MAF doesn't get screwed up by that. In addition, simply operating the car in different atmospheric conditions like at 5000 feet vs. sea level is going to make a larger difference in the density and mass of air the MAF sees vs. filter selection - yet the MAF doesn't get goofed up. The key is that air is compressible and the density and mass of air filling the cylinders is affected by the obstructions in the intake. The more obstructions - the less dense the air filling the cylinders due to a pressure drop across each one. Less dense air from the intake is always bad for power and torque at any part of the power curve. Anyway, I think the low end torque is helped by maximizing the exist velocity and scavanging from the cylinder and is an art/science with respect to cylinder head/ cam and valve design as well as the exhaust manifold. But the denser the air on the intake the better - for all situations. I understand what is being said about intake runners and such, but those design considerations are still aimed at maximizing the density of the incoming air. From dyno runs I've done (repeatedly), the K&N panel seems to help the northstar on the top end and doesn't hurt power anywhere. The panel filter size is the same as for the 3800 and about the same as the 3100 as well. Having owned all 3, they seem to make similar use of the filter area as well. Therefore, from what I've seen at the dyno, it's entirely possible that the paper would do almost as good as K&N for the 3.8 or 3.1. They have less displacement and don't rev as high so therefore don't ever pull as great a velocity across the filter. The velocity is key. Pressure drop across a filter or any obstruction is a function of the velocity squared. One car may never generate much velocity across the filter due to it's displacement and rpms relative to filter area utilized. In such cases, the pressure drop across the filter may not amount to much no matter what. But for another car, the intake velocity at WOT might be quite high where V^2 is a considerable number and a less restrictive filter media can make a little difference. Anyway, a back to back dyno with the engine at full temp is going to tell you a lot more than your seat of the pants. From day to day, the car will perofrm differently depending on weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Jadcock, I realize the velocity is the true factor, however, unlike Guru, on a day to day basis I don't quite have the time or patience to get into highly technical descriptions of mechanical theory. I just tried to give a basic description the matter in question. Anything in front of any air intake is a restriction. Try running water through a filter, you will notice that it would rather take the path of least resistance. --Flyer '99 'Vert 'Vette 45k '97 SLS 55k Deceased: <'68 Mustang 200+k>, <'86 GMC S-10 180+k>, <'86 VW GTI 180+k>, <'86 Seville 195+k>, <'93 Seville 175+k> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 [takes 10-15 HP changes to "feel" in the seat of your pants...the old butt dyno is just not that sensitive....LOL Yep, yep, yep, yep. My "old butt dyno" is getting less sensitive by the year... '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDK Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 The butt-dyno may be cheaper and it probably sells a lot of bolt-ons. However, the G-tech and dynos exist to verify results. As has been posted here many times...in various versions. "It sounds more powerful", so more noise must equal more power? NOT. "It feels more powerful", so more vibration must equal more power? NOT. Having stated the above, we have also seen posted: Car makers build products to be as quiet, smooth and relieable as possible with only a few exceptions for promotion vehicles. If you are willing to open up the "air pump" (the engine) and accept more noise, vibration and possible problems, then there may be a few horses around to harness. Differnat points of view are the essence of a forum. And this is a good one... Add power to leave problems behind. Most braking is just - poor planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 There is absolutely NO WAY your changes made your car faster of even feel faster! The stock OEM form from the factory is the ONLY way the car will be at its fastest. Anything you do will slow it down and create excessive problems with the computer and highly sophisticated electronics. Take whatever you have done and turn it back to OEM at once, or you will suffer the wrath of several members of this board. Anyone that has performed modifications and found their vehicles to be faster or more responsive are wrong. Just ask all those that know everything about modifications. They will tell you modifications are nothing but detrimental to the performance of your overly complicated rediculously over monitored vehicle. Now, if you happen to pull a race against a similiar cadillac that has been modifyied and you keep your vehicle in good stock OEM trim, you may count on a loss. But, if you write in about your experience of losing to a modifyied vehicle, don't expect anything but grief from some members. If you choose to do modifications, it's best not write or question about it here, because you will here nothing more then condemnation and redicule...such as what I started with. If you choose to drive it in stock OEM form, then enjoy the input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIMDTS Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 Matlock The people who make comments about the mods are just telling you the cold hard facts,trying to help. I don't think anyone really gives a s--- what you do to your car.I never seen anyone try to make condemnation and redicule anyone with the exception of you. Your car you can do what ever you want to it. Just my 2 cents hopping up a cadillac is the wrong car to fool with in the first place it's a big heavy car. I like the northstar as much as the next guy but if i really wanted to do something like that. I would look for a small car to drop one in say something like a old chevy vega or something like that.I don't even think a norhstar is a good choice to begin with for a go fast machine due to there's not a lot of aftermarket hot rod parts on the market for them. I could do much better starting with a old big block chevy like a 427 or old mopar 426 hemi..and all the parts are readily available..and much cheaper. Cheers Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonA Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 If you choose to do modifications, it's best not write or question about it here, because you will here nothing more then condemnation and redicule...such as what I started with. If you choose to drive it in stock OEM form, then enjoy the input. Geez, guy, the only one doing the yelling here is you. Take a look at the very thread you're posting in -- the gentleman found that the K&N filter didn't do as much as he thought it would. Sometimes that's the case; sometimes it isn't. Some people have very good luck with intake mods, and some don't. It all depends on the particular car and the situation. 'Tis better to keep quiet and have people think you're ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Jason(2001 STS, White Diamond) "When you turn your car on...does it return the favor?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob D Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 'Tis better to keep quiet and have people think you're ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Ah, well said, Jason. For some reason this guy "Matlock" is apparantly trying to generate a response to his drivel, even though Bruce has asked him politely not to create multilple posts of this nonsense... (see "Modifications") Perhaps it's best not to dignify "Matlock" with any response at all. I will say one thing....We do have a perament "Block" feature here, if our bandwidth continues to be wasted... '93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 Thank you for the excellent explanation Guru. From my experience, working with small block ford engines, and mixing up camshafts (4 profiles), and intakes (3 profiles) repeatedly, and reading tons of literature of all kinds on engine building, I have come to my own understanding of vacuum and its relationship with torque and horsepower. Of every combination that I have ever put together, the combo's with the most low end torque have always measured more vacuum at the intake, and they have always underperformed in horsepower at high rpm's in comparison to the lower vacuum combo's. So I really don't think that you should go so far as to say: Hmmm...interesting concept, Flyer... more vacuum equals more torque...??? Even in a succinct explaination that conecpt does not make any sense at all. If that was the case then just close the throttle, make a lot of vacuum and make a lot or torque...NOT. I didn't say this was an absolute statement, and for everyone to jump out into outer space (high vacuum) and run their cars for maximum torque. Obviously vacuum has some type of empirical relationship with torque, even if I didn't nail it down accurately, I do know enough about it to know that low end torque production may be softened a bit by the addition of an open flowing K&N cone filter as opposed to a lesser flowing stock air box unit. --Flyer '99 'Vert 'Vette 45k '97 SLS 55k Deceased: <'68 Mustang 200+k>, <'86 GMC S-10 180+k>, <'86 VW GTI 180+k>, <'86 Seville 195+k>, <'93 Seville 175+k> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjtjwdad Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 QUOTE (bbobynski @ Feb 27 2004, 01:37 PM) [takes 10-15 HP changes to "feel" in the seat of your pants...the old butt dyno is just not that sensitive....LOL Damned ... that's funny. Sounds like you have a sense of humor! I have contemplated a K&N my self but I'm not into hacking into the air box. It happens to rain quite a bit hee in the Northwest and I'm not wishing to add water ... os any amount to the intake filter. The cone type is out because I can see that some water spray from the highway does get past the radiator and onto the top of the engine. Not a lot but you can tell it's been there. Jim White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinxed45 Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 Bobbynski, once again. Shows eveyone up. HAHA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg P. Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 It has been proven over and over that it takes 10-15 HP changes to "feel" in the seat of your pants...the old butt dyno is just not that sensitive....LOL That could well be the best quote to appear on here in some time! Not bad! Speaking of butt dynos... I've been away from the board for awhile. Just noticed that you are driving the CTS V? How does that feel in your butt dyno? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.