Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Anyone try a K&N drop in air filter yet?

  1. #11
    Senior Member silverstreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    180
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    I have put a K&N filter on every new car I've had since the late 80's. I've always experienced better throttle response, and a touch more power. Yes it surely depends on the application, and no I wouldn't expect to see much from the Mirage, but I would still buy one.



  2. #12
    ミラージュ Minihaha's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Kansas
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    196
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 50 Times in 37 Posts

    CFM - what it means

    Quote Originally Posted by Basic View Post
    Amen brother... so many people have wasted so many dollars on K&N filters. They are good for race cars... pretty much it.

    Thanks Basic.

    BTW - this is really just trying to be a PSA (public service announcement) for all intents & purposes:

    I did the calc's and you can see them if you follow the link below.

    I calc'ed at 7000RPM because that will be the highest flow (and IIRC that's the redline, or darn near it).

    • In theory (if the volumetric efficiency is taken to be 100% (which it ain't) the CFM @ 7000RPM = 124cfm

    • In 'real world' or taking VE to be 90% (which is still optimistic) the CFM @ 7000RPM = 111cfm


    So - if you are buying an air filter that will flow at a rate in excess of 125cfm, you are essentially buying more than is necessary (it's likely they all flow higher than that, btw). This is where K&N 'gets' you - they say "ours has a higher CFM." OK, maybe it does, but if the car cannot achieve that higher CFM than it's pointless; a 'potential' CFM that is literally *impossible* for the car to achieve due to the physics of natural aspiration is of no value. That's the key point that's always left out: the potential CFM the filter is capable of versus what the cars maximum CFM is.

    I hope this makes sense to you all; I am just trying to be educational and helpful.


    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
    Last edited by Minihaha; 06-10-2014 at 09:01 PM. Reason: more info
    ゼロ

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 33.4 mpg (US) ... 14.2 km/L ... 7.0 L/100 km ... 40.1 mpg (Imp)


  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Minihaha For This Useful Post:

    Avgjohndoe (12-28-2020),Basic (06-10-2014)

  4. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Country
    Australia
    Posts
    601
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 105 Times in 76 Posts
    On a ralliart magna, it was dyno proven that a brand new clean paper panel filter flowed better than the K&N panel filter.
    Not sure how they go on the mirage, as I run either stock airbox or the Speedlab intake.

  5. #14
    Administrator Daox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Germantown, WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    4,999
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked 1,804 Times in 1,017 Posts
    Alright, I'm quite sure I found a compatible K&N filter for us North Americans. Googling the OEM # of 1500A617, a couple sites give dimensions of 255mm x 122 x 37. I did a search on the K&N site and found that there is a filter# 33-2094 which is 254mm x 122 x 29. So, its a bit shallower, but that works for us.

    K&N 33-2094
    Custom Mirage products: Cruise control kit, Glove box light, MAF sensor housing, Rear sway bar, Upper grill block

    Current project: DIY Nitrous oxide setup for ~$100

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 47.2 mpg (US) ... 20.1 km/L ... 5.0 L/100 km ... 56.7 mpg (Imp)


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Daox For This Useful Post:

    cookiemonster (08-28-2014)

  7. #15
    Senior Member Cani Lupine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 215 Times in 114 Posts
    UPDATE! K&N now has an official part number for our cars: http://www.knfilters.com/air_filter/...hi_mirage.aspx

    Part number is 33-3016. Currently not in stock as of 10/9/14.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 49.2 mpg (US) ... 20.9 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 59.1 mpg (Imp)


  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cani Lupine For This Useful Post:

    Daox (10-10-2014),ed100 (10-09-2014),m4v3r1ck (10-13-2014),MetroMPG (10-09-2014),R01k (10-16-2016)

  9. #16
    Senior Member silverstreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    180
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
    Thanks for the good news

  10. #17
    Senior Member Cani Lupine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 215 Times in 114 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Minihaha View Post




    So - if you are buying an air filter that will flow at a rate in excess of 125cfm, you are essentially buying more than is necessary (it's likely they all flow higher than that, btw). This is where K&N 'gets' you - they say "ours has a higher CFM." OK, maybe it does, but if the car cannot achieve that higher CFM than it's pointless; a 'potential' CFM that is literally *impossible* for the car to achieve due to the physics of natural aspiration is of no value.
    There's more benefit to a K&N than higher flow rate that we won't actually achieve. They're reusable, so I'm only paying $49 for a single air filter for the life of the car, saving money in the long run. With less restriction comes faster throttle response from the pressure differential leveling out faster. Those two reasons are enough for me to install one, even if it doesn't actually increase horsepower and torque.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 49.2 mpg (US) ... 20.9 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 59.1 mpg (Imp)


  11. #18
    Administrator Daox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Germantown, WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    4,999
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked 1,804 Times in 1,017 Posts
    Thanks for finding that Cani Lupine. I've added that number to Engine Parts Index.
    Custom Mirage products: Cruise control kit, Glove box light, MAF sensor housing, Rear sway bar, Upper grill block

    Current project: DIY Nitrous oxide setup for ~$100

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 47.2 mpg (US) ... 20.1 km/L ... 5.0 L/100 km ... 56.7 mpg (Imp)


  12. #19
    Carmageddon m4v3r1ck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The Hague
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,347
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 103 Times in 79 Posts
    Good news indeed, will save some money to get the strut brace first then air filter

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2013 Mirage 1.0 manual: 47.5 mpg (US) ... 20.2 km/L ... 5.0 L/100 km ... 57.0 mpg (Imp)


  13. #20
    .
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    .
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    169
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts
    I work on motorcycles.
    I've put my finger into many (hundreds) of Harley throttle bores, and found significant grit / crud.
    I've seen the results of running K&N's in that application. I don't care to find out if the results would be the same in an automotive application, particularly in MY automotive application...

    In my case, picking up a couple HP at W.O.T. just doesn't matter.
    As far as performance goes.. At moderate RPM, relatively low M.A.P. (cruising), I would expect any improvement in efficiency to be minimal.
    I don't believe the engineers would leave the low hanging fruit on the tree, as having sufficient filtering capacity for the application is first day stuff...Especially when wrestling with critical EPA numbers.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •