Focus Fanatics Forum banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello my friends. I recently performed a "test" to compare the K&N 57s filter (only the filter without the lid, 80$ at amazon) against the stock paper filter.

I have the torque pro app for android on my phone and a bluetooth ODB2 (5$ on ebay). After 1 hour of driving, I made 3 0-100km/h runs with the stock paper filter in a place with a slight slope. The best time was 9.4 traction control off, with traction control I made 9.5. After swapping the filter for the K&N I was hoping to, at least, get a 9.5 (I bought the filter because it last forever and with the open hole in the side the car sounds great, not expecting any performance improvement).

In the first run with the K&N I late shift into third, with the consequent inyection cutting, So imagine my face when the time was 9.0 seconds. On a second run with properly gear shifting I finally managed to make the 0-100 in 8.5 seconds. I'm still amazed.

I have got the web logs of torque but unfortunatelly the data is collected on a 1 second interval, so is pretty inaccurate. I didn't know that to capture data in a lower interval I have to activate the local file logging. I was hopping to see an increment on the MAF sensor, but as I said, with 1 second interval the best I can do is guess. I will try again with local file logging to see what the data says.

I'm pretty sure that there is no a difference of 1 seconds between the two filters, with more runs the gap will be narrow, but there is a performance improvement for sure.

The ambient temperature was 7ºC.
 

·
__________/\__
Joined
·
2,183 Posts
Hello my friends. I recently performed a "test" to compare the K&N 57s filter (only the filter without the lid, 80$ at amazon) against the stock paper filter.

I have the torque pro app for android on my phone and a bluetooth ODB2 (5$ on ebay). After 1 hour of driving, I made 3 0-100km/h runs with the stock paper filter in a place with a slight slope. The best time was 9.4 traction control off, with traction control I made 9.5. After swapping the filter for the K&N I was hoping to, at least, get a 9.5 (I bought the filter because it last forever and with the open hole in the side the car sounds great, not expecting any performance improvement).

In the first run with the K&N I late shift into third, with the consequent inyection cutting, So imagine my face when the time was 9.0 seconds. On a second run with properly gear shifting I finally managed to make the 0-100 in 8.5 seconds. I'm still amazed.

I have got the web logs of torque but unfortunatelly the data is collected on a 1 second interval, so is pretty inaccurate. I didn't know that to capture data in a lower interval I have to activate the local file logging. I was hopping to see an increment on the MAF sensor, but as I said, with 1 second interval the best I can do is guess. I will try again with local file logging to see what the data says.

I'm pretty sure that there is no a difference of 1 seconds between the two filters, with more runs the gap will be narrow, but there is a performance improvement for sure.

The ambient temperature was 7ºC.
Two things I will mention. Obviously, you would need two dyno runs to make a real comparison but you also would have to do baseline testing on a brand new OEM stock Motorcraft/Ford filter. Paper filters clog and become more restrictive over time so comparing a brand new K&N to a paper filter with 30,000 miles of service on it is not a fair comparison as the old paper filter may very well be plugged with dust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
The car was service at Ford 4000km before I swapped filters and they changed it. The k&n filter has been running in the car for 6000km. I cleaned the paper filter (just blow the insects off) when I did the swap. This is how it looks.
 

Attachments

1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top