Airaid Dry vs oiled flow numbers

[metroplex]

Has anyone come across any ISO 5011 tests or flow tests comparing the Airaid dry vs oiled filters?

I've got a 2014 SHO with the 3.5 EcoBoost running a tune that needs over 700 cfm of air. I suspect the stock airbox is a restriction for a number of reasons. One, it is the same one used on a 2007 Edge and while it might flow enough for the twin turbos at extra boost, it could be restrictive enough to explain the sharp drop in Short term fuel trim above 5400 RPM.

I looked at the Airaid dry and oiled filters for their "cold" air intake and the dry seems very restrictive, about as bad as AEM. It won't even pass the unofficial and unscientific hair dryer test that the paper and oiled filters pass.

 

[Olas]

Depending on the mapping, the waste gate should hold closed and force the impeller to suck 700cfm irrespective of what's before it. If you want the same CFM for less depression you need bigger diameter, smoother, straighter turbo intake pipes and the biggest surface area filter you can find.
Can't give you specific flow number on the brands in question though, sorry.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Your unscientific testing is as unscientific as it gets.

Since I purchased my first AEM Dryflow filter, exactly none of them has ever ticked a single millimeter on any of my restriction gauges. I've never cleaned any of them.

I guess AEM filters have some sort of restriction that somehow avoids my restriction gauges. (no, not really)

This on an engine whose intake at the engine (no turbocharger involved) can make you lose a hand at idle speed. I know this because one time I was working on testing my injection pump with the charge air pipe disconnected. My hand got too close to the open intake manifold, and it caught my hand and did not give it back until I managed to reach down and unplug my injection pump.

Should give you a good idea of how much air the engine takes at full load and 33 psi.

 

[metroplex]

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244595
AEM is barely better than paper at 28 inH2O.

K&N claims their panel filter is limited to 750 cfm for my airbox. I gave them the specs for the engine and turbos and they said it needed 860 cfm. My math came out differently. I understand the turbos can suck all the air it needs but possibly at a higher restriction. My STFT drops like a rock above 5400 RPM at wot. It's either airbox restriction (designed for a naturally aspirated 3.5 Edge) or turbos out of efficiency. But looking at compressor map, turbos should be fine.

I ran an AFE dry filter element in the airbox and saw less air mass flow and the fuel trims were much lower. I also see plenty of reviews of AEM dry filter users seeing worse fuel economy than with paper. The media for the dry filters all seem similar.

But has anyone done any testing between the Airaid Oiled and dry to see the delta?

 

[circuitsmith]

Do a short test with no filter, (preferably on a damp, dust free day) to get a better idea of how significant the filter is.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: metroplex
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244595
AEM is barely better than paper at 28 inH2O.

K&N claims their panel filter is limited to 750 cfm for my airbox. I gave them the specs for the engine and turbos and they said it needed 860 cfm. My math came out differently. I understand the turbos can suck all the air it needs but possibly at a higher restriction. My STFT drops like a rock above 5400 RPM at wot. It's either airbox restriction (designed for a naturally aspirated 3.5 Edge) or turbos out of efficiency. But looking at compressor map, turbos should be fine.

I ran an AFE dry filter element in the airbox and saw less air mass flow and the fuel trims were much lower. I also see plenty of reviews of AEM dry filter users seeing worse fuel economy than with paper. The media for the dry filters all seem similar.

But has anyone done any testing between the Airaid Oiled and dry to see the delta?


There are a few things you are missing here:

1. In terms of improvement percentage, you are talking about a whopping 9% spread between least and greatest improvement. Every filter on that entire list that qualifies as "barely better than paper @ 28 H2O".

2. If stock filter dimensions are maintained, there will never be a serious improvement in airflow. It's like watching 10 hobos in an alley arguing over who has the best ratty coat.

3. This is a test of clean filters. The airflow of oiled filters plummets like a rock as they get dirty.

Even the person who started that thread knew before he even posted that the immediate conclusion was that stock airboxes are the restriction issue, and changing panel filters won't make a whole heck of a lot of difference.

There is a bush you are beating around, and you are condemning effective products as you beat around this bush. You have been given all of the necessary information to discover that your stock intake tract is insufficient for the needs of your engine.

If you want to give your engine the air it needs, toss the factory intake tract and install one that utilizes a filter of the appropriate dimensions. Then, instead of comparing products based on what you will believe is the better band-aid, you can choose one based on more relevant factors.

Once you do, you will discover the same thing I did: Once you have enough surface area, all of the filters will meet your airflow needs. But only one is going to give you appropriate filtering efficiency when new and after washing, and consistent airflow throughout service life. Or, keep your options limited to airbox size and find yourself choosing a filter based on initial airflow alone.

 

[metroplex]

So what are the flow numbers between the Airaid dry and oiled filters? Exactly how much more restrictive is the dry vs the oiled (talking Airaid, not AEM)? I have yet to see anything definitive to answer my original question.

As for the Camaro panel test, the deviation between the stock paper and the Green filter may seem statistically small, but that's quite a big spread in terms of lb/min of airflow (as in 10 lb/min of airflow). The spread between stock paper and the K&N is around 8 lb/min. The spread between AEM and paper is smaller, 3 lb/min.

Another reason I didn't stay with AEM or K&N on my stock airbox is that they are made too small for the airbox. The seals are sized smaller than the factory/stock paper filters just enough that I didn't feel comfortable using them. I did like how the AEM was constructed, but the fuel trim data seemed lower with the AEM and AFE dry versus paper, K&N, and Green. From the other air filter thread, I see BMC makes a panel filter and I'd even try it except they're insanely expensive.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Here you go:

http://www.autoanything.com/air-filters/synthaflow-vs-synthamax

Answer is, massive.

 

[metroplex]

Thanks. That's what I was suspecting.

Here's the AEM DryFlow vs. K&N for the same application using K&N's flow test data:

AEM http://static.summitracing.com/global/images/chartsguides/a/ais-28-20031.pdf
K&N http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/33-2031-2.pdf

At 1.5 inH2O (which K&N claims is the approximate pressure drop at about 2000 RPM) it's 284.9 cfm (AEM) vs 454.5 cfm (K&N).

I decided to give the K&N panel filter a try on my SHO. I'm still not 100% satisfied on the fitment, but the older (2014 manufacture date) filter seemed to be a slightly better fit than the newer ones. I went to the dragstrip and was making 12.4 @ 110.9 mph (DA of 1916) passes all day long. The data doesn't seem to show any benefit from the K&N panel filter, but any reduction in airflow restriction would be worthwhile at the track.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Firefighter's spigot on a garden hose.

Get a full intake, and watch those numbers go down.

 

[metroplex]

The full "cold air" intakes on the SHO either net a zero drop in time or maybe 0.1 at most. Someone on the EcoBoost forums did a test and ran a best of 12.4x with a K&N panel filter, and a ran a best of 12.4x with the Airaid full intake.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Without knowing more details such as Density Altitude and tires used, etc., it is extremely difficult to evaluate such testing...

 

[metroplex]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Without knowing more details such as Density Altitude and tires used, etc., it is extremely difficult to evaluate such testing...


It was on the same day with the same vehicle. Others with the EcoBoost SHO have posted similar results. Bottom line is that the best CAI available for the SHO doesn't really net an increase in performance at the track, maybe 0.1 second drop in 1/4 ET.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: metroplex
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Without knowing more details such as Density Altitude and tires used, etc., it is extremely difficult to evaluate such testing...


It was on the same day with the same vehicle. Others with the EcoBoost SHO have posted similar results. Bottom line is that the best CAI available for the SHO doesn't really net an increase in performance at the track, maybe 0.1 second drop in 1/4 ET.


Nothing new here. The Hemi family conducted same day same dyno testing and only the base 5.7 models experienced any changes in HP at all, and they were so small as to be statistically irrelevant.

BTW, I have watched the exact same car on the same dyno experience a 11% swing in HP output across just a 3 hour period as barometric pressures changed. It is extremely hard to judge.

Old timers like me are far more interested in trap speed than ET as it is less affected by driver's skill at launching, but you AWD guys have that part down easily...

 

[metroplex]

I raced against a new stock Charger Scat Pack with my tuned SHO at the dragstrip. I ran a 12.4 @ 110.9 mph, and I have no clue what he ran (timeslips X'd out the other lane) but we ended up finishing nose to nose. The AWD gave me an edge for the first 1/8 mile as he was playing catch up. His buddy said his fastest time was 12.6 for that day. I've seen magazine tests show the Scat Pack runs about 115 mph trap speed, and that Scat Pack easily blew past me at the 1/4 mile point. The SHO is heavier and there's not enough power from the engine (drivetrain limitations, stock turbo limits, stock HPFP limits, etc...)

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: metroplex
I raced against a new stock Charger Scat Pack with my tuned SHO at the dragstrip. I ran a 12.4 @ 110.9 mph, and I have no clue what he ran (timeslips X'd out the other lane) but we ended up finishing nose to nose. The AWD gave me an edge for the first 1/8 mile as he was playing catch up. His buddy said his fastest time was 12.6 for that day. I've seen magazine tests show the Scat Pack runs about 115 mph trap speed, and that Scat Pack easily blew past me at the 1/4 mile point. The SHO is heavier and there's not enough power from the engine (drivetrain limitations, stock turbo limits, stock HPFP limits, etc...)


Indeed. Those 6.4's are monsters! SHO's are very heavy though. That Charger weighs in similarly. But the trap speed tells the real story!

Nice to see someone spending some time at the strip. Reality is strong there, puts the bench racers to rest quickly...