Ram4Pick

I posted a while back that I was going to try a little test using a paper (Purolator) & K&N filter, and a stock and GMS maf. I choose a Purolator paper filter because I liked the way it looked. The Fram and Delco filter looked the same but the Purolator filter has a bead of resin on each end of the filter. This bead keeps the pleats uniformly seperated and I thought would permote better flow than the other two. Well, here are the results for these tests. I did this for myself mostly to so I knew which combo worked best on my truck but thought I would share the info.. I want to say first that these are the results on MY truck, yours may differ based on truck, engine mods, climate, etc, etc, blah, blah. I tried to be as accurate as I could considering I was using a stop watch which is iffy at best. If I felt I made a mistake with the stop watch (to fast, slow, soon or late, etc) during a performance run, I didn't use that time. I took what I considered 5 good runs, all runs were made after I got off work at 10 PM and the temp was between 50-60*. I would fill up and let the tank get to 3/4's before I did any performance testing. I figured by then, the ECM would have made any changes it was going to. I checked 0-40 and 0-60 times during the same run, and I also checked mpg. The mpg tests were to hard, it's impossible to keep the driving the exact same on every tank for 4 weeks, **** happens. My normal driving pattern is 70% city & 30% freeway. With all that said, here are the results.

Combo 1, paper filter & stock maf: 0-40 3.40, 0-60 6.43 & 14.84 mpg (normal driving pattern.

Combo 2, K&N & stock maf: 0-40 3.39, 0-60 6.41 & 15.93 mpg (more freeway driving on this tank, 50/50 driving pattern).

Combo 3, K&N & GMS maf: 0-40 3.35, 0-60 6.32 & 15.36 mpg (60/40 driving pattern)

Combo 4, paper filter & GMS maf: 0-40 3.36, 0-60 6.28 & 15.41 mpg (normal driving pattern)

I'm not claiming my 0-60 time is accurate, a G-tech would surely be different. What I was looking for was to get a base time and then look for a time difference. As you can see, the K&N really didn't perform any better than a new paper filter. After 10K miles, the results may be different, the paper will need replacing and the K&N is still good for more.
The GMS maf did make a difference though, .13 seconds w/ paper and .09 seconds with the K&N filter. Granatelli advertises a .1-.15 second reduction, so it was pretty much where they claim. Like I said, this is very UNscientific, I just wanted to see what did better in my truck. with all the questions going around about K&N filters and GMS maf's, I thought I would share my results.
Jim

GREGGO

iTrader: (2)

That's some good homework there Jim. That's really cool of you to take the time to do the research on that kind of thing. So which combo is YOUR winner ? Thanks for the detailed research.

Ram4Pick

The combo I'm going to run is the Purolator filter and the GMS maf. I did some 40-60 testing also but didn't post the results. The paper filter was always quicker than the K&N, not by much (3.35 vs 3.44, average). The truck just seems to run better and smoother with the Purolator filter than the K&N.
Jim