LS1GTO Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How does the stocker stack up? With my ATV's, when I installed a K&N, had to re-jet because of better air flow/performance. When I put one in my Silverado I did not see much of a difference in power or gas milage. Overall costs are better though, since all you do is clean it and re-install it. Any thoughts?
 

·
Expelled
Joined
·
8,316 Posts
i put my order in for one (K&N 33-2116 its under monaro!!) i've always liked the idea of having one many people i chat with have one for thier gto go to http://www.ajusa.com/cgi-bin/knfilters/details?part_num=33-2116 you can get the filter and cleaner for 50.00!!! i saw just the filter going for 55 also FREE SHIPPING so 50 is your total!!! not 55 plus $$$
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks for the info!
 

·
Yes, it has a car seat
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
The general opinion I've formed (through lost of reading) is it's a little cheaper for the K&N (because you don't have to replace it), you don't gain much hp unless you also have a cai setup, and it doesn't filter as much, letting potentially harmful particles into the engine. Also, people seem to overoil them and gum up intake bits sometimes. I'll stick with stock for a bit myself.
 

·
13 year owner
Joined
·
16,379 Posts
I've dyno'd my car back to back on a DynoJet 248C within minutes of each pull before I pulled my motor out. Pull#1 was a K&N. It netted 316rwhp. Pull #2, was a regular paper Fram. It netted 318rwhp. Yes, some heat soak could've come into play, normally my second pull is weaker than the first. Point is, there was a negligble difference between a paper Fram and a K&N. Where the K&N makes sense is in it's reusability. You can pretty much buy it once and use it for the lifetime of your vehicle with regular cleaning and reoiling. Something you can't say about the paper Fram.

I was gonna say what Rshumacher did though. Be careful when you oil them. to much oil will coat with MAF resistors and coat the TB blade and inlet.
 

·
May I quote you on that?
Joined
·
22,046 Posts
A recent communication with SLP revealed that they are currently developing new intake stuff for the GTO. Likely a variant of the Donaldson-based system used with good success on F-bodies. The Donaldson Black Wing for the C5 is good for 20 HP. Their filters use synthetic media that flow better than cotton and filter better than paper.
 

·
Still plays with cars...
Joined
·
521 Posts
Mixer, I'd like to retain the stock airbox and plumbing, but would also like to relieve all restriction possible within the limitations of the stock intake setup. Performance increases would be welcome, but I'm really more interested in getting that old '60s open element air filter intake note on acceleration. Are there any baffles or resonators within the stock intake plumbing that can be removed without altering the external appearance of the intake system to do that? As far as reusability goes, I don't mind mind replacing the paper element periodically to get maximum engine protection without the variability of the oiled elements. Thanks for anything you can provide.
 

·
13 year owner
Joined
·
16,379 Posts
Removing that stock airbox will net you that open element 60's style intake note. Stock airboxes are designed the way they are to quell noise. In some applications, other components are added to help quell the noise. Perfect case in point is the stock F-Bodies and the mickey mouse ears (as we call them) behind the stock Airbox before the MAF. Those were put there to quiet the intake charge as were the vanes inside the airbox itself. Removing said stock equipment and replacing it with an aftermarket lid and eliminating the mickey mouse ears all together brought back the intake noise and improved performance.

Back onto our GTO's. The stock airbox functions the same way. It has vanes and baffling inside to quell some fo the intake noise. The intake tube from the MAF to the TB has an accordian section and of course it isn't as smooth and gently curved as this unit and the others out there. Elimination of the airbox will get you the sound you want, and that cold air tube will eliminate roughness in the intake path after the MAF. Both will increase performance as has been seen by the proven dyno numbers.

I'm also looking into modifying my stock airbox some (possibly) as I was checking it out and see a bit of potential there. But it will come down to the fact that like DY, I don't want to hack up my car more than need be and also, too many bends defeat the effort to increase performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
I'd like to see the effects of just replacing the intake tube. I didn't particularly like the intake noise increase when I used an SLP CAI on my Regal GS.

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
I won't get my car for 6 weeks or so, (Feb. 20 boat?) but I note that on page 6 of the fancy silver catalog it states that the srock GTO has a CAI system that "ducts cool air into the intake manifold from a road-level inlet tucked out of sight behind the front air dam" Anyone check this out yet? Might be real intertesting to optimize this air inlet source, free up the rest of the intake and keep it shielded from hot underhood air.
 

·
13 year owner
Joined
·
16,379 Posts
Yes it does route it from that area, but it is still restricted by the stock airbox that it feeds the air into and then the tube from the Airbox, through the MAF and into the TB.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top