Gtech Pro Results - STI Panel Filter vs Autozone Cone Air Filter
 

http://home.comcast.net/~thomasck/HotAirIntake1.JPG

This filter was tested tonight vs using Chike's Sti Panel filter in the stock box. I was using Pocketlogger software to test the runs as well (http://www.pocketlogger.com/index.php?pid=plobdii) but my cord kept coming out so no lbs/min and ignition timing comparisons. :mad: At any rate, 4 runs were done total with two in both directions. Here are the results:

7:55pm, Outside temp - 48F, Autozone Cone Air Filter

North
15.4@93.9mph
15.2@96.2mph (Not counting this run)
15.5@94.6mph
North Average - 15.45@94.25mph
-------------------------------------
South
15.47@93.6mph
15.58@92.8mph
South Average - 15.53@93.2mph
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Total Average of Autozone Cone Air Filter: 15.49@ 93.73mph
Note: The run not counted is the run I did not wait any time to let the cone air filter heat up. As soon as I stopped, I setup the GTech and went for it. So it is not a 'true' showing of coming to a stop for a bit of time and then gunning it. I let both intakes heat up a bit before taking off.





9:14pm, Outside temp - 44F, Sti Panel Air Filter

North
15.39@95.2mph
15.37@95.5mph
North Average - 15.38@95.35mph
---------------------------------
South
15.39@94.8mph
15.37@95.4mph
---------------------------------
South Average -15.38@95.1mph
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Total Average of Sti Panel Air Filter: 15.38@95.23mph

So overall the STi panel air filter was 1/10th quicker and 1.5mph faster than the Autozone air filter (with the exception of the run I did right after I stopped the car instead of letting heat soak in). The cone air filter was warm to the touch when I went to change it out for the Sti panel filter unit. Also to note is the inconsistency of the Cone air filter and VERY consistant runs of the STi panel filter. Pending ignition advance/retard was the same throughout, then heat must have played a part. Perhaps that is why the cone style filter logged the fastest time when not allowed to heat up.

I'd like to test them both on the dyno to see the difference in the power curve/delivery. With both intakes having the same temperature of air, things could be a little more interesting. I know putting a cone filter on my OBS causes the ECU dump fuel in the higher rpm range. If the Cone air filter makes more power on the dyno, then it HAS to be put into the fenderwell. So, that's all for now unless I forgot to post something up. I know I may get the, 'Kevin, we told you so' posts but you never know what you may get unless you test it out. Even still, sometimes different folks get different results based on a variety of factors. I'm just curious so I have to know.... :p

Kevin,

When you did these runs what was your fuel load? Did you leave the spare tire and tools in the car? Also, did you unplug the two vacuum lines for the MAF bypass? Did you launch from idle, or did you power block and launch from stall?

Your times with the STI panel filter were what I would typically see when doing g-tech runs with a high fuel load and my spare tire & tools in the car. I also think you weigh 40+ lbs more than me...

Nice data! :)

-Chike

Edit: If you decide to move the cone filter inside the fender, you may want to fashion up a design similar to the one Dayle has on his Stage III cold air intake system: http://store.yahoo.com/svx-motorspor...iiincoair.html

Yes, I need to put out more details. All runs where done with a full load in the car (nothing removed). None of the vacuum hoses were removed since I thought this would not be an indication of driving around like I would normally do. No brake torque launches were done. I won't be doing any runs like that until I get a tranny cooler installed. That is too beautiful a setup with the 4.44's for me to go out and ruin it. ;) I simply mashed the gas pedal to the floor and let everything do as it should. Oh, and the car was kept in drive, no manual shifting.

The fuel tank was a 1/4 full when I did the first five runs with the cone air filter. With the STi panel filter, the fuel level was about 1/8th of a tank (Or just a tiny bit past the 1/8th mark). By the time I got to the third of four runs with the STi panel filter, it was past the 1/8th mark. Needless to say, I had to fill up after the runs. :rolleyes:

And yes, I weigh about 40-45lbs more than you. I'm a fat guy! :D

Very funneh! Let's just say folks he's taking a course to be certified as a personal trainer... ;)

-Chike

Is there any way you can do a sti panel filter vs OEM panel filter vs perrin foam panel filter?

dont' forget the GREEN!!:D

A comparison using the OEM filter would be great for those of us who are considering an upgrade, but arent sure if its worth the money. Just a thought. Thanks!

Kevin,
Thanks for the comparison. I think you're confirming the fact that the EG33 likes its air from outside the engine bay;)
-Bill

yeh but teh cone is fastar!!! an BLINGIN

I havent really seen any Cold air intakes for the SVX that draw from the Fender, it seems that they are all just short ram intakes that draw from the engine compartment with a cone filter. Anyone have any info regarding something that draws from the actual fender area or would I have to custom fab this?

Subyluver

See post #2. I have a link there to a true cold air intake that Dayle sells on his site. I've seen it installed in Matthewmongan's SVX and the cone resides in the fender (shielded from the hot engine bay).

-Chike ;)

I still think the best thing to do Is the Ram-Air that, I don't remember who - sorry- did. Putting the cone inside the fender is alsoa good idea though

Ooops I thought that one was still in the engine bay, the web page didnt have too many details or a pic installed :D. Off the topic, I see all these times for the 1/4 miles, has anyone tried the gtech pro and if so PM me with whether it is worth it or not... Thinking of getting one...


Subyluver

several members have them and like them. If anything, it gives a comparison to where your car is. Numbers are just numbers if they don't mean anything to you. I remember an article in Sport Compact once disowning HP....

If you get a G-Tech Pro, I'd recommend the version that has the dyno numbers as well. May as well go all out and get the best of both worlds. You can upload this data to your computer and get information that the magazines get (60-80mph, etc). It is good at comparing before and after results. Do not get caught up comparing it to someone's dyno results or 1/4 mile times. Compare it to what your other G-Tech results.