Adapter plate into a Mushroom 3in Filter?

Snorkus, filters, throttle bodies and intake manifolds.

Moderators: Helpinators, Moderators

J-MoNeY
Fourth Gear
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Colorado

Adapter plate into a Mushroom 3in Filter?

Post by J-MoNeY »

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... 2445668200 If you took a 3in deep mushroom filter and a 3in universal intake adapter plate. Do you guys think it would work?
98 LGT
ciper
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: SFCA

Post by ciper »

But foam filters are the second worse filters you can ever use. Are you just looking for bling? You should get one of the metal cone filters then.
J-MoNeY
Fourth Gear
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by J-MoNeY »

How are foram filters crap? They work on the same principle as the paper filters. They use oil too. Im looking to get rid of my intake box and replace it with something that is going to get me more air.
98 LGT
scottzg
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 2278
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:19 am
Location: Saint Joe, CA - Redlands, CA

Post by scottzg »

this is not a good route. Less effective on a turbo than a NA. You run the risk of damaging your MAS, the filter will clog faster because it can pick up crap the engine compartment vacuum pulls up, and your torque suffers. A panel filter K&N with a snorkusuctomy will get you the same results, pass smog inspection, and run safer.
[url=http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/album108/DSCF0330.jpg]90 legacy of awesomeness[/url]
ciper
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: SFCA

Post by ciper »

Foam filters restrict flow more, they dont filter very well, they clog up very quickly. Also they start breaking down. At first they allow long time trapped dirt to escape. Then parts of filter start to enter the engine.
vrg3
Vikash
Posts: 12517
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:13 am
Location: USA, OH, Cleveland (sometimes visiting DC though)
Contact:

Post by vrg3 »

You guys are talking about generalizations, but the fact is that you have to look at an individual filter to decide whether or not it'll work well for you. Some foam filters do work well, and some paper or cotton filters work poorly.

I'll just warn you to stay away from no-name generic filters sold by the same people that sell crappy aftermarket "Altezza" taillights, "projector" headlights which aren't, and other products which function poorly but are still somehow attractive to boy racers because of their looks.

A good air filter is really important. So many cheap aftermarket filters decompose as ciper describes, being consumed by the engine while at the same time allowing excessive contaminants through. If you want to try something like this, you might consider a K&N cone filter and an adapter plate (I got 2 adapter plates from Nino's Auto Accessories on NASIOC for $15 shipped). But some people have noticed problems with it throwing off the MAF sensor calibration.
"Just reading vrg3's convoluted, information-packed posts made me feel better all over again." -- subyluvr2212
FrmRgz2Rchz
First Gear
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:50 pm
Location: Hilliard, OH

Post by FrmRgz2Rchz »

I remember reading somewhere that the K&N panel filter is only good for up to 300 or so CFM and the cone filter up to 500 or so CFM. Doesn't this show that a cone filter has the potential to allow more air to flow. Grant it, it's made of foam, but it is still a cone type filter. I bought an HKS SMF mushroom filter and it is on it's way.

I bought it because I am trying to figure out what is holding me back in fourth and fifth gear. I can feel the restriction, but I'm not sure what that restriction is. I also bought a downpipe, which is probably what is holding me back, and a header. I figured once I get the exhaust freed up, the intake would then be holding me back, so I might as well get one now.

Am I right in assuming that a cone filter style flows better than a panel? You have to realize I am nearing 250hp and any kind of restriction(intake, fuel, exhaust) are greatly affecting any of the gains I might expect from modifications I make.
Andy Rose
1993 Subaru Legacy Sport Sedan
2003 Subaru Impreza WRX
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
1999 Hyundai Accent
vrg3
Vikash
Posts: 12517
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:13 am
Location: USA, OH, Cleveland (sometimes visiting DC though)
Contact:

Post by vrg3 »

I think it makes sense that a cone filter should flow more than a panel filter in a stock airbox. After all, the cone has much more used surface area. If you look at a used panel filter you'll see that almost all the air was coming through an area about 12 square inches in size. I would imagine the cone filter gets used much more evenly, and it has an open element. It's kind of comparing apples and oranges, though, since everything's so different.

I believe all K&N filters, including the cone filters, use cotton gauze and not foam.
"Just reading vrg3's convoluted, information-packed posts made me feel better all over again." -- subyluvr2212
ciper
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: SFCA

Post by ciper »

FrmRgz2Rchz: Do you realize the numbers you have given compare to what your engine is actually flowing? Why do the turbo subaru cars introduced today use basically the same filter?

It would be no different if I told you that your tires are only rated for 180mph, while you should get another set with half the tread life but are rated to 300mph

The throttle body is going to be a restriction before the panel filter.

You are just wasting money in an area that is easily seen. I wouldnt be surprised if your performance suffers with the replacement filter you mention.

VRG3: I dont agree. In fact Id argue that the average panel filter has equal or greater area than a cone filter!
vrg3
Vikash
Posts: 12517
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:13 am
Location: USA, OH, Cleveland (sometimes visiting DC though)
Contact:

Post by vrg3 »

ciper wrote:I dont agree. In fact Id argue that the average panel filter has equal or greater area than a cone filter!
Well, it's kind of comparing apples and oranges, like I said above, because the intake assembly has to be different. A panel filter uses an airbox which has some kind of hole on each side of the filter where air goes through, while a cone filter has an open element which goes right onto the tubing.

In my experience, even old panel filters have huge clean areas on the filter element, indicating that most of the air goes through a small portion of the filter. Cone filters tend to get dirty more evenly.
"Just reading vrg3's convoluted, information-packed posts made me feel better all over again." -- subyluvr2212
ciper
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: SFCA

Post by ciper »

Once the "center" of the panel is dirty the low pressure zone moves towards the outside of this dirty area. The air is sucked from the cleaner spots instead.

The hotter less dense air of the cone filter combined with the turbulent incoming air flow negates any flow benefits.

This was the conclusion the the idea that some 2.5l subaru run extra rich. The problem was that the aftermarket intakes caused turbulence and inaccurate readings.

Look at the bell mouth and screen on the stock air box. From what I know both of these straighten air flow quite a bit.
FrmRgz2Rchz
First Gear
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:50 pm
Location: Hilliard, OH

Post by FrmRgz2Rchz »

I don't think this is helping my case any, but I just looked on the K&N site and found out that the numbers I gave are for "Average replacement filters." K&N rates their panel filter at 441 CFM and their round filters at 881 CFM.

I see your point ciper, but you make it sound like I will never be able to flow enough air to cause a restriction in the filter. Even if i don't flow that much, I was led to believe that less restriction = more power. Then again, I was also tought to believe when you get to the top of a mountain, the only place to go is down.

Either way, I'll try it out and if I don't like it, I'm sure it will be easy to go back to stock.
Andy Rose
1993 Subaru Legacy Sport Sedan
2003 Subaru Impreza WRX
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
1999 Hyundai Accent
ciper
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: SFCA

Post by ciper »

"K&N rates their panel filter at 441 CFM and their round filters at 881 CFM"

That sure goes against my argument! Does a simple conversion exist that relates horsepower to air flow at some average efficiency? That would give us an idea of how much air you actually need to flow.

Speaking of "when you get to the top of a mountain" and air flow I drove over the top of a 10,100 foot peak this weekend in an NA legacy. BOY did I feel the difference compared to sea level! Felt like I lost 40HP!
FrmRgz2Rchz
First Gear
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:50 pm
Location: Hilliard, OH

Post by FrmRgz2Rchz »

Simple!? Ha Ha. I'm not sure about the calculations, but I know I've seen a nice chart that lists the CFM of turbos and how much Hp they are good for. Would that be a good indication?
Andy Rose
1993 Subaru Legacy Sport Sedan
2003 Subaru Impreza WRX
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
1999 Hyundai Accent
FrmRgz2Rchz
First Gear
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:50 pm
Location: Hilliard, OH

Post by FrmRgz2Rchz »

Maybe I was wrong. That chart does not exist. The chart has a bunch of turbos and shows displacement on the Y-axis and horsepower on the X-axis. It does give a small idea though.
It's at the bottom of the page
http://cherrypicker.tripod.com/turboupg ... t/id4.html
Andy Rose
1993 Subaru Legacy Sport Sedan
2003 Subaru Impreza WRX
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
1999 Hyundai Accent
ciper
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: SFCA

Post by ciper »

from http://www.cobbtuning.com/tech/sohc/page2.html
Image
IN MAX FLOW @ MAX LIFT
EJ25 SOHC: 240 CFM @ 0.375" Lift
EJ22T SOHC: 193 CFM @ 0.350" Lift
GM LS1: 231 CFM @ 0.500" Lift

Looks to me that the max flow is being limited by the heads.


Here is the exhaust picture as well.
Image
EX MAX FLOW @ MAX LIFT
EJ25 SOHC: 182 CFM @ 0.310" Lift
EJ22T SOHC: 147 CFM @ 0.350" Lift
GM LS1: 193 CFM @ 0.500" Lift
FrmRgz2Rchz
First Gear
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:50 pm
Location: Hilliard, OH

Post by FrmRgz2Rchz »

Those charts are very informative. Makes me want Ported and Polished RS heads. Quick question...How much pressure is 28" of water?

It would seem to me that even though the heads are poorly designed and flow for crap, the turbo will force in any amount of air as long as the head can handle the pressure.

Instead of paying for the cost of getting my stock heads ported and polished, don't you think getting an 841 CFM filter, to accomodate my 520 CFM turbo, will give me a satisfactory increase in airflow?
Andy Rose
1993 Subaru Legacy Sport Sedan
2003 Subaru Impreza WRX
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
1999 Hyundai Accent
scottzg
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 2278
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:19 am
Location: Saint Joe, CA - Redlands, CA

Post by scottzg »

my experience goes with ciper.

Open air cone filters make for a poor running car (albeit with improved topend) putting a box over a cone and running some large diameter tubing to cold air is the same as stock at idle and low end, with the butt-dyno saying the same improvement as an open cone at the top.

If i had to do it again, id put a k&n panel filter in my box, and put a 1 inch pvc valve on the dirty side of the box for when i really wanted it.

IMO cone filters are ridiculously loud and annoying. A box helps, but mine still annoys me.
[url=http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/album108/DSCF0330.jpg]90 legacy of awesomeness[/url]
FrmRgz2Rchz
First Gear
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:50 pm
Location: Hilliard, OH

Post by FrmRgz2Rchz »

I don't think I've ever heard of a modification that increased top end without sacrificing bottom end. I'd definitely trade a 6 sec. 330' for a 95~96mph trap speed.
Andy Rose
1993 Subaru Legacy Sport Sedan
2003 Subaru Impreza WRX
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
1999 Hyundai Accent
vrg3
Vikash
Posts: 12517
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:13 am
Location: USA, OH, Cleveland (sometimes visiting DC though)
Contact:

Post by vrg3 »

Scott - What kinds of cars have you experienced this with? Were any of them speed density based rather than mass air based?
"Just reading vrg3's convoluted, information-packed posts made me feel better all over again." -- subyluvr2212
Legacy777
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 27884
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:37 am
Location: Houston, Tx
Contact:

Post by Legacy777 »

cone filters most certain do floor more.....that's a fact, and I've seen it on my car.

However like mentioned, the turbulent, hot air, and loss of intake backpressure (ie low rpm torque) are more detromental IMO then the increase in air flow.

panel filters definitely can't be categorized as bein the same, simply because the intake box inlet & outlet are going to most likely be your restrictions.
Josh

surrealmirage.com/subaru
1990 Legacy (AWD, 6MT, & EJ22T Swap)
2020 Outback Limted XT

If you need to get a hold of me please email me rather then pm
ciper
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 4388
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: SFCA

Post by ciper »

"intake box inlet & outlet are going to most likely be your restrictions."

True but if the outlet has a bell mouth and the inlet is apropriately sized I still feel its the better solution. Why make the incoming air change directions by going into a cone when it can go pretty much straight through a panel?
scottzg
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 2278
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:19 am
Location: Saint Joe, CA - Redlands, CA

Post by scottzg »

the air does not go straight through the panel. it's gotta find a space in the weave. If nothing else, its gotta go at an angle to get through the corrugation.

But this is moot since the box= a high volume, low velocity area. its gonna be where you see the largest difference in air pressure in regards to engine pulse, second to the head itself. Thats why you need the box for your torque. the long intake runner is feeding to this pressure variation as well, but since it is on the other side of the box, it is less influential.

Thats my understanding, anyway. I'm a long way from an engineer.

Really, i think if you're going for a 1/4th, get a cone, if you want to drive the car, leave it alone. or increase the flow in proportion to your other mods. It is so easy to ruin your bottom end with an intake, and so hard to get any non-psychological improvement up top. 2hp is just not worth it.

oh, and vrg- no i havent tried it on a speed density based car. i retuned my bmw to run with a cone (no o2 sensor) and i have had about 6 intake designs on my sube- it is from that experience that i can speak with any kind of authority.
[url=http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/album108/DSCF0330.jpg]90 legacy of awesomeness[/url]
vrg3
Vikash
Posts: 12517
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:13 am
Location: USA, OH, Cleveland (sometimes visiting DC though)
Contact:

Post by vrg3 »

scottzg wrote:oh, and vrg- no i havent tried it on a speed density based car. i retuned my bmw to run with a cone (no o2 sensor) and i have had about 6 intake designs on my sube- it is from that experience that i can speak with any kind of authority.
Speed density means fueling is based on a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor...

The reason I asked was that changing the intake setup of a mass flow engine often disrupts the flow patterns through the airflow sensor, throwing its readings off in a sometimes unpredictable manner. That is likely partly responsible for why MAF-sensor-equipped Subarus seem to behave weirdly when cold air intakes are installed.

Speed density systems wouldn't be thrown off as much.

Just trying to separate differences due to management from differences due to airflow.
"Just reading vrg3's convoluted, information-packed posts made me feel better all over again." -- subyluvr2212
scottzg
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 2278
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:19 am
Location: Saint Joe, CA - Redlands, CA

Post by scottzg »

yup. since this is a bc/bf board, i didnt specify. I haven't got a clue about the speed density style airflow sensors, my guess would be less bottom end, but no stumbling or vibration associated with a mas equipped car.
[url=http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/album108/DSCF0330.jpg]90 legacy of awesomeness[/url]
Post Reply