Mustang GT and K&N air charger

I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63 series
aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their Ford
warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!

mrsunshine wrote:
> I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63 series
> aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
> there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their Ford
> warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!

You shouldn't have any issues with the warranty unless the kit directly
caused the problem. As for the horsepower boost, you will likely be
lucky to get half of what the manufacturer claims. They typically get
their numbers from a very specific set of parameters that most people
never see.

If you want to make a real difference in performance then get a dyno
tuned chip. That will improve throttle response and get you around 30
rwhp and about the same amount of torque. Also, rear end gears is
another good modification that you can really feel in the seat of your
pants. Most of these other mods, on a stock engine, like air intake
systems etc. are just fluff and mostly serve to let you point at
something when you raise the hood.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> mrsunshine wrote:
>> I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63 series
>> aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
>> there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their Ford
>> warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!
>
> You shouldn't have any issues with the warranty unless the kit directly
> caused the problem. As for the horsepower boost, you will likely be lucky
> to get half of what the manufacturer claims. They typically get their
> numbers from a very specific set of parameters that most people never see.
>
> If you want to make a real difference in performance then get a dyno tuned
> chip. That will improve throttle response and get you around 30 rwhp and
> about the same amount of torque. Also, rear end gears is another good
> modification that you can really feel in the seat of your pants. Most of
> these other mods, on a stock engine, like air intake systems etc. are just
> fluff and mostly serve to let you point at something when you raise the
> hood.


15 is way to high, perhaps 2 or 3 at 6,000 RPM,
no low end grunt torque improvement at all. not worth it,
but the chip is, especially to get rid of some of the throttle lag.

"mrsunshine" > wrote in message
...
>I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63 series
> aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
> there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their Ford
> warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!

See http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html for my opinion.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:478b5998$1@kcnews01...
>
> "mrsunshine" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63 series
>> aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
>> there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their Ford
>> warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!
>
> See http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html for my opinion.
>
> Ed
>

While I agree K&N filters are a potentially dangerous and certainly a pain
in the ass, this statement "Claims of greatly improved fuel mileage for K&N
Filters are bogus." Is absolutely FALSE!

I still have the mileage records of every fill up for a 1994 Taurus SHO that
I bought new with 7 miles on it, to over 70,000 miles. This car was a daily
driver commuter car that went 70 mostly freeway miles each weekday. The
first 25,000 miles it consistently recorded 24.5 MPG each fill up. A K&N
air filter was installed into the stock air box, zero other changes. The
fuel mileage took an immediate (and documented over 50,000 miles) jump up to
26.5 MPG, and stayed there.

I personally would NEVER use a K&N oil bath air filter again. My preference
is to filter my intake air as well as I possibly can and I don't think the
K&N's do that as well as the stock paper filters.... But throwing out a
blanket statement that fuel mileage gains from their use are bogus, is
simply bogus. You may or may not like K&N filters, I don't, but for crying
out loud, don't post bull**** about them.

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:478b5998$1@kcnews01...
>> "mrsunshine" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63 series
>>> aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
>>> there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their Ford
>>> warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!
>> See http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html for my opinion.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> While I agree K&N filters are a potentially dangerous and certainly a pain
> in the ass, this statement "Claims of greatly improved fuel mileage for K&N
> Filters are bogus." Is absolutely FALSE!
>
> I still have the mileage records of every fill up for a 1994 Taurus SHO that
> I bought new with 7 miles on it, to over 70,000 miles. This car was a daily
> driver commuter car that went 70 mostly freeway miles each weekday. The
> first 25,000 miles it consistently recorded 24.5 MPG each fill up. A K&N
> air filter was installed into the stock air box, zero other changes. The
> fuel mileage took an immediate (and documented over 50,000 miles) jump up to
> 26.5 MPG, and stayed there.
>
> I personally would NEVER use a K&N oil bath air filter again. My preference
> is to filter my intake air as well as I possibly can and I don't think the
> K&N's do that as well as the stock paper filters.... But throwing out a
> blanket statement that fuel mileage gains from their use are bogus, is
> simply bogus. You may or may not like K&N filters, I don't, but for crying
> out loud, don't post bull**** about them.

K&N air filters do flow better than most OEM filters. The problem with
them is they can leave an oil film residue over time if the MAF is
installed after the filter. Especially, if the user gets too much oil
in the filter after cleaning it. The remedy for this is to clean the
MAF element more often, which isn't a big hassle. Where they really pay
off is on heavily modified engines (i.e. super/turbo charged) where the
OEM filter becomes a bigger restriction due to the greatly increased air
flow requirements.

Additionally, I don't think K&N filters decrease the life of an engine
due to poor filtering. I have had one on my '89 LX since it was new and
it has 150k+ miles (the last 30k-40k miles with a blower) on it and it
burns the same amount of oil as when it was new. I have also had the
heads off numerous times and see no accelerated wear on the cylinder
walls. The original cross hatching is still very visible. Anyone
worried about engine wear from using a K&N is splitting hairs regarding
their effectiveness verses an OEM/paper filter.

Michael Johnson wrote:

> Additionally, I don't think K&N filters decrease the life of an engine
> due to poor filtering. I have had one on my '89 LX since it was new and
> it has 150k+ miles (the last 30k-40k miles with a blower) on it and it
> burns the same amount of oil as when it was new. I have also had the
> heads off numerous times and see no accelerated wear on the cylinder
> walls. The original cross hatching is still very visible. Anyone
> worried about engine wear from using a K&N is splitting hairs regarding
> their effectiveness verses an OEM/paper filter.


Yep, I now use the dry cleanable Donaldson filters from Amsoil.

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:OoQij.6492$6F6.2631@trndny09...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:478b5998$1@kcnews01...
>>
>> "mrsunshine" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63
>>>series
>>> aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
>>> there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their
>>> Ford
>>> warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!
>>
>> See http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html for my opinion.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> While I agree K&N filters are a potentially dangerous and certainly
> a pain in the ass, this statement "Claims of greatly improved fuel
> mileage for K&N Filters are bogus." Is absolutely FALSE!
>
> I still have the mileage records of every fill up for a 1994 Taurus
> SHO that I bought new with 7 miles on it, to over 70,000 miles.
> This car was a daily driver commuter car that went 70 mostly freeway
> miles each weekday. The first 25,000 miles it consistently recorded
> 24.5 MPG each fill up. A K&N air filter was installed into the
> stock air box, zero other changes. The fuel mileage took an
> immediate (and documented over 50,000 miles) jump up to 26.5 MPG,
> and stayed there.

But why? Explain how the K&N could increase fuel economy on a fuel
injected engine. Except at WOT, the air filter restriction is trivial
compared to the throttle restriction. The MAF and other part of the FI
control system are measuring the mass of flow through the induction
tract, and they don't know whether the flow is restricted by the air
filter or the throttle plate. With an older carbureted engine, I can
see how a restricted air filter upsets the fuel air ratio and affects
gas mileage. This is not the case for modern fuel injected engines. I
don't know why your mileage jumped, but I suspect other factors are at
play.

> I personally would NEVER use a K&N oil bath air filter again. My
> preference is to filter my intake air as well as I possibly can and
> I don't think the K&N's do that as well as the stock paper
> filters.... But throwing out a blanket statement that fuel mileage
> gains from their use are bogus, is simply bogus. You may or may not
> like K&N filters, I don't, but for crying out loud, don't post
> bull**** about them.

I don't believe my opinion is BS. I don't see any reason to expect a
K&N filter to increase the fuel economy of a modern fuel injected
engine. Not even K&N makes the claim that their filters will increase
fuel mileage Go read K&N's carefully worded FAQ on this subject
(http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#1) - "we do not go so far as to make
a general claim that our air filters and intake systems will provide
an increase in mileage." K&N is willing to let you think their filters
might increase fuel mileage, but they are not so foolish as to claim
that they will.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
> news:OoQij.6492$6F6.2631@trndny09...
>> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
>> news:478b5998$1@kcnews01...
>>> "mrsunshine" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63
>>>> series
>>>> aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
>>>> there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their
>>>> Ford
>>>> warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!
>>> See http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html for my opinion.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> While I agree K&N filters are a potentially dangerous and certainly
>> a pain in the ass, this statement "Claims of greatly improved fuel
>> mileage for K&N Filters are bogus." Is absolutely FALSE!
>>
>> I still have the mileage records of every fill up for a 1994 Taurus
>> SHO that I bought new with 7 miles on it, to over 70,000 miles.
>> This car was a daily driver commuter car that went 70 mostly freeway
>> miles each weekday. The first 25,000 miles it consistently recorded
>> 24.5 MPG each fill up. A K&N air filter was installed into the
>> stock air box, zero other changes. The fuel mileage took an
>> immediate (and documented over 50,000 miles) jump up to 26.5 MPG,
>> and stayed there.
>
> But why? Explain how the K&N could increase fuel economy on a fuel
> injected engine. Except at WOT, the air filter restriction is trivial
> compared to the throttle restriction. The MAF and other part of the FI
> control system are measuring the mass of flow through the induction
> tract, and they don't know whether the flow is restricted by the air
> filter or the throttle plate. With an older carbureted engine, I can
> see how a restricted air filter upsets the fuel air ratio and affects
> gas mileage. This is not the case for modern fuel injected engines. I
> don't know why your mileage jumped, but I suspect other factors are at
> play.

Exactly, I don't believe an air filter will change mileage. The auto
makers would be on it and so would the rest of this small world.

I do however see a two mile per gallon decrease when using the now,
"required by law in Oregon" E10. ****es me off!



>> I personally would NEVER use a K&N oil bath air filter again. My
>> preference is to filter my intake air as well as I possibly can and
>> I don't think the K&N's do that as well as the stock paper
>> filters.... But throwing out a blanket statement that fuel mileage
>> gains from their use are bogus, is simply bogus. You may or may not
>> like K&N filters, I don't, but for crying out loud, don't post
>> bull**** about them.
>
> I don't believe my opinion is BS. I don't see any reason to expect a
> K&N filter to increase the fuel economy of a modern fuel injected
> engine. Not even K&N makes the claim that their filters will increase
> fuel mileage Go read K&N's carefully worded FAQ on this subject
> (http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#1) - "we do not go so far as to make
> a general claim that our air filters and intake systems will provide
> an increase in mileage." K&N is willing to let you think their filters
> might increase fuel mileage, but they are not so foolish as to claim
> that they will.
>
> Ed
>
>


--
Tropic Green Y2K Mustang GT
W/bits & pieces
http://tinyurl.com/2uqoat

"Gill" > wrote in message
. ..

> I do however see a two mile per gallon decrease when using the now,
> "required by law in Oregon" E10. ****es me off!

Are you really seeing a 2 mpg decrease when using E10? Ethanol has
about 85% as much energy as gasoline, so I would guess E10 has about
98.5% as much energy as plain old gas. Assuming the gas suppliers are
keeping the octane the same (i.e., using the octane improvement
related to ethanol to use lower octane gasoline for the other 90% of
the blend), I would guess your mileage should only decrease by 4% at
the most. A 2 mpg decrease on 25 mpg is an 8% decrease. This seems
like an unreasonably high decrease for a modern fuel injected vehicle.
Of course if you have an older carbureted vehicle, then the use of E10
screws up everything and a larger decrease is certainly possible (and
even likely).

Ed