If you will read the posting by Rob on 3-8-04, he states that his dino results on the 328 were as follows; 218.8 hp - 186 torque vs 228.4 hp - 190 torgue Unless I read this in error, this was from changing the filter to the K & N. Robert Mann
You know when I was a young teenager, we would flip lid on the air cleaner up side down, by doing this it would vent 360 deg. around the filter. Well did make the car go faster ( remember when your 17 you know every thing ) I really doubt it, BUT IT SOUNDED MUCH COOLER, and you swore it was now a race engine. Just a thought John
Thanks, Robert, for clearing the murky air of opinion with some real, concrete data. Although I'm certainly surprised at the difference! Does anyone know of any other actual dyno tests?
I'd actually be very interested in seeing the dyno results, if anyone has them or any links to them. Including how the tests were run, how many tests were run, how they were set up, and other details. That would be interesting.
Um, not to be a jerk here but as one without iron in this fire...before we start confusing folks: 328 (and 308QV) use Bosch mechanical K/KE-Jetronic injection. Some elements of KE Jetronic but absent airflow plate potentiometer. Unfortunately a bit of experience here. Motronic was first introduced on the 348 cars I beleive. I too own the Probst book...and a reprint of the factory FI manual...but my reference is out in the garage. Carl
I have the tech knowledge because I have learned them thru 10 years of Ferrari ownership!!!! - and I can say I would rather have not learned so much!!!!! Tom
Well Carl, Since you are getting in this cat fight, I am getting out as I really did not want to be here anyway. Someone just asked a simple question on K & Ns. It seems as if it always ends up this way. Too bad. Robert Mann
Wow, Ferrari must have been one of the last to cling to the CIS injection system before moving to Motronic. The CIS injection system isn't really considered a mechanical injection system. A mechanical injection system is like the Spica injection used on Alfas in the 60s and early 70s, or the Bosch MFI used on early 70's 911. True, the CIS system doesn't have electronics (unless you count the add-on Lambda system in later versions), but it operates on hydraulic principle. I guess it would be accurate to call it a hydro-mechanical system. Check the Probst book when you get a chance! Anyways, my point was that just because an injection system is mechanical, that doesn't mean a K&N will necessarily produce more power. The two have nothing to do with each other. Finally, conclusive dyno tests have been done on CIS cars with K&N filters. For example, Porsche Guru Bruce Anderson has dyno tested K&N filters on the CIS injected 911s, and found absolutely no power increase. If a K&N could make a difference on a CIS injected 328, then Ferrari engineers really blundered. They could have easily just made the air filter box (and thus the air filter surface area) larger, and freed up more hp and economy. Pretty simple.
Hi Mr. Mann! (smile) You are, of course, correct in your situational assessment. Something to the effect of "more time driving (or, in my case, working on!), less time talking!" Cheers, Carl
Correction summary: The Bosch K-Jetronic used on Ferrari 3 and 3.2 liter injected engines is a hydro-mechanical system, primarily introduced not for performance, but to meet tightening emissions requirements. It IS NOT programmable. Bosch Motronic was not introduced in Feraris until the advent of the 348. In later models it had a lambda feedback loop utilizing electronic modification of the hydromechanical control pressure. which controlled the pressure seen at the continously spraying injectors. This system is synonomously called a Constant Injection system (CIS) and was used on Porsches, MB, Volvo and VW as well. The ability of K-jet to accurately control A/F is amazing - I have seen dynos where it will hold right over 14 all the way through the range. I have dyno'd cars comparing no filter, paper filter and K&N. There is a difference. In my experience, taking off the filter is worth about 7-8 hp and the K&N is worth about 5hp over the stock paper filter. Now this is at peak flows, so you won't feel this so much throughout the range. A K-jetronic will not require recalibration with a freer flowing filter as the air mass flow sensing plate is downstream on the filter and it doesn't care. Carbs are a little different, and I have seen AF changes of .5 - 1 point using a freer flowing induction (A more restrictive filter produces a richer mixture, more open filter tends to lean). So, may want to condider this - it's not too much, but if you have lean jetting as on many US cars, going to a freer flowing filter may lean it still to sub-optimal. Bottom line: K-jet is a brilliant mechanical injection system designed for emissions control. K&N does outflow paper elements, with limited effect. best rt
The 328 and a K&N is really a matter of personal preference. I did want to mention a particular problem that occurs with K&N's that have a MAF sensor. The mass-airflow sensor is very susceptible to contamination. The oil in a K&N filter is released under hard acceleration and passes over the MAF. As the K&N becomes contaminated with road grime, some of the contamination will pass through the filter media. (Even a paper media will pass a certain amount of dirt) The problem occurs because of the film of oil left on the MAF. The dirt sticks to it and changes the resistance of the heated element in the MAF. The sensor is ruined by the contamination. Cleaning the MAF seldom solves the problem as the heated element is changed electrically by the contamination. The MAF can be checked by using the calculated load data on any good OBD2 scanner. As I said, this problem only applies to autos that use a MAF sensor. I only included it because a lot of members here drive cars that have MAF sensors and K&N does not address this problem in any of their publications. MAF sensors are fairly pricey. I replaced one last Friday on a 2000 Toyota 4-Runner because of this exact problem. ($300.00 parts and labor) I probably replace 2-3 a month, with 80% due to a K&N air filter that has not been properly maintained. They need to be cleaned at least once a year minimum. Here in Texas, twice a year or every 15K is better. Plus, to properly service K&N's you need the emulsifying solvent and the K&N filter oil. And never blow dry a K&N. Blowing them dry with compressed air destroys the cotton fibers. For my money, there is very little advantage to the K&N. However, my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.
I didn't believe the KN hype for years, but after looking at Robs dyno result I figured I'd give KN a shot and yes I would say it helped the bottom end as well as the top. KN claims the filters also straighten the air vs the paper which create a turbulence which also helps breathing. Removing my cat made a big difference also, especially in the low end.
Well, amidst the discussion, I just went ahead and ordered a K&N. I am staying back from the debate, as I have only been an owner for 6 months. I'll yield to y'all as experienced owners. However, and interesting enough, I have lived this same debate on Porsche Pete's Boxster Board for the past 3 years. My other car is a Boxster. I have installed a BMC filter on the Boxster and the EVO Intake. On that car you can feel a difference. Namely because the factory air intake has baffles that disrupt the air flow. It's robs hp and is bulky and inefficient. The only problem is the aftermarket filter will tear up the MAF once in a while. Well, it seems we have as many opinions here as on PPBB, I am not really looking for anymoe HP. The car runs great, I just figured I would ask before I made the purchase...and frankly I love the debate - I learned a ton about the cars just from reading this thread - thanks guys.
So, there is no one who has tried a K&N on there 328 and did not feal a difference, or maybe i missed something in the thread. Worked for me.
there were some threads on the old board about K&N vs. OEM, and i believe the conclusions were that K&N didn't amount to much, if any difference. I suppose you could search the old board for more info; this is off the top of my head. Seems to me the only way to adequately test all of this would be in back to back tests on a dyno, so that different atmospheric conditions wouldn't come into play.In the old threads, i think someone was gonna compare OEM, K&N, and no filter at all and post results, but i don't remember seeing anything. Also, remember that when comparing OEM vs. K&N, -both- the OEM and K&N need to be new/fresh filters; no old stuff allowed. All 'speculation' and 'authoritative' comments really don't mean much; what matters is documented results.
In January 1997, 54000 miles ago, I installed a MAF with K & N cone filter on my 1986 944turbo. The car has other modifications and is a good track car. I have never had a problem with contamination or changes in the MAF. Performance and fuel mileage remain the same. Engine has 147K on it now. I also have two K & N filters on my 1993 400E. There is one for each bank of cylinders. The filters have been in for 116,000 miles with no problems. Performance and fuel mileage have remained the same. So here are two more data points.
I have personally flowbench tested the K&N, compared to the stock UNI on a 308, mounted in the stock air cleaner houseing. The Results were as follows: UNI produced 77% of available flow range K&N produced 86.5% of the same. This test was performed back to back, without even shutting down the flowbench, just changeing elements. I then replaced the element with the UNI, and the flow went back to exactly 77% again Thats the facts. Kermit
