Stutter/surge after intake install?

[Bigfoot]

QFT?

QFT = google it.

[Marco]

WTF w/teh QFT MOFO's ....just bustin yer BVD's

[fourseventeen]

Cant say I have ever heard QFT before. Thats a new one to add to the code book. Next time throw the # codes at me...I understand all of those ;) 10-4?

[corvettech]

sounds like i jumped on this problem too late, glad to hear its all fixed. ive personaly seen most k&n systems work fint one in 10 will though lean codes with no driveability problems. one in 100 gets the oil on the maf sensor and kills it. theres a fork in the road here since i work at a chevy dealer all i realy install are oem parts, but i have heard that aftermarket maf sensors are more bullet proof.

[fourseventeen]

yup I have heard a lot that the sensors in the newer vettes are REAL touchy. Anyway yeah I got the issue solved. Car has seen 100+ miles since i sealed up the radiator shroud and no codes and no surging! =)

[Two Fangs]

Here's some gas for the fire.....

Watch them in order. I have a lot of buddies at K&N, they have the data to back these up. If you do not have much of a technical background this may be over your head.

K&N has a wall full of un-cashed checks from lawsuits and settlements where their oil and/or filters were blamed for warranty issues. They don't cash them, just keep them as trophies.

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/1MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/2MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/3MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/4MAFSensorVideo.htm

[HOXXOH]

Here's some gas for the fire.....

Watch them in order. I have a lot of buddies at K&N, they have the data to back these up. If you do not have much of a technical background this may be over your head.

K&N has a wall full of un-cashed checks from lawsuits and settlements where their oil and/or filters were blamed for warranty issues. They don't cash them, just keep them as trophies.

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/1MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/2MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/3MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/4MAFSensorVideo.htm

So they recovered 107 MAFs from what? None reportably had any oil on them, but 5 of the 107 malfunctioned due to visible dirt. Assuming these MAFs came from cars whose owners had issues with the filters, then it seems that even though there was no oil present, it still represents poor filtration. i.e. 95-96% effectiveness.

They also tested MAFs for durability, including injecting dirt into an unfiltered air stream, yet had no failures. So apparently they couldn't reproduce a malfunction due to dirt like the 5 they recovered.

They also didn't get any MAF failures when oil was introduced either, so oil doesn't seem to be an issue, yet the videos intend to prove that oil doesn't come off of the filter. What would be the point of proving something that has no consequences?

I also question the test where a filter was over oiled by 30% and subjected to 72 hours of 1000 CFM airflow. Let's assume the K&N oil to be a class B oil, which is more aromatic (volatile) than motor oil (less dense) and the application on the test filter is 1/10 oz. (2.83g). Their scale is calibrated in .01g increments, so a deviation as small as 1/283th of the application would be detectable. The amount of air passing through the filter is equivilent to the requirements of a 6.0 L Corvette traveling 25,000 miles at 1600 RPM. If only 10% of the lower limit of the volatile portion (20-40% in class B) evaporated that would be 2% of the total, or about .05g, which easily exceeds the minimum scale increment.

Am I not seeing something or is the oil application less than 1/50 oz. (approximately 11 drops)?

[fourseventeen]

OK I think you guys are reading way to much into this LOL.

[Two Fangs]

Here's some gas for the fire.....

Watch them in order. I have a lot of buddies at K&N, they have the data to back these up. If you do not have much of a technical background this may be over your head.

K&N has a wall full of un-cashed checks from lawsuits and settlements where their oil and/or filters were blamed for warranty issues. They don't cash them, just keep them as trophies.

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/1MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/2MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/3MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/4MAFSensorVideo.htm

So they recovered 107 MAFs from what? None reportably had any oil on them, but 5 of the 107 malfunctioned due to visible dirt. Assuming these MAFs came from cars whose owners had issues with the filters, then it seems that even though there was no oil present, it still represents poor filtration. i.e. 95-96% effectiveness.

They also tested MAFs for durability, including injecting dirt into an unfiltered air stream, yet had no failures. So apparently they couldn't reproduce a malfunction due to dirt like the 5 they recovered.

They also didn't get any MAF failures when oil was introduced either, so oil doesn't seem to be an issue, yet the videos intend to prove that oil doesn't come off of the filter. What would be the point of proving something that has no consequences?

I also question the test where a filter was over oiled by 30% and subjected to 72 hours of 1000 CFM airflow. Let's assume the K&N oil to be a class B oil, which is more aromatic (volatile) than motor oil (less dense) and the application on the test filter is 1/10 oz. (2.83g). Their scale is calibrated in .01g increments, so a deviation as small as 1/283th of the application would be detectable. The amount of air passing through the filter is equivilent to the requirements of a 6.0 L Corvette traveling 25,000 miles at 1600 RPM. If only 10% of the lower limit of the volatile portion (20-40% in class B) evaporated that would be 2% of the total, or about .05g, which easily exceeds the minimum scale increment.

Am I not seeing something or is the oil application less than 1/50 oz. (approximately 11 drops)?

I think the reason for the testing of oil even after the company proved that the oil was not easily blown from the filter is do stop the "yeah, but" arguments.

I agree that oil evaporatives from the class B oil during testing is a possible stumbling point with the testing results I also agree that the evaporatives comprise only a portion of the oil and not the whole, so a direct correlation to the weight of the oil and the evaporative losses is difficult to correlate without knowing the specific chemical makeup of said substance (which K&N obviously does, it's their patent). With that said, it would seem that the results meet the expectation and that the expectation would be that diurnal losses would occur, but since they are evaporatives, these would not affect sensor function due to coating.

I believe the biggest point made here is that MAFs failed of their own accord, and not due to the oil.

I think...

LOL

[HOXXOH]

Here's some gas for the fire.....

Watch them in order. I have a lot of buddies at K&N, they have the data to back these up. If you do not have much of a technical background this may be over your head.

K&N has a wall full of un-cashed checks from lawsuits and settlements where their oil and/or filters were blamed for warranty issues. They don't cash them, just keep them as trophies.

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/1MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/2MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/3MAFSensorVideo.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/4MAFSensorVideo.htm

So they recovered 107 MAFs from what? None reportably had any oil on them, but 5 of the 107 malfunctioned due to visible dirt. Assuming these MAFs came from cars whose owners had issues with the filters, then it seems that even though there was no oil present, it still represents poor filtration. i.e. 95-96% effectiveness.

They also tested MAFs for durability, including injecting dirt into an unfiltered air stream, yet had no failures. So apparently they couldn't reproduce a malfunction due to dirt like the 5 they recovered.

They also didn't get any MAF failures when oil was introduced either, so oil doesn't seem to be an issue, yet the videos intend to prove that oil doesn't come off of the filter. What would be the point of proving something that has no consequences?

I also question the test where a filter was over oiled by 30% and subjected to 72 hours of 1000 CFM airflow. Let's assume the K&N oil to be a class B oil, which is more aromatic (volatile) than motor oil (less dense) and the application on the test filter is 1/10 oz. (2.83g). Their scale is calibrated in .01g increments, so a deviation as small as 1/283th of the application would be detectable. The amount of air passing through the filter is equivilent to the requirements of a 6.0 L Corvette traveling 25,000 miles at 1600 RPM. If only 10% of the lower limit of the volatile portion (20-40% in class B) evaporated that would be 2% of the total, or about .05g, which easily exceeds the minimum scale increment.

Am I not seeing something or is the oil application less than 1/50 oz. (approximately 11 drops)?

I think the reason for the testing of oil even after the company proved that the oil was not easily blown from the filter is do stop the "yeah, but" arguments.

It's the only thing that makes any sense for thoses videos and 99.9% of those viewing them wouldn't know if it was BS or not anyway.

[Big Poppa]

so a deviation as small as 1/283th of the application would be detectable.

I'm thinking it would be more like 1/283rd.... (requisite smiley)

My argument against gauze style filters is not that they damage the MAF, but that they allow more dirt into the engine. I've seen numerous tests that prove this, including one that a friend of mine ran at his mining company. Even if the extra amount of dirt is fairly small, it's still extra dirt. i don't think it's worth it for the couple of HP that you will gain over a paper filter. My car put 425hp to the tires through a paper filter in a slightly opened up airbox. You can't tell me that it would have put down an extra 20hp if it would have had a K&N.

I just don't think the trade is worthwhile.

[HOXXOH]

so a deviation as small as 1/283th of the application would be detectable.

I'm thinking it would be more like 1/283rd.... (requisite smiley)

My argument against gauze style filters is not that they damage the MAF, but that they allow more dirt into the engine. I've seen numerous tests that prove this, including one that a friend of mine ran at his mining company. Even if the extra amount of dirt is fairly small, it's still extra dirt. i don't think it's worth it for the couple of HP that you will gain over a paper filter. My car put 425hp to the tires through a paper filter in a slightly opened up airbox. You can't tell me that it would have put down an extra 20hp if it would have had a K&N.

I just don't think the trade is worthwhile.

Oh man! I sure blew that. At least I now know that some people really do read this stuff.

I agree about the dirt passing through those filters. Five of the 107 MAFs were damaged due to dirt. That's a big percentage of failure for a product that claims to be an effective filter. Considering the MAF sensor only occupies a small portion of the flow area, the vast majority of dirt goes in the engine.

Maybe I can make a transitional part to adapt the scoop from my Vararam to my OEM airbox and get the best of both.

[Big Poppa]

Maybe I can make a transitional part to adapt the scoop from my Vararam to my OEM airbox and get the best of both.

It's all about super glue and duct tape...

[Two Fangs]

I will agree with you there. So the oil has been ruled out as a MAF damaging factor, it does not rule out dirt that may have been allowed through, that argument they do not pursue. Still interesting though that out of the MAFs that K&N received from dealers as being bad, most, over 90%, were misdiagnosed.

[HOXXOH]

I will agree with you there. So the oil has been ruled out as a MAF damaging factor, it does not rule out dirt that may have been allowed through, that argument they do not pursue. Still interesting though that out of the MAFs that K&N received from dealers as being bad, most, over 90%, were misdiagnosed.

Now you really don't believe that all the mechanics that work on these cars understand what they're doing, do you?

[Two Fangs]

Now you really don't believe that all the mechanics that work on these cars understand what they're doing, do you?

Well, maybe not Cletus at Hank's Garage and Saloon, but certainly more than 10%, I would hope

[corvettech]

i agree a bunch of the old timer techs still miss the ole 4bbl rochester and will shot gun a sensor that corresponds to the code set without diagnosing. not to sure what anyone ever saw in a quadra puke though

[Two Fangs]

It's the metering rods, dude. Chicks dig metering rods. Of course, floats that can only be adjusted by taking the carburetor apart is another cool feature. And let's not forget the leaky plugs at the bottom of the float bowl. I mean really, what's not to like?