K&N v Standard part 2

[MikeH]

Heres the other graph we got from the runs at RS Tuning, this one has the air:fuel ratios across the rev range (sorry if this is getting a bit boring, but there is a point)



The strange thing is the Apollo gives a better AFR at the lower rev ranges, I may be wrong but that could indicate that the filter element could actually allow a better air flow??

If we look at the inlet


Its huge!! but the cone sits too close to the filter housing leaving a thumbs width all the way round. I was wondering if we adapted the casing to give more of a filter 'box' so that the cone wasnt so close to the tip of the filter cone and not a thumbs width, if we could actually make a better cold intake.


Any thoughts would be much appreciated......

 

[RSTuning]

The initial AFR could just be down to the gas speed at low RPM as we are measuring on the tailpipe. You know my thoughts on the filter

 

[MikeH]

Lol, ok Paul cheers for the info, I'm gonna crack this air box problem one way or another! I'm gonna ply some of our plant design engineers for info on improving the intake system see if they can earn their money...

 

[BenW]

You can get better power by running a bit rich which doesn't straight away make the K&N better at low rpm. And when running at higher rpm it may be that the mixture is just too rich (There is a limit to how rich you can run!).

You need more air coming through the filter at high speed and load, if the filter isn't letting enough air through this could be one reason you see it running richer than standard at high rom (FWIW the theoretically ideal AFR is about 14.5)