AGP Turbo Air Filter Restriction - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

20142SS · 01-05-2019, 02:52 PM

Searched thru this forum, and goggle, not much info about this out there.

How many of you high hp guys(1200+) run into issues with size of the supplied 4” to 3” coupler using the 5111 air filter? What did you do to overcome this if anything?

Tried fitting a 4” to 4” coupler and like size filter but not much room
under there.

Thanks

fif_gen_powa · 01-05-2019, 05:18 PM

Something like a turbo guard max screen type will pick up some power if you're ok with not running filters

Unavowed · 01-05-2019, 07:51 PM

https://turbo-guard.com

20142SS · 01-05-2019, 08:24 PM

Thanks for replies.

Does anyone have any back to back runs to validate this as a gainer?
Would really need it to be a big improvement for the risk involved

Unavowed · 01-05-2019, 08:49 PM

I ditched my filters @ 18 months ago. My car is a fair weather cruiser and track toy, so the risk is minimal for me. If you daily, I'd leave the filters on, but then pull them for the dyno and track.

20142SS · 01-05-2019, 08:58 PM

Which version turbo guard did you go with? Did you do any pulls to validate is was an improvement performance wise? I understand and know first hand the filters collapse, just curious if you had numbers to show for it?

Unavowed · 01-05-2019, 10:16 PM

It was done on the dyno during a tuning session, but with all of the other changes that were being made I can't say specifically what difference losing the filters made.

RealQuick · 01-06-2019, 12:48 PM

If they collapse, they are definitely a restriction. You will see gains by going to a screen.

stevieturbo · 01-06-2019, 01:48 PM

Most K&N's end up like that over time regardless on most applications.

If you think they are a restriction, then monitor pressure at the filter and/or dyno with and without

20142SS · 01-06-2019, 04:11 PM

Yeah, definitely agree with you “stevieturbo” on what happens to any k&n over time.

When referring to the cfm calculations for cfm and surface area requirements for this setup, these filters come in way under the recommendedations due to the low cfm flow. However, not everything is explained and realized thru calculations alone, that is why I was look for actual raw data from a back to back dyno.

Like I was saying before, I personally would need to see 75+ horsepower freed up to justify the risk of running without any filter at all. I have cleaned out several small pebble like rocks out of the pleats of these filters. If I was running the turboguard, even the design with the finer screen, these things could pass thru into the turbo and the rest is history.

RealQuick · 01-06-2019, 04:34 PM

The length and diameter of the pipes plays a role too. On my single 76 setup I went from ~30” of 3.5” pipe and a 3.5 x 5” filter, and switched to a screen. I don’t remember exact numbers, but I had to up my fueling by ~8% due to the increased air. This would indicate a decent gain in power. When on the dyno I had made other changes too, so I can’t say how much power was gained from the screen alone. With screen, wastegate dumped to atmosphere (vs recirculating before) and twin 2.5” cutouts I gained 104rwhp. Keep in mind this was on a single setup.

stevieturbo · 01-06-2019, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealQuick

The length and diameter of the pipes plays a role too. On my single 76 setup I went from ~30” of 3.5” pipe and a 3.5 x 5” filter, and switched to a screen. I don’t remember exact numbers, but I had to up my fueling by ~8% due to the increased air. This would indicate a decent gain in power. When on the dyno I had made other changes too, so I can’t say how much power was gained from the screen alone. With screen, wastegate dumped to atmosphere (vs recirculating before) and twin 2.5” cutouts I gained 104rwhp. Keep in mind this was on a single setup.

Too many changes there to attribute gains to any 1 thing.

Even switching to discharging the gate externally can make a big difference to tuning.

I did see something years ago where K&N rate their filters for a boosted application something like 1.7x the n/a numbers. Although ultimately what any of them mean, and how much they would restrict or limit power is a mystery anyway

It would be nice to see Engine Masters or someone do some tests, right from ridiculously small filters through to big ones, and the crappy guards and mesh that filter nothing.

RealQuick · 01-06-2019, 06:06 PM

The 8% gain in fuel requirement was filter to screen only. With the other two changes (gate and cutout), total fueling change I wanna say was close to 20%.

As far as the dyno gain, yeah, can’t extrapolate how much was screen only.

20142SS · 01-06-2019, 06:12 PM

All good info.

One other thing to take in consideration with gains attributed to exhaust cutouts and/or air inlet changes is this: You might see your power numbers go up and fueling requirements increase, more than likely your boost increased with no changes on the boost controller. Now that’s good to free up “boost” by making your setup more efficient, but did you actually gain power at that same boost level?

My experience with exhaust cutouts, firsthand on the dyno is this. With my exhaust going thru tail pipes, I made 1072 at 21.8psi. I opened the cutouts, dialed down the go fast bits boost controller 6 points from 62 to 56, and the car made 1065 at 21psi. Basically the power was almost the same since I compensated for the turbos not having to work as hard. If I had not touched the boost controller and with cutouts opened, I would have put down 60 more horsepower but at 24.5 pounds of boost. Efficiency was gained, but overall power at same boost level was close to the same.

I share this info because I feel this is exactly what is happening with most people taking air filters off. Sure you gain efficiency, which is great, but are you really gaining horsepower at the same boost level? If your iats are in check, and your turbos aren’t maxed out, I really don’t see a good reason to run filter less.

01-05-2019, 02:52 PM	#1
20142SS Drives: 2014 Camaro ss Join Date: May 2017 Location: Katy tx Posts: 28	AGP Turbo Air Filter Restriction Searched thru this forum, and goggle, not much info about this out there. How many of you high hp guys(1200+) run into issues with size of the supplied 4” to 3” coupler using the 5111 air filter? What did you do to overcome this if anything? Tried fitting a 4” to 4” coupler and like size filter but not much room under there. Thanks Last edited by 20142SS; 01-05-2019 at 05:41 PM.

01-05-2019, 05:18 PM	#2
fif_gen_powa Drives: 2013 Camaro SS Turbo Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: South Florida Posts: 1,525	Something like a turbo guard max screen type will pick up some power if you're ok with not running filters __________________ 388ci 91/104 Turbo TH400 8.3@164 https://instagram.com/turbo_ls3/

01-05-2019, 07:51 PM	#3
Unavowed Drives: Twin turbo G8 GXP Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: MD Posts: 454	https://turbo-guard.com __________________ 9.88 @ 144 https://youtu.be/nN0rz1RAcJw

01-05-2019, 08:49 PM	#5
Unavowed Drives: Twin turbo G8 GXP Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: MD Posts: 454	I ditched my filters @ 18 months ago. My car is a fair weather cruiser and track toy, so the risk is minimal for me. If you daily, I'd leave the filters on, but then pull them for the dyno and track. Attached Images __________________ 9.88 @ 144 https://youtu.be/nN0rz1RAcJw

01-05-2019, 10:16 PM	#7
Unavowed Drives: Twin turbo G8 GXP Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: MD Posts: 454	It was done on the dyno during a tuning session, but with all of the other changes that were being made I can't say specifically what difference losing the filters made. __________________ 9.88 @ 144 https://youtu.be/nN0rz1RAcJw

01-05-2019, 08:24 PM	#4
20142SS Drives: 2014 Camaro ss Join Date: May 2017 Location: Katy tx Posts: 28	Thanks for replies. Does anyone have any back to back runs to validate this as a gainer? Would really need it to be a big improvement for the risk involved

01-05-2019, 08:58 PM	#6
20142SS Drives: 2014 Camaro ss Join Date: May 2017 Location: Katy tx Posts: 28	Which version turbo guard did you go with? Did you do any pulls to validate is was an improvement performance wise? I understand and know first hand the filters collapse, just curious if you had numbers to show for it?

01-06-2019, 12:48 PM	#8
RealQuick Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS M6 - Intake/Exhaust Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bridgewater Posts: 693	If they collapse, they are definitely a restriction. You will see gains by going to a screen.

01-06-2019, 01:48 PM	#9
stevieturbo Drives: it changes Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Norn Iron Posts: 1,126	Most K&N's end up like that over time regardless on most applications. If you think they are a restriction, then monitor pressure at the filter and/or dyno with and without

01-06-2019, 04:11 PM	#10
20142SS Drives: 2014 Camaro ss Join Date: May 2017 Location: Katy tx Posts: 28	Yeah, definitely agree with you “stevieturbo” on what happens to any k&n over time. When referring to the cfm calculations for cfm and surface area requirements for this setup, these filters come in way under the recommendedations due to the low cfm flow. However, not everything is explained and realized thru calculations alone, that is why I was look for actual raw data from a back to back dyno. Like I was saying before, I personally would need to see 75+ horsepower freed up to justify the risk of running without any filter at all. I have cleaned out several small pebble like rocks out of the pleats of these filters. If I was running the turboguard, even the design with the finer screen, these things could pass thru into the turbo and the rest is history.

01-06-2019, 04:34 PM	#11
RealQuick Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS M6 - Intake/Exhaust Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bridgewater Posts: 693	The length and diameter of the pipes plays a role too. On my single 76 setup I went from ~30” of 3.5” pipe and a 3.5 x 5” filter, and switched to a screen. I don’t remember exact numbers, but I had to up my fueling by ~8% due to the increased air. This would indicate a decent gain in power. When on the dyno I had made other changes too, so I can’t say how much power was gained from the screen alone. With screen, wastegate dumped to atmosphere (vs recirculating before) and twin 2.5” cutouts I gained 104rwhp. Keep in mind this was on a single setup.

01-06-2019, 06:06 PM	#13
RealQuick Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS M6 - Intake/Exhaust Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bridgewater Posts: 693	The 8% gain in fuel requirement was filter to screen only. With the other two changes (gate and cutout), total fueling change I wanna say was close to 20%. As far as the dyno gain, yeah, can’t extrapolate how much was screen only.

01-06-2019, 06:12 PM	#14
20142SS Drives: 2014 Camaro ss Join Date: May 2017 Location: Katy tx Posts: 28	All good info. One other thing to take in consideration with gains attributed to exhaust cutouts and/or air inlet changes is this: You might see your power numbers go up and fueling requirements increase, more than likely your boost increased with no changes on the boost controller. Now that’s good to free up “boost” by making your setup more efficient, but did you actually gain power at that same boost level? My experience with exhaust cutouts, firsthand on the dyno is this. With my exhaust going thru tail pipes, I made 1072 at 21.8psi. I opened the cutouts, dialed down the go fast bits boost controller 6 points from 62 to 56, and the car made 1065 at 21psi. Basically the power was almost the same since I compensated for the turbos not having to work as hard. If I had not touched the boost controller and with cutouts opened, I would have put down 60 more horsepower but at 24.5 pounds of boost. Efficiency was gained, but overall power at same boost level was close to the same. I share this info because I feel this is exactly what is happening with most people taking air filters off. Sure you gain efficiency, which is great, but are you really gaining horsepower at the same boost level? If your iats are in check, and your turbos aren’t maxed out, I really don’t see a good reason to run filter less.