25 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHIntakes
Leading reported evidence
Replace theirs at some point as a matter of course
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I had understood that MAF sensors were consumable on this car, ie most people will replace theirs at some point as a matter of course?
Leading evidence: 'Replace theirs at some point as a matter of course' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace theirs at some point as a matter of course' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
We've run the oiled one on our C2 for almost 9months and had plenty of others we installed/sold without issues
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
25 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Sorry haven't read past threads on topic, but which is best out the two intakes for performance and no MAS problems. The Evo or K&N FIPK intake? Thanks JW
I have an Evo V-flow ands have no problems, but regardless, if you over-oil/incorrectly oil your K&N filter, then you will trash your MAF... treat with care.
Here you go
http://www.aempower.com/ViewCategory.aspx?CategoryID=93
there are some other Brands that make em too. I dont think K&N has got one yet. I dont know whihc one EVO supplies, probely their own...
We've run the oiled one on our C2 for almost 9months and had plenty of others we installed/sold without issues
It's more an issue IF you try to clean it and re-oil it and put too much on. The MAF issue is one that's on the turbo cars and not on the NA cars...
There is no data (an actual study with some real sample sizes) to say which is better or if they actually improve performance. There are plenty of "feelings" though. BTW, there is a study about oil on MAFs and there is
no effect
:
http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/massairfindings.htm
As Sharky says...the main issue with MAFs and intakes is on turbos.
Why even bother with an oiled-filter to begin with when there is no measurable performance gain compared to a non-oiled filter? We know oil will contaminate and can ruin the MAF, that debate ended a long time ago.
Yes, read their webpage and then ask K&N about the Porsche owners (there is more than one) they've reimbursed for damaged MAFs caused by their oiled filter.
The question is which delivers the most performance for the buck, the k&n fipk is twice the cost of the evo system. Anyone have hard facts on the two? Thanks.
I have the K&N kit and didn't know better to remove the access oil that it is stored with when it comes from the manufacturer. I got a CEL and simply removed the MAF, sprayed it with electronic contact cleaner, and replaced. No further problems.
I had the Fabspeed intake intalled in my car for a while and had no issues, I love the sound of the engine above 4k rpm..they claim a small increase in hp.. I really dont think that any brand of intake will give you significant gains, only a nicer sounding engine..
I never dynoed the intake separately. On A dynojet 248C, my baseline was 270.1 rwhp peak @ 6200 rpms completely stock. With the K&N 63 series and a pair of used Fabspeed Muffers I made 292.1 rwhp peak @ 6600 rpms. So, yes I made a true 22 rwhp increase from just an intake and mufflers. This works out to a gain of 25 hp at the flywheel (net). I was 15 rwhp higher than my baseline at 4400 rpms and almost 30 rwhp higher at the limiter with the intake and exhaust. I have asked many times, but no one has yet been able to show an independant dyno from the EVO intake for comparison.
