13 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHK&N CAI on 2002 or newer
Reported or suspected cause
fabspeed exhaust
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
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 suspect a cause
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.
Suspected cause
It would be interesting to know how much of the 22 rwhp is attributed to the K&N and how much is due to the a Fabspeed exhaust.
Leading evidence: 'fabspeed exhaust' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'fabspeed exhaust' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Test together' (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
Getting exact numbers for each is an interesting task as the gains from each individually combined may not be the same as them testing together.
Use pressure sprayer and again, absolutely no problems
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 have made several trips to the car wash using a pressure sprayer and again, absolutely no problems.
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.
13 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.
Outcome without a verified action link
You make valid points, but many are still having problems.
I have a 2003 C4S with X51, Maxflow mufflers and Powerchip programming. The K&N CAI was supposed to boost hp from 365 to 375 peak and up to 20 hp max around 5700 rpm (but I'm guessing it was more like 5 peak and 10 max). If it were a quality system I wouldn't complain. But it is a very low quality system. You will end up throwing it away and buying the EVO Motorsports kit, so save the time and money and go directly to the quality system.
And while I'm mentioning the fact that all will throw away the K&N system, I've seen a few posts suggesting the systems be sold on EBay. This would be a nasty thing to do to your fellow Porschephiles! Just throw them away. Consider it a favor...
No problems here, but I added 2 additiional mounts when I installed it (<$10). I never trust "butt dynos" or what people "think" they are getting. If you want to know if you are getting your money worth, dyno before and after. My car made a 22 rwhp with a K&N 63 series intake and a Fabspeed exhaust over my stock baseline on a chassis dyno. My initial power peak was at 6200 rpms stock, but it moved up to 6600 rpms with the intake and exhaust. I made 15 rwhp more at 4400 rpms and almost 30 rwhp more at the limiter. Yes, I can feel it; but now I have proof (not speculation). Why exactly would anyone want to throw this away? For what reason whould I want to go to an EVOMS intake instead?
If you can afford to pay the extra $350 for the EVOMS intake (I only paid $247.95 shipped for my K&N 63 series), then you should be able to afford to pay $30-50 for a couple dyno days. I am still looking for some independant dynoes to show Powerchip, Upsolute and GIAC re-programs actually make real gains.
I've had it for 6 weeks now and it's still sitting in my garage because of all these problems........... Maybe the EVo is the only way to go..... Hey, Dan from VividRacing how about a refund???
Yes it would be, but I'm not going to be the one to figure it out. I do know that 20 rwhp was not form the exhaust and 20 rwhp was not from the intake. Getting exact numbers for each is an interesting task as the gains from each individually combined may not be the same as them testing together.
MJET, if you have it sitting in your garage and not one your car then how do you know if there are any problems or not?
Why would anyone want to throw it away?
You spent a lot of money for your car, why would you want an inferior system when the cost is only a few bucks? Also, the K&N system is not all-weather. Do you plan to use it in the rain? And even though you believe adding $10 worth of extra parts makes it OK, Porsche engineers (the standard of excellence you paid for when you purchased the car) would probably disagree.
I hope you a least kept the original parts...
First, I have yet to see proof that this system is inferior. Both the EVOMS and the K&N expose the air filter under the rear lid. What makes you think there is any better or less protection from the elements with the EVOMS intake? There are several people who have driven in the rain with the K&N and have no problem. My car has been driven in the rain and there were no problems. I have made several trips to the car wash using a pressure sprayer and again, absolutely no problems. K&N had the common sense to give a warning, but must not have looked at the structure of the rear lid which deflects and flows water to the sides to drain properly. Have you notices that the olde Powerflow intake and TPC supercharger kits that place the filter also unexposed in the same location don't have problems with water?
Actually, it is not a valid point. The K&N filter is directly below the fan, the EVOMS filter is not at all exposed. Perhaps you should take a look. I am not a vendor. This is not an advertisement. It is a WARNING. Take it or leave it.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
