I've read this whole trail and am surprised at all the back and forth.
Time for some axioms - as my bud says - the laws of physics are immutable. YES - a lower restriction - you get more flow. I can show you the engineering equations that have been proven time and time again. No doubt about it. Engines are simply air pumps - fuel is not the limitation - air flow is. The more air you get in the more HP you will produce. Period. That's an axiom - period. NO - filtration is not necessarily inversely related to flow (i.e. better flow means worse filtration); hence why in many industries filtration is rated by 'efficiency'. And no, oil based filters do NOT mean they don't filter. I've never seen the explanation about the method of the K&N filters (until now viewing the Aussie video link above), but I've seen enough tests to show they DO flow better and guess what - they also filter fine. The 'Aussie's' report on why the filter works seems to make sense to me. Why do you think we have volumetric efficiencies greater than 1 in normally aspirated engines? The Ford Coyote engine (10+ years old now?) blew everyone away with it's published data when it came out - a peak volumetric efficiency approaching 1.15! How did they do that? With the same acoustics (i.e. pulsations) that the Aussie talks about and tuning for it. And if you don't know what I mean when I say that you have simply proven my point then you shouldn't be making blanket statements of what can or can't be. With steady air flow (i.e. non pulsed) it's physically impossible to get a volumetric efficiency greater than one. With pulsing flow, however due to valves opening and closing - and playing with lengths and diameters - at various RPM (i.e. frequencies), you can design your flow tubes to benefit from the pressure pulses going back and forth (acoustics). This to me is a plausible explanation for how the K&N filters both flow well and also effectively filter. As the dirt particles move through that larger opening through which they try and flow - the movement of the element allows the oil to 'grab' the dirt.
With respect, Carguy75 - had you run your on-board testing software first with the paper filters and gotten a time, then within a very short time swapped filters to K&Ns and rerun the same exact tests on the same day, on the same road, by making many runs, with very similar atmospheric conditions - not only do I think you would be surprised at how close the times would end up, but you would have garnered the respect of those doubting the credibility of your claims. I agree with you that there are gains in air flow and power from the K&Ns; I just believe they are small compared to your claims. I'll bet your variations in each run time would be greater than the average improvement after K&N vs. before.
There is HUGE variability from time to time with regard test conditions. Heck - look at how Motor Trend screwed up quoting the C8 dyno data!
Bottom line is, you can't compare your test for your car after swapping filters to some other vehicle tested some other time, with Lord knows what conditions and claim the difference is valid and representative of an improvement due to your filters.
Having said that, like I said before - you think you've made great gains and you're happy with your thoughts there - so - GOOD FOR YOU! Rock and roll and celebrate. Just recognize that scientifically minded folks with engineering backgrounds and data focused brains are going to doubt your claims with just one test, comparing that data to another over in Oz land, and purporting that the differences (which as documented above reflects large HP gains) are plausible and credible. HP calculators abound from empirical tests over the years. They show that a 0.3 second improvement is a substantial gain in power - quite a bit more than any gains I've seen before on K&Ns.
Some time back I wanted to update my Jag with a tune - I was able to purchase one with a 7 day unconditional return policy. My buddy and I then set out to run tests (like you - I didn't want to spend a few hundred bucks on dyno tests. Because just like your test - on a dyno you need to make several pulls to see what is really representative. So, my buddy and I went out and did at least 20 pulls AT SPEED (not zero to 60) with a stop watch and paper. We did single gear pulls, usually at 50 plus MPH to 90 or 100 - and used a stop watch, usually 3,000 RPM to 6000. This is because the variables of launch and other low speed dynamics introduce a lot of variation. Speed, however is where the wind drag is much more repeatable. We did both directions to account for wind. For our tests, I'd start at the same RPM, count down my launch, then advise the tach RPM as we approached the top RPM mark so my bud could get ready for the stop click. We did it many times because just between us speaking the variations in time from pressing start and stop, me reading RPM out, etc. were large. It was only after many many pulls that we had a central tendency (average) of change that was measurable - and it was not large. It was there - but the variations from any given run could have been greater than average tune improvement. For you to have plausible results with your zero to sixty timer - you need to do multiple pulls in each direction, and you should do it with both the paper and K&N in order to have meaningful data.
Again - good for you - you're very happy with the results. Enjoy and relax. Just don't try and convince everyone else on the planet with your very limited data that what you speak is verifiable. Don't forget - I'm on your side there are HP gains with K&N, just that I don't think they are anywhere as large as you purport. I state this with respect to your zeal.
. Likely in a year or two they will be K&Ns. Other than the Jag, K&N is the only filter I've ever put in my vehicles.
