K&N air filters for my 2015 Genesis 5.0

[EdP]

Actually changes in airflow does affect the 5.0 engine parameters in which the engine make changes for by advancing/retarding timing, controlling fuel injector flow, adjust valve lift,etc to run at peak performance with the available airflow. Hence, why the engine will still run smooth even if the stock air filter is dirty by adjusting parameters to maintain a proper air fuel ratio to account for the reduced airflow compared to a clean stock air filter.

However, how much the 5.0 engine adjust to additional airflow over the stock air filters in up for debate since no one actually performed an proper test on the differences of the performance filter vs. the stock filter. Only speculative data exist based on individual perception(or theories) of possible gains or losses, including my own testimony.

Years ago we just took the air filter off the carburetor. I agree that better air flow is good, but I wonder if the electronics allow the engine to take full advantage. Fuel mileage is very important so I can see the mixture being altered for best combination of economy and pollution rather than performance. There may still be some gain, but perhaps not as much if sophisticated electronics did not intervene.

 

[inmanlanier]

Actually changes in airflow does affect the 5.0 engine parameters in which the engine make changes for by advancing/retarding timing, controlling fuel injector flow, adjust valve lift,etc to run at peak performance with the available airflow.

You ignored my use of the word 'nominal' as well as my clarification of 'all things being equal'. Of course, all the parameters at idle are substantially different than at full throttle. However, at any given point in the full throttle maps, I highly doubt there is any variation in parameters other than fuel quantity to keep the same AF ratio. In other words, a good example is a cold day vs. a hot day where your inlet air charge is 60 degrees F vs. 90 degrees F. I purport that in the situations of 'all things being equal' - and I'll spell that out for you - this means, it's the same place on the planet, the same time of day, the same tires, the same fuel in the tank, the car has been driven the same amount of time to get to the same full operating temperature, the throttle is in exactly the same position, you started your full throttle run from the same RPM point (get the hint now?!) - at 4100 RPM, full throttle, running through the band - the higher oxygen content should ONLY change the bandwidth on the injectors due to the higher oxygen content.

I'll also bet that you are mistaken about your idle example - with a dirty filter (and or colder conditions) the ONLY thing that likely changes at idle is the position of the idle air bypass valve and keeping the AF ratio the same (iterated by O2 sensor reading). I have never ventured into the Hyundai maps, but you are assuming far more adjustment to parameters than is likely programmed.

I now apologize for weighing in. I don't wish to get in nit-picky arguments over word-smithing. It's time to let the discussion go.

 

[EdP]

I now apologize for weighing in. I don't wish to get in nit-picky arguments over word-smithing. It's time to let the discussion go.

Nothing to apologize for. It is all theoretical until someone wants to pony up for lots of dyno testing. It does bring up some aspects of what is going on. It should not be an argument but a stimulant to think deeper and you added to that aspect.

 

[3.3 Rulz]

I always use K&N drop in air filters on all my cars, HP gain is not a concern to me, but I always notice a big difference in throttle response, so it's worth it IMO.
I always clean and re-oil once a year, but after cleaning it I let it dry for 24 hrs, then I lightly re-oil it, then let it out in open air for another 24 hrs, in the meantime I use the paper air filter that used to be on the car when stock, that way fresh oil that isn't completed absorbed and whatever evaporation there is won't be sucked into the engine, which I think would probably happen if I were to put in the air filter in the car right after re-oiling it.
And for good measure, whenever I go to the dealer for stuff I always put the stock air filter back in, and I clean up the engine bay so that it's not obvious that the engine air cover is clean while everything else is dusty.
I said filter and not "filters" because I don't have a Genesis, I still drive my 2015 Chrysler 200, V6, but I'm waiting for the GV70 or GV60 to come out, then I'll decide what I want then, if I can afford it.

 

[carguy75]

You ignored my use of the word 'nominal' as well as my clarification of 'all things being equal'. Of course, all the parameters at idle are substantially different than at full throttle. However, at any given point in the full throttle maps, I highly doubt there is any variation in parameters other than fuel quantity to keep the same AF ratio. In other words, a good example is a cold day vs. a hot day where your inlet air charge is 60 degrees F vs. 90 degrees F. I purport that in the situations of 'all things being equal' - and I'll spell that out for you - this means, it's the same place on the planet, the same time of day, the same tires, the same fuel in the tank, the car has been driven the same amount of time to get to the same full operating temperature, the throttle is in exactly the same position, you started your full throttle run from the same RPM point (get the hint now?!) - at 4100 RPM, full throttle, running through the band - the higher oxygen content should ONLY change the bandwidth on the injectors due to the higher oxygen content.

I'll also bet that you are mistaken about your idle example - with a dirty filter (and or colder conditions) the ONLY thing that likely changes at idle is the position of the idle air bypass valve and keeping the AF ratio the same (iterated by O2 sensor reading). I have never ventured into the Hyundai maps, but you are assuming far more adjustment to parameters than is likely programmed.

I now apologize for weighing in. I don't wish to get in nit-picky arguments over word-smithing. It's time to let the discussion go.

I agree with your last line in that post. It is time to end the discussion when members like yourself turns a debate into an argument. You are only posting your ideas of how this particular engine works such as myself and others which could be right or wrong.

The only person or persons that would know how the 5.0 Tau V8 engine really will respond to airflow changes would the be the engineer(s) that design the ECM engine control system and who are familiar with it parameters. The rest of us are just speculating on the ECU engine control headroom and limitations for change.

Therefore, no need to take it personal or attack anyone over this topic since none of us really have the true answers to how this engine really respond to performance filters other than individual subjective information not based on any real testing of this particular engine or exact operational information on its tuning parameters.

 

[carguy75]

Years ago we just took the air filter off the carburetor. I agree that better air flow is good, but I wonder if the electronics allow the engine to take full advantage. Fuel mileage is very important so I can see the mixture being altered for best combination of economy and pollution rather than performance. There may still be some gain, but perhaps not as much if sophisticated electronics did not intervene.

I beg to differ because modern electronic"involvement" actually allows for some powerful running engines compared to older"analog" engines of old with the same displacement. However, it all depends of the tuning and the ECU ability to adapt to changes such as increased airflow which varies from engine to engine.

Hell, even carburetor jets needed to be swapped to tune for a particular rpm range in older engnes based on airflow and cam profile. So engine tuning has always been a process that is now done on the fly by the stock ECU in most cases.

 

[EdP]

I beg to differ because modern electronic"involvement" actually allows for some powerful running engines compared to older"analog" engines of old with the same displacement. However, it all depends of the tuning and the ECU ability to adapt to changes such as increased airflow which varies from engine to engine.

Hell, even carburetor jets needed to be swapped to tune for a particular rpm range in older engnes based on airflow and cam profile. So engine tuning has always been a process that is now done on the fly by the stock ECU in most cases.

So where do you differ? You said the same thing i did. The ECU is controlling it but we don't know what limitations are programmed into it. We don't know how it varies.

Under the analog engines let's say changing the air adds 10 HP. That same electronic engine with the same air change may be capable of adding 15 HP but the ECU says, hey, we can add power but if we add too much it will pollute more so just add 5 HP. Maybe the engineers know but I don't think anyone here does.

You and I can add a tune or anything else we want. Genesis though, has emissions laws to comply with so there may be some restrictions. If you know how and what to change in the ECU, go for it.

 

[BlancaGenny]

This thread has been resurrected a few times and it always seems to run in circles. If I had an AWD dyno near me, I'd put it on here. I ordered a drop in filter last week just so she can breathe a bit better. I ran one in my Vette and 300 SRT8. Gas mileage is more likely to increase than horsepower. The factory filter is very restrictive so it should help.

The most accurate way to measure on a dyno is back to back runs. Same day, same place, same dyno, same parameters. But, it is never 100 percent accurate.

 

[inmanlanier]

Carguy - no matter how respectfully we try and point out that you don't have enough facts to support our concurrence, yet you dig in get bothered. We're not. Take a chill pill.

I believe you overestimate the functionality/capability of the car's ECUs. They operate off of a a series of fixed maps that drive the engine. In the early days of digital processing, they had (as I recall) about 6 different operating modes (cold start, warm start, steady state, idle, full throttle, etc. etc.) where they would use more and more inputs - but still fixed maps (It's been a while since I pulled up my old Bosch fuel injection design book). Today there are probably more modes and many more maps because memory and processors today are robust and much cheaper than before. We've also gotten more sophisticated in the 40 years or so of digital controls on engines.

With regard your claims to what is inferred as processors making infinite adjustments and tweaks... this is a rather broad brush to paint with no specifics. Here's some data however contra the inference. As an example, there's no computer controlling Ford's overhead cam advance and retard - that's done by a hydraulic system (oil pressure actuated phasers - one of the two main styles used today). The movement of the cams is a function of the positive displacement oil pump (which is a function of RPM). It basically (and not with tremendous accuracy) advances and retards of the cams as a function of RPM. It is NOT a function of air flow or throttle position - you get the same advance and retard at 3200 RPM each and every time you're there (albeit with some variation due to the inaccuracy of the oil control). There is no ECU tie reading the MAF and then making adjustments - it's all fixed flow paths of oil and only varies by pump output pressure. I've not reviewed this Genesis engine's cam design, but it may be similar if not the same. Yes, these systems are evolving, but are no where near what I believe you to think of 'infinitely adjustable'. As an oh, by the way - they were not designed as much to optimize power (although they do allow for a broader torque curve), but they were as much driven by OEMs desires to get rid of the problematic EGR systems (oxides of nitrogen in emissions to be more specific). Another oh, by the way - the more recent CTA (cam torque actuated) phasers still are RPM dependent (not ECU controlled) - they have fixed mechanical programs based on their design that are related to - guess what - RPM - not air flow or throttle position.

To other ECU functions - once the ECU maps are burned (call that the OEM tune) - they are not changed nor variable. They are fixed. I believe the only iterations done are in closed loop operation where they tune for O2 content in the exhaust (to infer the proper emission output). Some of the manufacturers do (like Ford I believe) have algorithms such that once you are steady state for a long time at highway conditions, it is tweaking the economy a little bit. I've never seen where any of the manufacturers build in AI type software to constantly rewrite maps in order to tweak peak power output. I'm pretty confident that's just not done!

The point of all this is that changing an air filter will not make a hill of beans difference in how the engine operates the cams, advances timing, or tweaks to optimize. It's going to have the exact same effect as if you drove your car in a 40 degree day vs. a 100 degree day - the colder air (with more oxygen in it BTW) will register a higher MAF flow rate. Your computer will compensate for that likely on the same ECU map by simply squirting just a little more fuel in to compensate. Since you have more oxygen and fuel, voila - you have more power. In the same manner, a lower restriction in your inlet tract (better air filter) allows lower differential pressure, which results in higher flow. Same effect.

Now - to how much more air flow - BlancaGenny said what we've all been saying this entire post - to quote - 'The most accurate way to measure on a dyno is back to back runs. Same day, same place, same dyno, same parameters. But, it is never 100 percent accurate. '.

It is great that you are so fervent about your claims. You're happy. We get it. Enjoy. Just please don't keep trying to convince us without that kind of data (dyno) as to the significance of the improvements you allege. We just don't have as much faith in your butt sensors as you do .

respectfully submitted

 

[carguy75]

Carguy - no matter how respectfully we try and point out that you don't have enough facts to support our concurrence, yet you dig in get bothered. We're not. Take a chill pill.

I believe you overestimate the functionality/capability of the car's ECUs. They operate off of a a series of fixed maps that drive the engine. In the early days of digital processing, they had (as I recall) about 6 different operating modes (cold start, warm start, steady state, idle, full throttle, etc. etc.) where they would use more and more inputs - but still fixed maps (It's been a while since I pulled up my old Bosch fuel injection design book). Today there are probably more modes and many more maps because memory and processors today are robust and much cheaper than before. We've also gotten more sophisticated in the 40 years or so of digital controls on engines.

With regard your claims to what is inferred as processors making infinite adjustments and tweaks... this is a rather broad brush to paint with no specifics. Here's some data however contra the inference. As an example, there's no computer controlling Ford's overhead cam advance and retard - that's done by a hydraulic system (oil pressure actuated phasers - one of the two main styles used today). The movement of the cams is a function of the positive displacement oil pump (which is a function of RPM). It basically (and not with tremendous accuracy) advances and retards of the cams as a function of RPM. It is NOT a function of air flow or throttle position - you get the same advance and retard at 3200 RPM each and every time you're there (albeit with some variation due to the inaccuracy of the oil control). There is no ECU tie reading the MAF and then making adjustments - it's all fixed flow paths of oil and only varies by pump output pressure. I've not reviewed this Genesis engine's cam design, but it may be similar if not the same. Yes, these systems are evolving, but are no where near what I believe you to think of 'infinitely adjustable'. As an oh, by the way - they were not designed as much to optimize power (although they do allow for a broader torque curve), but they were as much driven by OEMs desires to get rid of the problematic EGR systems (oxides of nitrogen in emissions to be more specific). Another oh, by the way - the more recent CTA (cam torque actuated) phasers still are RPM dependent (not ECU controlled) - they have fixed mechanical programs based on their design that are related to - guess what - RPM - not air flow or throttle position.

To other ECU functions - once the ECU maps are burned (call that the OEM tune) - they are not changed nor variable. They are fixed. I believe the only iterations done are in closed loop operation where they tune for O2 content in the exhaust (to infer the proper emission output). Some of the manufacturers do (like Ford I believe) have algorithms such that once you are steady state for a long time at highway conditions, it is tweaking the economy a little bit. I've never seen where any of the manufacturers build in AI type software to constantly rewrite maps in order to tweak peak power output. I'm pretty confident that's just not done!

The point of all this is that changing an air filter will not make a hill of beans difference in how the engine operates the cams, advances timing, or tweaks to optimize. It's going to have the exact same effect as if you drove your car in a 40 degree day vs. a 100 degree day - the colder air (with more oxygen in it BTW) will register a higher MAF flow rate. Your computer will compensate for that likely on the same ECU map by simply squirting just a little more fuel in to compensate. Since you have more oxygen and fuel, voila - you have more power. In the same manner, a lower restriction in your inlet tract (better air filter) allows lower differential pressure, which results in higher flow. Same effect.

Now - to how much more air flow - BlancaGenny said what we've all been saying this entire post - to quote - 'The most accurate way to measure on a dyno is back to back runs. Same day, same place, same dyno, same parameters. But, it is never 100 percent accurate. '.

It is great that you are so fervent about your claims. You're happy. We get it. Enjoy. Just please don't keep trying to convince us without that kind of data (dyno) as to the significance of the improvements you allege. We just don't have as much faith in your butt sensors as you do .

respectfully submitted

I am cool thank you.

For someone that stated it was time to let the discussion go, you posted a long post yet again that incorrectly states that I believe the engine ECU has an ability to perform "infinite" adjustments to the engine. However, I do believe the ECU in the Genesis is very advanced and can make "numerous" changes based on various changes in the parameters the engine encounters. Not infinite since the engine does have a range of acceptable values that it is guided by I assume.

Furthermore, I will not be forced to limit my observations to a manner that you or anyone feels is satisfactory. I decided to use my own personal observations of how my 2015 5.0 engine responded to K&N filters. If you need dyno proof , then you can purchase the K&N filters and test them until you are satisfied with the testing results.

I personally have better use for my money than to rent a dyno to prove anything to you or anyone else.

My 5.0 engine runs stronger with the twin K&N filters, nuff said on my part. Do I know what chnages in the engine actual benefited from the performance filter and caused the improvement? Not really. No amount of quack science posts by you trying to prove otherwise will change my opinion. However, I will take your posts serious if you actually show me some data from a 5.0 TAU engine instead of your rantings covered in hypothetical opinions on how this engine ECU should operate.

So unless you have some actually hard data for the 5.0 V8 in question to add to your statements, lets end this pointless debate.

Note: The 5.0 engine does not even have a MAF sensor. It uses a MAP sensor. That error in itself states how much you know about the this engine, which is not much. Ford and Hyundai are not the same, and should not be compared.

This is how the 5.0 CVVT function per Hyundai, which states the ECU does control the timing not oil pressure only. However you are correct that it has nothing to do with airflow.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Alfer]

Isn't there a technical name for the phenomena for stuff like this?

It reminds me of the folks who spend literally THOUSANDS of dollars on audio and video cables and make all kinds of crazy claims like "felt like a veil was lifted" "The bass was punchier" and so on but in reality, when an A/B blind test was done, these folks couldn't tell the difference between high priced cables and cables you would get from Walmart.

Seems we are in the same mode here. A persons brain has tricked them into thinking that because the filter is "higher end" than standard filters, then therefore I WILL FEEL differences in performance. When in reality, it would be impossible for the human body to feel any change in most if not all cases like this.

 

[carguy75]

Isn't there a technical name for the phenomena for stuff like this?

It reminds me of the folks who spend literally THOUSANDS of dollars on audio and video cables and make all kinds of crazy claims like "felt like a veil was lifted" "The bass was punchier" and so on but in reality, when an A/B blind test was done, these folks couldn't tell the difference between high priced cables and cables you would get from Walmart.

Seems we are in the same mode here. A persons brain has tricked them into thinking that because the filter is "higher end" than standard filters, then therefore I WILL FEEL differences in performance. When in reality, it would be impossible for the human body to feel any change in most if not all cases like this.

How do know that the people in question did not perceive a change in sound quality with the high end upgraded components?

Is your statement a fact or personal opinion based on your own bias thinking in regards to wasting money on "high end" components?

 

[Alfer]

Never said that they didn't perceive a change.

 

[carguy75]

Never said that they didn't perceive a change.

Fair enough.

Could you post a link to the A/B audio cable test you are referring to? How large was the sample size for the people who were tested. How many chose the high end cable as opposed to the cheaper cable?

 

[EdP]

How do know that the people in question did not perceive a change in sound quality with the high end upgraded components?

Is your statement a fact or personal opinion based on your own bias thinking in regards to wasting money on "high end" components?

Some years ago Stereo Review magazine did some A-B testing on cables. In blind tests listeners could not tell the difference between Monster Cable and plain lamp cord. Of course, the Monster Cables have no oxygen in their copper.

 

[carguy75]

Some years ago Stereo Review magazine did some A-B testing on cables. In blind tests listeners could not tell the difference between Monster Cable and plain lamp cord. Of course, the Monster Cables have no oxygen in their copper.

LOL. I have to look that up. I agree that copper speaker wire gauge size is more important than gimics like no oxygen. However, I would not say that no person can tell the difference as blanket statement. I am sure that someone in the test picked the Monster cable.

 

[Alfer]

LOL. I have to look that up. I agree that copper speaker wire gauge size is more important than gimics like no oxygen. However, I would not say that no person can tell the difference as blanket statement. I am sure that someone in the test picked the Monster cable.

I'm sure someone did, but odds are they did it by chance not by being able to hear audible differences.

 

[G-822672]

Free flowing filters work for the same reasons physics-wise as free flowing exhausts do: pumping effencies.

free experiment, remove your stock air filters and drive without them for a few days, then put them back in. If you can feel a difference, you’ll probably feel it with k&n’s too.

 

[inmanlanier]

I think I did a poor job with my font on my valediction. I should have bolded the 'respectfully submitted'. 'nuff said. I bow to the relentless.

 

[TinsleyC]

Manufacturers typically brag a bit about their products. K&N states this on the Amazon page where I located their air filter for my G80. For $62, I'll skip the extra 1-4 HP.

Designed to Increase Horsepower with up to 50% More Airflow

K&N automotive OE (original equipment) replacement air filters generally add 1 to 4 horsepower, due to the unique characteristics of our filter media.