Installed K&N 57s-3300 on my T-Jet engine, same air quantity amount?

[onnaj]

Hi there,

I'm driving a bone stock Grande Punto 1.4 t-jet engine and I love the engine.

To get a little bit more out of it I've installed a k&n 57s-3300 kit. This is a kit which comes with a open air filter and a new lid for the oem airbox, so it's a closed system. I like that while I don't get extra noise and I'm still getting cold air but then with an open air intake. All that with an almost oem look

I've also installed this, while in the near future I won't to do a remap

I did some logs with multiecuscan though and the air quantity she's taking is exactly the same as before I've installed the intake kit. Is this because the fact that the (untuned) engine just can't take more air in it, then it does at the moment?

 

[chris3234]

That sounds about right manufactures don't spend tens of thousands designing car's if the permance could have any meaningful increase of power with a £50 air Intake kit
Is the old airbox just empty now?
As I think the change form the pipe to a empty air box and back to a pipe again won't be helping airflow any

 

[portland_bill]

Airflow into the engine is determined by valve opening and area, along with piston movement and atmospheric air pressure. A bigger hole will not change that. To burn more fuel, you need more air, and to achieve that you need bigger valves, or open them further, or push the air in with a turbo or supercharger. Simple physics.

Then of course there is the restriction in the intake called the throttle butterfly. Unless wide open, it is doing its job of restricting airflow, to give you some control.

The vehicle manufacturer's engineers have spent many hours and lots of money getting this right. They achieve a compromise of power and drivability. They could produce more power, but then taking it to the shops, or commuting to work might become hard work. More power will use more fuel. Chipping it will just alter the fuel map, and whilst this may move the power around in the rev range, it is unlikely to achieve much more at the top end, unless combined with serious engine work. Your emissions will get worse, and whilst unlikely to be measured by any government test, you should feel guilty about that. The air filter will gently fill with dust. The filter airflow characteristics are specified to allow full airflow, right up to the normal change intervals, with some margin for dustier conditions. The standard filter will only become restrictive once the engine is properly tuned. To allow more air in, you either need a larger filter surface area, or bigger holes. Take an original filter and dismantle it, open out the filter paper, it is a large area. (It is fascinating to watch a long roll of paper being embossed to create the lumps to stop the papers touching, then folded by machine, to be cut off to size. Been there, seen that) The K&N if dismantled will probably not exceed this, just have bigger holes. Bigger holes allow more contaminants in.

Going faster gets you to the back of the next queue sooner. Although, with the current lockdown, roads are quieter, so more enjoyable, if you can find a good reason to travel. A usual 90-100 minute journey yesterday took 75 minutes.

 

[s130]

Automotive development and testing technology has moved on considerably since the 50s,60s,70s and 80s.

Back then then to get increased torque/power then the easiest and cheapset solution was just to put a bigger engine in. Emissions, fuel consumption/cost were not a issue. Fitting a performance air filter and exhaust system could by you 5%, 10% or even 15% (extreme cases) with no other modifications.

These days the ball game is completely different. Manufacturers strive to achieve the maximum performance from the smallest cc engine with the lowest emissions over the full life cycle of the modern combustion engine (hopefully 10 years / 100,000 miles at least).

To this end every detail and component is closely analysed and tested. So the manufacturer's stock air filter is well up to the task required of it. Fitting a performance filter is not really going to change anything unless you start doing more radical changes such as complete new exhaust system together with increased fuelling and increased turbo boost, inlet manifold/plenum chamber changes etc. To get a noticeable performance increase (as proved on dyno AND track testing) then one has to spent a shed load of money (IMHO).

Where the K&N filter does have an appeal is on sound (if open) and it is a lifetime filter BUT ReQUIRES maintenance. If one assumes that for 100K miles you will use between 5 and 8 manufacturer filters then at Fiat filter prices the K&N will pay for itself.

HOWEVER. Unlike in the old days if you look at you Fiat Mopar filter then it will have the Fiat part number but will also carry the name of the original OEM maker for Fiat. e.g. MAHLE, or BOSCH, etc. The Fiat/Mopar filter will cost you say £15. The Mahle/Bosch just say £7. When you take this into account then the K&N's price and life advantage are somewhat reduced. Just buy a new OEM filter as used by Fiat and forego the required K&N maintenance work.

Interestingly with modern cars the "tinkering" of all things we used to do are no longer really of much use any more. One of the few exceptions to this is in styling and looks. Even the bog standard suspension systems and tyres fitted to modern cars are far more carefully designed and whilst improvements can be made it is not always that easy/advantageous.

On this last point if I take the 500X as an example then the stock 18" alloys with 225 low profile tyres deliver exceptional handling for a small SUV / Hatchback. However some 500X owners have found the ride/handling too aggressive and have changed to 17" alloys with higher profile tyres.

Summary. Generally modern cars come pretty well fettled in all departments (competition is tough and brand loyalty is low) otherwise they won't sell any models.

 

[onnaj]

That sounds about right manufactures don't spend tens of thousands designing car's if the permance could have any meaningful increase of power with a £50 air Intake kit
Is the old airbox just empty now?

As I think the change form the pipe to a empty air box and back to a pipe again won't be helping airflow any

The box isn't empty, the k&n sits in the oem box and the kit came with a new k&n lid for it. So it's a closed system with an 'open' air intake

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

Been trying to think what I might add to the excellent advice given above but it's difficult as I think you've all covered pretty much all aspects.

Oiled aftermarket filters have always had a question mark hanging over their performance as they age. Broadly this has two aspects. They have to be cleaned very thoroughly at regular intervals and it's very likely that a certain percentage of filter area will be lost due to inefficient cleaning (which will vary depending on the cleaning regime) This effect is likely to be cumulative. Then there's the fact that they have to be reoiled. This needs to be done very sparingly but at the same time achieving a complete surface coverage. This is difficult to do. Over oiling the element is likely to allow oil mist residue to contaminate MAF sensors etc (mine only has a MAP so I suppose it wouldn't affect me) and not wetting with enough oil will allow increased contaminant content in the air supply to the engine.

The college I attended, many years ago now, had a dedicated engine room where we learned to strip, assess and rebuild engines (mostly B Series BMC units belonging to the college) There was also a Froude water brake (Dymamometer) which we used to do power/fuel consumption/etc test runs on and experiment with ignition advance curves etc. As the result of an argument with the lecturer in charge about air filters he sent us off with a bunch of cash (surprisingly trusting of him as there was a good pub on the corner by the college gates) to buy a selection of filters for the 6 cylinder Vauxhall engine which was at that time mounted on the dyno. We visited a number of suppliers and purchased a number of standard paper elements, all different makes. Then mounted them up on the engine and - having made sure there was no vacuum leaks, especially at the filter holder to manifold joint, we plotted vacuum before and after the throttle butterfly at various revs, in steps of 500, up to about 5,000 rpm (if I remember). I don't remember any significant difference in results between the different makes. Part of the project was to write to the manufacturers and amass as much other info as possible and I remember probably the most interesting thing - to me - that came back was that storage is VERY important. Storing in damp conditions is extremely bad for paper element filters as it causes the paper to expand which blocks up it's ability to flow air. Drying it out doesn't then restore it to full function. We also tried artificially "dirtying" up the elements and it was surprising how dirty they had to get before a significant reduction in air flow was seen at normal driving RPMs. This would seem to be borne out by some of the absolutely filthy filters I've removed from cars which seemed to otherwise be driving absolutely fine. No doubt the results at high RPM/large throttle openings would be different.

So my approach to air filtration has been to use a standard paper filter from a big name manufacturer and bought from a high volume trade source. Of course this guarantees nothing but probably gives the best chance of buying "the real deal" which has not been lying around in some damp storeroom for a couple of months or so. My experience with tuned engines is limited but I have helped build a couple of quite "hot" dune buggy engines, Modified a 1275 S series A BMC to fast road stage 2 and built a 1500 non crossflow (Mk1 Cortina GT) with the explicit intention that it would be able to beat my pal's Lotus. (It just about managed it if I was having a good day!). They all ran on standard filters for the carbs fitted except one of the buggys which had "brillo pad" type pancakes (I was always unhappy with them as I think they were next to useless, but I wasn't paying the cash)

 

[portland_bill]

The college I attended... There was also a Froude water brake (Dymamometer) which we used to do power/fuel consumption/etc test runs on and experiment with ignition advance curves etc. ...for the 6 cylinder Vauxhall engine which was at that time mounted on the dyno.

Well that was a good college. We only had a Rootes 1500cc 4cyl on ours. (Bournemouth College)

One advantage of the K&N is it is probably mouseproof.

When storing the Rover new cars, (always a large stock languishing in a compund on a trading estate), we had to seal the air intake pipe with wide masking tape to keep the mice out. If they got in, they's chew the paper element to make a nice nest. If undiscovered before startup, the bits would be drawn into the engine, to clog it up and prevent it running. If very lucky, a good vacuumm cleaner could suck it out through plug holes or intakes with the valve open and manifold removed, otherwise it was a head off job. Occasionally we'd find a mouse too, sucked past the valve into a cylinder.

Did once find a fag packet between the carb and engine. Must have been put there on production line, as it could not get past the carb needle.(SU carb)

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

Well that was a good college. We only had a Rootes 1500cc 4cyl on ours. (Bournemouth College)

One advantage of the K&N is it is probably mouseproof.

Rodent proof air filters PB? I hadn't factored that into the equation!

Regarding the college, yes it was a superb introduction to motor engineering. It was in Sydney Street Chelsea and called The Chelsea College of Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering - not to be mistaken for Chelsea College, another organisation entirely. The main college academic facility was in Sydney Street, near the Kings Road end, but it also ran a quite comprehensive mews garage in South Kensington, which took in paying customers, where you would go when nearer the end of your course to gain practical experience. It also majored in aeronautical engineering, although not on the same premises - not enough room for the planes I suppose? I think that was a great advantage as some of the aeronautical "pursuit of perfection" definitely carried over to our instructors. Unfortunately the automobile side folded a number of years ago but I believe the aeronautical side is still going. Used to be in Redhill, at the aerodrome, in my day but I had heard it's gone somewhere else now - could even be closed? Still can't quite believe I was in London, just off the Kings Road, every day, and in the '60's. Could have done with a bit of money to have taken full advantage though!

Stay safe all.
Jock

 

[AndyRKett]

Hi there,

I'm driving a bone stock Grande Punto 1.4 t-jet engine and I love the engine.

Hi onnaj

There is a very good reason you’re not seeing any benefit, and it’s also the same reason your engine is so good, that’s the T-Jet bit.

In a normal engine the air gets drawn into the cylinders by the piston, if there is any restriction in the flow of air, all this achieves is dropping the air pressure between the piston and the restriction and so not as much air gets drawn in.

With a turbo you don’t have this problem because the air is pushed into the pistons at pressure and so when the valves open rather than having to be sucked in at along a pressure gradient, the air is pushed in with force.

It’s already passed the air filter, the turbo sucks air through the filter with force. This means that the stock air filter on most turbo engines is perfectly good, till you start adding in serious power that requires more air. In your case that would be with a bigger turbo.

Your new air filter however probably would take longer to clog up.

 

[onnaj]

Hi onnaj

There is a very good reason you’re not seeing any benefit, and it’s also the same reason your engine is so good, that’s the T-Jet bit.

In a normal engine the air gets drawn into the cylinders by the piston, if there is any restriction in the flow of air, all this achieves is dropping the air pressure between the piston and the restriction and so not as much air gets drawn in.

With a turbo you don’t have this problem because the air is pushed into the pistons at pressure and so when the valves open rather than having to be sucked in at along a pressure gradient, the air is pushed in with force.

It’s already passed the air filter, the turbo sucks air through the filter with force. This means that the stock air filter on most turbo engines is perfectly good, till you start adding in serious power that requires more air. In your case that would be with a bigger turbo.

Your new air filter however probably would take longer to clog up.

But would you think with that with remapping of my ECU I'll see benefits with the k&n versus stock? Some tuners in Holland say it can be a difference of around 5 hp but I'm doubting after reading all the replies over here

 

[s130]

But would you think with that with remapping of my ECU I'll see benefits with the k&n versus stock? Some tuners in Holland say it can be a difference of around 5 hp but I'm doubting after reading all the replies over here

Well all the info posted does tend to lead/imply minimal return (on a modern car) for various mods and investment.

You said "with remapping of my ECU I'll see benefits with the k&n versus stock? Some tuners in Holland say it can be a difference of around 5 hp"

Engine ECU remaps are not cheap. You also have the question of "mapper pedigree and dyno confirmed" results.

IMHO gone are the days of a quick filter, exhaust, ECU map update that deliver much improved XYZ.

I will however add that the manufacturers XYZ is a tuning profile to cover the production tolerances. These tolerances are quite tight but not all with a delta of 0.0. This does mean that on average some cars will be a little below profile and other above profile.

If you have a little below profile car then tweaking can help but at what cost?

The real bottom line (for me) is value for money supported by true real creditability. This creditability measurement would be your measure. If the tests showed a 5% increase in BHP and torque but a 10% reduction in fuel consumption then you would have to evaluate your position.

I will add one last point of view here. Many people have done X.Y.Z to their vehicles in the engine mapping/tuning/etc departments. On older vehicles the returns can be good. On newer vehicles less. For you what will count is your own personal satisfaction and belief that some gain has been obtained at a respectable price. It can be done but in these days is a potentially difficult objective to achieve at a respectable cost.

 

[onnaj]

Mapping with a Dyno at a respectable tuner in Holland will add about 25 hp (145-150hp) and will add torque till about 270 NM. So that are big gains in my opinion for around €375,- or so. It's revlimit software which seems to be great

These engines are capable of 230hp bone stock. Keep in mind that the essessee has the same bottom end, but roughly only a different turbo and camshaft and run 180 hp stock. So I'm not worried about the engine not be able to handle the extra power. Torque is even limited cause of the gearbox/clutch otherwise they could map it to around 300 NM or more. The abarths have a stronger gearbox and could be mapped around or above 300 nm

I'm even thinking of installing the abarth/bravo VL36/38 for about another 15 hp extra, but I'm not sure if that would be worth it.

Lots of people do a gt1446 conversion at H&S corse and get around 200-220hp depending on other mods

 

[s130]

Mapping with a Dyno at a respectable tuner in Holland will add about 25 hp (145-150hp) and will add torque till about 270 NM. So that are big gains in my opinion for around €375,- or so.

Yes 120 to 145 is good, some 20%. This can be done with with stock turbo engines but at a cost.

The original poster was pondering why fitting a better more supposedly performance air filter was not making any difference.

If you want to really crank the limits then in the early 90s Barry Waterhouse (RIP) used to run his little white Uno Turbo at getting on for 300BHP. When it ran it really flew. To achieve this required bigger turbo, bigger injectors and a water injection system to stop detonation. Add uprated pistons etc., bigger inter cooler and ........

Reading back the posts then you can see how a simple air filter change that used to work quite well with free flow exhaust etc. back in the 80s/90s is not really going to work on modern cars, even turbo engines that are already optimised by the manufacturer. To get any appreciable gain then one has to be far more radical.

Something that is not often discussed with these remaps and turbo boots etc. is overall drive ability.

I used to own a Coupe 20V (non turbo) and really preferred it to the 20V Turbo having driven both cars. Now when Fiat brought out the 20V Turbo it was (then) rated as the most drivable turbo powered petrol car/engine at that time. Little lag, early pick-up at lowish RPM. But at the bottom to middle the 20V non turbo was a smoother, more linear performer and no slouch. So for non balls out performance for me (any others) the 20V non turbo was the better car. Interestingly the Stilo Abarth which I've also owned was even better than the Coupe 20V by virtue of the extra 500cc.

The secret with all modifications is to temper ones desires/objective and not ruin your ride.

 

[s130]

Just for a like for like comparison with Punto tuning here is the relative data for a stock Punto 1.4T-Jet (120 BHP @ 106BHP/ton with 0-60mph in 8.9seconds) and the Punto Abarth (153 BHP @ 131BHP/ton with 0-60mph in 8.1 seconds).

http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=599
http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=508

So the 35 BHP increase at an RPM increase of 500RPM only shaves 0.8 of a second off the 0-60 time. Yes the performance gap gets better on the 100mph and standing start 1/4 mile times but you are only (in the UK) going to be able to enjoy these off-road/on-track.

For off-road/track ability I would keep the stock 1.4T-Jet and immediately attend to the suspension. This would be far more productive and value for money than an ECU mapping job.

£400 on suspension will be far more beneficial not only on the track/off-road but on our lovely UK cross country roads your safe, within legal limits, driving please will be far more improved than just a 1 second boost in the pants

 

[Rcl]

A stock T-jet 120 actually has 132-133hp, but is called 120 for marketing reasons (wouldn't you rather pay the extra for 20hp , or for 30hp? For your information: stock T-jets 150 are measured to have 151-153 hp)

 

[AndyRKett]

Assuming the aim of the game is just power, and the budget is only a few hundred euros, then a remap that adds 30 hp and costs £300ish versus an air filter that adds maybe 3-6 hp and costs £200, it’s fairly obvious where the money is best spent.

If you then take the tuning up and are planing to go over 200hp and it’s a strong little engine as you rightly point out so it will take that, then you’re going to need to look at changing the air filter, so it can breath better, but then you might also want to look at the exhaust at that point and if so maybe a different turbo. You can maybe go up to 220hp before you need to start looking at bigger changes to the engine.

I’ve been looking into this a lot lately wondering if it’s worth buying a car with a t-jet or a multiair for some tuned up fun.

 

[onnaj]

Just for a like for like comparison with Punto tuning here is the relative data for a stock Punto 1.4T-Jet (120 BHP @ 106BHP/ton with 0-60mph in 8.9seconds) and the Punto Abarth (153 BHP @ 131BHP/ton with 0-60mph in 8.1 seconds).

http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=599
http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=508

So the 35 BHP increase at an RPM increase of 500RPM only shaves 0.8 of a second off the 0-60 time. Yes the performance gap gets better on the 100mph and standing start 1/4 mile times but you are only (in the UK) going to be able to enjoy these off-road/on-track.

For off-road/track ability I would keep the stock 1.4T-Jet and immediately attend to the suspension. This would be far more productive and value for money than an ECU mapping job.

£400 on suspension will be far more beneficial not only on the track/off-road but on our lovely UK cross country roads your safe, within legal limits, driving please will be far more improved than just a 1 second boost in the pants

Everybody is most keen on hp number but I'm also interested in torque. I don't mind the 0-60 times to be honest, cause I almost never do a full pull from first gear.
But adding 50 NM of torque is what adds a lot of driveability and much better 80-120 (km/h) times which are much more of my interest and also say from 50-90 or so.

I know the t-jet already is a pretty quick car but from all the cars I've owned that had a remap, I really enjoyed the torque and never had any additional costs to the cars. I'm not the kind of guy that used it every day, again and again but just enjoy the fact that it has something extra, especially with overtaking

 

[s130]

Yes Torque works wonders with overall drive-ability. As we know torque and horse power are inter related so getting that sweet balance of the two is often not always that easy given that one is not changing engine cc size or crank shaft radius. That just leaves explosive/expansive force on the piston which is dictated by fuel/air density (charge), compression, timing of the explosion (well technically flame front burn) coupled with the ability to keep things sustained as RPM increase.

The MutiAir II engine is excellent in that due to the almost infinite inlet valve control and of course fuelling and charge density (turbo). So the 1.4L 140BHP engine delivers over 2/3rds of the torque of the 2L MultiJet 150BPH engine at some 250 to 500 lower rpm. So when towing my 500X is just as about good as my Croma was. And when not towing the 500X (just like the Punto 1.4 T-Jets) is a good fun drive.