Track results K&N, GREENS, STOCK FILTERS!
10-22-2007, 12:01 PM
#51
Super Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 E550, 02 C32, 91 300E
Well, I guess the next step is to take it to the dyno then, that should quiet all the doubters I would think. That should mitigate the LSD advantage
10-22-2007, 12:15 PM
#52
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I had already done a dyno with both the K&N and Green filters but since the comparison was weather 10 degrees difference per dyno on different days and the K&N were dirty well I don't feel its and advantage to Greens until I do another dyno with clean K&N filters on a same or very similar degree day at same shop with same dyno. But as for the LSD well I think its might be best to try what "1FSTAMG" method to find out if his method shows other results cause on the dyno you really can't see if the wheels are exactly alike since the dyno test runs the wheels smoothly til 3rd gear.
10-22-2007, 01:14 PM
#53
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
C32 AMG - RIP :(
yep, i agree.
Just to give you an example, when I push the ESP button off, I get both wheels spinning equally and can spin donuts easily. But when I put it in dyno mode...It's MASSIVE one wheel peel, one tire fryer. At the drag strip it will spin the passenger side tire 1/2 way down the track with not even a squeak from the driver's side tire if I have it in Dyno Mode.
Just to give you an example, when I push the ESP button off, I get both wheels spinning equally and can spin donuts easily. But when I put it in dyno mode...It's MASSIVE one wheel peel, one tire fryer. At the drag strip it will spin the passenger side tire 1/2 way down the track with not even a squeak from the driver's side tire if I have it in Dyno Mode.
10-22-2007, 05:03 PM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
yep, i agree.
Just to give you an example, when I push the ESP button off, I get both wheels spinning equally and can spin donuts easily. But when I put it in dyno mode...It's MASSIVE one wheel peel, one tire fryer. At the drag strip it will spin the passenger side tire 1/2 way down the track with not even a squeak from the driver's side tire if I have it in Dyno Mode.
Just to give you an example, when I push the ESP button off, I get both wheels spinning equally and can spin donuts easily. But when I put it in dyno mode...It's MASSIVE one wheel peel, one tire fryer. At the drag strip it will spin the passenger side tire 1/2 way down the track with not even a squeak from the driver's side tire if I have it in Dyno Mode.
10-22-2007, 05:18 PM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
Not gonna argue over it. I have read about C32s out there not being as strong as factory claims. Just cause the factory states it doesn't mean those numbers are easily attainable. They come out with those results by a professional rider in a closed track session and post the best run on average. There are many factors that can cause a car to under-perform and I would presume that not everyone will have a great result on first time at track but some will. I by no means feel my stock C32 as a weak car. I read threads here stating low to mid 14s quarter miles on cars that have "real hp causing" mods next to me. "1FSTAMG" I presume I have a LSD installed since ChicagoX tested it and he definitely knows more then me about cars I was actually quite amazed with ChicagoX various degree of high knowledge in alot of car related things. Guys I posted these figures for you all in this forum to see. Though the K&N do slightly better I still prefer the Green filters. Those are the best out of three each for every filter. I ran my car 8-12 times after that test in the afternoon to see what I can do and I managed a 13.51 best on Greens. Maybe I can do better by putting on better tires cause I have 235s 17" all around where the results that the factory uses are with Factory set tires and I have permanent additional weight also which can cause slower times also helping the car to stay within factory claims instead of exceeding them. AMG-Jerrys' car had serious spin issues even when rolling once he hit the juice and he had street-drag radios. So there are many variables here. I searched the forum for any really good threads about aftermarket filters and still was left not really knowing anything so I posted here to help some members to really learn a diffence if any. I just want to say take it as it comes. This is only informational type of thread not anything else.
In all I am very happy with my cars' results.
In all I am very happy with my cars' results.
I didn't say that bone-stock C32s on stock filters can run 13.5 ... you did. Frankly, I hadn't seen that number thrown around before, but since you've tracked and dyno'd your car a bunch, you seem to know what you're talking about. And since your sig. line says your C32 could manage a best time w/ stock filters of 13.9... that would seem to imply that your car isn't as strong as the "13.5 stock" cars that YOU referenced earlier.
And yes, I realize the factory claims a 4.9 0-60 time that not even all of the official magazine tests could achieve (from recall, I believe some did, and some didn't - lowest tested result I remember seeing was 4.8, highest 5.1).
As for dyno results, I believe several knowledgeable owners and tuners said awhile back that they routinely saw bone-stock C32s dyno'ing in the mid-high 280s for temp./alt. corrected rwhp. Your uncorrected results of 284 (warmer day) and 299 (colder day) would seem to be in the ballpark, but probably a slight gain (couple %) from the filters - it'd be interesting to know what those figures would be adjusted to with the proper dyno-correction factors.
All in all (as I've said numerous times) I applaud your results, as they seem to show aftermarket filters provide a slight edge over OEM, which previously I'd read numerous times "filters are filters - upgrading is a pointless waste of money" - you've debunked that blanket statement, and personally have convinced me to try a set of K&Ns (or Greens) at some point to see for myself - which I would not have done otherwise. Kudos to you, sir... I'd buy you a beer if you were local. Take it easy and have a good one.
10-22-2007, 07:02 PM
#56
Super Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 E550, 02 C32, 91 300E
I had already done a dyno with both the K&N and Green filters but since the comparison was weather 10 degrees difference per dyno on different days and the K&N were dirty well I don't feel its and advantage to Greens until I do another dyno with clean K&N filters on a same or very similar degree day at same shop with same dyno. But as for the LSD well I think its might be best to try what "1FSTAMG" method to find out if his method shows other results cause on the dyno you really can't see if the wheels are exactly alike since the dyno test runs the wheels smoothly til 3rd gear.
10-22-2007, 11:45 PM
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Nobody's arguing with you - I guess I just didn't understand what you were getting at.
I didn't say that bone-stock C32s on stock filters can run 13.5 ... you did. Frankly, I hadn't seen that number thrown around before, but since you've tracked and dyno'd your car a bunch, you seem to know what you're talking about. And since your sig. line says your C32 could manage a best time w/ stock filters of 13.9... that would seem to imply that your car isn't as strong as the "13.5 stock" cars that YOU referenced earlier.
And yes, I realize the factory claims a 4.9 0-60 time that not even all of the official magazine tests could achieve (from recall, I believe some did, and some didn't - lowest tested result I remember seeing was 4.8, highest 5.1).
As for dyno results, I believe several knowledgeable owners and tuners said awhile back that they routinely saw bone-stock C32s dyno'ing in the mid-high 280s for temp./alt. corrected rwhp. Your uncorrected results of 284 (warmer day) and 299 (colder day) would seem to be in the ballpark, but probably a slight gain (couple %) from the filters - it'd be interesting to know what those figures would be adjusted to with the proper dyno-correction factors.
All in all (as I've said numerous times) I applaud your results, as they seem to show aftermarket filters provide a slight edge over OEM, which previously I'd read numerous times "filters are filters - upgrading is a pointless waste of money" - you've debunked that blanket statement, and personally have convinced me to try a set of K&Ns (or Greens) at some point to see for myself - which I would not have done otherwise. Kudos to you, sir... I'd buy you a beer if you were local. Take it easy and have a good one.
I didn't say that bone-stock C32s on stock filters can run 13.5 ... you did. Frankly, I hadn't seen that number thrown around before, but since you've tracked and dyno'd your car a bunch, you seem to know what you're talking about. And since your sig. line says your C32 could manage a best time w/ stock filters of 13.9... that would seem to imply that your car isn't as strong as the "13.5 stock" cars that YOU referenced earlier.
And yes, I realize the factory claims a 4.9 0-60 time that not even all of the official magazine tests could achieve (from recall, I believe some did, and some didn't - lowest tested result I remember seeing was 4.8, highest 5.1).
As for dyno results, I believe several knowledgeable owners and tuners said awhile back that they routinely saw bone-stock C32s dyno'ing in the mid-high 280s for temp./alt. corrected rwhp. Your uncorrected results of 284 (warmer day) and 299 (colder day) would seem to be in the ballpark, but probably a slight gain (couple %) from the filters - it'd be interesting to know what those figures would be adjusted to with the proper dyno-correction factors.
All in all (as I've said numerous times) I applaud your results, as they seem to show aftermarket filters provide a slight edge over OEM, which previously I'd read numerous times "filters are filters - upgrading is a pointless waste of money" - you've debunked that blanket statement, and personally have convinced me to try a set of K&Ns (or Greens) at some point to see for myself - which I would not have done otherwise. Kudos to you, sir... I'd buy you a beer if you were local. Take it easy and have a good one.
10-22-2007, 11:48 PM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Yeah, I meant that if anyone is going to dyno their car soon, this would be something they could try (do it on the same day, same car, same conditions, same dyno, just swapping filters). Most people seem to pick the greens as their aftermarket filters, so it would be cool to compare the K&N's. There shouldnt be any doubts after that.
11-07-2007, 10:51 PM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Just to let you all know based on the dyno mode test I had these results without an aftermarket LSD so even happier my times where with a basically stock car.
11-08-2007, 02:05 PM
#60
Super Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 E550, 02 C32, 91 300E
yeah I bascially got Green Filters because of this thread. Plus I knew my stock filters had never been changed (absolutely full of dirt and dead bugs).
11-27-2007, 09:03 PM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Ok Guys
Here are the results on the track that tells differences if any with the more popular choices compared to stock air filters. Basically I see no major difference with the aftermarket filters but definitely see a difference with the stock filters. All runs were by the same guys with time inbetween for cooling while replacing filters. Conditions were near perfect for the SC cars. Its all preference guys between the two aftermarket filters. My preference is the Greens but the K&N seem better built. By the way if you haven't read my thread on this the K&N cleaner does a better job at cleaning the Green filters.
The 1st pic shows the best run with the K&N filters,(13.4360@104.58)
The 2nd pic shows best time with Green filters,(13.4602@103.93)
The 3rd shows best with stock filters.(13.9038@101.60)
The 4th run well its my car besting a stock E55 who's non-owner driver made a huge burnout but almost caught me but I will take the momentary win 
C32used 13.5780@103.93 ChicagoX 14.9370@104.89
Here are the results on the track that tells differences if any with the more popular choices compared to stock air filters. Basically I see no major difference with the aftermarket filters but definitely see a difference with the stock filters. All runs were by the same guys with time inbetween for cooling while replacing filters. Conditions were near perfect for the SC cars. Its all preference guys between the two aftermarket filters. My preference is the Greens but the K&N seem better built. By the way if you haven't read my thread on this the K&N cleaner does a better job at cleaning the Green filters.
The 1st pic shows the best run with the K&N filters,(13.4360@104.58)
The 2nd pic shows best time with Green filters,(13.4602@103.93)
The 3rd shows best with stock filters.(13.9038@101.60)
The 4th run well its my car besting a stock E55 who's non-owner driver made a huge burnout but almost caught me
but I will take the momentary win C32used 13.5780@103.93 ChicagoX 14.9370@104.89
Ok............did a 13.29@105.89 on the Greens so I wouldn't say its over yet.
11-27-2007, 11:57 PM
#64
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
11-28-2007, 02:24 PM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
12-09-2007, 01:41 AM
#67
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Well I remembered reading a thread that described using a dryer to take off the access oil after the oil is put on well unfortunately I forgot to turn off the heat I messed up my Green filters but ordered new ones and will dyno again with new Greens and ASP pulleys and Evotech tune this week...
