@@D-dly0 Clearly a poser, I bet you used a K&N sticker with an Injen filter. Everyone knows they're not compatible and you'd actually gain 3hp if you just took the useless filter off.
When people mention throttle response, I think most people are actually mistaking this for lower rpm hesitation under mild acceleration. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but moving to higher flower filters on smaller motors always seemed to help with low rpm hesitation. Half the people that claim to feel major differences in filter changes (assuming a decent intake from the factory) feel it from changing out a dirty filter with a clean one. That said, with those horsepower gains I'd still throw in the k&n and dump the charcoal filter because I'm a horrible person that likes to know it's making more power even if I can't feel it.
First couple of minutes: Jason proves that removing the charcoal filter actually gives you some HP The rest of the video: Jason tries to convince you that you shouldn't remove your charcoal filter
@@asjmpickle yes it's 7hp, but that's only a 3% increase in total engine power, and only at wide open throttle, which most people rarely use on public roads. If you did a blind ABX test, noone would be able to tell the difference
Getting a sport filter would make the biggest single difference. The difference with and without the charcoal filter when he tested the K&N was minimal, while the stock filter suffered more from being combined with the charcoal filter.
I actually recently removed the charcoal filter in my E60 550i in the pursuit of better throttle response. Interesting to see how much power removing it actually freed up. I did notice slightly improved fuel economy as well, big shocker.
@@EngineeringExplained The other forum rumor I hear about charcoal filters is that by removing them your engine runs more efficiently, so you make less emissions and it's ultimately greener to remove them. To me that sounds like BS as why else would they put them in to start with?, but proponents say it's just a by product of emissions regs and the specific tests emissions testers do, not real world driving. Could you show us the math on that one please & thanks :D
James Oren the charcoal filter reduces the evaporative emissions Whatever hydrocarbons are captured by the filter are returned to the engine when you start the car.
I love the tests you do along with the data to help back your claims. It is obvious that less restriction will lead to higher performance in the short term, but you have not yet tested the long term results. The KNN filter will coat your intake with oil and some small amount of dirt over time which can reduce the sensitivity of your Mass Airflow Sensor requiring cleaning or may even kill it entirely. This definitely results in lower HP over time. I have seen this in multiple vehicles I've worked on and even a couple that I owned. A friend or customer will complain of poor performance or rough idling and even stalling in one case. Inspecting the MAF sensor results in sometimes visual confirmation of the residue or discoloration due to the oil presence. Cleaning it thoroughly results in it functioning like new. Checking the air filter... it's a KNN. Could it be misuse or poor cleaning and oiling of the KNN? Absolutely. Is it always misuse of the KNN? Untested, but likely no. Also, reducing filter media will always reduce filter efficacy allowing more dirt into the intake. If you live in a humid area with little dust you might see less of this than you might in the desert or near the ocean. Run 10k with a KNN and then run 10k with a high flow or even regular paper filter and measure your results in performance, residue inside intake, and mass airflow sensor function. A charcoal filter may actually reduce the amount of oil entry from a KNN (based solely on theoretical and anecdotal evidence) so a KNN with a charcoal filter might be a great setup for slightly higher performance with mininal sacrifice in engine protection. Still, the best way to improve performance with an intake mod without losing protection is to increase the surface area of the filter and shorten the distance to the throttle body. A larger surface area means that more air can be drawn in with less restriction. Air velocity is also key so too large of a filter might hurt performance. Most modern cars will adjust to the extra air with time by injecting more fuel, but air velocity can hurt. The short answer is that every model is different and will handle changes to components differently. There will always be an equal and opposite reaction for any action which sometimes means compromises in performance for longevity and vice versa.
Some say that the K&N type air filters don't filter the air as well as the replaceable O.E filters do. By removing the charcoal filter, you can gain 4.11 h.p and 4.4 pound feet of torque for free according to the test dyno, a.k.a, just throw your charcoal filter in the trash can and move on. You might even improve your mpgs along the way as well.
What about gas millage. Will the improvement in MPG (or for the rest of the world, almost) litres per 100 Kilometers be worth it, even with stop/start?
You should do a test to see if there is any difference in fuel consumption with and without the charcoal filter. There would obviously be a huge amount of variables, but it might be worth doing.
I feel like outright speed doesn't even matter when you feel like you're going fast. A hotted up 1.3l Toyota with sidedraft carbs etc sure is slow but the noise it makes feels like +100hp worth of fun
The reason I chose the K&N panel filter was actually not the performance gain, but the longevity of the filter, as it can simply be cleaned and used again and again.
I used to think the same until the K&N filter oil gummed up my throttle body after 185,000 km and I had to spend a bunch to get it cleaned - couldn't do it myself since drive by wire throttle bodies have to be opened and closed with a computer (forcing it open by hand can ruin the electric motor).
@@Wallstreetavarice Unfortunately people go overboard with the oil and ive heard of people killing their maf in just a few months since they go offroad and clean the filter often. You just need a quick single coat on the inlet side, no oil should even be visible on the inside of the filter until its wicked through over about 500km. The inlet side will soak up the small amount of oil quckly and if you see any large droplets on the cotton 5 minutes after spraying, youve used 3 times more than you need.
@@MaFTB bad designs true small cars are probably the worst I can imagine 😂 they're still called the same thing and suck in cold air from outside of the bay. Mk3 ford Mondeo has it low in the wheel arch wtf is that a water Hoover 😂😂😂
Jason I know is a silly question, but removing the charcoal filter and having more free horses isn't gonna improve mpg? Would be funny to see a comparison in real world filling up the car, driving it for for something like 100 miles and the fill up again and compare the results. Love your vids mate!
Raven Starver the engine gets more efficient/powerful because removing the filter lowers pumping losses to get air into the engine at lower (any) throttle angles. It’s the restrictiveness of an intake that makes less power and lower efficiency. Julian Edgar has a great video about it on his channel.
I'm always impressed by the breadth and variety of content on this channel. I've seen unrelated mods to car reviews that continuously bring up this channel! Congrats good Sir!
@@joesmith201212 It adds soo few extra horsepowers that a human being wouldn't be able to feel the difference, that's why its a placebo effect. You think your car is faster but in reality, it's not. You need at LEAST a 5% difference in power to feel anything happening. In other words, this mod is not worth the hassle, especially since you are going to have problems with the DNV
I clicked on the video convinced its about cabin filters and title is a joke. Even those air filters look very similar to my cabin filters, while intake air filter has much denser paper folding and its a lot bigger
Thank you for posting this. I was considering removing the charcoal filter myself to try to improve the Trek's sluggish nature. I was waiting for this video after you mentioned doing this in a prior one.
@@rejzor i was thinking that too, it probably lasts at most 4-5 years. to save .00001 percent of the cars emissions. but than go to some place like the Philippines where u have 2 stroke motorcycles putting out 500% more emissions than that car. funny
Bob Edwards 1. for most of an engine’s running time, the largest obstruction is the throttle. 2. How many HVAC systems need to filter gasoline vapors? Under hood air temperatures are probably going to bring the charcoal to the temperature where it will reject what it’s already collected, similar to charcoal deodorizers that you can just leave in the sun.
The intake sucks up crankcase gases and valve cover gases from oil vaporization, and also has some fuel left in the intake if MPI. Plus charcoal systems that suck fuel vapors from the gas tank. The intake, shortly after shutdown, can spit emissions. While I question how much this really does, it is *something* Granted, it used to be that the air box was considered *enough* for this so idk...
@@Phos9 oh it's emissions equipment gota love it even if it is actually bad for the environment over all. Let's be real, emissions control is great, so is using actual science to determine what is effective which is the part frequently failed.
Been there, done that. Used K&N filters before, sure they work, I don’t like the labour time and difficulty getting the bugs out (I’ve tried soaking, hose, degreased etc etc) they get stuck in the pleats and are frustrating to try and clean, so I went back to the disposable factory air filter. I got a remap, exhaust mods and better tyres. That improved the performance to a high amount. The Audi Q7 already had two large area sized air filters, so the design is excellent. K&N was not worth the hassle. Just my experience so save your dough and put it towards an aggressive remap. It will put a smile on your dial.
I got so excited about the math 😍 In all seriousness I would’ve mentioned that intake manifold designs (runner length and diameter, single vs itb) would have more impact on throttle response from a mechanical perspective.
So their thinking is "how can we stop the little bit of gas from evaporating into atmosphere when you stop the car top save enviroment" "lets put another restriction into the intake system so the car uses more fuel when driving!" aka in the end harm the enviroment more that without this thing. Great idea!!!
When I had my Crosstrek, I took out the charcoal filter with the K&N air filter. I could replace the charcoal filter as I only clipped the heads off of the holding pins for smog testing. I did notice a difference in bottom end, but nowhere else. Installed a axel back Borla muffler. Again a slightly better bottom end. I got tired of the low horse power (148 hp in the 14 XTrek) of the Crosstrek. Traded it in on a 17(new)WRX Base.much happier now....
My 06 Avalon has 200,000 miles that filters never been replaced I took it off put a k&n filter on it but didn't remove the factory ram Air piping and I can notice low in torque improvement when you're just coasting 60 and you press the gas about 25% picks up quicker without as much throttle
I would have like to see the 0 to 20 mph test. The Crosstrek is slow vehicle. But the worst part of that is the 0 to 20 off the line start. I did change out the stock filter for a K&N and removed the charcoal filter. Then I went a step further and reset the ECU to allow the fuel mapping to start from scratch. For the first tank of gas I put my foot to the floor at every opportunity and walked out the gears for as long as I could. My mileage after that tank has improved over stock and the performance. Well it sure does feel a lot more responsive. The 0 to 20 take off now actually feels like it wants to put me back in my seat. So for me it was a win.
Late reply but i removed this charcoal filter from my daily 2007 corolla 1.8l which already has aem in-box filter and i can feel the throttle response is more responsive and the cars Topend is improved on wot.the induction noise is also a bit louder now.for a daily drive and good power especially on low rpm the car drives way better.i like it
@@mtbridingog9083 More so the engine will lose less energy pumping air without it then mixing fuel with air. Those OEM intake manifolds, intake ports, pistons crowns, etc are very efficient at mixing things. :)
Now do one with a clogged charcoal filter, because they do get clogged and you absolutely would feel that difference removing a clogged filter for sure.
Re warmup on the dyno. When we did lab experiments we would run a calibration check, then the samples, and then a calibration check again. In your case you should run condition #1, then condition #2, then condition #1 (or part thereof) again. This helps to get rid of systematic error due to factors that may change during the tests.
Would love to do the same test with my 165,000 mile charcoal filter. I think it just might be a little more restrictive, but would like to know for sure.
I would suggest the following comparative EXPERIMENT: Smoke from a vape (e-cig) is completely filtered out by a HEPA respirator cartridge. Therefore vape clouds could be used to simulate dust transmission through the filter. By shining a bright light on the resultant filtered air flow stream you can visualize particle transmission rates.
depends on numerous factors. denser air will need more gas, but youll have more power, so youll cruise longer. it does not really affect mpg that much, but a restrictive airflow DOES limit your mpg because the engine is having hard time sucking air to breath.
It seems that the engineers could do a diverter valve to send returning fumes through the carbon filter when the engine is off and not have to pull through the carbon filter when the engine is running. When the fuel pump comes on it could signal a closing of the diverter valve to the carbon filter and open the air intake filter route. This solution might and might not work so great with the whole auto start/stop function that is now mandatory. Also does the activated carbon in the filter stay active for the life of the car? My experience with activated charcoal is that it has a finite amount of useful life. I wonder how the carbon filter affects efficiency as well. Testing the K&N with and without the carbon filter for fuel efficiency would be interesting as well.
I think out of the two, the air filter is probably the least restrictive for airflow. It is designed to be, just to get the bare minimal amount of particles from getting inside engine
I can understand saying you wont notice the difference in Gs felt during acceleration, but your results also show 3\10 of a second improvement to 60mpg. That is a huge difference. Gs may not be felt, but time will certainly be noticed.
Oil baths??!? You were lucky, we had to filter the air with our lungs and blow it into the engine. And if we were caught absorbing a few oxygen molecules for ourselves, we didn't get to eat that day!
Ok so . 0065g would be hard to perceive, but in a "get in front of traffic" green light start, how many feet in front of the unmodified version would it be? Also, on a 300 mile drive, how much extra fuel is needed to "fight" the restriction of the charcoal filter and how does that compare to the extra hydrocarbon escaping when the engine is shut off? Lastly, if 1 billion cars removed this filter, my guess is the effect on the planet is ZERO. Thumbs up for cool video.
I do like the discussion involving how much extra fuel is required to fight the restriction, certainly an interesting thing to ponder! There's probably a break even distance somewhere in there, but not sure what it would be. Might mean the filter is useful for short/medium trips, but perhaps not for long trips. Great question! (I don't know the answer haha)
Your economy will improve more air better combustion better performance...BUT you will only see improvements that the manufacturer allows since the ECU is preprogrammed with set values to maintain. If you really want to see improvements you have to replace the ECU or program the ECU yourself. But overall you would see an improvement removing the filters from your car
When putting in this sort of emissions equipment do they factor in the extra fuel used compared to the emissions saved? Or is this more about particulates than carbon in general?
Feeling throttle reponse when removing the charcoal filter makes sense. Less restriction allows the air in the intake tube to accelerate faster, hence why some guys can feel it. One way to test that would be to test air velocity per millisecond inside the intake tube with and without the charcoal filter. On the mpg note, if the stock air intake is slightly oversized and the engine is optimally tuned, mpg gains will be minimal. If it is undersized to what is optimal for that particular engine and not optimally tuned, mpg gains can be noticed as the engine will pull higher vacuum along with slightly cooler and denser air. All pointing to how volumetricly efficient that particular engine is at the engine rpm used.
On its own the mod does very little but won't the effects become bigger when coupling with other mods like exhaust, tune, bigger turbo etc? As the demand for more air coming into the engine will increase
Even if the K&N air filter didn't do as well as the stock filter or the car quest premium filter you still save money in the long run for buying the K&N it has a very long service life up to 1 million miles and not every so often do you wash and recharge the pleats with oil to bring the filter back to new. That right there adds so much more value. than anything else.
All that for an almost immeasurable amount of hydrocarbons. I guarantee you, over the lifespan of the car, the improved fuel economy not having to fight that restriction out weighs the infinitesimal evaporative emissions it stops.
EE, what effect does engine displacement have on this test? My hypothesis is that for a larger displacement NA engine, the difference may be slightly more pronounced, especially in the "butt dyno" portion. Curious to see what the "really exciting math" has to say. Would like to compare your existing 4cly results against something like a 3.0 6cyl and a 5.0 8cyl.
The more you have displacement, the more you're filter will have to let air get inside the engine. So yes, removing any restrictive layer in your intake will increase the results
Here's something I did: went from run flat tires to standard tires felt much quicker, but slippery. Might be tough to do an apples to apples test, but hey food for thought! Side note, change in total power is great but how about efficiency? Hit us up with those numbers too!
another mustang owner stopped me and said i should get an kn air filter for my car so i did and oh my lord it works so good for my car its not the biggest results in the world but it gave me a nice gain it omost feels like my car is in sport mode in drive now i can only imagine if i get a bigger throttle body and a mustang gt 350 intake good vid tho man
Jason man I love the videos, you seem to know it all about internal combustion engines haha, I wanted to see if you could do a video on what happens when you destroke an engine. Like how compression and displacement changes. Love the vids man, keep it up
It is interesting to see the difference in performance with the same engine map on the ECU, but what would happen if the map on the ECU were altered to better match the improved airflow?
i removed the charcoal filter on my 100k miles 2007 manual rav4, it improved A LOT the throttle response, now its easier to drive slow, off the pavement, and even parking the car is a lot easier, not i don't have to drop to 4th gear to pass a slower car going under 60mph, i can ramp up from 50 to 75 a lot quicker and without dropping a gear... 2nd and 3rd gear feels more alive above 4000 rpm's, also the side benefit of a throattier engine sound... plus no more rpm dipping and ramping up when the AC cycles on and off... probably this would have less effect on a newer engine with a new filter, but with 100k miles it was pretty dark... even tho i change filters a lot becase they are cheap... i also running an k&n now, but it didn't improve as much as the removal of the charcoal filter... downside? i'm on the re-learning time of the ECU so the MPG count on the dash is reading lower MPG, i did a 200 mile test and its showing like 2-3 mpg worse, but the car dash shows 5 mpg worse... but it would be me that i'm going over 80 now confortably when before, the confort zone was closer to 70-75... so, i recomend it...
Keep in mind, the 20-60 isn’t idealized, since normally you’d be in first gear for 20 mph peak acceleration rather than second, but yeah, Crosstreks are crazy fast.
@@EngineeringExplained I have seen photos of torn-down Cummins B-series engines which were denied warranty due to having been dusted-out. In all instances the owner had installed a K&N *filther* photos don't lie.
I have a carbureted 360ci with a K&N filter. I did noticed great increase in power with the new filter, however after approximately 10k miles I noticed dust type particles on the carburetor flange and choke tower. And I had to spray out my air bleeds a little more often to clear them of any dust to correct my idle air/fuel ratio. I didn't want to abandoned the K&N so I added a K&N precleaner. Basically a foam cover that pre cleans the air before it contacts the actual K&N filter. Made a world of difference in cleanliness on the carburetor side of the filter
I wonder how affective this would be on a charcoal filter that is over 10 years old. That vehicle looks fairly new, and I wouldn’t expect too much change.
I love your videos including this one, but I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the conclusion here. I understand and would agree completely with the throttle response explanation, but while 0.006 may be small that's still 3% of 0.2. Noticing a 3% difference of something like zero acceleration vs full throttle doesn't seem like that wild of a claim. Also I'd like to see a comparison of the amount of emissions carbon intake filters capture relative to it's effect on the fuel efficiency of the engine. Probably pretty neglidgable, but I'd be surprised if it's emissions capture relative to the engines total emissions production weren't similarly neglidgable.
It is a known trait of cotton panel replacement filters, that they flow marginally better than a new paper element, but their ability to pass air remains consistent. Paper element performance can deteriorate rapidly in just a few hundred miles. A really interesting test would be to put 3k miles on the K&N, then compare with the dirty paper element. That is where the K&N should really shine.
So I can't use the excuse when I lose a race out of a toll booth it's not because the other driver cheated by removing his charcoal filter? Good test. In real world driving it's pointless to remove the filter.
It will change on a more powerful vehicule like the WRX... We pick-up almost 19whp@12wtq without the charcoal filter on 2023 WRX with the stock Subaru air filter on 91 octane. We try many performance drop in air filter and the best was the Perrin black sponge. but the gains on the Perrin was little compare to the stock air filter 27whp@17wtq total, that means the Perrin give a small 8whp@5wtq compare to stock air filter. The biggest gains come from the charcoal filter delete !
Last section - the Subaru Crosstrek is a slow vehicle. Any changes to make it slightly faster is welcomed. One that cost nothing ? Absolutely do it. An another thing Jason and others might have missed - the what will the dirty charcoal filter do ? I know it is behind the air filter, but still it will get dirtier over time. Maybe not a whole lot, but some minuscule particles will find its way into the filter. It will filter it out of the engine so its good but what if it collects them and gets dirty ? I will try and remove it for a test run, but since the car is still under warranty, I do not want to mess with it.
GR86/BRZ - North America is the only place where the charcoal filter is found. In Japan the car makes 7 more horsepower. 7 hrsprs is nothing to balk at. While I would agree in overall terms of acceleration I do not notice anything, however; what I do notice is easier starts and shifting under 4,000 rpm. Mostly starting in 1st it seems smoother and less roughness in clutch engagement and less need for throttle modulation.
Yes. I'd be curious to compare it to the amount of emissions from your filler neck when you top up fuel at the bowser. My guess is that would be waaay more.
@@Jarrah_Kilgour Depending on where you are located when you fill up, the fuel hose may actually have a vapor recovery system installed to prevent this very situation.
My car doesn't have this filter, but I watched the entire video :P why ? I am new to carmods and I'm having fun with a MK7 1,8 TSI Sportwagen (Unitronic 1+ tuned). I try to do it wisely, that's why I've subscribed to your channel ;) I also like really exciting math :P It's hard for people to make clear decisions when it comes to performance because we cannot afford to run a dyno on every single mod like you do, and it's easy to be trapped by the tuning shop staff as they want to sell parts. I would be very curious to compare 100% stock intake with the following changes I've made that are wayyyyyyy cheaper than a ricer open cold air-intake (which i know is useless) : - Snowguard removed + K&N filter - CTS inlet hose and inlet pipe Thank you for the good videos !!
It Will Make A Difference In Intake Sound Tho So It's Worth It. I Removed My Charcoal Filter And Using The Drop In KN Filter With A Throttle Body Spacer I Also Costumed My Air Box I Removed All Of The Pipes Leading To The Front Of The Hood So Basically I Costumed My Stock Air Box To A Ram Air Box Big Difference In Sound And Power
The (non-replaceable) carbon filter element attached to the cover of the air intake (NOT the engine air filter) is there to absorb any residual fumes after the engine is turned off.
Removes charcoal filter "I'm something of a racecar builder myself"
Oh ya man, and these racing stickers gave me a solid 10hp+, definitely recommend!!
@@D-dly0 Clearly a poser, I bet you used a K&N sticker with an Injen filter. Everyone knows they're not compatible and you'd actually gain 3hp if you just took the useless filter off.
Try foam filter
Would like to know if the mpg was changed in the testings.
@@starvalkyrie taking the filter off would probably give you a performance gain albeit at the cost of engine longevity.
i removed the charcoal filter from my car, it now breaks the barrier of sound at full throtle, major improvement thank you for the tip
Finally someone realistic about the performance gains.
This sent me🤣
Dean Testa ... Nobody else is laughing but you buddy
When people mention throttle response, I think most people are actually mistaking this for lower rpm hesitation under mild acceleration. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but moving to higher flower filters on smaller motors always seemed to help with low rpm hesitation.
Half the people that claim to feel major differences in filter changes (assuming a decent intake from the factory) feel it from changing out a dirty filter with a clean one.
That said, with those horsepower gains I'd still throw in the k&n and dump the charcoal filter because I'm a horrible person that likes to know it's making more power even if I can't feel it.
based
true and quite honestly I don’t even care that much about the horsepower. I’ll pollute the air a bit more if it means I hear my M3’s turbos spool 😂😂
What is low RPM hesitation?
@@louisthibault555 "What is removing resistance at low RPM" - It's giddyup!
Just finished watching this video...walking to my car with pliers now.
First couple of minutes: Jason proves that removing the charcoal filter actually gives you some HP
The rest of the video: Jason tries to convince you that you shouldn't remove your charcoal filter
because the difference is miniscule, and if for some reason you get a VI it's possible you'd fail it
7hp is decent.
the car is just so heavy so it doesn't really benefit.
@@asjmpickle yes it's 7hp, but that's only a 3% increase in total engine power, and only at wide open throttle, which most people rarely use on public roads. If you did a blind ABX test, noone would be able to tell the difference
Getting a sport filter would make the biggest single difference.
The difference with and without the charcoal filter when he tested the K&N was minimal, while the stock filter suffered more from being combined with the charcoal filter.
and panders to the EPA gods
I have charcoal underwear wich also prevents the escape of gases to the atmosphere 😆.
@ wat?
@ "whomst"
@@ARentz07 "ass juice"
I think we all could have used a pair for our fathers for father's day presents, no?
I actually recently removed the charcoal filter in my E60 550i in the pursuit of better throttle response. Interesting to see how much power removing it actually freed up. I did notice slightly improved fuel economy as well, big shocker.
wow I have an f80 i’m gonna try this. it seems to have a bit of lag at low rpm
@@Unabonerhow did it go for you bro? I have an f82 been thinking about doing the same. Hence why I’m watching this now haha
@@Unaboner the s55 isnt designed to make power at low rpm.
I came for the performance mod ideas for my crosstrek track monster, I stayed for the “Really Exciting Math”
Now we're talking! :)
@@EngineeringExplained The other forum rumor I hear about charcoal filters is that by removing them your engine runs more efficiently, so you make less emissions and it's ultimately greener to remove them. To me that sounds like BS as why else would they put them in to start with?, but proponents say it's just a by product of emissions regs and the specific tests emissions testers do, not real world driving. Could you show us the math on that one please & thanks :D
i only stayed for the pie
James Oren the charcoal filter reduces the evaporative emissions Whatever hydrocarbons are captured by the filter are returned to the engine when you start the car.
I love the tests you do along with the data to help back your claims. It is obvious that less restriction will lead to higher performance in the short term, but you have not yet tested the long term results.
The KNN filter will coat your intake with oil and some small amount of dirt over time which can reduce the sensitivity of your Mass Airflow Sensor requiring cleaning or may even kill it entirely. This definitely results in lower HP over time. I have seen this in multiple vehicles I've worked on and even a couple that I owned. A friend or customer will complain of poor performance or rough idling and even stalling in one case. Inspecting the MAF sensor results in sometimes visual confirmation of the residue or discoloration due to the oil presence. Cleaning it thoroughly results in it functioning like new. Checking the air filter... it's a KNN. Could it be misuse or poor cleaning and oiling of the KNN? Absolutely. Is it always misuse of the KNN? Untested, but likely no.
Also, reducing filter media will always reduce filter efficacy allowing more dirt into the intake. If you live in a humid area with little dust you might see less of this than you might in the desert or near the ocean.
Run 10k with a KNN and then run 10k with a high flow or even regular paper filter and measure your results in performance, residue inside intake, and mass airflow sensor function.
A charcoal filter may actually reduce the amount of oil entry from a KNN (based solely on theoretical and anecdotal evidence) so a KNN with a charcoal filter might be a great setup for slightly higher performance with mininal sacrifice in engine protection.
Still, the best way to improve performance with an intake mod without losing protection is to increase the surface area of the filter and shorten the distance to the throttle body. A larger surface area means that more air can be drawn in with less restriction. Air velocity is also key so too large of a filter might hurt performance. Most modern cars will adjust to the extra air with time by injecting more fuel, but air velocity can hurt.
The short answer is that every model is different and will handle changes to components differently. There will always be an equal and opposite reaction for any action which sometimes means compromises in performance for longevity and vice versa.
Some say that the K&N type air filters don't filter the air as well as the replaceable O.E filters do. By removing the charcoal filter, you can gain 4.11 h.p and 4.4 pound feet of torque for free according to the test dyno, a.k.a, just throw your charcoal filter in the trash can and move on. You might even improve your mpgs along the way as well.
What about gas millage. Will the improvement in MPG (or for the rest of the world, almost) litres per 100 Kilometers be worth it, even with stop/start?
You should do a test to see if there is any difference in fuel consumption with and without the charcoal filter. There would obviously be a huge amount of variables, but it might be worth doing.
I'd like to see a video on your fuel economy between all of this. Try performance filter, stock filter, and with and without the charcoal filter
Dreams crushed...
I'm glad you've added the math. It's crazy when people say _they can feel the difference_ on the most miniscule mods.
The placebo effect is very real! :)
But, it is still faster regardless if you can feel it or not.
@@pichum4st3r by noting of significance. Its better if the driver loses a few lbs. which is better for all involved.
Not Jason 😉
I feel like outright speed doesn't even matter when you feel like you're going fast. A hotted up 1.3l Toyota with sidedraft carbs etc sure is slow but the noise it makes feels like +100hp worth of fun
A 2.5% difference in a 160hp car is not significant. A 2.5% difference in a 500hp car is.
I took my manifold and throttle body off. The power gains of absolutely no restriction is amazing!!!
Thats what Freevalve does :)
@@ThePentosin well it leaves the manifold.. Fuel Injectors gotta sit somewhere.
Don't need a manifold for that.
@@ThePentosin Well the current freevalve prototypes use port injection. And you may as well have something to stick a filter to.
Yeah shure, but neither needs a manifold.
looking forward to the trackday video with the new added power
Really Exciting Math is why I'm subscribed to this channel :D
TMW normal Exciting Math isn't enough.
Imagine if these tests represented your annual return on investment?
Charcoal air filters do indeed rob your engine of horsepower. Or do they?
_plays VSauce music_
But what is charcoal? *frame freezes*
You always seem to make the same VSauce comment in every channel.
Does coal char?
And what would happen to the planet if every charcoal filter just...disappeared? *raises eyebrow*
rob ... robot ... neural nets ...
The reason I chose the K&N panel filter was actually not the performance gain, but the longevity of the filter, as it can simply be cleaned and used again and again.
I used to think the same until the K&N filter oil gummed up my throttle body after 185,000 km and I had to spend a bunch to get it cleaned - couldn't do it myself since drive by wire throttle bodies have to be opened and closed with a computer (forcing it open by hand can ruin the electric motor).
@@Wallstreetavarice yeah, my 1987 Opel does not have that problem.
@@Wallstreetavarice Washing and reusing does not work well with condoms either.
@@Wallstreetavarice Unfortunately people go overboard with the oil and ive heard of people killing their maf in just a few months since they go offroad and clean the filter often. You just need a quick single coat on the inlet side, no oil should even be visible on the inside of the filter until its wicked through over about 500km. The inlet side will soak up the small amount of oil quckly and if you see any large droplets on the cotton 5 minutes after spraying, youve used 3 times more than you need.
Sounds way better too! I removed the charcoal filter and use the K&N only
You should make a video to test the differences between OEM air filter and a Cold Air Intake system
@@1Slamalama1 I think he means aftermarket vs OEM
It's going to be so different from car to car.
He did.
All factory air boxes have a CAI... It's just restrictive
@@MaFTB bad designs true small cars are probably the worst I can imagine 😂 they're still called the same thing and suck in cold air from outside of the bay. Mk3 ford Mondeo has it low in the wheel arch wtf is that a water Hoover 😂😂😂
Jason I know is a silly question, but removing the charcoal filter and having more free horses isn't gonna improve mpg? Would be funny to see a comparison in real world filling up the car, driving it for for something like 100 miles and the fill up again and compare the results. Love your vids mate!
That's a good idea! It'd need to be done on a dyno though to control variables. Far too many for real world testing.
I think restricting the air intake just make the ECU injects less fuel since less air goes pass the MAF sensor. Less power but same mileage.
Anecdotal info from another poster said blind test in his wife's car over 5000 miles went from 26mpg to 28mpg for what its worth
Raven Starver the engine gets more efficient/powerful because removing the filter lowers pumping losses to get air into the engine at lower (any) throttle angles. It’s the restrictiveness of an intake that makes less power and lower efficiency. Julian Edgar has a great video about it on his channel.
For what it's worth, i was thinking about the same thing. If it really helps MPG's, i may try this in the Prime..
I'm always impressed by the breadth and variety of content on this channel. I've seen unrelated mods to car reviews that continuously bring up this channel! Congrats good Sir!
placebo effects on drivers are very real
Yes indeed haha.
But, if someone does feel a difference there is an actual difference when you remove the charcoal filter.
Engineering Explained could you try this with a turbo car? Would be interesting to see the extra stress on the filters
How do you placebo a dyno, unless he has telekinesis and used his mind to control a machine I don't see a placebo effect
@@joesmith201212 It adds soo few extra horsepowers that a human being wouldn't be able to feel the difference, that's why its a placebo effect. You think your car is faster but in reality, it's not. You need at LEAST a 5% difference in power to feel anything happening. In other words, this mod is not worth the hassle, especially since you are going to have problems with the DNV
Never heard of a charcoal filter being used in the air intake. Yes in the CABIN
They're certainly interesting! Not something I'd heard much about either.
My 2009 Hyundai Genesis Sedan has one installed. They're not very common equipment so I can't imagine it makes much of a difference emissions wise.
Same, here.....
Its because you are poor and dont have a newer car peasant
I clicked on the video convinced its about cabin filters and title is a joke. Even those air filters look very similar to my cabin filters, while intake air filter has much denser paper folding and its a lot bigger
Thank you for posting this. I was considering removing the charcoal filter myself to try to improve the Trek's sluggish nature. I was waiting for this video after you mentioned doing this in a prior one.
So you have a Crosstrek, S2k and a Tesla? *channels Aquaman* "My man!"
Three of my favorite vehicles!! All wildly different. :)
His garage looks like a playskool set with all the primary colors haha
So an okay car, an excellent car and a totally gay car.
I'll let you decide if that's in order or not..
I have a ford 500, factory air filter I was getting 27 mpg, with k&n I got 29. Bought it in 2009, still have the filter!! That’s a lot of savings!!
Emissions from the intake? That's some straight up California level insanity...
@@rejzor i was thinking that too, it probably lasts at most 4-5 years. to save .00001 percent of the cars emissions. but than go to some place like the Philippines where u have 2 stroke motorcycles putting out 500% more emissions than that car. funny
Oh it’s emissions equipment gotta hate it
Bob Edwards 1. for most of an engine’s running time, the largest obstruction is the throttle.
2. How many HVAC systems need to filter gasoline vapors? Under hood air temperatures are probably going to bring the charcoal to the temperature where it will reject what it’s already collected, similar to charcoal deodorizers that you can just leave in the sun.
The intake sucks up crankcase gases and valve cover gases from oil vaporization, and also has some fuel left in the intake if MPI.
Plus charcoal systems that suck fuel vapors from the gas tank.
The intake, shortly after shutdown, can spit emissions. While I question how much this really does, it is *something*
Granted, it used to be that the air box was considered *enough* for this so idk...
@@Phos9 oh it's emissions equipment gota love it even if it is actually bad for the environment over all.
Let's be real, emissions control is great, so is using actual science to determine what is effective which is the part frequently failed.
Been there, done that. Used K&N filters before, sure they work, I don’t like the labour time and difficulty getting the bugs out (I’ve tried soaking, hose, degreased etc etc) they get stuck in the pleats and are frustrating to try and clean, so I went back to the disposable factory air filter. I got a remap, exhaust mods and better tyres. That improved the performance to a high amount. The Audi Q7 already had two large area sized air filters, so the design is excellent. K&N was not worth the hassle. Just my experience so save your dough and put it towards an aggressive remap. It will put a smile on your dial.
"Do not tamper with emissions equipment." Challenge accepted. EGR removed, down pipe installed, ECU mapped for performance.
I just don't have vehicles with emissions equipment, all of my diesels are pretty 2003
@@jaydunbar7538 probably still has egr at least
Yeah, should have bloody EGR. Mine is 2004 that bugger was there. Chopped him off with axe.
*Fails Smog Test*
Daniel done that without downpipep cuz diesel
wow... best comparison video on the earth. how come I found this channel now? I subscribed. this channel deserves 10M subs.
Please do a video on if K&N Air filters flow more dirt than paper filters.
You mean hot air intakes? ;)
They do. Plenty of videos out there.
I got so excited about the math 😍 In all seriousness I would’ve mentioned that intake manifold designs (runner length and diameter, single vs itb) would have more impact on throttle response from a mechanical perspective.
So their thinking is "how can we stop the little bit of gas from evaporating into atmosphere when you stop the car top save enviroment" "lets put another restriction into the intake system so the car uses more fuel when driving!" aka in the end harm the enviroment more that without this thing. Great idea!!!
it uses less fuel because its getting less air what are you saying?
@@Okami400 no, more pumping resistance means more energy loss, so higher fuel consumption. It's probably negligible, but still.
When I had my Crosstrek, I took out the charcoal filter with the K&N air filter. I could replace the charcoal filter as I only clipped the heads off of the holding pins for smog testing. I did notice a difference in bottom end, but nowhere else. Installed a axel back Borla muffler. Again a slightly better bottom end. I got tired of the low horse power (148 hp in the 14 XTrek) of the Crosstrek. Traded it in on a 17(new)WRX Base.much happier now....
Wonder how restricted the coal filter is after 200k since it is never replaced... Yes it is after the regular filter but still, nothing's perfect,
My 06 Avalon has 200,000 miles that filters never been replaced I took it off put a k&n filter on it but didn't remove the factory ram Air piping and I can notice low in torque improvement when you're just coasting 60 and you press the gas about 25% picks up quicker without as much throttle
didnt even think about this, you are right. old cars go fast as new when you take these restrictive things off
I would have like to see the 0 to 20 mph test. The Crosstrek is slow vehicle. But the worst part of that is the 0 to 20 off the line start. I did change out the stock filter for a K&N and removed the charcoal filter. Then I went a step further and reset the ECU to allow the fuel mapping to start from scratch. For the first tank of gas I put my foot to the floor at every opportunity and walked out the gears for as long as I could. My mileage after that tank has improved over stock and the performance. Well it sure does feel a lot more responsive. The 0 to 20 take off now actually feels like it wants to put me back in my seat. So for me it was a win.
Turned it into a Subaru CrossTrack
Makes all the kids on the autoX course jealous when they see my 8 minute parking lot lap times.
CrossHawk
HellCrosstrackTrek
@@EngineeringExplained hahahahaha
Performance evaluation starts at 3:10. Great video!
Great explanation! Thanks for your always-thorough videos!
Late reply but i removed this charcoal filter from my daily 2007 corolla 1.8l which already has aem in-box filter and i can feel the throttle response is more responsive and the cars Topend is improved on wot.the induction noise is also a bit louder now.for a daily drive and good power especially on low rpm the car drives way better.i like it
I'm also kind of curious how all of this would affect your MPG.
Probably get better mpg to be honest better airflow so the fuel will mix better and burn more effectively..
@@mtbridingog9083 More so the engine will lose less energy pumping air without it then mixing fuel with air. Those OEM intake manifolds, intake ports, pistons crowns, etc are very efficient at mixing things. :)
Stumbled across this by accident, but absolutely fascinated by it! Well explained, thank you!!
Now do one with a clogged charcoal filter, because they do get clogged and you absolutely would feel that difference removing a clogged filter for sure.
Re warmup on the dyno. When we did lab experiments we would run a calibration check, then the samples, and then a calibration check again. In your case you should run condition #1, then condition #2, then condition #1 (or part thereof) again. This helps to get rid of systematic error due to factors that may change during the tests.
Would love to do the same test with my 165,000 mile charcoal filter. I think it just might be a little more restrictive, but would like to know for sure.
Nice video! You should do a review on the Audi's 2.5 TFSI 5cyl engine. As it keeps on winning in the International Engine of the Year competition
What about fuel economy? That’s one of the most important IMO.
I would suggest the following comparative EXPERIMENT:
Smoke from a vape (e-cig) is completely filtered out by a HEPA respirator cartridge.
Therefore vape clouds could be used to simulate dust transmission through the filter.
By shining a bright light on the resultant filtered air flow stream you can visualize particle transmission rates.
My question would be how it effects fuel mileage in every day driving.
depends on numerous factors.
denser air will need more gas, but youll have more power, so youll cruise longer. it does not really affect mpg that much, but a restrictive airflow DOES limit your mpg because the engine is having hard time sucking air to breath.
It seems that the engineers could do a diverter valve to send returning fumes through the carbon filter when the engine is off and not have to pull through the carbon filter when the engine is running. When the fuel pump comes on it could signal a closing of the diverter valve to the carbon filter and open the air intake filter route. This solution might and might not work so great with the whole auto start/stop function that is now mandatory. Also does the activated carbon in the filter stay active for the life of the car? My experience with activated charcoal is that it has a finite amount of useful life. I wonder how the carbon filter affects efficiency as well. Testing the K&N with and without the carbon filter for fuel efficiency would be interesting as well.
What if you take out the air filter and just leave the carbon filter?
What if you replace the air filter with a sheet of fabric softener?
What if you replace the charcoal filter with just a fabric sheet and put a k&n filter
I think out of the two, the air filter is probably the least restrictive for airflow. It is designed to be, just to get the bare minimal amount of particles from getting inside engine
I can understand saying you wont notice the difference in Gs felt during acceleration, but your results also show 3\10 of a second improvement to 60mpg. That is a huge difference. Gs may not be felt, but time will certainly be noticed.
All the cars i have owned are before someone got the idea of a charcoal filter in the intake. :D
All these fancy paper air filters. Back in my day we used oil baths.
Now get off my lawn!
Oil baths??!? You were lucky, we had to filter the air with our lungs and blow it into the engine. And if we were caught absorbing a few oxygen molecules for ourselves, we didn't get to eat that day!
@@rud you got to eat?
Timothy Ball yes but it was mostly bricks and gravel we ate. And you never heard anyone complain.
@@rud Luxury!
We appreciate all you do. *Request: the performance difference between stock and then the edition of a Big 3 or Big 4 ground wire kit.*
Ok so . 0065g would be hard to perceive, but in a "get in front of traffic" green light start, how many feet in front of the unmodified version would it be?
Also, on a 300 mile drive, how much extra fuel is needed to "fight" the restriction of the charcoal filter and how does that compare to the extra hydrocarbon escaping when the engine is shut off?
Lastly, if 1 billion cars removed this filter, my guess is the effect on the planet is ZERO.
Thumbs up for cool video.
I do like the discussion involving how much extra fuel is required to fight the restriction, certainly an interesting thing to ponder! There's probably a break even distance somewhere in there, but not sure what it would be. Might mean the filter is useful for short/medium trips, but perhaps not for long trips. Great question! (I don't know the answer haha)
The effect on the planet will never be zero :P.
@@GoldSrc_ Nah but if we asked every driver to hold their breath for two minutes we'd probably compensate for it ;)
Subaru could probably answer that.
@@thefinalroman
It takes mechanical work to pass air through a material that has restriction on flow. The work can only come from fuel.
This is wild, would've never thought 7 hp realistic from K&N filter + coal removal, very cool.
Serious question. Does what the char filter do to help the environment, does the MPG and efficiency losses negate it?
Pulls hydrocarbons from evaporated fuel leaving the intake. The losses are so small it's hard to fault the manufacturer for including it.
Do the same tests with a clogged charcoal filter since it is not replaceable after 150000 miles! Robert
How about doing one comparing economy with/without?
Your economy will improve more air better combustion better performance...BUT you will only see improvements that the manufacturer allows since the ECU is preprogrammed with set values to maintain. If you really want to see improvements you have to replace the ECU or program the ECU yourself. But overall you would see an improvement removing the filters from your car
man throttleworks is everywhere billboards and now my favorite local youtuber :)
Awesome shop!
When putting in this sort of emissions equipment do they factor in the extra fuel used compared to the emissions saved? Or is this more about particulates than carbon in general?
Feeling throttle reponse when removing the charcoal filter makes sense. Less restriction allows the air in the intake tube to accelerate faster, hence why some guys can feel it. One way to test that would be to test air velocity per millisecond inside the intake tube with and without the charcoal filter.
On the mpg note, if the stock air intake is slightly oversized and the engine is optimally tuned, mpg gains will be minimal. If it is undersized to what is optimal for that particular engine and not optimally tuned, mpg gains can be noticed as the engine will pull higher vacuum along with slightly cooler and denser air. All pointing to how volumetricly efficient that particular engine is at the engine rpm used.
On its own the mod does very little but won't the effects become bigger when coupling with other mods like exhaust, tune, bigger turbo etc? As the demand for more air coming into the engine will increase
Of course
Even if the K&N air filter didn't do as well as the stock filter or the car quest premium filter you still save money in the long run for buying the K&N it has a very long service life up to 1 million miles and not every so often do you wash and recharge the pleats with oil to bring the filter back to new. That right there adds so much more value. than anything else.
What about potential effect on fuel economy?
I did this to my Tacoma. It's free and if it can make an improvement (even indiscernible), I say why not.
Pedal commander + charcoal delete + performance air filter it is. Thank you sir.
You should make a video of the HVAC system in our cars if you already haven't
Here's an overview: th-cam.com/video/0b2bnvI9HWA/w-d-xo.html
@@EngineeringExplained thanks!
All that for an almost immeasurable amount of hydrocarbons.
I guarantee you, over the lifespan of the car, the improved fuel economy not having to fight that restriction out weighs the infinitesimal evaporative emissions it stops.
EE, what effect does engine displacement have on this test? My hypothesis is that for a larger displacement NA engine, the difference may be slightly more pronounced, especially in the "butt dyno" portion. Curious to see what the "really exciting math" has to say. Would like to compare your existing 4cly results against something like a 3.0 6cyl and a 5.0 8cyl.
The more you have displacement, the more you're filter will have to let air get inside the engine. So yes, removing any restrictive layer in your intake will increase the results
brother. THIS VIDEO
all i can say is thank you
Your just too Damm smart !
Lol , seriously , love ya video's
Joe...
That’s enough for me. Taking mine out tomorrow.
Would I get better gas mileage?
Early gang 🔥🔥 also god damn I love the colour on the subie
Hyperblue!!
@@EngineeringExplained It's unreal
Here's something I did: went from run flat tires to standard tires felt much quicker, but slippery. Might be tough to do an apples to apples test, but hey food for thought! Side note, change in total power is great but how about efficiency? Hit us up with those numbers too!
I did that in my e90. Way better car with standard tires.
Have you measure acceleration change when Vtec kick in (yo) with the GPS box,How much G is increase?
You will go from 0 G to 0.01 G
Still Render Production - yo it is not measurable because vtec breaks the box. Yo
So in first place, how do you get 160hp from the original 148hp on your stock 2.0 liters Crosstrek?
@@robertolouth7468 probably just the dyno inflating numbers.
Douglas Thompson thank you, things should be simple answered.
another mustang owner stopped me and said i should get an kn air filter for my car so i did and oh my lord it works so good for my car its not the biggest results in the world but it gave me a nice gain it omost feels like my car is in sport mode in drive now i can only imagine if i get a bigger throttle body and a mustang gt 350 intake good vid tho man
Drinking game: take a shot Everytime he says filter.
I think I got filter poisoning
Jason man I love the videos, you seem to know it all about internal combustion engines haha, I wanted to see if you could do a video on what happens when you destroke an engine. Like how compression and displacement changes. Love the vids man, keep it up
It is interesting to see the difference in performance with the same engine map on the ECU, but what would happen if the map on the ECU were altered to better match the improved airflow?
i removed the charcoal filter on my 100k miles 2007 manual rav4, it improved A LOT the throttle response, now its easier to drive slow, off the pavement, and even parking the car is a lot easier, not i don't have to drop to 4th gear to pass a slower car going under 60mph, i can ramp up from 50 to 75 a lot quicker and without dropping a gear... 2nd and 3rd gear feels more alive above 4000 rpm's, also the side benefit of a throattier engine sound... plus no more rpm dipping and ramping up when the AC cycles on and off... probably this would have less effect on a newer engine with a new filter, but with 100k miles it was pretty dark... even tho i change filters a lot becase they are cheap... i also running an k&n now, but it didn't improve as much as the removal of the charcoal filter... downside? i'm on the re-learning time of the ECU so the MPG count on the dash is reading lower MPG, i did a 200 mile test and its showing like 2-3 mpg worse, but the car dash shows 5 mpg worse... but it would be me that i'm going over 80 now confortably when before, the confort zone was closer to 70-75...
so, i recomend it...
"You can see why people want to take these things on the track." Your 20-60 is almost twice as long as my 0-60... absolutely.
Keep in mind, the 20-60 isn’t idealized, since normally you’d be in first gear for 20 mph peak acceleration rather than second, but yeah, Crosstreks are crazy fast.
Whoosh
I mean, I've got more than twice as much WHP, so it makes sense... but still. XD
very interesting ...this was a very insightful explanation of the topic and helpful. Thank you.
The K&N air filters allow more dirt and air in believe it or not better for HP but not really clean
What leads you to believe this? Not saying you're right/wrong, but anyone can say anything haha.
@@EngineeringExplained well uh it's the truth
@@EngineeringExplained I have seen photos of torn-down Cummins B-series engines which were denied warranty due to having been dusted-out. In all instances the owner had installed a K&N *filther* photos don't lie.
@@pepeiann you are spot-on with photographic evidence to support your statement.
I have a carbureted 360ci with a K&N filter. I did noticed great increase in power with the new filter, however after approximately 10k miles I noticed dust type particles on the carburetor flange and choke tower. And I had to spray out my air bleeds a little more often to clear them of any dust to correct my idle air/fuel ratio. I didn't want to abandoned the K&N so I added a K&N precleaner. Basically a foam cover that pre cleans the air before it contacts the actual K&N filter. Made a world of difference in cleanliness on the carburetor side of the filter
I wonder how affective this would be on a charcoal filter that is over 10 years old. That vehicle looks fairly new, and I wouldn’t expect too much change.
I love your videos including this one, but I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the conclusion here. I understand and would agree completely with the throttle response explanation, but while 0.006 may be small that's still 3% of 0.2. Noticing a 3% difference of something like zero acceleration vs full throttle doesn't seem like that wild of a claim. Also I'd like to see a comparison of the amount of emissions carbon intake filters capture relative to it's effect on the fuel efficiency of the engine. Probably pretty neglidgable, but I'd be surprised if it's emissions capture relative to the engines total emissions production weren't similarly neglidgable.
It is a known trait of cotton panel replacement filters, that they flow marginally better than a new paper element, but their ability to pass air remains consistent. Paper element performance can deteriorate rapidly in just a few hundred miles.
A really interesting test would be to put 3k miles on the K&N, then compare with the dirty paper element. That is where the K&N should really shine.
So I can't use the excuse when I lose a race out of a toll booth it's not because the other driver cheated by removing his charcoal filter? Good test. In real world driving it's pointless to remove the filter.
It will change on a more powerful vehicule like the WRX... We pick-up almost 19whp@12wtq without the charcoal filter on 2023 WRX with the stock Subaru air filter on 91 octane. We try many performance drop in air filter and the best was the Perrin black sponge. but the gains on the Perrin was little compare to the stock air filter 27whp@17wtq total, that means the Perrin give a small 8whp@5wtq compare to stock air filter. The biggest gains come from the charcoal filter delete !
For some reason, people think manufacturers make things super restrictive and non efficient. FML. Just leave it in, I know I am.
Haha, I agree with ya!
Last section - the Subaru Crosstrek is a slow vehicle. Any changes to make it slightly faster is welcomed. One that cost nothing ? Absolutely do it. An another thing Jason and others might have missed - the what will the dirty charcoal filter do ? I know it is behind the air filter, but still it will get dirtier over time. Maybe not a whole lot, but some minuscule particles will find its way into the filter. It will filter it out of the engine so its good but what if it collects them and gets dirty ?
I will try and remove it for a test run, but since the car is still under warranty, I do not want to mess with it.
I love the "I'm sure this is a huge crowd" lol
so what your saying is...my butt can detect .0065 G's
Haha no, but your brain will make you believe you can. :)
@@EngineeringExplained is that called the pla-ce-butt effect ?
One of the most constipated puns I have ever read. Well done sir.
GR86/BRZ - North America is the only place where the charcoal filter is found. In Japan the car makes 7 more horsepower. 7 hrsprs is nothing to balk at.
While I would agree in overall terms of acceleration I do not notice anything, however; what I do notice is easier starts and shifting under 4,000 rpm. Mostly starting in 1st it seems smoother and less roughness in clutch engagement and less need for throttle modulation.
A charcoal filter to remove infinitesimal amounts of intake blowback when the engine is off?!? This level of nonsense is staggering!
Sounds like you're better informed than the engineering team tasked with emmision control on this vehicle. Please share more of your wisdom.
@@BretBerger No just that he knows more than the politicians and beaurocrats that regulated this idiocy into existence.
@@sonictech1000 You oppose emissions regulations?
Yes. I'd be curious to compare it to the amount of emissions from your filler neck when you top up fuel at the bowser. My guess is that would be waaay more.
@@Jarrah_Kilgour Depending on where you are located when you fill up, the fuel hose may actually have a vapor recovery system installed to prevent this very situation.
learned a lot prof. Beto, continue sharing your knowledge.
My car doesn't have this filter, but I watched the entire video :P why ?
I am new to carmods and I'm having fun with a MK7 1,8 TSI Sportwagen (Unitronic 1+ tuned). I try to do it wisely, that's why I've subscribed to your channel ;) I also like really exciting math :P
It's hard for people to make clear decisions when it comes to performance because we cannot afford to run a dyno on every single mod like you do, and it's easy to be trapped by the tuning shop staff as they want to sell parts.
I would be very curious to compare 100% stock intake with the following changes I've made that are wayyyyyyy cheaper than a ricer open cold air-intake (which i know is useless) :
- Snowguard removed + K&N filter
- CTS inlet hose and inlet pipe
Thank you for the good videos !!
It Will Make A Difference In Intake Sound Tho So It's Worth It. I Removed My Charcoal Filter And Using The Drop In KN Filter With A Throttle Body Spacer I Also Costumed My Air Box I Removed All Of The Pipes Leading To The Front Of The Hood So Basically I Costumed My Stock Air Box To A Ram Air Box Big Difference In Sound And Power
You are always so incredibly fascinating!
Thanks for watching!
The (non-replaceable) carbon filter element attached to the cover of the air intake (NOT the engine air filter) is there to absorb any residual fumes after the engine is turned off.
Yes, as discussed in the video.
'...the Subaru Crosstrek is a slow vehicle, I can not change that.' Too true...