Author Topic: Hilborn IR filters vs. no filters Dyno comparison  (Read 1454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

338Raptor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
  • Aerodynamics are for men who can’t build engines.
    • View Profile
Hilborn IR filters vs. no filters Dyno comparison
« on: November 03, 2019, 12:39:40 AM »
Does anyone have dyno results comparing Hilborn/Stack style IR intake running filters vs no filters?
I frequently see engines dyno’d without filters to optimize air flow and power. But in reality how many of those engines get filters once installed in a vehicle. How much air flow is restricted with filters or screens and how much horsepower is lost?
I’m going to use a Hilborn on the street and plan to dyno the engine with filters installed exactly like it will be in my car.

Different style filters that I’m aware of:
1. Individual K&N style air filters
2. Large single K&N style filters (like the dirt track guys use)
3. Bug Dome screen style (I would add outerwear nylon booties)
4. Tube top filters (foam sandwiched between large hole screens)

Basically I’m looking for first hand knowledge of horsepower loss for each filter option.
ERA 427SC Cobra: Iron ‘67 625hp 482” SOHC, TKX 5 speed, TrueTrac 3.31 IRS, Magnesium Halibrands, Avon CR6ZZ tires. 

1969 Shelby GT350, 4 speed.

1967 Mustang Fastback: Close ratio T56 Magnum, Fab-9, Wilwood superlite brakes, Torque arm rear suspension, TCI-IFS with shock tower delete, (Coming soon, FE motor TBD)

1970 F250 4x4 Mud Truck, 557 BBF, as cast P51 heads, 900 hp @6700rpm, 801 tq, Q16, C6.

2012 Cobra Jet Mustang factory drag car, 5.4 liter 4.0 Whipple, 970 RWHP.

1964 Galaxie 500XL, 35 spline 3.70 Strange S-Trac, 6R80, (Coming soon: Pond Aluminum 525 SOHC, 800hp)

CaptCobrajet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 683
    • View Profile
Re: Hilborn IR filters vs. no filters Dyno comparison
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2019, 01:46:40 PM »
We did it on an 8-stack Hilborn set-up for a GT40 engine that we did a couple of years ago.  Customer supplied the filters.....he had researched media choices.  He made the stacks, very very nicely machined......threaded on the outside to hold the filter in the cap.  The difference between filters and just screens was significant.  Seems like it hurt about 50 hp on a 720 hp engine.  Definitely makes a difference to run the filters.
Blair Patrick

338Raptor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
  • Aerodynamics are for men who can’t build engines.
    • View Profile
Re: Hilborn IR filters vs. no filters Dyno comparison
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2019, 01:50:09 PM »
But the screens alone didn’t seem to hurt power?

Any comparison between screens and no screens?
ERA 427SC Cobra: Iron ‘67 625hp 482” SOHC, TKX 5 speed, TrueTrac 3.31 IRS, Magnesium Halibrands, Avon CR6ZZ tires. 

1969 Shelby GT350, 4 speed.

1967 Mustang Fastback: Close ratio T56 Magnum, Fab-9, Wilwood superlite brakes, Torque arm rear suspension, TCI-IFS with shock tower delete, (Coming soon, FE motor TBD)

1970 F250 4x4 Mud Truck, 557 BBF, as cast P51 heads, 900 hp @6700rpm, 801 tq, Q16, C6.

2012 Cobra Jet Mustang factory drag car, 5.4 liter 4.0 Whipple, 970 RWHP.

1964 Galaxie 500XL, 35 spline 3.70 Strange S-Trac, 6R80, (Coming soon: Pond Aluminum 525 SOHC, 800hp)

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Hilborn IR filters vs. no filters Dyno comparison
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2019, 02:13:49 PM »
Ran screens on a couple IR engines on dyno.  Every time it simply murders power by a ton and drives mixture dead rich.  A necessary evil, but heavy on the evil part.

338Raptor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
  • Aerodynamics are for men who can’t build engines.
    • View Profile
Re: Hilborn IR filters vs. no filters Dyno comparison
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2019, 07:31:20 PM »
Do IR screens and filters kill power more that a filter on a standard carburetor?
ERA 427SC Cobra: Iron ‘67 625hp 482” SOHC, TKX 5 speed, TrueTrac 3.31 IRS, Magnesium Halibrands, Avon CR6ZZ tires. 

1969 Shelby GT350, 4 speed.

1967 Mustang Fastback: Close ratio T56 Magnum, Fab-9, Wilwood superlite brakes, Torque arm rear suspension, TCI-IFS with shock tower delete, (Coming soon, FE motor TBD)

1970 F250 4x4 Mud Truck, 557 BBF, as cast P51 heads, 900 hp @6700rpm, 801 tq, Q16, C6.

2012 Cobra Jet Mustang factory drag car, 5.4 liter 4.0 Whipple, 970 RWHP.

1964 Galaxie 500XL, 35 spline 3.70 Strange S-Trac, 6R80, (Coming soon: Pond Aluminum 525 SOHC, 800hp)

CaptCobrajet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 683
    • View Profile
Re: Hilborn IR filters vs. no filters Dyno comparison
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2019, 08:56:13 PM »
I would say yes.  A really good air filter on a Stock Eliminator engine hurts about a tenth of a second, which is +/- 20 hp.  That being a really good filter.  There is much more surface area than the carb top.  With IR, the surface area of the filter is not much more than the open top.......the air cleaner doesn't kill it as bad because of the extra area.
Blair Patrick

cammerfe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1664
    • View Profile
Re: Hilborn IR filters vs. no filters Dyno comparison
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2019, 10:39:47 PM »
Several years ago there was an examination of the effect of putting various kinds of filters on the intake tract for a turbo. It was on a Turbo website. The conclusion was to make the filter as big as possible so as to get very substantial surface area on the filter. K&N-style 'cone' filters seemed to be the best answer, and they are certainly available in a variety of sizes. (Think of the ram-box that came on the High-Riser engine on a T-bolt. Think of the pair of tubes attached, and their size. Now come up with filters to fit the tubes.)

KS