they come in different colors. But supposely HKS redesign their filters. Honestly a lot of people runs it. I used to run a Evo shop and i will tell you what the MAF pipe was filty on about 7 evos that have it.

 

ok, lol, thanx for making me feel good. The point of this thread was to show the differences needed to tune the intakes. I did not make a big point as to which intake makes more power since i did not bring numbers of dyno's and such. But with the change in the AFR numbers, its obvious that the HKS RS sucks in more air.

 

is that why it gets louder over stock with the buschur intake too?

i have an hks intake with a knn filter... the sound is the same as when it was with the hks filter. wow... that just totally indicates anything.

 

A better title would have made your "point of this thread" far more clear.

That change of AFR does NOT mean the HKS intake sucks in more air. It only means that the HKS intake throws the MAF readings off in a manner that makes your tune dangerously lean on pump gas compared to your BR intake. People are going to be justifiably jumping all over you if you keep shooting at the hip with such assumptions.

 

The filter sucks, but the Intake pipe is awesome. Just get the intake pipe and chuck the filter and replace it with an APEXI filter. Problem solved.

 

are you sure that it throws it off in such a way? do you have a map sensor mounted giving you the absolute manifold pressure and hte corresponding comparison between the two? i just wanna beg the question, cuz otherwise it's hearsay.

 

Yes I'm certain, and I don't need a map sensor in the plenum to tell me that, when in fact it would do little to tell me that. The intake switch obviously does alter the accuracy of the maf sensor from what his tune was for, and it starts to count less air than is actually going into the engine, hence the significantly leaner afr. Please don't confuse that leaner afr with the HKS RS piping and intake actually flowing that much more air, because that's not happening. A speed density system with static load maps based on a correlation of map and rpm would tend to act that way with a vastly superior intake switch, whereas a mas system actually does *should* just count more air mass, and add the appropriate fuel for the calculated load. That's the beauty of the mass air system over speed density. The difference (some people say problem) in the Evo from many other mas systems on performance cars, is that it is KVP instead of hot-wire (more common), the sensor is very close to the filter intake, and differences in airflow turbulence and pressure waves can alter the interaction in the formed vortices and the pressure sensing of said vortices. This can alter how this type of mas counts air, and that is the underlying reason why most tuners recommend you specifically tune the Evo for different types of aftermarket intakes. Hotwire mas systems just tend to be less sensitive to intake changes than KVP setups, at least on the LS-1s and Mustangs they were.

That is as far as I'm willing to go into this on here. You can believe what I say, or be convinced that the HKS RS intake is actually significantly outflowing a BR intake setup.

 

if mas "counts less air" with the hks rs, then why are my low/mid/high fuel trims still at 100% and i idle at 14.7 afr. your not making any sense with your explanation.

 

I'd find it hard to believe all of your fuel trims are normal with your actual afr so far off from any reasonable target in a competent tune. If your car was tuned for the intake that is on there, the trims should be normal only when you are consistently close to your afr targets. Your reported situation makes far less sense than my explanation of how our mas can be affected by intakes. What are you using to view the trims with, and are you sure it is accurate? Also, if you think your idle afr is completely dependent on what that maf sensor is seeing at such a low volume of intake air (like at idle), you are mistaken.

If you do not want to believe (or do not understand) my explanation, then that is fine with me and I'll spend no additional labor explaining this stuff to you. Believe whatever you want to and go out and murder all those vastly inferior BR intake equipped Evos out there with your HKS superflowing intake.

 

I don't want to sound like an *** but you mentioned twice that" the dyno tells a different history however you did not provided any dyno numbers.. this is what you said:
1) The setup was great and my butt dyno told me it made good power over the stock intake

2) again, the butt dyno tells me there is more power

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also talk about the AFR ratios but you provide zero dyno numbers.. We already know that different intakes causes different AFR due to different reading on the MAF(velocity,flow etc) but we were hoping you were going to provide more concrete evidence.

The HKS is well known on this forum for being very"transparent", it is extremelly pourous and it allows tons of air to go through, unfortunately for people that live in dusty places like AZ we have a lot of trouble, it lets all the dust go through.

Is there any dyno numbers you could provide us?. I personally use a Buschur cone and it works very well, it makes the stock BOV to sound loud.

As far is the HKS air pipe, in my opinion is one of the best. You should do what someone suggested, HKS pipe plus Blitz filter, I bet that is the right combo for performance.


Carlos

 

I guess people are getting the wrong impression of why i made this thread. although the thread title was buchur vs. hks rs, i was NOT stating which one was better. i was not "really" stating which one made more power. i did say which one i felt made more power, but that was only because of the much leaner afr's i had. i never said the buschur one sucks. for $80, and used with the stock intake pipe, its one of the best setups. if i didn't buy the hks rs for $125 with a mas, i would have never changed from the buschur.
all i wanted to point out is that you can't tune both intakes the same. but i did come to a logical conclusion that the hks rs one sucks in more air because of the leaner afr's i was getting.

 

ohh ya, and i said "butt dyno", which i had hoped no one would have taken that statement literally.

 

so if we took the maf out of the intake combo and ran speed density the hks would never run more air would it? ridiculous.

 

yes, fuel trims remain the same. i hope that you actually understand what fuel trims are. i am using evoscan to log my fuel trims. my whole point of mentioning the fuel trims was that when the mas "counts less air" then i should be running leaner and my fuel trims will be over 100%.

 

You do know that Evoscan fuel trim reporting accuracy has already been publicly called into question right? I suggest you go and read the appropriate forums on this, and not trust what it is reporting to you for fuel trims quite yet. You already stated that you were running leaner right? Thats enough information right there without even getting into whether the fuel trims you think you are seeing are real. From what you reported about your afr leaning out by an entire point with nothing but an intake change (to what is well known as a similar flowing intake system), It’s quite obvious that one of two things is happening. Either that intake is allowing for far more additional air flow than any common intake swap known on the Evo, or your mas curve has been affected by the intake change.

I'll leave it at this... If you actually think your HKS intake is allowing approximately 40 to 49 more cfm over a BR intake setup, you are just mistaken. That's WAY too much for a similar intake setup, and about what it would take to lean your afrs out that much on a static tune based upon a completely unaltered mas curve. It’s just not happening. If it were, we’d be deluged with dyno threads expounding on the consistently measurable gains that intake provides. I’m not seeing even a hint of that trend anywhere in the Evo community.

Believe what you want to.