I agree. This particular subject brings out the most passionate arguing on both sides of the issue. I used one of these on my last car for 14 years and have has one on the Jaguar for 6+ years and never had any problems. Granted I was realistic in not expecting any appreciable performance difference one way or the other and I went to reasonable lengths to keep the filter clean and not over-oil it.

Doug

 

Guys, I have around 2000 customers using my diagnostic equipment and there is a significant correlation between those reporting low MAF readings and those using oiled filters. I am talking in the range of 5 to 20% lower than expected.


A couple of points to note are that the ECU on older cars will probably not throw a code till the MAF is reading more than 50% lower then expected. It would seem that the MAF signal into the control of the engine is a weak one so you may have no clue that it is reading low.


Is there a consequence to the MAF reading low? It is clear that a butt dyno will not tell you it is low and maybe the engine will still be putting out the same power despite the incorrect MAF reading?


So I feel there is a relation but that the consequences are minimal, even so I decided to stick with paper.


Those who are running with oiled filters with a stock set up, it would be good to know what your peak MAF values are at WOT, max RPM.


That way we could see if there was a relation on our JAGs, all my experience so far has been on VW Audi group cars.

 

Do the same negative affects apply for the Mina kit, as it also has a cone filter? According the their site the "Kit has been dyno tested to produce over 12HP (at the rear wheels)."

 

I would think that any benefits due to increased airflow would be cancelled out by sucking in hot air from the engine compartment versus outside air.

Doug