[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

My car wanted 3% more fuel going from the standard rotofab with 95mm tb to the big gulp with 103...This is on a Whipple setup that has a 112mm snout with a mild 10-11psi of boost. On a PD car, anytime you can reduce intake restriction you will gain more power through efficiency. But you have to reduce the restriction all the way from the filter to the blower snout. It doesn't do much good to install a bigger intake on a stock blower snout / 87mm tb setup.

That being said I have run both dry and oiled filters. I like the dry filters...it's just a preference. In the past I have seen transmissions get burned up from oil getting on the maf and skewing air flow data which throws off the torque calculations for transmission shift pressures. This was more of a thing back with gen 3 and 4 LS trucks for some reason. Either way you just have to make sure the filter is not over oiled is all.

Agreed on the intake restriction, I’m surprised this conversation still comes up all these years later lol. GM went to a 10% bigger TB on the ZR1 for a reason and that was only 100 crank HP more than the Z06/ZL1.

Yeah I had an ‘04 GTO new back in the day and those Gen 3 MAF sensors were different than the Gen 5 stuff…that sensing element was 100% exposed. These modern MAF sensors all tuck the actual sensing element into a “cartridge” housing so I suspect that’s why they’re much more resistant to an over-oiled filter. Just a guess but seems to be the case. My JLT was WAY over-oiled to the point where I was like “WTF!” but it just didn’t matter during our hub dyno session. So if a filter is oiled properly, it should read just like a dry filter in terms of MAF accuracy.