[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by djctoto

The trade off then appears to be go with an oil filter with even a remote chance that it could screw up your MAF sensor which directly controls AFR's to gain whatever negligible improvement there may be in CFM air flow compared to dry filter where there is no chance of this happening (aside from getting dirty which will happen in either case) or go with a dry filter thereby eliminating the possibility of the critical MAF sensor producing erroneous results.
Don't get me wrong I've used both in the past but I now subscribe to a more simple approach of avoiding any potential problems if it's easy to do so.
Sorry if I alarmed any of the oil filter favorites. But don't worry about it a HP or two is worth it compared to not having to even consider the chance that it could cause an issue, who knows. I'm out of this sillyness.
Take up the discussion with Mishimoto, but what do they know.
Key Considerations
Maintenance: Oiled filters must be cleaned and re-oiled at intervals, as the oil layer is crucial for filtration; an over-oiled filter can potentially harm the Mass Airflow (MAF) sensor, says Mishimoto.

Take it up with Mishimoto? I guess if I had a 4 cylinder that needed a cold air intake I would lol. But given that most of us make 2, 3, or 4 times more power (or more), maybe we’ll stick with vendors who actually know these cars. I’m telling you point blank I ran a MASSIVELY over-oiled filter on my car at the dyno and it made no impact on the MAF performance. We saw no odd or unexpected readings and the fueling matched up fine as proven by my wideband. And we saw no changes after cleaning up the excess oil. Like King said above, maybe if this was 15-20 years ago on an older Gen 3 platform that could have been the case. But this is being blown out of proportion IMO.

[djctoto]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

Take it up with Mishimoto? I guess if I had a 4 cylinder that needed a cold air intake I would lol. But given that most of us make 2, 3, or 4 times more power (or more), maybe we’ll stick with vendors who actually know these cars. I’m telling you point blank I ran a MASSIVELY over-oiled filter on my car at the dyno and it made no impact on the MAF performance. We saw no odd or unexpected readings and the fueling matched up fine as proven by my wideband. And we saw no changes after cleaning up the excess oil. Like King said above, maybe if this was 15-20 years ago on an older Gen 3 platform that could have been the case. But this is being blown out of proportion IMO.

Please refer to my last post for accuracy in this discuasion.
I'm not trying to stir the pot just trying to share information that's relative for different levels of forum members

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

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.