[cellsafemode]

The Goal: decrease air resistance without reducing filtration efficiency.

The Wrong Way: Sacrifice filtration efficiency for lower initial air resistance (aka, put a K&N reusable on).

The Right Way(tm): Increase the size of your filter media so you can use high filtration filters while simultaneously reducing air flow resistance through higher surface area.

The Problem: Nobody seems to offer an air box that is oversized that takes a oem-like AC Delco-ish filter.

Solution: An oversized box combined with a decently placed/sized snorkel should give you the best of both worlds in terms of what cold air intakes offer. Very low air resistance, very high filtration efficiency with an intake positioned to suck cold air, not stagnant air from under the hood.

Has anyone had any experience re-purposing something like the V8 air box with a reducer towards the MAF ? Is the V8 box even that much larger (visually it looks pretty close to the same size to me). Are there solutions built by any companies that do this?

It seems sad that the only options you ever see require you to sacrifice the functionality of a filter by using poorer performing cotton / gauze oil filters to improve performance when there seems to be plenty of extra room around the stock box to use a much higher performing but larger paper filter.

disclaimer: I live in southern california where the air is practically saturated with dust/dirt except in the very rare instances after it rains.

[Kracka]

AFE offers 3 air filters for this exact reason:

http://afepower.com/technology_detail.php?tech_id=5

Each customer is free to chose which is most important to them. Me personally, the Pro Dry S has been my choice on my past few cars.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by Kracka

AFE offers 3 air filters for this exact reason:

http://afepower.com/technology_detail.php?tech_id=5

Each customer is free to chose which is most important to them. Me personally, the Pro Dry S has been my choice on my past few cars.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the dry S in any independent testing. However, the ProGuard 7 was in a side-by-side testing that showed it's efficiency not the 99.7% that the manufacturer is advertising but actually closer to the 99.2% that they say their Dry S is. So should I assume the Dry S actually does around 98.7%?

[Kracka]

99.2 and 99.7 are both very good numbers; within a half-percentage point should be considered reasonable testing variance I would say.

I put about 70k miles on my Evo X with the Dry S filter with absolutely zero issues regarding oil contamination or consumption, and always a perfectly clean intake tract during inspection. When I sold the car the new owner ended up blowing the turbo, but said during engine disassembly the cylinder cross-hatch looked flawless. 20k miles on my C7 with the same result (regarding oil contamination/consumption, not the turbo or cross-hatch part).

Hell, for that matter, for as much as people hate cotton gauze filters, my dad ran a K&N on his 2004 GTO for ~150k miles with zero adverse affect.

Paper media will always give you the best possible filtering, but at the expense of flow, the Dry S provides a great balance between the two which seems perfect for your typical DD street car.