I posted a while back that I was going to try a little test using a paper (Purolator) & K&N filter, and a stock and GMS maf. I choose a Purolator paper filter because I liked the way it looked. The Fram and Delco filter looked the same but the Purolator filter has a bead of resin on each end of the filter. This bead keeps the pleats uniformly seperated and I thought would permote better flow than the other two. Well, here are the results for these tests. I did this for myself mostly to so I knew which combo worked best on my truck but thought I would share the info.. I want to say first that these are the results on MY truck, yours may differ based on truck, engine mods, climate, etc, etc, blah, blah. I tried to be as accurate as I could considering I was using a stop watch which is iffy at best. If I felt I made a mistake with the stop watch (to fast, slow, soon or late, etc) during a performance run, I didn't use that time. I took what I considered 5 good runs, all runs were made after I got off work at 10 PM and the temp was between 50-60*. I would fill up and let the tank get to 3/4's before I did any performance testing. I figured by then, the ECM would have made any changes it was going to. I checked 0-40 and 0-60 times during the same run, and I also checked mpg. The mpg tests were to hard, it's impossible to keep the driving the exact same on every tank for 4 weeks, **** happens. My normal driving pattern is 70% city & 30% freeway. With all that said, here are the results.

Combo 1, paper filter & stock maf: 0-40 3.40, 0-60 6.43 & 14.84 mpg (normal driving pattern.

Combo 2, K&N & stock maf: 0-40 3.39, 0-60 6.41 & 15.93 mpg (more freeway driving on this tank, 50/50 driving pattern).

Combo 3, K&N & GMS maf: 0-40 3.35, 0-60 6.32 & 15.36 mpg (60/40 driving pattern)

Combo 4, paper filter & GMS maf: 0-40 3.36, 0-60 6.28 & 15.41 mpg (normal driving pattern)

I'm not claiming my 0-60 time is accurate, a G-tech would surely be different. What I was looking for was to get a base time and then look for a time difference. As you can see, the K&N really didn't perform any better than a new paper filter. After 10K miles, the results may be different, the paper will need replacing and the K&N is still good for more.
The GMS maf did make a difference though, .13 seconds w/ paper and .09 seconds with the K&N filter. Granatelli advertises a .1-.15 second reduction, so it was pretty much where they claim. Like I said, this is very UNscientific, I just wanted to see what did better in my truck. with all the questions going around about K&N filters and GMS maf's, I thought I would share my results.
Jim

 

That's some good homework there Jim. That's really cool of you to take the time to do the research on that kind of thing. So which combo is YOUR winner ? Thanks for the detailed research.

 

The combo I'm going to run is the Purolator filter and the GMS maf. I did some 40-60 testing also but didn't post the results. The paper filter was always quicker than the K&N, not by much (3.35 vs 3.44, average). The truck just seems to run better and smoother with the Purolator filter than the K&N.
Jim